DOCSLIB.ORG

Comparison of a Prepositioned Areal Electrofishing Device and Fixed Underwater Videography for Sampling Riverine Fishes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comparison of a Prepositioned Areal Electrofishing Device and Fixed Underwater Videography for Sampling Riverine Fishes Western North American Naturalist 78(1), © 2018, pp. 65–75 Comparison of a prepositioned areal electrofishing device and fixed underwater videography for sampling riverine fishes PHILIP R. B RANIGAN 1,5,* , M ICHAEL C. Q UIST 2, B RADLEY B. S HEPARD 3, AND SUSAN C. I RELAND 4 1Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Idaho, 875 Perimeter Dr. MS 1141, Moscow, ID 83844 2U.S. Geological Survey, Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Idaho, 875 Perimeter Dr. MS 1141, Moscow, ID 83844 3B.B. Shepard and Associates, 65 9th Street Island Dr., Livingston, MT 59047 4Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, Box 1269, Bonners Ferry, ID 83805 5Present address: Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 1414 E. Locust Ln., Nampa, ID 83686 ABSTRACT .—Prepositioned areal electrofishing devices (PAEDs) are used to evaluate microhabitat use by fishes because they minimize fright biases associated with traditional electrofishing techniques (e.g., boat electrofishing). Simi - larly, fixed underwater videography (FUV) is commonly used to minimize the effect of observers on fish behavior. The specific objectives of this research were to evaluate estimates of taxonomic occurrence and diversity between PAEDs and FUV and determine an appropriate time interval between positioning and electrifying of a PAED to reduce effects of PAED positioning on fish occurrence. Video cameras were positioned instream at 28 locations on the Kootenai River, Idaho, prior to PAED deployment such that the entire immobilization zone of the PAED was captured on camera. Fol - lowing a 4-min acclimation period, cameras recorded fish behavior approximately 15 min prior to and 20 min following PAED deployment. Electrical current was applied to the PAEDs for 20 s immediately following the FUV procedure, and immobilized fishes were collected and processed. Video footage was subsampled in the laboratory, and fishes in the video were identified and enumerated in 5-s or 20-s intervals. Fixed underwater videography sampled more taxa than PAEDs at any given site. However, fishes sampled with FUV were difficult to identify, and most individuals were classi - fied as “unidentifiable.” Consequently, direct comparisons between FUV and PAEDs are limited. Our results indicate that PAEDs should remain undisturbed for a minimum of 12 min before the equipment is electrified. Both PAEDs and FUV provide an estimate of taxonomic occurrence, but logistical and financial constraints along with project objectives must be considered when selecting between these 2 gear types. Results from this study provide information on the effectiveness of each gear type as it relates to the characterization of riverine fish assemblages at a small spatial scale. RESUMEN .— Los dispositivos de electropesca para áreas preposicionadas (PAED, por sus siglas en inglés) se utilizan para evaluar el uso que los peces hacen de los microhábitats, dado que minimizan la tendencia de los peces a huir aso - ciada a las técnicas tradicionales de electropesca (e.g., embarcaciones de electropesca). De manera similar, la videografía submarina fija (FUV, por sus siglas en inglés) se utiliza, comúnmente, para minimizar el impacto de los observadores sobre el comportamiento de los peces. Los objetivos específicos de esta investigación fueron comparar los estimados obtenidos de presencia taxonómica y diversidad de los PAED y la FUV, y determinar un intervalo de tiempo apropiado entre la colocación y el electrificado de los PAED, que reduzca el efecto de la instalación de los PAED en la presencia de peces. Las cámaras de video se colocaron en 28 sitios dentro del río Kootenai, Idaho, previo a la instalación de los PAED, de tal forma que la cámara pudiera captar toda la zona de inmovilización de los PAED. Luego de un período de aclimatación de cuatro minutos, las cámaras registraron el comportamiento de los peces aproximadamente 15 minutos antes y 20 minutos después de la implementación de los PAED. Se aplicó corriente eléctrica a los PAED durante 20 segundos e inmediatamente después el procedimiento de la FUV, y se recogieron y procesaron los peces inmoviliza - dos. El archivo de video fue submuestreado en el laboratorio, donde los peces fueron identificados y enumerados en intervalos de 5 a 20 segundos. La videografía submarina fija muestreó mayor cantidad de taxa que los PAED en cual - quier sitio. Sin embargo, los peces muestreados con FUV fueron difíciles de identificar, siendo la mayoría clasificados como “no identificables”. Por lo tanto, las comparaciones directas entre las FUV y los PAED son limitadas. Nuestros resultados indican que los PAED deben permanecer intactos durante un mínimo de 12 minutos antes de electrificar el equipo. Tanto los PAED como las FUV proporcionan un estimado de presencia taxonómica. Sin embargo, las limitacio - nes logísticas y financieras, junto con los objetivos del proyecto deben ser considerados al elegir entre estos dos tipos de dispositivos. Los resultados de este estudio proporcionan información sobre la eficacia de cada tipo de dispositivo en lo que respecta a la caracterización de conjuntos de peces ribereños en una escala espacial pequeña. *Corresponding author: [email protected] PRB orcid.org/0000-0003-3799-0573 65 66 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN NATURALIST (2018), V OL . 