Sampling a Littoral Fish Assemblage: Comparison of Small‐Mesh Fyke Netting and Boat Electrofishing

Abstract

We compared small‐mesh (4‐mm) fyke netting and boat electrofishing for sampling a littoral fish assemblage in Muskegon Lake, Michigan. We hypothesized that fyke netting selects for small‐bodied fishes and electrofishing selects for large‐bodied fishes. Three sites were sampled during May (2004 and 2005), July (2005 only), and September (2004 and 2005). We found that the species composition of captured fish differed considerably between fyke netting and electrofishing based on nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS). Species strongly associated with fyke netting (based on NMDS and relative abundance) included the brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus, banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus, round goby Neogobius melanostomus, mimic shiner Notropis volucellus, and bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus, whereas species associated with electrofishing included the Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, catostomids (Moxostoma spp. and Catostomus spp.), freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens, walleye Sander vitreus, gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum, and common carp Cyprinus carpio. The total length of fish captured by electrofishing was 12.8 cm (95% confidence interval = 5.5–17.2 cm) greater than that of fish captured by fyke netting. Size selectivity of the gears contributed to differences in species composition of the fish captured, supporting our initial hypothesis. Thus, small‐mesh fyke nets and boat electrofishers provided complementary information on a littoral fish assemblage. Our results support use of multiple gear types in monitoring and research surveys of fish assemblages.

An environmental assessment of a small shallow lake (Little Black Lake, MI) threatened by urbanization

“…1). We deployed three smallmesh fyke nets (described in Ruetz et al 2007) and two minnow traps at each site. Gears were deployed between 9:00 and 11:30 a.m. the previous day to allow the gears to fish for about 24.6 h. All the fish captured were identified and measured (total length) to the nearest 1 mm.…”

Small – but not easy: Evaluation of sampling methods in floodplain lakes including whole-lake sampling

“…Rather, Fago (1998) obtained a more accurate estimate of species composition by combining the results from both methods. Likewise, Ruetz et al (2007), when testing boat electrofishing strategies against fyke nets, concluded that multiple gear types should be used in monitoring surveys of fish assemblages. Similar results are described by Jackson and Harvey (1997) using different types of traps and gill nets in lakes.…”

Round goby predation onDreissenain coastal areas of eastern Lake Michigan

“…We used round goby densities of 5-15 individuals/m 2 in enclosures, which are not uncommon in the Great Lakes (Ray and Corkum 2001;Barton et al 2005;Johnson et al 2005) with densities as high as 133 individuals/m 2 reported in areas of Lake Michigan (Chotkowski and Marsden 1999). However, the size and density of round gobies in cages were likely greater than round gobies inhabiting littoral habitats in Muskegon Lake given the size and number of round gobies collected in fyke nets (Cooper et al 2007(Cooper et al , 2009Ruetz et al 2007). …”

“…We hypothesize that habitat type is critical for predicting the effect of round goby predation on Dreissena density. For example, in areas of SAV in coastal lakes of eastern Lake Michigan, round goby are not likely to strongly reduce Dreissena densities because of the size structure of round gobies (i.e., more small individuals) and round gobies are likely consuming energy rich non-mussel invertebrates rather than Dreissena as their dominant food source (Cooper et al 2007(Cooper et al , 2009Ruetz et al 2007Ruetz et al , 2009). Our hypothesis should apply beyond eastern Lake Michigan and should be tested in other areas in North America and Europe where the round goby is invading.…”

“…The 24-mm exclosures allowed round gobies ( 15.0 cm TL) access to bricks while excluding larger predators (i.e., fish, mammals, birds, and turtles that were unable to pass through the 24-mm mesh). Round gobies too large to physically pass through the 24-mm mesh are seldom encountered in and around our study sites (Clapp et al 2001;Ruetz et al 2007;Cooper et al 2007Cooper et al , 2009). We assumed that any predation on Dreissena in the 24-mm-mesh exclosures was primarily due to the round goby because other small-bodied fishes, such as johnny darter (Etheostoma nigrum) or logperch (Percina caprodes), were unlikely to consume Dreissena (French and Jude 2001) and we encountered very few crayfish during our field work (CRR, personal observation).…”