DOI: 10.5061/dryad.w9ghx3fxm
title: Data from: 10 years of fish species sampling in Rouge River, Michigan

description: Participatory science has increased the scope of ecological data
 collection and monitoring. Despite its growing popularity, Participatory
 science are rarely validated. Validation is important to ensure high
 quality data can be used in scientific studies, monitoring, and
 management. The Rouge River (Michigan, USA), an Environmental Protection
 Agency Area of Concern, is considered a highly degraded river, but has
 benefited from numerous restoration projects. These projects have improved
 abiotic conditions in the river, but improvements to the biotic
 communities have not been assessed. Friends of the Rouge, a non-profit,
 has collected fish assemblage data throughout the river network for 10
 years by seining, a sampling method they selected due to concerns
 including cost, safety, and fit to the organization’s volunteer-based
 monitoring program. We aimed to evaluate differences between sampling fish
 assemblages through seining performed by participatory scientist and the
 electrofishing method recommended for standardized assessments performed
 by fisheries professionals. We examined data from 48 sites across the
 Rouge River watershed where both sampling methods were implemented. We
 compared: a) species captured, b) the relationship between species
 richness and effort, c) diversity metrics used for standardized
 evaluation, and d) assemblage similarity between methods across the
 watershed. Our results showed that in the wadeable reaches of this urban
 river, electrofishing and seining were comparable. The majority of species
 captured within the reaches were shared across sampling methods, although
 community similarity was lowest and highest in small branches. Differences
 in species captured were mostly driven by rare and benthic species.
 Species accumulation curves were not significantly different at the
 watershed or subwatershed scales (except when non-wadeable reaches were
 included). Total species richness, the richness of species tolerant and
 intolerant to environmental degradation, and Procedure 51 scores used by
 Michigan agencies to assess the status of fish communities, sometimes
 differed among branches, but neither method was more effective overall at
 capturing fish diversity. Our work demonstrates how participatory science
 methods can be validated by comparison with standard methods. Validating
 participatory science data enhances utility for monitoring, assessment,
 and management decisions.
description: We compared two techniques for sampling fish assemblages in the
 Rouge River: seining and electrofishing. FOTR has been collecting fish
 assemblages data by seining in the river since 2012 at 10-20 sites yearly
 between April-September . At each site, and during each sampling event,
 they seined roughly 20 times trying to cover the variety of habitats
 present; and then identified, counted, and measured each fish before
 returning it back to the river. For most sites, they use a four-foot high
 and twelve-foot length, 1/8th inch mesh seine and have used four-, eight-,
 twelve- and twenty-foot seines in the past. Seining has been led by a
 small team that is a mix of FOTR staff and community volunteers well
 trained in fish identification and sampling protocols. The team frequently
 collaborates and communicates with the Michigan Department of Natural
 Resources (MDNR) and the state’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes,
 and Energy (EGLE). They also confer with the University of Michigan Museum
 of Zoology on fish identification when questions arise.
 From June to August 2022, we resampled 54 sites throughout the
 watershed by electrofishing. We chose sites based on FOTR priorities and
 length of time between previous sampling events while maintaining at least
 two sites per river valley segment, a Michigan river classification
 system, to assure spatial distribution throughout the river network. A
 Smith-Root backpack shocker and an ETS Electrofishing barge shocker were
 used depending on stream size and access. For the boat electrofishing, we
 partnered with MDNR to sample. We followed Procedure 51 sampling protocols
 as closely as possible. Personnel, river conditions, and obstructions
 sometimes resulted in sampling shorter lengths than Procedure 51
 recommendations. We always sampled at least one pool-riffle complex per
 sample reach. As in the FOTR methods, we identified, counted, and measured
 all the fish collected. Fish sampling was conducted with Scientific
 Collector’s Permits issued by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
 issued to Robert Muller and Karen Alofs and was approved by the University
 of Michigan Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee under Animal Use
 Protocol PRO00008585. This is the raw data of all
 seining and shocking sites in the Rouge. When we used paired data, we took
 the electrofishing site and then found the closest seining date (not
 including seine data from 2022). The non-wadeable section of the Rouge is
 considered below the Fair Lane/Henry Ford Estate Dam.
description: # Data from: 10 years of fish species sampling in Rouge River, Michigan
 [https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.w9ghx3fxm](https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.w9ghx3fxm) 1.     Community based citizen science has increased the scope of ecological data collection and monitoring. Despite its growing popularity, citizen science methods are rarely validated. Validation is important to ensure high quality data can be used in scientific studies, monitoring, and management. The Rouge River (Michigan, USA), an Environmental Protection Agency Area of Concern, is considered a highly degraded river, but has benefited from numerous restoration projects. These projects have improved abiotic conditions in the river, but improvements to the biotic communities have not been assessed. Friends of the Rouge, a non-profit, has collected fish assemblage data throughout the river network for 10 years by seining, a sampling method they selected due to concerns including cost, safety, and fit to the organization’s volunteer-based monitoring program. 2.     We aimed to evaluate differences between sampling fish assemblages through seining performed by citizen scientists and the electrofishing method recommended for standardized assessments performed by fisheries professionals. We examined data from 48 sites across the Rouge River watershed where both of the sampling methods were implemented. We compared: a) the species captured, b) the relationship between species richness and effort, c) diversity metrics used for standardized evaluation, and d) assemblage similarity between methods across the watershed. 3.     Our results show that in the wadeable reaches of this urban river, electrofishing and seining are comparable. The majority of species captured within the reaches were shared across sampling methods although community similarity was lowest and highest in small branches. Differences in the species captured are mostly driven by rare and benthic species. Species accumulation curves were not significantly different at the watershed or subwatershed scale (except when non-wadeable reaches were included). 4.     Total species richness, the richness of species tolerant and intolerant to environmental degradation, and Procedure 51 scores used by Michigan agencies to assess the status of fish communities, sometimes differed between branches, but neither method was more effective overall at capturing fish diversity. 5.     Our work demonstrates how citizen science methods can be validated by comparison with standard methods. Validating citizen science data enhances utility for monitoring, assessment, and management decisions. ## Description of the data and file structure There are three data files: 1. Entire_Raw_Rouge -- Entire Rouge Data 1. FIELID: Rouge River Site 2. Method: method of collection 3. Date Sampled: date of sampling event 4. Common Name: Fish species 5. TotalFish: Count of number of fish caught 2. Entire_paired_rouge -- All the paired sites in the Rouge (wadeable and non-wadeable) 1. Same ID as above 2. The sites are paired meaning that it is the closest electroshocking site to a seine event. ## Code/Software All analysis occurred in R Studio open-source statistical software (R Core Team, 2023; RStudio Team, 2023)