78 N O. 1, P AGES 65 –75 Understanding the relationship between sampling gear. A variety of gears have been fishes and their environment has long been an used to sample riverine fishes (e.g., seines, gill important focus of fish scientists (Rosenfeld nets, electrofishing, snorkeling; Bonar et al. 2003, Fisher et al. 2012). Resource use and 2009). Electrofishing is generally considered partitioning by lotic fishes regulate the struc - the most effective gear type for sampling cold - ture of fish assemblages, particularly at small water fishes in rivers because it minimizes the spatial scales (Gorman and Karr 1978, Ross mortality, injury, and size selectivity that are 1986). Aquatic habitats are often considered often associated with other gears (e.g., gill nets within the context of a hierarchy, where upper- and hoop nets; Curry et al. 2009). However, level processes occur over long temporal and active electrofishing techniques (i.e., boat or large spatial scales (e.g., a watershed) and lower- backpack electrofishing) are conducted by per - level processes occur over shorter temporal and sonnel who maneuver the electrodes through smaller spatial scales (e.g., channel units; Quist the water and the resulting disturbance can et al. 2005). Microhabitat data are an integral drive fish from their original location (“fright component of this hierarchy because they bias”; Bovee 1982). Because microhabitat use reflect specific habitat conditions (e.g., depths, occurs at a small scale, precautionary measures current velocities) selected by stream fishes must be taken to sample fishes from their natu - and can be used to understand habitat require - rally selected habitats and not from habitats ments and distributions of fishes. used in response to sampling. Reductions in habitat quality and quantity To reduce the influence of fright bias, have been identified as primary factors that prepositioned areal electrofishing devices contribute to declining freshwater fauna popu - (PAEDs) are often used to sample fishes lations across North America (Ricciardi and when evaluating microhabitat use (Bain et al. Rasmussen 1999). Large rivers have been 1985, Reynolds and Kolz 2012, Dauwalter et extensively modified by water development al. 2014). Prepositioned areal electrofishing (e.g., dams, levees, diversions) to serve socie - devices use fixed electrodes that are deployed tal needs (e.g., power generation, flood con - prior to the sampling event and remain un - trol, navigational routes; Nilsson et al. 2005, disturbed for a period of time. After an allot - Dudgeon et al. 2006). In an effort to mitigate ted amount of time has passed (commonly habitat degradation, natural resource and referred to as the PAED “set time”), current is conservation agencies have implemented over applied and the fish are immobilized. Typi - 37,000 habitat improvement projects on rivers cally, the design of a PAED is relatively incon - and streams in the United States (Bernhardt spicuous compared to other passive sampling et al. 2005). Habitat improvement programs gears (e.g., hoop nets and trap nets), thereby lead to species recovery, particularly by minimizing the effect of gear avoidance or enhancing instream habitat or by reconnecting attraction by fishes. Additionally, PAEDs sam - isolated habitats (Roni et al. 2008). An integral ple a discrete area, allowing the investigator component of the habitat improvement to quantify habitat characteristics that reflect process is to establish a monitoring program those selected by fishes at a small scale. An that can effectively evaluate the response of important assumption when using PAEDs is the fish assemblage to improvements (Kondolf that fish return to the sampling area follow - and Micheli 1995, Palmer et al. 2005). Unfor - ing the initial disturbance associated with tunately, many monitoring programs have deploying the gear. focused on the physical responses to instream Direct observation techniques are com - habitat improvements and have neglected to monly used to characterize fish assemblages thoroughly address the biological responses in natural environments (Thurow et al. 2012). (Roni et al. 2002). Arguably, assessing the bio - Direct observation methods have been used to logical
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Guidelines for Electrofishing Waters Containing Salmonids Listed Under
