Open Access
Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst.
Number 417, 2016
Article Number 17
Number of page(s) 8
Published online 08 April 2016
  • Agresti A., 2013. Categorical data analysis, 3rd edition, John Wiley & Sons, Hobekon, 714 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Amyot J.-P. and Downing J.A., 1991. Endo- and epibenthic distribution of the unionid mollusc Elliptio complanata. J. North. Am. Benthol. Soc., 10, 280–285. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Chapman L.J. and Putnam D.F., 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario, 3rd edition, Ontario Geological Survey Special, Toronto, Vol. 2, 270 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Clarke A.H., 1992. Ontario’s Sydenham River, an important refugium for native freshwater mussels against competition from the zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha. Malacol. Data Net., 3, 43–55. [Google Scholar]
  • Cohen J., 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, 590 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Colwell R.K., Mao C.X. and Chang J., 2004. Interpolating, extrapolating, and comparing incidence-based species accumulation curves. Ecology, 85, 2717–2727. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), 2013. Wildlife Species Search. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Available from: (accessed September 17 2013). [Google Scholar]
  • Cudmore B., Mandrak N.E., Morris T.J. and Edwards A., 2006. Allowable harm analysis workshops for freshwater species at risk in central and Arctic region, Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Proceedings Series 2006/026. [Google Scholar]
  • Dextrase A.J., Mandrak N.E., Barnucz J., Bouvier L., Gaspardy R. and Reid S.M. 2014. Sampling effort required to detect fishes at risk in Ontario, Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 3024. [Google Scholar]
  • Epp J.M., Morris T.J. and McNichols-O’Rourke K.A., 2013. A preliminary search for Epioblasma torulosa rangiana (Northern Riffleshell) in the Maitland River, Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 3025. [Google Scholar]
  • Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), 2011. Assessment of methods for the identification of critical habitat for freshwater mussels. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Science Advisory Report 2011/047. [Google Scholar]
  • Fleiss J.L., Levin B. and Paik MC., 2003. Statistical methods for rates and proportions, 3rd edition, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, 800 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Gibbs J.P., Droege S. and Eagle P., 1998. Monitoring populations of plants and animals. Bioscience, 48, 935–940. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Green R.H. and Young R.C., 1993. Sampling to detect rare species. Ecol. Appl., 3, 351–356. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Guillera-Arroita G. and Lahoz-Monfort J.J., 2012. Designing studies to detect differences in species occupancy: power analysis under imperfect detection. Methods Ecol. Evol., 3, 860–869. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Haag W.R., 2012. North American freshwater mussels. Natural history, ecology, and conservation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 505 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Hammer Ø., Harper D.A.T. and Ryan P.D., 2001. PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol. Electronica, 4, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  • Hornbach D.J. and Deneka T., 1996. A comparison of a qualitative and a quantitative collection method for examining freshwater mussel assemblages. J. North. Am. Benthol. Soc., 15, 587–596. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Huang J., Cao Y. and Cummings K.S., 2011. Assessing sampling adequacy of mussel diversity surveys in wadeable Illinois streams. J. North. Am. Benthol. Soc., 30, 923–934. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Jeffress M.R., Paukert C.P., Sandercock B.K. and Gipson P.S., 2011. Factors affecting detectability of river otters during sign surveys. J. Wildlife Manage., 74, 144–150. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Lamand F.L. and Beisel J.-N., 2014. Proposal for a simple hydromorphological habitat survey method for freshwater bivale (Unionidae) inventories. Aquat. Ecol., 48, 237–245. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Landis J.R. and Koch G.G., 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Lucy F., Burlakova L.E., Karatayev A., Mastitsky S. and Zanatta D.T., 2013. Zebra mussel impacts on unionids: A synthesis of trends in North America and Europe. In: Nalepa T.F. and Schloesser D.W. (eds.), Quagga and Zebra Mussels: Biology, Impact, and Control, 2nd edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 623–645. [Google Scholar]
  • MacKenzie D.I. and Royle J.A., 2005. Designing occupancy studies: general advice and allocating survey effort. J. Appl. Ecol., 42, 1105–1114. [Google Scholar]
  • MacKenzie D.I., Nichols J.D., Lachman G.B., Droege S., Royle J.A. and Langtimn C.A., 2002. Estimating site occupancy when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology, 83, 2248–2255. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • MacKenzie D.I., Nichols J.D., Royle J.A., Pollock K.H., Hines J.E. and Bailey L.L., 2006. Occupancy estimation and modeling: inferring patterns and dynamics of species occurrence. Elsevier, San Diego, 324 p. [Google Scholar]
