Comparison of Three Methods for Sampling Panfish in Iowa Impoundments

Abstract

Science‐based decision making in fisheries management requires the collection of sampling data with the acknowledgment that all gears have inherent sampling biases. Fyke nets are a common tool for sampling panfish. However, recent evaluations suggest hoop nets are more effective for evaluating these populations. We compared panfish relative abundance, size structure, condition, sampling effort to capture 100 individuals, and sampling precision for small (61 × 122‐cm frames) and large (91 × 183‐cm frames) fyke nets soaked for 24 h and tandem hoop nets soaked for 72 h during spring and fall. Hoop nets and large fyke nets captured more Bluegills Lepomis macrochirus, Black Crappies Pomoxis nigromaculatus, and White Crappies P. annularis than did small fyke nets, but catch rates for Redear Sunfish L. microlophus were similar among gear types. Bluegills captured in hoop nets were generally longer than those captured in small or large fyke nets, but the length of other panfish was similar among gears. Bluegill size structure was generally largest and Black Crappie size structure was generally smallest in hoop nets compared with that in fyke nets. Relative weight was greater for Bluegills captured in small fyke nets and was higher in the spring than fall. Hoop nets generally captured more panfish with fewer net sets and with greater precision than did small or large fyke nets, providing an additional tool for fisheries biologists for population assessments. Received March 4, 2016; accepted July 13, 2016 Published online October 28, 2016

Variation in Bluegill Catch Rates and Total Length Distributions among Four Sampling Gears Used in Two Wisconsin Lakes Dominated by Small Fish

“…; Flammang et al. ). Our results support previous literature stating that Bluegill sampling designs should consider the use of multiple sampling gears to adequately sample the entire population (Schultz and Haines ; Ruetz et al.…”

“…; Flammang et al. ). Conversely, no published studies have evaluated and compared the sampling effort required to detect changes in mean CPUE and TL of Bluegill populations using the gears we assessed or for populations with low size structure.…”

“…; Flammang et al. ), but its inability to capture small Bluegill highlights the utility of other gears (e.g., cloverleaf traps). Consequently, our findings align with previous studies suggesting that the representation of the entire fish population is strongly dependent upon sampling protocols.…”

“…; Flammang et al. ) and likely underestimate the relative abundance of smaller Bluegill that represent the majority of fish in many populations. In some instances, beach seines have been used in combination with gears that capture large Bluegill in greater numbers to obtain a more complete representation of populations (e.g., Weaver et al.…”

Estimating the Effects of Environmental Variables and Gear Type on Panfish Catch and Bycatch in Reservoirs

“…We found the standard North American-design fyke net to be more effective and efficient at capturing panfishes than the two hoop-net designs used in this study. Hoop nets often collect substantial numbers of panfish (Flammang et al 2016;Krogman 2019); however, we found that hoop nets produced different catch rates of target and nontarget species compared to fyke nets, which differed from the results of Flammang et al (2016). Numerous state natural resource agencies have implemented the standard fyke net in their sampling programs because this gear collects reliable panfish size structure and abundance data and allows for comparisons of populations across lakes and regions, which is critical for managing these important fisheries (Bonar et al 2009;Miranda and Boxrucker 2009;Fischer et al 2010;Flammang et al 2016;Krogman 2019).…”