    National Guidelines for Electrofishing Waters Marine Fisheries Containing Salmonids Listed Under Service the Endangered Species Act June 2000 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this document is to provide guidelines for the safe use of backpack electrofishing in waters containing salmonids listed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). It is expected that these guidelines will help improve electrofishing technique in ways which will reduce fish injury and increase electrofishing efficiency. These guidelines and sampling protocol were developed from NMFS research experience and input from specialists in the electrofishing industry and fishery researchers. This document outlines electrofishing procedures and guidelines that NMFS has determined to be necessary and advisable when working in freshwater systems where threatened or endangered salmon and steelhead may be found. As such, the guidelines provide a basis for reviewing proposed electrofishing activities submitted to NMFS in the context of ESA Section 10 permit applications as well as scientific research activities proposed for coverage under an ESA Section 4(d) rule. These guidelines specifically address the use of backpack electrofishers for sampling juvenile or adult salmon and steelhead that are not in spawning condition. Electrofishing in the vicinity of adult salmonids in spawning condition and electrofishing near redds are not discussed as there is no justifiable basis for permitting these activities except in very limited situations (e.g., collecting brood stock, fish rescue, etc.). The guidelines also address sampling and fish handling protocols typically employed in electrofishing studies. While the guidelines contain many specifics, they are not intended to serve as an electrofishing manual and do not eliminate the need for good judgement in the field.
    [Show full text]
  • Chatfield Reservoir
    Chatfield Reservoir FISH SURVEY AND MANAGEMENT DATA Paul Winkle, Aquatic Biologist, Denver [email protected] / 303-291-7232 General Information: Chatfield Reservoir, a 1355 acre storage reservoir, offers good fishing for small- mouth bass, rainbow trout, channel catfish and trophy walleye. For park hours, fees, and other information: http://cpw.state.co.us/placestogo/Parks/Chatfield Location: Chatfield State Park, between S. Santa Fe Drive (U.S. 85) on the east, and S. Wadsworth on the west. From S. Wadsworth go south past C-470 about 1/4 mile and turn east into the park entrance. Recreational Management: Colorado Parks and Wildlife (303-791-7275) and Army Corps of Engineers. Fishery Management: Warm and Cold water species Annual Survey Data: (see page 2) Amenities and General Info. Previous Stocking Sportfishing Notes Boat Ramps (2) 2017 Walleye Picnic Areas Rainbow Trout Big walleye are present in Camping Channel Catfish good number because the Restrooms Walleye regulations protect large fish. Swim Beach 2016 These regulations give an- Marina Rainbow Trout glers an opportunity to catch Hiking trails Channel Catfish trophy size walleye, while Canoe/Kayak rentals Walleye still allowing CPW to run a Horseback Riding 2015 egg take operation that sup- Model Airplane Field Rainbow Trout plies other Colorado waters Channel Catfish with young walleye. Fishing Regulations Walleye Fish can be difficult to catch Minimum size for walleyes 2014 due to the large population of is 18” long. The daily bag Rainbow Trout gizzard shad, their primary limit for walleye is 3 fish. Channel Catfish forage food. Only 1 walleye longer than Walleye Anglers are successful using 21” can be taken per day.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Policy, Legal, and Institutional Arrangements for Philippine Compliance with the Wcpf Convention
    REVIEW OF POLICY, LEGAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR PHILIPPINE COMPLIANCE WITH THE WCPF CONVENTION Jay L. Batongbacal TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. THE WCPF CONVENTION 3 2.1 General Background 3 2.1.1 The Commission 4 2.1.2 The Secretariat and Subsidiary Bodies 5 A. Secretariat 5 B. Other Subsidiary Bodies 6 B.1 Scientific Committee 6 B.2 Technical and Compliance Committee 6 B.3 Northern Committee 7 2.1.3 Decision-making 7 2.1.4 Cooperation with Other Organizations 8 2.1.5 Financial Arrangements 8 2.2 Management Policy in the Convention Area 8 2.2.1 Precautionary Approach 8 2.2.2 Ecosystem-based Approach 9 2.2.3 Compatibility of Measures 10 2.2.4 Due Regard for Disadvantaged and Good Faith 11 2.2.5 Management Actions 11 2.3 Member's Obligations 12 2.3.1 General Obligations 12 2.3.2 Compliance and Enforcement Obligations 13 A. Flag State Obligations 13 B. Boarding and Inspection 14 C. Investigation 15 D. Punitive Measures 17 E. Port State Measures 17 2.4 Conservation and Management Measures 18 2.4.1 Fishing Vessel Registry Standards 18 A. Vessel Marking and Identification 18 B. Authorization to Fish 19 C. Record of Authorized Fishing Vessels 20 D. Commission Vessel Monitoring System 21 E. IUU Vessel 'Blacklisting' 21 F. Charter Notification Scheme 22 G. Vessel Without Nationality 22 2.4.2 Fishing Operation Regulations 23 A. Transhipment 23 B. Gear Restrictions 24 C. Catch Retention 25 D. Area/Season Closures 25 E. Mitigation Measures 26 2.4.3 Species-specific Restrictions 27 2.5 Other 'Soft' Obligations 28 2.6 Peaceful Settlement of Disputes 29 3.
