Inter‐calibration of three electric fishing techniques to estimate 0+ juvenile fish densities on sandy river beaches

Janáč, Michal; Jurajda, Pavel

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2400.2005.00438.x

Cited by 15 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fish sampling was performed using the point abundance sampling approach (PAS, see Nelva et al, 1979;Persat and Copp, 1990;Janác and Jurajda, 2005) with an electric fishing apparatus (EFKO F.E.G. 8000, 30 cm anode diameter, 400-600 V, 6-10 A).…”

Section: Fish Samplingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selective use and spatial distribution of native and non‐native fish in wetland habitats

Carpentier

Paillisson

2008

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceWetland habitats are crucial for many fish species as spawning, feeding or nursery areas, but the major factors that govern their use by fish are poorly identified. In the present study, we aim to investigate the selective use and the spatial distribution of native and non-native fish species in different types of wetland habitats (grasslands and reed beds) in a large freshwater marsh (North Western France). The selective use was measured by comparing the community that uses wetland habitats to the total community of the marsh (sampled in the permanent aquatic habitats (canals) during the low water period). The spatial distribution was studied by analyzing the presence probability of fish in wetland habitats as a function of the distance from adjacent canals. All sampled wetland habitats were occupied by fish, and the fish community in wetland habitats was dominated by three native (Abramis brama, Scardinius erythrophthalmus and Anguilla anguilla) and three non-native (Ameiurus melas, Gambusia holbrooki and Lepomis gibbosus) species. Species richness and total fish abundance differed between canals and wetland habitats as a consequence of a variable propensity to use wetland habitats by native (avoidance and preference) and non-native (no preference) species. Non-native species were also more abundant in reed beds than in grassland while no differences were observed for native species. Universally, the presence probability of fish always decreased in wetland habitats as the distance from the canals increased and only a narrow area, close to canals (50–80 m), was well used by fish. However, non-native fish species used over greater distances in reed beds than in grasslands while no differences were observed for native species. Variable interpretations related to species tolerance, reproductive guilds or diet are proposed to understand the mechanisms that might explain the widespread success of non-native species in this spatially varying environment

show abstract

Section: Fish Samplingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selective use and spatial distribution of native and non‐native fish in wetland habitats

Carpentier

Paillisson

2008

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Imperfect detection can be a general issue when surveying fish populations due to, for example, inefficiencies that arise from issues of fish size and water depth that inhibit capture (Janac and Jurajda, 2005;Cowx et al, 2001;Copp et al, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying imperfect detection in an invasive pest fish and the implications for conservation management

Britton

Pegg

Gozlan

2011

Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

27 28In managing non-native species, surveillance programmes aim to minimise the 29 opportunity for invasions to develop from initial introductions through early detection. 30However, this is dependent on surveillance methods being able to detect species at 31 low levels of abundance to avoid false-negative recordings through imperfect 32 detection. We investigated through field experimentation the ability to detect 33 Pseudorasbora parva, a highly invasive pest fish in Europe, in relation to their known 34 density and sampling method. Secure pond mesocosms of area 100 m 2 contained P. 35 parva densities from 0.02 to 5.0 m -2 ; each density was in triplicate. These were 36 searched using point sampling electric fishing and deployment of fish traps (non-37 baited and baited). No fish were captured at densities < 0.5 m -2 using any method and 38 this was considered their detection threshold. Point sample electric fishing was the 39 least effective detection method, producing high proportions of false-negative data 40 even at high fish densities. Baited traps were the most effective detection method. 41Probability of detection of P. parva was 1.0 for baited traps at all densities > 0.5 m -2 , 42 whereas for electric fishing it only exceeded 0.95 at 5.0 m -2 using high searching 43 effort. These data reveal that small pest fishes such as Pseudorasbora parva may be 44 prone to imperfect detection when at low densities and this is consistent with a 45 number of other invasive species. This indicates the importance of designing 46 surveillance programmes using methods of known statistical power to optimise 47 conservation resource expenditure and enhance management outcomes. 48 49

show abstract

References

2016

Electricity in Fish Research and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Inter‐calibration of three electric fishing techniques to estimate 0+ juvenile fish densities on sandy river beaches

Cited by 15 publications

References 18 publications

Selective use and spatial distribution of native and non‐native fish in wetland habitats

Selective use and spatial distribution of native and non‐native fish in wetland habitats

Quantifying imperfect detection in an invasive pest fish and the implications for conservation management

References

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About