Skip to main content
Environment· 3 figures

Salamander Bsal Watershed Surveillance

Optimize a 25-watershed national surveillance network covering 115 of 184 native salamander species and derive a field-ready 1,650-swab sampling protocol.

What this research found

Where should a national early-detection network for the salamander-killing chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (Bsal) sample first? USGS range maps for 184 native salamander species were crossed against a national pathogen swab survey to identify which species and watersheds have never been sampled, and a set-cover optimization then selected 25 subwatersheds covering 115 of the 184 species and 91.0% of a range-rarity priority weight. A binomial detection model fixed field effort at 66 swabs per site, or 1,650 nationally, which was written up as a field-ready protocol.

  • Existing surveillance — 11,170 swabs over 772 field visits in 458 subwatersheds — leaves most salamander range untouched. Of the 184 native species, 45 have never been swabbed anywhere in their range and 139 only partially; none is fully sampled, and the median species has 98.9% of its watersheds unsampled.
  • Twenty-five subwatersheds suffice to reach 115 of the 184 species and 91.0% of the total priority weight. A mixed-integer solver certified an optimum of 7.0551 out of 7.749 achievable, beating a greedy solution by 0.02%.
  • Priority is dominated by a few micro-endemics. The narrowest-ranging species, the Austin blind salamander (Eurycea waterlooensis), occupies 138.0 km² against roughly 3.08 million km² for the widest, and all top 20 by weight are lungless salamanders from the Texas Edwards Plateau, southern Appalachians, and California.
  • Field effort follows directly from the detection arithmetic: 66 swabs per site give a 95.21% chance of detecting Bsal at 5% design prevalence with a 90%-sensitive assay, totaling 1,650 swabs across 25 sites. Weaker assumptions get expensive fast — at 1% prevalence and 80% sensitivity, 373 swabs per site would be needed.
  • Reconciling names between the pathogen survey and the range maps matched 10,409 of 10,451 salamander records (99.60%), including 136 records recovered from a misspelled epithet in the range index; only the 42 records identified to genus alone were dropped.

How it was done

Three USGS products were combined in an equal-area projection: a national Bd/Bsal pathogen survey (11,189 records, 10,451 of them salamanders), GAP species range maps filtered from 1,719 species down to the 184 native salamander species, and the Watershed Boundary Dataset's 12-digit subwatersheds. Scientific names were reconciled between survey and range map through a cascade of exact, synonym, subspecies, and spelling matches. Each species then received a priority weight equal to the smallest range area divided by its own, multiplied by the share of its watersheds never sampled, and a maximum covering location problem was solved both greedily and exactly to pick 25 subwatersheds. A binomial imperfect-test detection model set the swab count per site, and the results were operationalized into a field standard operating procedure covering habitat scouting, swabbing technique, between-site decontamination, sample preservation, and diagnostic controls.

Data sources

  • USGS national Bd/Bsal survey v2.0, November 2024 — 11,189 records including 10,451 salamander swabs at 603 unique coordinates
  • USGS GAP Species Range Maps, CONUS 2001 v1 — 1,719 species filtered to 184 native salamanders spanning 76,156 subwatersheds
  • USGS Watershed Boundary Dataset — 103,068 national 12-digit subwatershed polygons
  • AmphibiaWeb, ITIS, and Amphibian Species of the World as taxonomic authorities

Limitations

GAP range maps are presence priors rather than verified occupancy, so the protocol instructs field teams to scout micro-habitat by focal-species ecology and record documented absences instead of assuming the target species is present. The 66-swab figure also assumes a large host population, making it conservative for micro-endemics confined to small spring or cave systems.

Figures from this analysis

How this research was produced

K-Dense Web planned and ran this environment investigation end to end — gathering the sources, carrying out the analysis, producing the figures, and drafting the report. The full session transcript, including every intermediate step, is available to view.

Share:
Environment

Air Quality Health Impact Analysis

Analyze EPA AQI data to predict air quality categories and explore respiratory health impacts using XGBoost classification.

3.6 weeks → 90 minEst. 800× cheaper than doing it alone
Environment

Aravali Mountains Impact Prediction

Model environmental impacts of policy changes on India's Aravali ranges with climate, air quality, and groundwater projections to 2050, using a synthetic groundwater series.

6.2 weeks → 6.0 hrEst. 331× cheaper than doing it alone
Environment

India Urban Air Pollution Tipping Points

Detect pollution tipping points in India's national PM2.5 record using Mann-Kendall tests, and forecast metro PM2.5 to 2026 with Holt-Winters on synthetic daily data.

6.4 weeks → 5.0 hrEst. 341× cheaper than doing it alone

Run this kind of analysis on your own question

Start a session and see how an AI co-scientist accelerates your research. Pay-as-you-go, no subscription required.