    [Show full text]
  • FISHING NEWSLETTER 2020/2021 Table of Contents FWP Administrative Regions and Hatchery Locations
    FISHING NEWSLETTER 2020/2021 Table of Contents FWP Administrative Regions and Hatchery Locations .........................................................................................3 Region 1 Reports: Northwest Montana ..........................................................................................................5 Region 2 Reports: West Central Montana .....................................................................................................17 Region 3 Reports: Southwest Montana ........................................................................................................34 Region 4 Reports: North Central Montana ...................................................................................................44 Region 5 Reports: South Central Montana ...................................................................................................65 Region 6 Reports: Northeast Montana ........................................................................................................73 Region 7 Reports: Southeast Montana .........................................................................................................86 Montana Fish Hatchery Reports: .......................................................................................................................92 Murray Springs Trout Hatchery ...................................................................................................................92 Washoe Park Trout Hatchery .......................................................................................................................93
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts of Fishing Line and Other Litter by Deborah Weisberg
    Impacts of Fishing Line and Other Litter by Deborah Weisberg During cleanup of the North Branch of the Susquehanna River, a canoe barge was crafted and used to transport photo-Melissa Rohm heavy debris out of a shallow water inlet. Dave Miko has seen a lot of strange sights as Division of It has spurred some conservationists to try to avert more Fisheries Management chief for the Pennsylvania Fish & losses. According to trout guide George Daniel of TCO Fly Boat Commission (PFBC). Shop in State College, Trout Unlimited chapters in central But, few compare to the hourglass-shaped trout he has Pennsylvania have stepped up landowner outreach efforts as encountered on streams, where they have grown around fishing pressure mounts on Penn’s Creek, the Little Juniata plastic bottleneck rings that someone tossed into the water. River and other blue-ribbon streams. “I have seen it twice when I was electrofishing, so it On Lake Erie, the Pennsylvania Steelhead Association probably happens even more,” said Miko. “I cut the rings and and other groups make litter pickups and goodwill gestures hoped for the best, but it’s sad and disturbing.” towards landowners a major part of their mission. With More often, angler and boater carelessness takes other PFBC spending millions of dollars to acquire easements on forms, as evidenced by bait cups, plastic water bottles and Elk Creek, Walnut Creek and other popular fisheries, this tangled fishing lines that blight stream banks and lake shores. kind of private-sector support helps lay the groundwork for It takes thousands of years for petroleum-based plastics to future access purchases.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishing for Fairness Poverty, Morality and Marine Resource Regulation in the Philippines
    Fishing for Fairness Poverty, Morality and Marine Resource Regulation in the Philippines Asia-Pacific Environment Monograph 7 Fishing for Fairness Poverty, Morality and Marine Resource Regulation in the Philippines Michael Fabinyi Published by ANU E Press The Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200, Australia Email: [email protected] This title is also available online at: http://epress.anu.edu.au/ National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Author: Fabinyi, Michael. Title: Fishing for fairness [electronic resource] : poverty, morality and marine resource regulation in the Philippines / Michael Fabinyi. ISBN: 9781921862656 (pbk.) 9781921862663 (ebook) Notes: Includes bibliographical references and index. Subjects: Fishers--Philippines--Attitudes. Working poor--Philippines--Attitudes. Marine resources--Philippines--Management. Dewey Number: 333.91609599 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Cover design and layout by ANU E Press Cover image: Fishers plying the waters of the Calamianes Islands, Palawan Province, Philippines, 2009. Printed by Griffin Press This edition © 2012 ANU E Press Contents Foreword . ix Acknowledgements . xiii Selected Tagalog Glossary . xvii Abbreviations . xviii Currency Conversion Rates . xviii 1 . Introduction: Fishing for Fairness . 1 2 . Resource Frontiers: Palawan, the Calamianes Islands and Esperanza . 21 3 . Economic, Class and Status Relations in Esperanza . 53 4 . The ‘Poor Moral Fisher’: Local Conceptions of Environmental Degradation, Fishing and Poverty in Esperanza . 91 5 . Fishing, Dive Tourism and Marine Protected Areas . 121 6 . Fishing in Marine Protected Areas: Resistance, Youth and Masculinity .
