Sampling fish communities in shallow lowland lakes: point‐sample electric fishing vs electric fishing within stop‐nets

Perrow, Martin R.; Jowitt, Adrian J. D.; Zambrano, Luis

doi:10.1046/j.1365-2400.1996.d01-152.x

Cited by 38 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, sampling was always carried out by the same operator and each sample was separated by a minimum of 20 m to limit disturbance. PAS aims to provide semi-quantitative samples, and hence permits the comparison of sampling points, within and between sites as long as sufficient samples are taken from a range of habitats (Copp, 1989;Perrow et al, 1996;Garner, 1997). Consequently, a total of 665 PAS were performed in canals (25.6 AE 3.8 SD per site) and 1156 PAS in wetland habitats (32.1 AE 6.0 SD per site) to standardize the sampling effort between sites (%0.4 PAS.100 m À2 , Cucherousset et al, 2007a).…”

Section: Fish Samplingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selective use and spatial distribution of native and non‐native fish in wetland habitats

Carpentier

Paillisson

2008

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceWetland habitats are crucial for many fish species as spawning, feeding or nursery areas, but the major factors that govern their use by fish are poorly identified. In the present study, we aim to investigate the selective use and the spatial distribution of native and non-native fish species in different types of wetland habitats (grasslands and reed beds) in a large freshwater marsh (North Western France). The selective use was measured by comparing the community that uses wetland habitats to the total community of the marsh (sampled in the permanent aquatic habitats (canals) during the low water period). The spatial distribution was studied by analyzing the presence probability of fish in wetland habitats as a function of the distance from adjacent canals. All sampled wetland habitats were occupied by fish, and the fish community in wetland habitats was dominated by three native (Abramis brama, Scardinius erythrophthalmus and Anguilla anguilla) and three non-native (Ameiurus melas, Gambusia holbrooki and Lepomis gibbosus) species. Species richness and total fish abundance differed between canals and wetland habitats as a consequence of a variable propensity to use wetland habitats by native (avoidance and preference) and non-native (no preference) species. Non-native species were also more abundant in reed beds than in grassland while no differences were observed for native species. Universally, the presence probability of fish always decreased in wetland habitats as the distance from the canals increased and only a narrow area, close to canals (50–80 m), was well used by fish. However, non-native fish species used over greater distances in reed beds than in grasslands while no differences were observed for native species. Variable interpretations related to species tolerance, reproductive guilds or diet are proposed to understand the mechanisms that might explain the widespread success of non-native species in this spatially varying environment

show abstract

Section: Fish Samplingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selective use and spatial distribution of native and non‐native fish in wetland habitats

Carpentier

Paillisson

2008

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Point-abundance sampling by electric fishing (PASE) (Copp and Peñáz 1988;Perrow et al 1996a;Skov and Berg 1999) was selected to provide quantitative estimates of the fish stock in the study lakes. With this technique, both the limnetic and littoral zones may be effectively sampled even where the former contains dense emergent vegetation and the latter contains dense submerged vegetation (Perrow et al 1996a).…”

Section: Fish Samplingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With this technique, both the limnetic and littoral zones may be effectively sampled even where the former contains dense emergent vegetation and the latter contains dense submerged vegetation (Perrow et al 1996a). These factors tend to preclude the effective use of standard techniques such as seine netting.…”

Section: Fish Samplingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationships between fish feeding guild and trophic structure in English lowland shallow lakes subject to anthropogenic influence: implications for lake restoration

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The shallow lakes of Eastern England have been subject to intense anthropogenic pressures including nutrient enrichment and fish stocking. We sought to determine the relationships between fish community structure and other ecosystem characteristics in 28 of these lakes through classification of fish species into piscivorous, zooplanktivorous and benthivorous feeding guilds according to the literature. Canonical correspondence analysis produced clear associations between fish and ecosystem characteristics that generally agreed with other theoretical (e.g. the alternative stable states hypothesis) and empirical studies, but with some important differences. There was a striking lack of relationships between nutrients and other variables, indicating the importance of topdown rather than bottom-up processes as a structuring force in the generally eutrophic study lakes. The presence of submerged (and shoreline) vegetation was associated with a diverse assemblage of apparently coexisting piscivorous (principally pike Esox lucius) and zooplanktivorous species. Perch Perca fluviatilis, a significant predator in other studies, was unimportant and argued to be limited by water quality in the extremely shallow lakes. In contrast, the benthivorous fish guild (principally carp Cyprinus carpio, bream Abramis brama and tench Tinca tinca) essentially represented the inverse of the potential pelagic associations between piscivores/zooplanktivores and vegetation. The introduction of large benthivores to many study lakes could have precipitated a loss of submerged vegetation through direct uprooting during foraging, with the effect of simplifying the fish community being most acute where littoral vegetation was limited by other anthropogenic factors. It is implied that attempts to promote or restore submerged vegetation in these lakes would best target benthivorous species.

show abstract

“…For example, many studies attempted to find the most representative sampling method for lake habitats and to evaluate the accuracy of electrofishing (e.g. Perrow et al, 1996;Fago, 1998;Cao et al, 2001;Meador, 2005;Lapointe and Corkum, 2006b), beach seining (Lyons, 1986;Fago, 1998;Pierce et al, 1990;Bayley and Herendeen, Beach seining is a common method for assessing abundance and species composition of fish in the littoral zone (Murphy and Willis, 1996). Despite many advantages of the method, physical obstructions such as rocks, macrophytes, stumps and tree branches are a major source of bias limiting the effectiveness of seining (Pierce et al, 1990).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Small – but not easy: Evaluation of sampling methods in floodplain lakes including whole-lake sampling

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sampling fish communities in shallow lowland lakes: point‐sample electric fishing vs electric fishing within stop‐nets

Cited by 38 publications

References 11 publications

Selective use and spatial distribution of native and non‐native fish in wetland habitats

Selective use and spatial distribution of native and non‐native fish in wetland habitats

Relationships between fish feeding guild and trophic structure in English lowland shallow lakes subject to anthropogenic influence: implications for lake restoration

Small – but not easy: Evaluation of sampling methods in floodplain lakes including whole-lake sampling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About