Selecting Monitoring Methods for Endangered Trout Populations

Abstract

Endangered trout populations can be monitored with a variety of methods, the selection of which should consider social constraints and environmental variables known to affect method effectiveness. Here, we confront the effectiveness of four monitoring methods (removal with electrofishing, ELE; underwater camera survey, UCS; streamside visual survey, SVS; visual surveys with angling, VSA) to estimate the relative abundance of three populations of the endangered Mediterranean brown trout. The trout counts obtained via different methods were well correlated (r = 0.65–0.72), providing a coherent description of the relative pool abundance across the methods. However, the methods were differently affected by environmental variables, depending on the age classes of trout. Specifically, the adult and subadult counts provided by ELE and VSA were negatively and positively affected by the maximum pool depth, respectively; adult and subadult counts of VSA and the SVS were positively affected by pool area; the juvenile counts provided by the UCS were positively affected by pool shade and negatively affected by water turbidity; juvenile counts provided by VSA were positively affected by shade. Variables such as pool depth, area, shading, water turbidity and proportion of age classes can be hardly controlled in monitoring programs, and their bias could be modelled. Different sampling methods provided similar information about relative abundance and appeared equivalent. While ELE could be selected to collect samples and biometric data, monitoring relative abundance with the UCS, VSA, and SVS appears more suited and can also involve citizen scientists.

Keywords

• adaptive monitoring
• environmental heterogeneity
• ethic and conservation
• <i>Salmo trutta</i>
• small streams
• standard methods