Efficiency and Selectivity of Gill Nets for Assessing Fish Community Composition of Large Rivers

Argent, David G.; Kimmel, William G.

doi:10.1577/m04-104.1

Cited by 19 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Even though gill-net sampling is a passive and selective method (Penczak et al, 1998;Medeiros et al, 2010;Oliveira et al, 2014), it is able to provide accurate descriptions of fish diversity in large rivers (Tejerina-Garro & de M erona, 2000;Oliveira et al, 2014). The efficiency of gill nets is, however, significantly dependent on time effort and the range of mesh sizes used (Argent & Kimmel, 2005). In our study, the nets remained deployed for a considerable and standardised time period (i.e., diel cycle), using a range of mesh sizes to sample the rich diversity and size spectra typical of Amazonian fish (e.g., Pouilly et al, 2003;Torrente-Vilara et al, 2011).…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Riverine networks constrain β‐diversity patterns among fish assemblages in a large Neotropical river

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Riverine metacommunities have been studied mainly in streams and headwaters, and little is known about how dendritic networks affect metacommunity structure in large river systems. We, therefore, examined fish assemblages in the Upper Tocantins River, Amazon Basin, to investigate the hypothesis that riverine networks constrain metacommunity structure. In particular, we investigated (i) taxonomic and functional β‐diversity along the river channel (main stem) and major tributaries (branches); (ii) the relative importance of the turnover and nestedness components; and (iii) the relationship between β‐diversity and spatial structure (the distance decay of similarity). Fish assemblages were sampled over a year (2007–2008) at 17 sites distributed along the main stem (n = 8) and branches (n = 9). We recorded 170 fish species in the 100‐km river section studied. Local species richness ranged from 45 to 79, with higher mean values in the main stem; local assemblages, however, showed high functional richness, with no significant difference between the main stem and branches. We observed that the turnover component contributed 87.7% of the variation in taxonomic β‐diversity (Jaccard), while the nestedness‐resultant contributed 12.3%. Taxonomic β‐diversity was on average 2.5 times higher than functional diversity, and taxonomic turnover was on average four times greater than functional turnover. In addition, a null model showed that observed values of functional β‐diversity were not different from random expectations, given the observed level of taxonomic β‐diversity. Branches showed higher species turnover, while significant distance decay of similarity was observed only along the main stem. Functional β‐diversity was not different between the main stem and branches and did not correlate with watercourse distance. Our study revealed that fish metacommunity in this large river shows species turnover, but with high functional similarity. In addition, different β‐diversity patterns between the main stem and branches indicate that the dendritic network constrained metacommunity structure. Mass effects and dispersal limitations probably explain β‐diversity patterns in the main stem, while a combination of mechanisms (i.e., disturbance, specific biological functions and dispersal constraints) affect diversity in the branches.

show abstract

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Riverine networks constrain β‐diversity patterns among fish assemblages in a large Neotropical river

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Three monofilament experimental gill nets were fished per lake. The nets had five different equal-area mesh sizes to reduce fish size selectivity and maximize the number of species collected (Hubert 1996;Argent and Kimmel 2005). Gill nets were 38.1 m in length and 2.4 m deep, with mesh sizes of 2.54-, 3.81-, 5.08-, 6.35-, and 7.62-cm square mesh.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Gears for Sampling Littoral‐Zone Fishes in Floodplain Lakes of the Lower White River, Arkansas

