Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 63, Issue 1, pp 65–79 | Cite as

Evaluation of Terrestrial and Streamside Salamander Monitoring Techniques at Shenandoah National Park

  • Robin E. Jung
  • Sam Droege
  • John R. Sauer
  • Ronald B. Landy


In response to concerns about amphibian declines, a study evaluating and validating amphibian monitoring techniques was initiated in Shenandoah and Big Bend National Parks in the spring of 1998. We evaluate precision, bias, and efficiency of several sampling methods for terrestrial and streamside salamanders in Shenandoah National Park and assess salamander abundance in relation to environmental variables, notably soil and water pH. Terrestrial salamanders, primarily redback salamanders (Plethodon cinereus), were sampled by searching under cover objects during the day in square plots (10 to 35 m2). We compared population indices (mean daily and total counts) with adjusted population estimates from capture-recapture. Analyses suggested that the proportion of salamanders detected (p) during sampling varied among plots, necessitating the use of adjusted population estimates. However, adjusted population estimates were less precise than population indices, and may not be efficient in relating salamander populations to environmental variables. In future sampling, strategic use of capture-recapture to verify consistency of p's among sites may be a reasonable compromise between the possibility of bias in estimation of population size and deficiencies due to inefficiency associated with the estimation of p. The streamside two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata) was surveyed using four methods: leaf litter refugia bags, 1 m2 quadrats, 50 × 1 m visual encounter transects, and electric shocking. Comparison of survey methods at nine streams revealed congruent patterns of abundance among sites, suggesting that relative bias among the methods is similar, and that choice of survey method should be based on precision and logistical efficiency. Redback and two-lined salamander abundance were not significantly related to soil or water pH, respectively.