    [Show full text]
  • 7 JUN 30 PZ 155 of the REPUBLIC of the PHILIPPINES ) FIRST REGULAR SESSION 1 >,E.,I., ' '% SENATE ' ' 4;) ~~~~~Lv~*: Senate Bill No
    FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 1 7 JUN 30 PZ 155 OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) FIRST REGULAR SESSION 1 >,e.,I., ' '% SENATE ' ' 4;) ~~~~~lV~*: Senate Bill No. 171 , Introduced by Sen. M.A.Madrigal EXPLANATORY NOTE The Tubbataha Reef is located within Central Sulu Sea. It is part of the Sulu West Sea Marine Triangle under the jurisdiction of Cagayancillo, Palawan. It is made up of two atolls, the North Reef and South Reef. The Tubbataha Reef is home to seven (7) species of seagrasses, which are food for the endangered marine turtle, and seventy-one (71) algae, and four hundred seventy-nine species of marine fishes. Eighty-six percent (86%) of the total coral species in the Philippines are found in Tubbataha Reef area. The fish biomass in the Tubbataha Reef is more than average. It is the rookery of twenty-three species of migratory and resident sea birds, some of which is globally threatened. It is a nesting ground for two species of endangered marine turtles. Due to its biodiversity and ecological significance, the Tubbataha Reef Natural Park was declared a protected sanctuary in August 2006 through Presidential Proclamation No. 1126. In line with the State's policy of securing for the Filipino people of present and future generations the perpetual existence of all native plants and animals, it is incumbent upon the Congress to enact a law to provide for the management, protection, sustainable development and rehabilitation of the Tubattaha Reef Natural Park. This shall be established within the framework of the National Integrated Protected Area System (NIPAS) Act, or Republic Act of 7586, while considering the welfare and recognizing the rights of all the communities living therein especially the indigenous peoples.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Fisheries Livelihood Program (RFLP) (GCP/RAS/237/SPA)
    Regional Fisheries Livelihood Program (RFLP) (GCP/RAS/237/SPA) Output 5: Facilitated access to microfinance services for fishers, processors and vendors. FAO-Commissioned APRACA FishFinance Scoping Mission A consolidated report of the results and recommendations of the APRACA National Consultants from the six (6) countries covered by the RFLP. This document is an output from a project funded by the Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores y de Cooperación (MAEC) of Spain and implemented by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). The views expressed here are not necessarily those of the MAEC neither of the FAO. Consolidated by: Xavier Tezzo February 2011 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Acronyms.......................................................................................................... 8 List of Figures ............................................................................................................ 11 Currencies ................................................................................................................. 12 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 13 Background ................................................................................................................ 13 Purpose of the scoping mission ................................................................................ 14 Consultancy team and schedule of activities ............................................................ 15 Structure of the report
    [Show full text]
  • Natchez State Park Lake 2021 REEL FACTS Ryan Jones – Fisheries Biologist [email protected] (601) 859-3421
    Natchez State Park Lake 2021 REEL FACTS Ryan Jones – Fisheries Biologist [email protected] (601) 859-3421 General Information: Natchez State Park Lake is a 230 acre park lake producing quality bass, crappie, bream, and catfish every year. The lake also holds the state record Largemouth Bass (18.15 lbs.), which was caught in 1992. Location: Approximately 10 miles north of Natchez off State Park Rd. Fishery Management: Largemouth Bass, bream, crappie, and catfish. Lake Depth Map: https://www.mdwfp.com/media/5420/natchez-park-lake.pdf Purchase a Fishing License: https://www.ms.gov/mdwfp/hunting_fishing/ Amenities Regulations Fishing Tips Bream • 1 boat ramp with courtesy • Fishing is not allowed from • Try crickets, red wigglers, piers, parking lot, and the courtesy piers adjacent and wax worms in shallow public restroom to boat ramp. areas along the dam and • 2 handicapped fishing around the cabins. piers • Rod and reel or pole • 50 camping pads with fishing is allowed. No Catfish water/electric hookups, 10 trotlines, FFFD’s, jugs, yo- • Try tightlining liver or blood cabins, and 8 tent sites yo’s, limblines, throwlines, scented bait along deep • 9 hole disc golf course, 6 or set hooks are allowed. drop offs of main lake picnic sites, playground, points and creek channels. pavilion, and nature trail • Sport fishing licenses and fishing permits are Crappie Creel and Size Limits required except on • Fish standing timber and designated days during brush around the main • Bream: 100 per day National Fishing and lake creek channels. Boating Week. Vertical jigging is popular • Catfish: 10 per day with jigs and minnows.
