An examination of the fish population in the River Trent, Nottinghamshire using angler catches

Abstract

During this study, anglers caught over 580 kg of fish, comprising over 29 500 individuals of 14 species. Nine times as many gudgeon, Gobio gohio, as roach, Rutilus rutilus, were caught. Gudgeon represented 35.94% of the total catch weight compared with 44.64% for roach. The mean total catch per man-hour was 8.9 fish and the mean catch rate was 176 g per man-hour. Population estimates for fish longer than 12 cm for all species other than gudgeon and bleak, Alburnus alburnus, gave fish densities of 0.21 fish m-2, the roach population was 0.15 m-2, and that for dace Leuciscus leuciscus, 0.02 m-2. The population density for all sizes ofall species caught was estimated to be 2.25 fish m-2.The fish biomass available to the angler was 447 kg ha-2. The rate of exploitation of the fishery over the period ofsampling was high at 17%, representing an annual exploitation rate of94%.

The relationship between stock and catch and the effect of bait on catch as determined for a UK recreational catch and release fishery

“…Whilst the results of these studies may be applicable to some European countries, e.g. France and Finland, they are not readily applicable to the UK where the majority of anglers tend to use different methods, target different species, generally capture smaller fish and operate a catch and release policy (Cooper & Wheatley 1981; Steel, O'Hara & Smith 1996).…”

“…In the UK, there have been a number of attempts to characterize the composition of anglers' catches (e.g. Cooper & Wheately 1981; O'Hara & Williams 1991; Steel, O'Hara & Smith 1996). However, there have been few studies that have directly compared anglers' catches with estimates of fish community composition (e.g.…”

Changes in the species composition of anglers' catches in the River Trent (England) between 1969 and 1984

“…Despite the importance of the River Trent as a prime fishery, the fish populations therein have received little scientific attention (Whiting et al, 1976;Sadler, 1980;Cooper & Wheatley, 1981). This can be attributed to the widely accepted problems associated with sampling fish populations in large rivers (EIFAC, 1974).…”

“…This can be attributed to the widely accepted problems associated with sampling fish populations in large rivers (EIFAC, 1974). Many workers have, however, overcome these sampling difficulties by utilizing anglers to sample the fish populations (Parry, 1974;Ayton, 1976;Axford, 1979;North, 1980;Cooper & Wheatley, 1981;Hickley & North, 1981;Pearce, 1983). In an attempt to monitor the fish populations of the River Trent, a census of anglers' catches, using postal questionnaires, was established by the Trent River Authority and inherited by Severn-Trent Water Authority.…”

Effective monitoring of freshwater fish

“…Statistics on angler catch rates and species composition have been applied to the monitoring of fish community composition of large lowland rivers where other fish capture methods are either difficult to apply or inefficient (Jones, Robson, Lakkis, & Kressel, 1995). For example, in the River Trent, England, angler catch statistics monitored changes in the fish assemblage in relation to improvements in water quality (Cooper & Wheatley, 1981;Cowx & Broughton, 1986). More recently, catch statistics from individual anglers were used to assess the population status of mahseer fishes (Tor spp., Cyprinidae) in the River Cauvery, India (Pinder, Raghavan, & Britton, 2015a,2015b).…”