Efficacy of Visual Encounter Surveys for Coastal Tailed Frog Detection

Coastal tailed frogs Ascaphus truei inhabit montane streams and forested habitats in the Coast and Cascade mountains from northern California to the Skeena River watershed in northwestern British Columbia. Terrestrial adults and juveniles of this cryptic biphasic species are difficult to survey as t...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Johnson, C.J (Author), McEwan, A. (Author), McEwan, A.L (Author), Millard-Martin, B. (Author), Todd, M. (Author)
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2022
Subjects:
Online Access:View Fulltext in Publisher
LEADER 02545nam a2200277Ia 4500
001 10.3996-JFWM-21-011
008 220630s2022 CNT 000 0 und d
020 |a 1944687X (ISSN) 
245 1 0 |a Efficacy of Visual Encounter Surveys for Coastal Tailed Frog Detection 
260 0 |b U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service  |c 2022 
520 3 |a Coastal tailed frogs Ascaphus truei inhabit montane streams and forested habitats in the Coast and Cascade mountains from northern California to the Skeena River watershed in northwestern British Columbia. Terrestrial adults and juveniles of this cryptic biphasic species are difficult to survey as they are small, do not vocalize, and may be associated with woody ground structures or subsurface refugia at considerable distances from natal streams. We performed a comparative analysis of the detection rate of postmetamorphic coastal tailed frogs and ecological factors hypothesized to influence detection when conducting visual encounter and pitfall trap surveys. We conducted concurrent surveys in northwestern British Columbia at six sites over similar time periods using both techniques. The average detection rate of visual encounter surveys (mean ¼ 0.249, SD ¼ 0.702) was greater than that of pitfall sampling (mean ¼ 0.138, SD ¼ 0.773) when cool temperatures and high humidity favor aboveground movement during the daytime. Light-touch ground searches of refuge habitats likely enhanced detection during visual surveys. Although the average detection rate was less, pitfall traps provided 24-h sampling and were less affected by the experience of the surveyor and the occurrence of ground cover. In general, variation in seasonal behavior influenced detection regardless of method. The relatively higher cost and fixed nature of pitfall traps should be weighed against the ability to apply more cost-effective visual encounter surveys to a greater number of sites. © 2022 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. All rights reserved. 
650 0 4 |a Ascaphus truei 
650 0 4 |a detection probability 
650 0 4 |a pitfall trapping 
650 0 4 |a tailed frogs 
650 0 4 |a visual encounter survey 
700 1 0 |a Johnson, C.J.  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Johnson, C.J.  |e author 
700 1 0 |a McEwan, A.  |e author 
700 1 0 |a McEwan, A.L.  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Millard-Martin, B.  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Millard-Martin, B.  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Todd, M.  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Todd, M.  |e author 
773 |t Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 
856 |z View Fulltext in Publisher  |u https://doi.org/10.3996/JFWM-21-011