Olivia Poelmann, Morgan K. Wolf, Brandon K. Peoples, Catherine M. Bodinof Jachowski
The Carolina heelsplitter Lasmigona [Platynaias] decorata is a federally endangered mussel endemic to North and South Carolina, USA. Captive propagation is aimed at bolstering wild populations via augmentation of juveniles, though factors affecting survival of captive-reared Carolina heelsplitter have not been evaluated. We compared survivorship of 100 captive-reared juvenile Carolina heelsplitters originating from two geographically isolated river basins (n = 50 of Pee Dee River basin origin; n = 50 of Catawba River basin origin) over 1 year (Oct 2021–Oct 2022). We retained a subset (n = 10 per origin) of mussels in a hatchery to serve as a control cohort and housed the remainder in concrete mussel silos deployed in one of four natural streams. We integrated a second species (eastern creekshell Villosa delumbis, n = 11 control and 20 in silos) in our study design to evaluate its potential use as a surrogate for assessing suitability of water quality for the Carolina heelsplitter at potential release sites, given the high rate of co-occurrence between the two species in South Carolina. We used known fate models to estimate weekly survival rates and ranked models to assess support for effects of species, basin of origin, release site, and time. Only 50 of 151 mussels (14% of all Carolina heelsplitters; 70.5% of eastern creekshells) survived the study. Eastern creekshell survival in the hatchery (100%) was higher than in natural streams (63%). However, we detected no evidence that Carolina heelsplitter survivorship was higher in the hatchery or varied by stream. Mussel survivorship increased with size at release but declined over time (except for eastern creekshell in the hatchery), with the most severe declines observed for the Carolina heelsplitter. Further, origin was a better predictor of Carolina heelsplitter survival than species alone or release site, with Catawba-origin juveniles having the lowest survivorship at most time points. Consistency in outcomes of Carolina heelsplitters in silos and the hatchery (control) provides strong evidence that their poor survivorship was due to an inherent attribute of our release cohort, rather than poor stream quality or cage effects. Further, the stark differences in species survivorship indicate the eastern creekshell may be a poor surrogate for investigating the resource requirements and release site suitability for Carolina heelsplitters of the size range we considered (25–38 mm). To improve propagation and release success for Carolina heelsplitters, we recommend investigating the species' basic requirements, the efficacy of rearing juveniles to a larger size prior to release, and whether extremely low rates of survival described here are consistent among first-generation (F1) offspring harvested from a wider range of wild adults in each natal river basin.
{"title":"Survivorship of captively propagated Carolina heelsplitter and a potential surrogate, eastern creekshell, in South Carolina streams","authors":"Olivia Poelmann, Morgan K. Wolf, Brandon K. Peoples, Catherine M. Bodinof Jachowski","doi":"10.1002/jwmg.70092","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.70092","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Carolina heelsplitter <i>Lasmigona</i> [<i>Platynaias</i>] <i>decorata</i> is a federally endangered mussel endemic to North and South Carolina, USA. Captive propagation is aimed at bolstering wild populations via augmentation of juveniles, though factors affecting survival of captive-reared Carolina heelsplitter have not been evaluated. We compared survivorship of 100 captive-reared juvenile Carolina heelsplitters originating from two geographically isolated river basins (<i>n</i> = 50 of Pee Dee River basin origin; <i>n</i> = 50 of Catawba River basin origin) over 1 year (Oct 2021–Oct 2022). We retained a subset (<i>n</i> = 10 per origin) of mussels in a hatchery to serve as a control cohort and housed the remainder in concrete mussel silos deployed in one of four natural streams. We integrated a second species (eastern creekshell <i>Villosa delumbis</i>, <i>n</i> = 11 control and 20 in silos) in our study design to evaluate its potential use as a surrogate for assessing suitability of water quality for the Carolina heelsplitter at potential release sites, given the high rate of co-occurrence between the two species in South Carolina. We used known fate models to estimate weekly survival rates and ranked models to assess support for effects of species, basin of origin, release site, and time. Only 50 of 151 mussels (14% of all Carolina heelsplitters; 70.5% of eastern creekshells) survived the study. Eastern creekshell survival in the hatchery (100%) was higher than in natural streams (63%). However, we detected no evidence that Carolina heelsplitter survivorship was higher in the hatchery or varied by stream. Mussel survivorship increased with size at release but declined over time (except for eastern creekshell in the hatchery), with the most severe declines observed for the Carolina heelsplitter. Further, origin was a better predictor of Carolina heelsplitter survival than species alone or release site, with Catawba-origin juveniles having the lowest survivorship at most time points. Consistency in outcomes of Carolina heelsplitters in silos and the hatchery (control) provides strong evidence that their poor survivorship was due to an inherent attribute of our release cohort, rather than poor stream quality or cage effects. Further, the stark differences in species survivorship indicate the eastern creekshell may be a poor surrogate for investigating the resource requirements and release site suitability for Carolina heelsplitters of the size range we considered (25–38 mm). To improve propagation and release success for Carolina heelsplitters, we recommend investigating the species' basic requirements, the efficacy of rearing juveniles to a larger size prior to release, and whether extremely low rates of survival described here are consistent among first-generation (F1) offspring harvested from a wider range of wild adults in each natal river basin.</p>","PeriodicalId":17504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wildlife Management","volume":"89 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2025-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jwmg.70092","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145341455","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Richard A. Erickson, Patrick W. DeHaan, Nicholas K. Frohnauer, Cari-Ann Hayer, Keta L. Oettinger, Tariq Tajjioui, Kyle M. Von Ruden, Hailey M. Willner, Stephen F. Spear