Eggleton

Jackson

Lubinski³

2010

N American J Fish Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gear comparison studies are useful to fisheries managers because many aquatic systems require multiple gears to assess fish assemblages. Many previous studies have emphasized comparisons of catch per unit effort or basic community measures such as richness and diversity. Our objectives were to (1) compare fish assemblage richness, diversity, and evenness across sampling gears, (2) assess the similarity of fish assemblage structure as depicted by the different gears, and (3) compare fish assemblage–environment relationships depicted by the different gears. Assessments were conducted in littoral‐zone areas of 16 floodplain lakes in the lower White River, Arkansas. Four sampling gears were used: 500‐V, 60‐Hz (high‐pulse) and 1,000‐V, 15‐Hz (low‐pulse) boat‐mounted nighttime electrofishing, mini‐fyke nets, and experimental gill nets. Species richness and diversity were significantly greater using boat‐mounted electrofishing (both pulses) than the other gears. Experimental gill nets exhibited the lowest richness of all gears (<50% of the other gears), and mini‐fyke nets exhibited significantly lower evenness owing to the tendency for 1–2 species to dominate catches. Procrustean analyses indicated that the lake‐specific fish assemblages depicted by the different gears were significantly different during all paired‐gear comparisons except between the two electrofishing configurations. Regardless of gear, multivariate direct gradient analyses indicated that lake depth, water clarity, and morphoedaphic index were consistently important variables associated with the structuring of littoral‐zone fish assemblages. The results support the idea that multiple‐gear approaches are useful in assessing floodplain lake fish assemblages and that, in the case of lower White River floodplain lakes, the assemblage information collected from the different gears was not redundant. Additionally, if a large‐river sampling program is using only one or two gears, major fish–environment relationships that are depicted may not be gear dependent.

show abstract

“…Argent and Kimmel (2005) examined the appropriateness of five types of gill nets for quantifying the composition of the large-bodied fish community and the effort required to estimate species richness in the Ohio River, Pennsylvania. Those authors suggested that gillnetting may offer a low-cost alternative to other, more expensive and labor-intensive techniques for characterizing fish diversity.…”

Section: Jones and Yunkermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast to lentic environments, where gill nets have been used and studied at length, little effort has been applied to developing a similar understanding of gill-net efficiency and selectivity in river environments; however, there are a few notable exceptions. Argent and Kimmel (2005) examined the appropriateness of five types of gill nets for quantifying the composition of the large-bodied fish community and the effort required to estimate species richness in the Ohio River, Pennsylvania. Those authors suggested that gillnetting may offer a low-cost alternative to other, more expensive and labor-intensive techniques for characterizing fish diversity.…”

Section: Jones and Yunkermentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a Riverine Index Netting Protocol: Comparisons of Net Orientation, Height, Panel Order, and Line Diameter

Jones

Yunker

2011

N American J Fish Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We developed a gillnetting protocol by sampling 17 nonwadeable rivers across northern Ontario over the course of four summers from 2005 to 2008. The rivers represented a range of habitats; however, all had a coolwater to warmwater fish community characterized by walleyes Sander vitreus, northern pike Esox lucius, white suckers Catostomus commersonii, yellow perch Perca flavescens, and smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu. During the study, three net designs were used. Each net had one to four configurations that varied in height, length, monofilament diameter, and sequence of the mesh sizes. We found that most fish (87%) were captured in the lower half of 1.8‐m‐high gill nets and that there was no difference in catch between gill nets with serial panels (i.e., sequentially increasing mesh sizes) and those with randomly organized panels. Net that were set perpendicular to shore or angled to shore caught approximately twice as many fish as nets that were set parallel to shore. Contrary to expectations, there were no differences in net durability and catch between thick‐ and thin‐diameter monofilament nets. Based on the results of these experiments, we propose an improved net design that we call the large‐mesh riverine index net for use in rivers; it is more versatile, reduces net drag, and fishes more effectively than the traditional gill nets that are used in lakes. The large‐mesh riverine index net has eight panels (3.1 m long × 0.9 m high) and totals 24.8 m in length. Panel stretch measures (and the random order used) for this design are 127, 76, 178, 25, 102, 203, 51, and 152 mm. The nets are set perpendicular to shore in rivers from July 1 to October 1 and should be fished in areas where water velocity is less than 0.1 m/s. Received January 12, 2010; accepted November 2, 2010

show abstract

Efficiency and Selectivity of Gill Nets for Assessing Fish Community Composition of Large Rivers

Cited by 19 publications

References 17 publications

Riverine networks constrain β‐diversity patterns among fish assemblages in a large Neotropical river

Riverine networks constrain β‐diversity patterns among fish assemblages in a large Neotropical river

Comparison of Gears for Sampling Littoral‐Zone Fishes in Floodplain Lakes of the Lower White River, Arkansas

Development of a Riverine Index Netting Protocol: Comparisons of Net Orientation, Height, Panel Order, and Line Diameter

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About