2010
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02543.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Determining the effects of species, environmental conditions and tracking method on the detection efficiency of portable PIT telemetry

Abstract: The efficiency of portable passive integrated transponder (PIT) telemetry at detecting five fish species in a small river was evaluated under different environmental and tracking conditions. Significant differences between species were apparent, with detection efficiency varying between 0·7% (Leuciscus leuciscus) and 43·1% (Salmo trutta). Conditions of reduced flow and tracking in a downstream direction significantly increased detection efficiency for salmonids, while time of day had no significant effect for … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
60
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(66 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
5
60
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Each tracking survey comprised of tracking of tagged fish using a portable PIT antenna system, as per Roussel, Haro, and Cunjak () and Cucherousset et al. (). The detection range of the antenna, measured as the distance between the plane of the antenna loop and the tag, varied with tag orientation, ranging from 55 cm when the tag was horizontal to 85 cm when the tag was vertical.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Each tracking survey comprised of tracking of tagged fish using a portable PIT antenna system, as per Roussel, Haro, and Cunjak () and Cucherousset et al. (). The detection range of the antenna, measured as the distance between the plane of the antenna loop and the tag, varied with tag orientation, ranging from 55 cm when the tag was horizontal to 85 cm when the tag was vertical.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Twentyfive tracking surveys were completed between 23 July 2008 and 9 October 2008 (approximately two per week), all performed by the same operator; each survey lasted on average 3.5 h and commenced at dawn, mid-day or dusk. When a tagged eel was detected, cell identity and the distance to the closest bank (nearest 0.1 m) were recorded (details on tracking in Cucherousset et al 2010). To ensure that habitat niche assessment was not biased by tag loss, only data on those localisations that were followed by a recapture during any of the electric fishing surveys were used.…”
Section: Habitat Nichementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The study commenced on 17 July 2008 when the fish were initially captured by electric fishing (details in Cucherousset et al 2010). Captured individuals were anaesthetised with 2-phenoxyethanol, measured [total length (TL), nearest millimetre] and weighed [weight (W), nearest 0.1 g].…”
Section: Study Area and Population Monitoringmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In our study, we assumed that no radio-tagged animals were missed during telemetry surveys, as there were no instances of these individuals being captured during electrofishing without first being detected by telemetry. If this were not the case, the model would have to include a parameter for the probability of detecting telemetry tags by telemetry (Cucherousset et al 2010;Melnychuk & Walters 2010;Welsh et al 2012). In larger systems where the telemetry search cannot be exhaustive, this would certainly be an important consideration.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%