Invasive species management frameworks, such as the early detection of and rapid response to invasive species, use monitoring programs to detect new species occurrences. Resource managers use environmental DNA (eDNA) as one tool for these monitoring programs. An eDNA detection in a new location may lack perspective for resource managers and researchers because of the rarity of potential invaders and the randomness in their dispersal and detection. An example monitoring program is the eDNA-based sampling approach used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for bigheaded carps Hypophthalmichthys spp. in the upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Basins that collects hundreds of water samples per event. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service detected a single positive sample for Bighead Carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis during the spring 2021 sampling event in the Kinnickinnic River within the Milwaukee River Basin, and detected a second single positive sample for bigheaded carps during the fall 2021 sampling event in the Milwaukee River. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not detect any bigheaded carps in previous years (2015 to 2020) or in either the spring or fall 2022 sampling events. These detections lacked perspective, such as detection numbers for other species. We reanalyzed the 2021 and 2022 samples for four existing species of fish: two fairly common species (Common Carp Cyprinus carpio and Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum) and two fairly rare species (Burbot Lota lota and Grass Carp Ctenopharyngodon idella). We detected Common Carp during all four sampling events, Gizzard Shad during three of four sampling events, and Burbot and Grass Carp during two of four sampling events. These results demonstrated that current sampling efforts could detect other species, and bigheaded carp eDNA was not common in the Milwaukee River compared to these species. More specifically, this finding indicates bigheaded carp eDNA detections are as rare as, or rarer than, Grass Carp eDNA detections, a recent invader to the basin. Our findings also demonstrated how reanalyzing eDNA samples after positive detections for targeted species can help managers understand the context of the detections and provide perspective for the relative abundance of the targeted species. Additionally, our results highlight the importance of completing long-term eDNA-based monitoring rather than a single sampling or inventory event. These detections may have been missed in a single year or sampling event, whereas a multiyear monitoring program provides an opportunity to observe trends through time.
{"title":"Placing environmental DNA monitoring for new detections into perspective: Fishes in the Milwaukee River, Wisconsin","authors":"Richard A. Erickson, Patrick W. DeHaan, Nicholas K. Frohnauer, Cari-Ann Hayer, Keta L. Oettinger, Tariq Tajjioui, Kyle M. Von Ruden, Hailey M. Willner, Stephen F. Spear","doi":"10.1002/jwmg.70102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.70102","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Invasive species management frameworks, such as the early detection of and rapid response to invasive species, use monitoring programs to detect new species occurrences. Resource managers use environmental DNA (eDNA) as one tool for these monitoring programs. An eDNA detection in a new location may lack perspective for resource managers and researchers because of the rarity of potential invaders and the randomness in their dispersal and detection. An example monitoring program is the eDNA-based sampling approach used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for bigheaded carps <i>Hypophthalmichthys</i> spp. in the upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Basins that collects hundreds of water samples per event. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service detected a single positive sample for Bighead Carp <i>Hypophthalmichthys nobilis</i> during the spring 2021 sampling event in the Kinnickinnic River within the Milwaukee River Basin, and detected a second single positive sample for bigheaded carps during the fall 2021 sampling event in the Milwaukee River. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not detect any bigheaded carps in previous years (2015 to 2020) or in either the spring or fall 2022 sampling events. These detections lacked perspective, such as detection numbers for other species. We reanalyzed the 2021 and 2022 samples for four existing species of fish: two fairly common species (Common Carp <i>Cyprinus carpio</i> and Gizzard Shad <i>Dorosoma cepedianum</i>) and two fairly rare species (Burbot <i>Lota lota</i> and Grass Carp <i>Ctenopharyngodon idella</i>). We detected Common Carp during all four sampling events, Gizzard Shad during three of four sampling events, and Burbot and Grass Carp during two of four sampling events. These results demonstrated that current sampling efforts could detect other species, and bigheaded carp eDNA was not common in the Milwaukee River compared to these species. More specifically, this finding indicates bigheaded carp eDNA detections are as rare as, or rarer than, Grass Carp eDNA detections, a recent invader to the basin. Our findings also demonstrated how reanalyzing eDNA samples after positive detections for targeted species can help managers understand the context of the detections and provide perspective for the relative abundance of the targeted species. Additionally, our results highlight the importance of completing long-term eDNA-based monitoring rather than a single sampling or inventory event. These detections may have been missed in a single year or sampling event, whereas a multiyear monitoring program provides an opportunity to observe trends through time.</p>","PeriodicalId":17504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wildlife Management","volume":"89 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2025-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jwmg.70102","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145341508","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jessica M. Elliott, Elizabeth A. Flaherty, Robert K. Swihart, Jinha Jung, Songlin Fei
