This study examined mudpuppy populations in the St. Clair-Detroit River System using trapping data, environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling, and land cover analysis. The objectives were to determine if eDNA is a useful monitoring tool for mudpuppies and quantify the relationship between land cover and mudpuppy presence. The results showed that sites with higher percentages of forest cover and lower development upstream had higher mudpuppy occupancy. eDNA results were inconclusive for monitoring. Ongoing sampling and protocol adjustments may help validate the use of eDNA to monitor mudpuppy populations.

1. Study Species
Mudpuppy (Necturus maculosus maculosus)
• Fully aquatic salamander
• Environmental indicator
• Critical host for the salamander mussel
• Range spans the Great Lakes region
• Widespread declines due to habitat
modification, pollution, and over collection
St. Clair-Detroit River System
• St. Clair River designated Area of Concern (AOC) in
1987 under the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement.
• Wildlife habitat degraded due to the need for
development and shipping channels.1
• In effort to remove the St. Clair River as an AOC, 11
shoreline sites have undergone restoration.2
• Detection of mudpuppy DNA in water samples at
potentially occupied sites.
• Could aid future monitoring efforts: non-invasive and
requires minimal field work
• Protocol and primers developed by Spear et al. (2015)
• High and low trapping success sites were sampled in order
to determine efficacy of eDNA as tool for monitoring.
• Objective: Determine if environmental DNA is a useful
tool for monitoring mudpuppy populations.
References
Bennion, D.H., and B.A. Manny. 2011. Construction of shipping channels in the Detroit River: history and environmental consequences. Scientific Investigations Report 2011-5122.
Binational Public Advisory Commission for the St. Clair River. 2012. Delisting Targets for Loss of Fish/Wildlife Habitat Beneficial Use Impairment of the St. Clair River Area of Concern.
Drainage Atlas of Canada (2016) [downloaded file] Natural Resources Canada; Earth Sciences Sector; Canada Centre for Mapping and Earth Observation. URL://geogratis.gc.ca [March,
2016].
National Hydrology Dataset (2016) [downloaded file] United States Geological Survey. URL://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html [March, 2016].
National Hydro Network (2016) [downloaded file] Government of Canada; Natural Resources Canada; Earth Sciences Sector; Canada Centre for Mapping and Earth Observation. URL:
http://geogratis.gc.ca [March, 2016].
National Land Cover Dataset (2011) [downloaded file] United States Geological Survey. URL: http://www.mrlc.gov [March, 2016].
Ontario Land Cover Compilation (2000) [downloaded file] Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.
Spear, S.F., J.D. Groves, L.A. Williams, and L.P. Waits. 2015. Using environmental DNA methods to improve detectability in a hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) monitoring
program. Biological Conservation 183:38–45.
Watershed Boundary Dataset (2016) [downloaded file] United States Geological Survey.
Figure 3: How mudpuppy
eDNA is introduced and
transported through an
aquatic system.
Figure 4: Fluorescence over qPCR amplification of sample from (A) Huron River (no
mudpuppies trapped), (B) Lake St. Clair Metropark (no mudpuppies trapped), (C)
Cottrellville (mudpuppies trapped), and (D) the Blue Water River Walk (mudpuppies
trapped). The threshold value was set at 0.0039. (+) positive detection of mudpuppy
eDNA, (-) no detection of mudpuppy data.
Environmental DNA
Land Cover at Riparian (100-m buffer) Scale
• A higher percentage of forest and a lower percentage of development upstream at the
riparian scale is a predictor of mudpuppy site occupancy.
• Conservation and management should occur at the riparian scale, and re-forestation
could be an important restoration tool if mudpuppy populations continue to decline.
• Local habitat restoration at occupied sites still has an important role in conservation.
• Environmental DNA results were inconclusive.
• Mudpuppy eDNA sampling is on-going and new samples will be integrated into these
studies including multiple samples per site and adjustments to the protocol.
• Objective: Quantify the relationship between
land cover and the presence of mudpuppies
along the project area
• Can alter nutrient cycling, hydrology, and sediments
• No studies have linked mudpuppies to land cover
• Quantified mudpuppy occurrence using trapping data
• Calculated percent of land cover types upstream of each
site at the catchment scale (river basin) and riparian scale
(100-m buffer around tributaries).
Conclusions
Land Cover
We thank the Herpetological Resource and Management team, Anthony Bedogne for ArcMap help,
Stephen Spear, the U.S. Geological Survey Great Lakes Science Center Team, and the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative.
A. Huron River (+) B. St. Clair Metropark (-)
NoTrappingSuccess
C. Cottrellville (-) D. Blue Water River Walk (-)
TrappingSuccess
Figure 1: Use of land cover and river basin data to determine
occupancy of the mudpuppy in the St. Clair-Detroit River System.
Ranked by (A) percent forest highest (left) to lowest (right), (B)
development, (C) agriculture, and (D) wetland.
A. Forest B. Development
C. Agriculture D. Wetland
Land Cover at Catchment Scale
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Mudpuppiespernight
PercentLandCoverType Site
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Mudpuppiespernight
PercentLandCoverType
Site
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Mudpuppiespernight
PercentLandCoverType
Site
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Mudpuppiespernight
PercentLandCoverType
Site
Wetland
Agriculture
Grass/Shrub
Forest
Development
Mudpuppies per night
Open Water
* Restored Sites
Structures put in for
mudpuppies
*
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Mudpuppiespernight
PercentLandCoverType
Site
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Mudpuppiespernight
PercentLandCoverType
Site
*
A. Forest B. Development
C. Agriculture D. Wetland
Figure 2: Use of land cover and tributary data to determine
occupancy of the mudpuppy in the St. Clair-Detroit River System.
Ranked by (A) forest, (B) development, (C) agriculture, and (D)
wetland. The DNR Fisheries Station may be an outlier due to low
trapping hours. Trends visible in graphs forest and development.
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Mudpuppiespernight
PercentLandCoverType
Site
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Mudpuppiespernight
PercentLandCoverType
Site
Wetland
Agriculture
Grass/Shrub
Forest
Development
Mudpuppies per night
Open Water
* Restored Sites
Structures put in for
mudpuppies
* * * * * ** * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * ** *
* * * * * * ***** * *
Use of Land Cover Data and eDNA Predict the Presence of the Mudpuppy (Necturus maculosus maculosus)
Jenny Sutherland1,3, Amber Stedman1, David Mifsud2, Maegan Stapleton2, Edward Roseman3, and Katherine Greenwald1
1Department of Biology, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI, USA
2Herpetological Resource and Management, LLC, Chelsea, MI, USA
3USGS Great Lakes Science Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Acknowledgements