Reliability of catch per unit effort (CPUE) for evaluation of reintroduction programs – A comparison of the mark-recapture method with standardized trapping

Zimmerman, Jenny K M; Palo, Thomas

doi:10.1051/kmae/2011016

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Krzywosz (2002) on Lake Pobłęd zie in 1996-2001 using Evo traps. In the case of Vu lkan traps, the values of CPUE were also similar to those obtained by other authors using traps to catch different crayfish species (Westman et al, 2002;Taugbøl, 2004;Tulonen et al, 2008;Zimmerman and Palo, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Untitled

Ulikowski¹,

Chybowski²,

Traczuk³

et al. 2017

Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From the most often used traps caught crayfish can escaping during the day. This reduces trapping yield. Therefore, those tools are used to the one-night catching. New tool for long-term catching was tested. The ability to retain crayfish inside a trap and the catch efficiency of this trap named Vulkan were compared to the popular trap named Evo in artificial and wild conditions. The tested crayfish traps differed significantly in their ability to retain crayfish. After four days (96 h) of observation in artificial conditions, 65.2% crayfish inserted into traps had escaped from Evo traps compared with 2.4% in the case of Vulkan traps. Evo traps had statistically significant (P<0.05) higher the catch efficiency as catch per unit effort (CPUE) than Vulkan traps during one-night catching in the lakes. Research showed that Vulkan traps effectively p revent the escape of caught crayfish also during the daylight surpassing in this case Evo traps and are better for use in long-term catch.They can be the basis for new research methods collecting crayfish not only for one-night catch but for an extended p eriod of time. Also in a commercial fishery Vulkan traps may reduce the catch effort.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Untitled

Ulikowski¹,

Chybowski²,

Traczuk³

et al. 2017

Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…CPUE was calculated as the total number of crayfish caught per night and trap from each fisherman’s report and was assumed to reflect the differences in population size. CPUE is considered an estimation of population change for crayfish (Zimmerman & Palo, 2011).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Time series analysis of climate‐related factors and their impact on a red‐listed noble crayfish population in northern Sweden

Zimmerman

Palo

2012

Freshwater Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Global climate change is predicted to raise water temperatures and alter flow regimes in northern river systems. Climate-related factors might have profound impacts on survival, reproduction and distribution of freshwater species such as red-listed noble crayfish (Astacus astacus) in its northern limit of distribution. 2. In this study, noble crayfish capture data over 27 years from the River Ljungan, Sweden, were examined. Time series of catch per unit effort (CPUE) were analysed in relation to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) index, regional weather factors and water flow. CPUE was assumed to reflect differences in population size. Two models were constructed to explore the relative impact of different climate factors and density dependence on variability of catch sizes. 3. The most parsimonious model for CPUE time series, explaining 72% of the variance in CPUE, included density-dependent population dynamics of the crayfish and climate or weather factors. The specific effect from density dependence in the model was 37%, while climate ⁄ weather factors contributed with 35% of the variation. The most important climate ⁄ weather factors are variations in NAO index and water flow. Temperature did not improve the model fit to capture data. 4. The best model was evaluated using independent data sets that gave correlations between model predictions and data ranging from 0.44 to 0.53. The density dependence shows a time lag of 1 year, while climate variables show time lags from 2 to 6 years in relation to CPUE, indicating effects on different cohorts of the crayfish population. 5. Both density dependence and climatic factors play a significant role in population fluctuations of noble crayfish. A 6-year time lag for NAO index is puzzling but indicates that some as yet unidentified factors related to NAO might act on the juvenile stages of the population. Water flow shows a 2-year lag to the CPUE, and high flow in the river may affect adult survival. The reasons for fluctuation of crayfish catches in response to climate need to be identified, and fishing quotas should consider the different cohort sizes because of variation in environment. Reintroduction programmes for crayfish need to consider effects of climate change when designing management strategies.

show abstract

“…For Birsig, Katzensee, Greifensee, and Rumensee no data is available regarding effort and catch numbers: therefore, it is not possible to evaluate success in suppressing these populations of NICS. For this reason it is important to use CPUE values or the capture-mark-recapture (CMR) technique to estimate the population size and assess the success of the method (Zimmerman and Palo, 2011).…”

Section: Mechanical Removalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measures to Control Invasive Crayfish Species in Switzerland: A Success Story?

Krieg

King

Zenker

2020

Front. Environ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Invasive crayfish species were first documented in Switzerland in the 1970s. Today, North American crayfish species dominate in most major lakes and streams in Switzerland. In combination with the crayfish plague, they pose a substantial threat to our native crayfish. Over the past 20 years, various techniques have been applied to reduce negative impacts of these invasive crayfish in Switzerland: eradication (temporary drainage or destruction of a water system, biocides), suppression (intensive trapping, electricity introduction of predatory fish) and containment (construction of crayfish barriers). Temporary drainage or filling-in of isolated ponds, in combination with calcium hydroxide application has been successful in eradicating populations of invasive crayfish. However, trapping and introduction of predatory fish led to a reduction in population density but neither method has ever caused the extinction of a population. Invasive crayfish have not yet reached crayfish barriers, therefore, long-term functionality of these barriers still needs to be proven. Nevertheless, functional controls with native crayfish have shown that barriers prevent their upstream movement. Implementation of crayfish barriers is the most promising method to protect native crayfish from displacement by invasive crayfish species. Many measures are expensive, time consuming, and show little or no success in controlling invasive crayfish. Therefore, we recommend to focus on implementing drastic measures, such as filling-in or draining of isolated waters or a combination of various methods to maximise the reduction of population size.

show abstract

Reliability of catch per unit effort (CPUE) for evaluation of reintroduction programs – A comparison of the mark-recapture method with standardized trapping

Cited by 11 publications

References 38 publications

Untitled

Untitled

Time series analysis of climate‐related factors and their impact on a red‐listed noble crayfish population in northern Sweden

Measures to Control Invasive Crayfish Species in Switzerland: A Success Story?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About