Many wildlife studies develop habitat models based on spatially limited, ground-based surveys. These surveys cannot adequately measure forest canopy features or characterize features at landscape scales, nor can these models be applied at larger extents, making them less useful for conservation. Lidar offers the opportunity to objectively measure habitat features across landscape-level extents, making it possible to predict landscape suitability at the level of entire states. We measured structural diversity of forest vegetation at 179 plots across Indiana, USA, at 3 radii (50 m, 100 m, and 300 m) to explore species associations with forest characteristics at different spatial scales. We developed occupancy models at each scale to predict species presence by relating detection–non-detection of wildlife species from camera traps (2019–2020) to indices of forest structure derived from aerial lidar (2016–2020). We quantified the relationship between the presence of 7 wildlife species and the 3 forest structure metrics. The effect sizes for each metric varied depending on the plot extent and species, often displaying opposite trends at different radii. Deep gap fraction had a strong positive association with species like eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) at the 100-m and 300-m extents (95% credible intervals did not cross zero), but weaker relationships at 50 m. Some species also used areas with higher vegetation diversity, such as coyote (Canis latrans), which was positively associated with higher values for Gini foliage diversity at the 300-m extents. Habitat generalists did not show strong evidence of selection for specific metrics. Our study demonstrates that lidar shows great promise for habitat modeling based on its ability to characterize forest structure at landscape scales across large geographic extents. These models identify patterns of space use that are difficult and expensive to capture through traditional survey methods and have clear conservation and management applications owing to their extensive spatial coverage.
{"title":"Application of lidar and camera traps to model wildlife habitat","authors":"Jessica M. Elliott, Elizabeth A. Flaherty, Robert K. Swihart, Jinha Jung, Songlin Fei","doi":"10.1002/jwmg.70093","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.70093","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Many wildlife studies develop habitat models based on spatially limited, ground-based surveys. These surveys cannot adequately measure forest canopy features or characterize features at landscape scales, nor can these models be applied at larger extents, making them less useful for conservation. Lidar offers the opportunity to objectively measure habitat features across landscape-level extents, making it possible to predict landscape suitability at the level of entire states. We measured structural diversity of forest vegetation at 179 plots across Indiana, USA, at 3 radii (50 m, 100 m, and 300 m) to explore species associations with forest characteristics at different spatial scales. We developed occupancy models at each scale to predict species presence by relating detection–non-detection of wildlife species from camera traps (2019–2020) to indices of forest structure derived from aerial lidar (2016–2020). We quantified the relationship between the presence of 7 wildlife species and the 3 forest structure metrics. The effect sizes for each metric varied depending on the plot extent and species, often displaying opposite trends at different radii. Deep gap fraction had a strong positive association with species like eastern cottontail (<i>Sylvilagus floridanus</i>) at the 100-m and 300-m extents (95% credible intervals did not cross zero), but weaker relationships at 50 m. Some species also used areas with higher vegetation diversity, such as coyote (<i>Canis latrans</i>), which was positively associated with higher values for Gini foliage diversity at the 300-m extents. Habitat generalists did not show strong evidence of selection for specific metrics. Our study demonstrates that lidar shows great promise for habitat modeling based on its ability to characterize forest structure at landscape scales across large geographic extents. These models identify patterns of space use that are difficult and expensive to capture through traditional survey methods and have clear conservation and management applications owing to their extensive spatial coverage.</p>","PeriodicalId":17504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wildlife Management","volume":"89 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jwmg.70093","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145341467","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Piper L. Roby, William R. Seiter, Michael G. Brandenburg, Michael P. Armstrong, Mark W. Gumbert
Military installations are important refuges for sensitive species and are charged with conducting conservation measures for species’ habitat protection. The federally endangered Indiana bat Myotis sodalis was first documented at Fort Knox in northcentral Kentucky in 1998. We monitored this first documented colony and additional colonies on base from 2005–2021. By conducting multiple simultaneous emergence counts and banding bats at both natural and artificial roosts (e.g., BrandenBark®), we documented the two largest Indiana bat maternity colonies in the range of the species and two additional colonies that require additional study. An average of 102.5 ± 5.2 bats emerged per roost during 449 counts of 104 roosts. Emergence counts from BrandenBark® (