Comparison of a Prepositioned Areal Electrofishing Device and Fixed Underwater Videography for Sampling Riverine Fishes

Branigan, Philip R.; Quist, Michael C.; Shepard, Bradley B.; Ireland, Susan C.

doi:10.3398/064.078.0107

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, we do not expect that video methods could reliably distinguish between closely related species that require detailed examinations or dissection for positive species identification (e.g., shiners Notropis spp. ), as shown by others (Holmes et al 2013;Branigan et al 2018). Video methods also are subject to digital data loss, which was experienced here and was reported by Ebner et al (2015).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Comparison of Underwater Video with Electrofishing and Dive Counts for Stream Fish Abundance Estimation

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advances in video technology enable new strategies for stream fish research. We compared juvenile (age‐0) and adult (age‐1 and older) Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis abundance estimates from underwater video with those from backpack electrofishing and dive count methods across a series of stream pools in Shenandoah National Park, Virginia (n = 41). Video methods estimated greater mean abundance of adult trout than did one‐pass electrofishing, but video estimates of adult abundance were not different than estimates from three‐pass electrofishing or dive count methods. In contrast, videos underestimated the abundance of juvenile trout; we suggest that this is because predator avoidance behaviors by juvenile trout limit their use of microhabitat locations visible to cameras. Integrated abundance estimates from two cameras increased correspondence to comparison methods relative to estimates from single cameras, demonstrating the importance of an expanded field of view for video sampling in streams. Geomorphic features helped to explain methodwise differences: more adult Brook Trout were estimated with video than with three‐pass electrofishing as riffle crest depth and boulder composition increased, indicating habitat associations with trout escapement from electrofishing. Our results demonstrated that video techniques can provide a robust alternative or supplement to traditional methods for estimating adult trout abundance in stream pools.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Comparison of Underwater Video with Electrofishing and Dive Counts for Stream Fish Abundance Estimation

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Each site remained undisturbed for a minimum of 30 min before electrifying the equipment. The time delay between deploying and electrifying the equipment (i.e., PAED “set time”) allows fishes to recolonize the area and assume normal behaviour and habitat use (Branigan, Quist, Shepard, & Ireland, ; Dauwalter et al, ). Following the set time, PAEDs were electrified by applying pulsed DC (500–800 W, 60 Hz) for 20 s. A single netter collected all immobilized fishes with a dip net (6‐mm mesh).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microhabitat use of native fishes in the Kootenai River: A fine‐scale evaluation of large‐scale habitat rehabilitation efforts

Branigan

Quist

Shepard

et al. 2018

River Research & Apps

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fish and microhabitat data were collected at 542 prepositioned electrofishing sites (surface area of each site = 4 m2) in the Kootenai River, Idaho, during 2014 and 2015 to evaluate small‐scale habitat use by fishes, as it relates to large‐scale habitat rehabilitation efforts. Samples were collected from a 12‐km braided segment of river that had received localized habitat rehabilitation treatments since 2011. Fish and microhabitat data were collected to investigate habitat drivers related to the occurrence and relative abundance of fishes. Each sampling location was selected at random and characterized as “treated” (i.e., rehabilitated) or “untreated” based on proximity to habitat treatments. Fishes sampled from backwaters composed 71% of the overall catch and 84% of the catch from locally untreated areas of the river. Species‐specific regression models suggested that water depth and current velocity influenced the occurrence and abundance of fishes. In particular, shallow habitats with low current velocities were important for small‐bodied native fishes and likely serve as important rearing areas for juvenile fish. These habitat conditions typically characterize backwater and channel‐margin habitats that are vulnerable to anthropogenic perturbation. Prioritizing process‐based rehabilitation of these areas in large, regulated rivers would allow natural channel‐forming processes for the benefit of native fishes.

show abstract

“…A detailed overview of action cameras and how they are used for various research purposes in fisheries was presented in Struthers et al (2015). In freshwater, videography has been used to collect data on the spawning behavior of rare fishes to design captive breeding facilities (Ruggirello et al, in Press); evaluate relationships between redd placement and habitat (Groves and Chandler 1999;Gard and Ballard 2003;Esteve 2005); document relationships of fish spawning behavior with habitat and time (Goto 1988;Grant et al 2002;Herrington and Popp 2004;Esteve 2005;Esteve et al 2008;Butler and Rowland 2009;Du et al 2010;Sørum et al 2011;Chaudoin et al 2015); document fish feeding behavior and activity in remote areas (Ebner et al 2009(Ebner et al , 2014; identify fish relationships with habitat (Frezza et al 2003;Ebner et al 2014); investigate species diversity at underwater sites (Ebner and Morgan 2013;Ebner et al 2014;Schmid et al 2017;King et al 2018); and test efficacy of fisheries sampling equipment (Branigan et al 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inexpensive, Underwater Filming of Rare Fishes in High Definition

Ulrich

Bonar

2020

Fisheries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Generating public interest in fish and their biology is often challenging. Many aquatic species are cryptic and largely invisible to the public. Therefore, increasing public awareness of cryptic fishes and elevating their visibility to broad audiences requires innovation. Inexpensive technological advancements now provide fisheries biologists, managers, and researchers with means never before possible for documenting fish in their natural habitat via underwater videography. We investigated cost efficient and simple methods for capturing and creating high quality, high definition, and informative underwater videos that could be used by people with little or no previous experience in videography. We tested 1) a variety of filming equipment including cameras and camera recording settings, lenses, batteries, and memory cards; 2) active and passive camera deployment techniques; and 3) a variety of free and paid postproduction software and compared them for ease of use, expense, and quality of output. Highest quality footage, i.e., highest resolution, clearest, and most stable, was obtained using a GoPro action camera deployed underwater in a stationary position mounted to a metal base plate using a combination of stock and macro lenses, and filming in 4K resolution at 30 frames per second. Final production videos were created using Adobe Premiere Pro.

show abstract

Comparison of a Prepositioned Areal Electrofishing Device and Fixed Underwater Videography for Sampling Riverine Fishes

Cited by 5 publications

References 36 publications

Comparison of Underwater Video with Electrofishing and Dive Counts for Stream Fish Abundance Estimation

Comparison of Underwater Video with Electrofishing and Dive Counts for Stream Fish Abundance Estimation

Microhabitat use of native fishes in the Kootenai River: A fine‐scale evaluation of large‐scale habitat rehabilitation efforts

Inexpensive, Underwater Filming of Rare Fishes in High Definition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About