Leaf Litter Monitoring Technique Relative Bias Population Index Future Sampling 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ash, A.N.: 1997, ‘Disappearance and Return of Plethodontid Salamanders to Clearcut Plots in the Southern Blue Ridge Mountains’, Conservation Biology 11, 983-989.Google Scholar
  2. Atkinson, J.: 1994, ‘Fisheries Management and Data Report. Shenandoah National Park’, unpublished report.Google Scholar
  3. Banasiak, C.F.: 1974, Population Structure and Reproductive Ecology of the Red-backed Salamander in DDT-treated forests of Northern Maine, Ph.D. thesis, University of Maine, Orono, Maine.Google Scholar
  4. Bonneau, J.L., Thurow, R.F. and Scarncechia, S.L.: 1995, ‘Capture, Marking, and Enumeration of Juvenile Bull Trout and Cutthroat Trout in Small, Low-conductivity Streams’, N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 15, 563-568.Google Scholar
  5. Burton, T.M. and Likens, G.E.: 1975, ‘Salamander Populations and Biomass in the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hamsphire’, Copeia 1975, 541-546.Google Scholar
  6. deMaynadier, P.G. and Hunter Jr., M.L.: 1995, ‘The Relationship Between Forest Management and Amphibian Ecology: a Review of the North American Literature’, Environmental Review 3, 230-261.Google Scholar
  7. Gergits, W.F. and Jaeger, R.G.: 1990, ‘Site Attachment by the Red-backed Salamander, Plethodon cinereus’, J. Herpetol. 24, 91-93.Google Scholar
  8. Heyer, W.R., Donnelly, M.A., McDiarmid, R.W., Hayek, L.C., and Foster, M.S.: 1994, ‘Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Amphibians’, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, 364 pp.Google Scholar
  9. Lancia, R.A., Nichols, J.D. and Pollock, K.H.: 1994, ‘Estimating the Number of Animals in Wildlife Populations’, In: Bookhout, T.A. (ed.), Research and Management Techniques for Wildlife and Habitats. 5th edition. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland.Google Scholar
  10. Maryland Department of Natural Resources: 1995, Maryland Biological Stream Survey: Ecological Status of Non-Tidal Streams in Six Basins Sampled in 1995.Google Scholar
  11. Menkens, G.E. and Anderson, S.H.: 1992, ‘Estimation of Small-Mammal Population Size’, Ecology 69, 1952-1959.Google Scholar
  12. Mitchell, J.C.: 1998, ‘Amphibian Decline in the Mid-Atlantic Region: Monitoring and Management of a Sensitive Resource’, Final Report, Legacy Resource Management Program, U.S. Department of Defense.Google Scholar
  13. Otis, D.L., Burnham, K.P., White, G.C. and Anderson, D.R.: 1978, ‘Statistical Inference from Capture Data on Closed Animal Populations’, Wildl. Monogr. 62, 1-135.Google Scholar
  14. Pauley, T.K.: 1995, ‘Aquatic Salamanders’, in: Effects of Diflubenzuron on Non-target Oganisms in Broadleaf Forested Watersheds in the Northeast, Reardon, R.C. (ed.), USDA Forest Service, National Center of Forest Health Management, FHM-NC-05-95.Google Scholar
  15. Petranka, J.W.: 1998, ‘Salamanders of the United States and Canada’, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  16. Rexstad, E. and Burnham, K.: 1991, ‘User's Guide for Interactive Program CAPTURE: Abundance Estimation of Closed Animal Populations’, Colorado Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.Google Scholar
  17. Roach, S.M.: 1996, ‘Influence of Electrofishing on the Survival of Arctic Grayling, Chinook Salmon, Least Cisco, and Humpback Whitefish Eggs’, Alaska Dept. Fish and Game, Fishery Management No. 96-1 Project Number AK F-010-10/Job R-3-2(b), AK F-010-11/Job R-3-2-9(b), 26 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Sauer, J.R. and Williams, B.K.: 1989, ‘Generalized Procedures for Testing Hypotheses about Survival or Recovery Rates’, J. Wildl. Manage. 53, 137-142.Google Scholar
  19. Skalski, J.R. and Robson, D.S.: 1992, ‘Techniques for Wildlife Investigations: Design and Analysis of Capture Data’, Academic Press, New York, 237 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Storm, G.L., Fosmire, G.J. and Bellis, E.D.: 1994, ‘Persistence of Metals in Soil and Selected Vertebrates in the Vicinity of the Palmerton Zinc Smelters’, J. Environ. Qual. 23, 508-514.Google Scholar
  21. Taub, F.B.: 1961, ‘The Distribution of the Red-backed Salamander, Plethodon c. cinereus, within the Soil’, Ecology 42, 681-698.Google Scholar
  22. USEPA: 1990, Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface Waters, Office of Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC, EPA-440/5-90-004.Google Scholar
  23. University of Delaware: 1991, Recommended Soil Testing Procedures for the Northeastern United States: Northeastern Regional Publication No. 493, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware.Google Scholar
  24. Witt, W.L.: 1993, ‘Annotated Checklist of the Amphibians and Reptiles of Shenandoah National Park, Virginia’, Catesbeiana 13, 26-35.Google Scholar
  25. Wyman, R.L. and Hawksley-Lescault, D.S.: 1987, ‘Soil Acidity Affects Distribution, Behavior, and Physiology of the Salamander Plethodon cinereus’, Ecology 68, 1819-1827.Google Scholar
  26. Wyman, R.L.: 1998, ‘Experimental Assessment of Salamanders as Predators of Detrital Food Webs: Effects of Invertebrates, Decomposition and the Carbon Cycle’, Biodiversity and Conservation 7, 641-650.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robin E. Jung
    • 1
  • Sam Droege
    • 1
  • John R. Sauer
    • 1
  • Ronald B. Landy
    • 2
  1. 1.Patuxent Wildlife Research CenterU.S. Geological SurveyLaurel
  2. 2.Environmental Science CenterU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyFt. Meade

Personalised recommendations