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

Jurajda, Pavel; Janáč, Michal; White, Seth M.; Ondračková, Markéta

doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2008.09.005

Cited by 18 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…cernua (Kottelat & Freyhof, ), which had the highest detection probability using seining in the present study, as well as in the study by Jurajda et al . (), seining can be a valuable method. Moreover, in cases where electrofishing is not possible due to logistics or conservation issues, seining can be a more appropriate method (Nielsen, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…() from seining in shallow side‐arms of the Detroit River and by Jurajda et al . () in small flood‐plain borrow pits.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consequently, different net‐based (seining, gillnetting, fyke netting, use of baited fish traps, baited lift netting), hook‐and‐line based (angling, longline fishing) and visual fish‐sampling methods (snorkelling) as well as electrofishing were selected for the comparative study. These methods are listed in CEN () or had previously been applied or suggested for the use in lentic flood‐plain water bodies or lakes, but have to the best of the authors' knowledge never been systematically compared for their applicability to fish sampling in typical backwaters of large rivers (electrofishing and point abundance sampling in large rivers, Persat & Copp, ; electrofishing, fyke netting and seining in lakes, Fago, ; fyke netting and electrofishing in small ponds, Basler & Schramm, ; electrofishing, seining, multi‐mesh gillnetting, fyke netting in stagnant flood‐plain water bodies of large flood‐plain rivers, De Leeuw et al ., ; seining and electrofishing in flood‐plain lakes, Jurajda et al ., ; bottom trawls, fyke netting, multi‐mesh gillnetting, longline fishing, drift netting, day and night electrofishing in an impoundment of the River Inn, Schotzko & Gassner, ; fyke netting, gillnetting and electrofishing in flood‐plain lakes, Eggleton et al ., ; gillnetting, seining, trawling and hydroacoustics in lakes, Jurvelius et al ., ; gillnetting, electrofishing and hydroacoustics in alpine lakes, Achleitner et al ., ). Specifically, it was hypothesized that (1) low‐activity methods ( e .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of nine different methods to assess fish communities in lentic flood‐plain habitats

Mueller

Pander

Knott

et al. 2017

Journal of Fish Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compares the effectiveness and representativeness of electrofishing, snorkelling, seining, baited lift netting, multi-mesh gillnetting, baited fish traps, fyke netting, angling and longline fishing, considering three typical lentic flood-plain habitats at different times of day. Electrofishing was by far the most effective method yielding highest species richness, species trait representation and catch per unit of effort (CPUE), followed by seining. For single species like dace Leuciscus leuciscus, European ruffe Gymnocephalus cernua, common bream Abramis brama and silver bream Blicca bjoerkna, seining was more effective than electrofishing. With both methods, some species were more consistently caught during night, dusk or dawn than during daylight. All other methods tested cannot be generally recommended for fish community assessments in shallow backwaters due to their low representativeness of species inventory and generally low CPUE. Based on these results, electrofishing of 30 m transect replicates at different times of day for monitoring the fish community in shallow backwaters, can be recommended, enabling the maximum possible comparability to adjacent river habitats. Seining should be considered as an alternative if accessibility of habitats is restricted or electrofishing is prohibited. The 25 species detected in the backwaters also suggest that these habitats contribute a large proportion of fish diversity and should be included in standard assessments of river ecological status.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…() from seining in shallow side‐arms of the Detroit River and by Jurajda et al . () in small flood‐plain borrow pits.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of nine different methods to assess fish communities in lentic flood‐plain habitats

Mueller

Pander

Knott

et al. 2017

Journal of Fish Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, Jurajda et al . (), who also used a seine net with 10‐mm mesh size and compared it with point‐sample electrofishing and continuous electrofishing, reported that estimates of the size structure of the fish assemblages obtained using the beach seine were similar to those obtained by electrofishing.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Geomorphology and Flooding Shape Fish Distribution in a Large‐scale Temperate Floodplain

Górski

Buijse

Winter

et al. 2012

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Natural river‐floodplain systems are characterized by their dynamic hydrology and diverse geomorphology resulting in a wide range of habitats that support high fish diversity and production. Various factors (e.g. hydrological dynamics, water quality, and biotic processes) have been proposed to explain fish distribution in large river floodplains, but it is still widely acknowledged that the mechanisms involved may vary in diverse floodplain systems and that they are not fully understood. To determine how flooding dynamics and floodplain geomorphology influence fish species distributions across the Volga‐Akhtuba floodplain, Russian Federation, we examined the distributions of eight species with respect to variables reflecting floodplain hydrology and geomorphology. On the basis of fish catches in 40 floodplain water bodies at the end of summer in 2006–2008, we found that frequency of occurrence of most fish species remained stable along the time. The distribution of fish species was strongly influenced by the size and shape of water bodies as well as flood extent. Therefore, the long‐term flood variability that drives the geomorphic heterogeneity of the floodplain creates suitable habitats across ranges of fish flow guilds (rheophilic, eurytopic, and limnophilic), resulting in high diversity of the floodplain ichthyofauna. We conclude that this diverse habitat availability is a highly significant factor influencing fish distribution in the Volga‐Akhtuba floodplain. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

“…Unbiased estimates of fish community structures in still waters are challenging even in small water bodies (Pot et al. 1984; Jurajda et al. 2009; Winfield et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of three standardised fish sampling methods in 14 alpine lakes in Austria

Achleitner

Gassner

Luger

2012

Fisheries Management Eco

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standardised fishing methods using gillnets (EN 14575), electric fishing (EN 14011) and hydroacoustics (WI 00230244 CEN enquiry) to estimate species composition, abundance, biomass and size distribution were compared in 14 alpine lakes >50 ha. More fish species were detected using benthic gillnets (mean = 72.7%) than electric fishing (mean = 59.5%) and pelagic gillnets (mean = 29.6%). For all but two lakes, additional information from a local fisheries manager was required to obtain a complete list of species. Biomass data generated by standardised gillnetting and hydroacoustic surveys were not fully comparable, but a positive correlation was found. Gill netting and hydroacoustics both indicated a nearly fishless habitat below 75 m, which confirmed the maximum required fishing depth according to the European Standard EN 14757. Size distributions obtained from gillnet and hydroacoustic surveys differed statistically for large fish (>40 cm). Each standardised method reflected typical shortcomings. The European standard (EN 14757) should be amended for pelagic fish habitat in deep alpine lakes to include sampling effort corresponding to water volume, and additional gillnets with larger mesh sizes (e.g. 70 mm). Furthermore, the electric fishing standard (EN 14011) should be extended to incorporate requirements of lake fish sampling.

show abstract

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

Cited by 18 publications

References 25 publications

Comparison of nine different methods to assess fish communities in lentic flood‐plain habitats

Comparison of nine different methods to assess fish communities in lentic flood‐plain habitats

Geomorphology and Flooding Shape Fish Distribution in a Large‐scale Temperate Floodplain

Comparison of three standardised fish sampling methods in 14 alpine lakes in Austria

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About