    [Show full text]
  • Electrofishing, Trap Netting and Fisheries Biologists Attempt to Answer This Important Question Negatively Affected
    SurveySurvey Says... Says... In Nebraska, much of this attention begins in the form of fish surveys. Commission fisheries biologists essentially conduct two types of surveys. Text and photos by Jeff Kurrus The first, and simpler, method is an angler survey that is used periodically to try and determine how many anglers are accessing a given body of water, how many hours they are fishing, and how many fish are they catching. ...a lot, as far as a fishery is concerned. Anchored in science, fish surveys are an This information is then compared to data from past years to help biologists invaluable part of fisheries management and provide both short- and long-term determine whether any changes need to be made to management practices in place for that particular body of water. estimates regarding the health of a water body. Complementing that type of data are the annual netting surveys conducted on many of Nebraska’s lakes and reservoirs. These surveys, ow’s the fishing?” and “Catching any?” are two of as well as they can, but it’s not always easy. based in scientific theory and empirical data, provide consistent methods for the most asked questions heard on any of Numerous factors can affect the dynamics of a fishery – analyzing a fishery’s health. Nebraska’s approximately 500 public fishing summer and winterkill; overharvest; drought and floods; and Because not all fish use the same type of habitat, however, no single When surveying, scales are taken below the waters. A better question, however, would be too much or not enough aquatic vegetation.
    [Show full text]
  • Electrofishing for Freshwater Fish
    Freshwater fish: electrofishing— fixed reach Version 1.1 This specification was prepared by Michael Lake in 2013. Contents Synopsis .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Assumptions .................................................................................................................................... 2 Advantages ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Disadvantages ................................................................................................................................. 4 Suitability for inventory ..................................................................................................................... 5 Suitability for monitoring ................................................................................................................... 5 Skills ................................................................................................................................................ 5 Resources ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Minimum attributes .......................................................................................................................... 7 Data storage ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Day Electrofishing, Night Electrofishing, and Trap Netting for Sampling Inshore Fish in Minnesota Lakes1
    Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Special Publication 161, January 2004 COMPARISON OF DAY ELECTROFISHING, NIGHT ELECTROFISHING, AND TRAP NETTING FOR SAMPLING INSHORE FISH IN MINNESOTA LAKES1 Michael C. McInerny and Timothy K. Cross Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 20596 Highway 7 Hutchinson, MN 55350 USA Abstract. -- We compared fish samples collected with pulsed DC boom electrofishing during the day, the same type of electrofishing at night, and trap netting during four sampling periods (spring, early summer, late summer, and fall) in six Minnesota lakes. Night elec- trofishing captured 30 fish species, day electrofishing captured 27 species, and trap nets cap- tured 20 species in these lakes. Four species were captured most frequently with day electrofishing, 13 species were captured most frequently with night electrofishing, and 10 species were captured most frequently with trap nets. Trap nets usually caught larger golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas, yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis, sunfish Lepomis spp., yellow perch Perca flavescens, and walleye Sander vitreus than either type of electrofishing. Both types of electrofishing captured similar sized individuals of all species. Based on catch per sample site, trap netting during spawning, also when aquatic macrophyte densities were low, effectively captured all three bullhead species and both crappie species, but this gear was ineffective for capturing largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides, smallmouth bass M. dolomieu, and all small nongame species during all times of the year. Both types of elec- trofishing were usually more effective in capturing most species during late summer or fall when submergent aquatic macrophyte densities were highest. However, day electrofishing was ineffective for capturing walleye, and both electrofishing times were ineffective in sam- pling either crappie species.
    [Show full text]