Abstract:We applied 6 survey methods in 3 streams where the patch‐nosed salamander (Urspelerpes brucei) occurs using a randomized complete block design and conducted replicate surveys using each method 5 to 6 times between August 2021 and June 2022. Detectability of the patch‐nosed salamander was maximized during conditions (cloudless skies, >5 cm rainfall in the prior week, soil temperatures ≥20°C) that align with spring (March–June) in the species' range and both the aquatic and terrestrial versions of leaf‐litter bags and area‐unconstrained surveys were similarly effective methods. Our findings highlight the need to consider timing, method, goals of monitoring, and the distribution of survey effort across microhabitats when monitoring stream salamanders. The patch‐nosed salamander (Urspelerpes brucei), discovered in 2007, is a small amphibian endemic to northeast Georgia (GA) and northwest South Carolina (SC), USA. Given its recent discovery, little is known about the species' conservation status. This is especially true in SC where this species is known from 4 stream localities in total, making monitoring and inventory a current priority. We applied 6 survey methods in 3 streams known to harbor the species (1 in GA; 2 in SC) using a randomized complete block design and conducted replicate surveys using each method 5 to 6 times between August 2021 and June 2022. We used occupancy models to estimate the probability of patch‐nosed salamanders using a randomly selected 5‐m stream segment while simultaneously investigating the effects of method and conditions on detectability. We recorded a total of 90 patch‐nosed salamander detections (60 from GA; 32 from SC) across 22 of the 39 stream segments in our study. Occupancy was similar in 2 streams (SCSouth: 0.94 [0.22 to −1.00 95% CI]; GARef: 0.70 [0.41–0.89 95% CI]) where it was also 3 to 4 times higher than in a third (SCNorth: 0.16 [0.04–0.47 95% CI]), though mechanisms driving the differences remain unclear. While we detected patch‐nosed salamanders with all 6 survey methods, aquatic and terrestrial versions of both leaf‐litter bags and area‐unconstrained surveys were more effective than randomized area‐constrained searches. Terrestrial applications of each method were biased toward adult detections while aquatic applications were biased toward larvae. Patch‐nosed salamander detectability was maximized during conditions (cloudless skies, >5 cm rainfall in the prior week, soil temperatures ≥20°C) that align with spring (March–June) in the species' range. A power analysis based on detectability estimates suggests that, under ideal sampling conditions, either 5 temporally replicated area‐unconstrained searches or a survey of 5 spatially replicated leaf‐litter bags (per 5‐m segment) are necessary to confirm presence‐absence of patch‐nosed salamanders with 90% confidence. Given that the 2 SC streams included in our study represent nearly half of the species' range in that state, but collectively yielded only about one‐third of total detections and exhibited considerable disparity in occupancy, we recommend more work to clarify resource selection patterns, subpopulation stability, and potential threats to patch‐nosed salamanders in SC specifically.

Using Spatial Capture–Recapture to Elucidate Population Processes and Space-Use in Herpetological Studies

Deciding where to put them: Sensitivity tests and independent evaluation are critical when using species distribution models to inform conservation translocations

Integrating Resource Selection Information with Spatial Capture-Recapture

A local evaluation of the individual state-space to scale up Bayesian spatial capture-recapture

Reducing uncertainty with iterative model updating parses effects of competition and environment on salamander occupancy

A comparison of detection probabilities for the patch‐nosed salamander (Urspelerpes brucei) using six survey methods

Modeling spatiotemporal abundance and movement dynamics using an integrated spatial capture-recapture movement model

A Unifying Model for Capture-Recapture and Distance Sampling Surveys of Wildlife Populations

Updated range map of an endangered salamander and congeneric competitor reveals different niche preferences

Incorporating telemetry information into capture‐recapture analyses improves precision and accuracy of abundance estimates given spatiotemporally biased recapture effort

Geostatistical capture–recapture models

An integrated path for spatial capture-recapture and animal movement modeling

Mechanistic home range capture-recapture models for the estimation of population density and landscape connectivity

Performance of different automatic photographic identification software for larvae and adults of the European fire salamander

A flexible framework for spatial capture-recapture with unknown identities

An easily implemented single‐visit survey method for intermittently available and imperfectly detectable wildlife applied to the Florida east coast diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin tequesta)

Local and landscape drivers of the number of individuals and genetic diversity of a microendemic and critically endangered salamander

Incorporating Memory into Continuous-Time Spatial Capture-Recapture Models

Estimating spatially-varying density and time-varying demographics with open population spatial capture-recapture: a photo-ID case study on bottlenose dolphins in Barataria Bay, Louisana, USA

A quantitative approach to ranking management actions for an endangered pool-breeding amphibian

Modeling Disease Dynamics From Spatially Explicit Capture‐Recapture Data