  • McNichols-O’Rourke K.A., Robinson A. and Morris T.J., 2012. Summary of freshwater mussel timed search surveys in southwestern Ontario in 2010 and 2011, Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 3009. [Google Scholar]
  • Metcalfe-Smith J.L., Staton S.K., Mackie G.L. and Lane N.M., 1998. Changes in the biodiversity of freshwater mussels in the Canadian waters of the lower Great Lakes drainage basin over the past 140 years. J. Gt. Lakes Res., 24, 845–858. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Metcalfe-Smith J.L., DiMaio J., Staton S.K. and Mackie G.L., 2000. Effect of sampling effort on the efficiency of the timed search method for sampling freshwater mussel communities. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 19, 725–732. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Metcalfe-Smith J.L., MacKenzie A., Carmichael I. and McGoldrick D., 2005. Photo Field Guide to the Freshwater Mussels of Ontario, St. Thomas Field Naturalist Club, 60 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2014. Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List. Available from: [accessed September 16 2014]. [Google Scholar]
  • Pearl C.A., Adams M.J. and McCreary B., 2013. Habitat and co-occurrence of native and invasive crayfish in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Aquat. Invasions, 8, 171–184. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Pellet J. and Schmidt B., 2005. Monitoring distributions using call surveys: estimating site occupancy, detection probabilities and inferring absence. Biol. Conserv., 123, 27–35. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Randklev C.R., Johnson M.S., Tsakiris E.T., Groce J. and Wilkins N., 2013. Status of the freshwater mussel (Unionidae) communities of the mainstem of the Leon River, Texas.Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst., 23, 390–404. [Google Scholar]
  • Reid S.M., Lean J. and Carl L., 2005. Influence of riffle characteristics, surficial geology, and natural barriers on the distribution of the channel darter (Percina copelandi) in the Lake Ontario basin. Environ. Biol. Fishes, 72, 241–249. [Google Scholar]
  • Schloesser D.W. and Nalepa T.F., 1994. Dramatic decline of unionid bivalves in the offshore waters of western Lake Erie after infestation by the zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 51, 2234–2242. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Schloesser J.T., Paukert C.P., Doyle W.J., Hill T.D. and Steffensen K.D., 2012. Heterogeneous detection probabilities for imperiled Missouri River fishes: implication for large river monitoring programs. Endanger. Species Res., 16, 211–224. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Shea C.P., Peterson, J.T., Conroy, M.J. and Wisniewski, J.M., 2013. Evaluating the influence of land use, drought and reach isolation on the occurrence of freshwater mussel species in the lower Flint River Basin, Georgia (USA). Freshwater Biol., 58, 382–395. [Google Scholar]
  • Smith D.H.V., Jones B., Randall L. and Prescott D.R.C., 2014. Difference in detection and occupancy between two anurans: the importance of species-specific monitoring. Herpetol. Conserv. Biol., 9, 267–277. [Google Scholar]
  • Smith D.R., 2006. Survey design for detecting rare freshwater mussels. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 25, 701–711. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Smith D.R., Gray B.R., Newton T.J., and Nichols D., 2010. Effect of imperfect detectability on adaptive and conventional sampling: simulated sampling of freshwater mussels in the upper Mississippi River. Environ. Monit. Assess., 170, 499–507. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Strayer D.L. and Smith D.R., 2003. A Guide to Sampling Freshwater Mussel Populations. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, 103 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Tingley M.W. and Beissinger S.R., 2009. Detecting range shifts from historical species occurrences: new perspectives on old data. Trends Ecol. Evol., 24, 625–633. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Villella R.F., Smith D.R. and LeMarié D.P., 2004. Estimating survival and recruitment in a freshwater mussel population using mark-recapture techniques. Am. Midl. Nat., 151, 114–133. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Watters G.T. 1994. Sampling freshwater mussel populations: the bias of muskrat middens. Walkerana, 7, 63–69. [Google Scholar]
  • Williams J.D., Warren M.L., Cummings K.S., Harris J.L. and Neves R.J., 1992. Conservation status of the freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries, 18, 6–22. [Google Scholar]
  • Wisniewski J.M., Rankin N.M, Weiler D.A, Strickland B.A. and Chandler H.C., 2013a. Occupancy and detection of benthic invertebrates: a case study of unionids in the lower Flint River, Georgia, USA. Freshwater Sci. 32, 1122–1135. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wisniewski J.M., Shea C.P., Abbott S., and Stringfellow R.C., 2013b. Imperfect recapture: a potential source of bias in freshwater mussel studies. Am. Midl. Nat. 170, 229–247. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.