A comparison between fixed and random sampling of a low density spotted bass population in a large river
Characterizing the structure of riverine fish populations that are patchily distributed and at low densities is often difficult. Due to the wide distribution but low abundance of Spotted Bass, Micropterus punctulatus, throughout the lower Wabash River (LWR), captures from fixed and random sampling d...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Taylor & Francis Group
2019-01-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Freshwater Ecology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02705060.2019.1631222 |
| _version_ | 1818059889832886272 |
|---|---|
| author | Evan C. Boone Scott J. Meiners Leslie D. Frankland Jeffrey R. Laursen Robert E. Colombo |
| author_facet | Evan C. Boone Scott J. Meiners Leslie D. Frankland Jeffrey R. Laursen Robert E. Colombo |
| author_sort | Evan C. Boone |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Characterizing the structure of riverine fish populations that are patchily distributed and at low densities is often difficult. Due to the wide distribution but low abundance of Spotted Bass, Micropterus punctulatus, throughout the lower Wabash River (LWR), captures from fixed and random sampling designs were compared to assess their performance in determining relative abundance and size structure. The LWR is monitored using both sampling regimes—the Long Term Electrofishing Program monitors community assemblages uses a stratified-random sampling, whereas the Illinois Department of Natural Resources monitors the fish community using a fixed-sampling design. Mean CPUE was significantly higher for fixed site sampling compared to random sites. However, the size structure of Spotted Bass sampled by each design were similar. These results suggest random-sampling designs should be used when monitoring low density populations of fishes in large riverine systems because this method provides the greatest spatial coverage of habitats, evaluates heterogeneity in distribution, and provides a representative measure of abundance throughout an entire aquatic system. In situations where size distribution or temporal trends are the only goal, fixed site sampling would be sufficient. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-10T13:23:42Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-b70a7d632ad04be58ca6dee3f3a7134c |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 0270-5060 2156-6941 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-10T13:23:42Z |
| publishDate | 2019-01-01 |
| publisher | Taylor & Francis Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Freshwater Ecology |
| spelling | doaj.art-b70a7d632ad04be58ca6dee3f3a7134c2022-12-22T01:47:15ZengTaylor & Francis GroupJournal of Freshwater Ecology0270-50602156-69412019-01-0134153354010.1080/02705060.2019.16312221631222A comparison between fixed and random sampling of a low density spotted bass population in a large riverEvan C. Boone0Scott J. Meiners1Leslie D. Frankland2Jeffrey R. Laursen3Robert E. Colombo4U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceEastern Illinois UniversityDivision of Fisheries, Illinois Department of Natural ResourcesEastern Illinois UniversityEastern Illinois UniversityCharacterizing the structure of riverine fish populations that are patchily distributed and at low densities is often difficult. Due to the wide distribution but low abundance of Spotted Bass, Micropterus punctulatus, throughout the lower Wabash River (LWR), captures from fixed and random sampling designs were compared to assess their performance in determining relative abundance and size structure. The LWR is monitored using both sampling regimes—the Long Term Electrofishing Program monitors community assemblages uses a stratified-random sampling, whereas the Illinois Department of Natural Resources monitors the fish community using a fixed-sampling design. Mean CPUE was significantly higher for fixed site sampling compared to random sites. However, the size structure of Spotted Bass sampled by each design were similar. These results suggest random-sampling designs should be used when monitoring low density populations of fishes in large riverine systems because this method provides the greatest spatial coverage of habitats, evaluates heterogeneity in distribution, and provides a representative measure of abundance throughout an entire aquatic system. In situations where size distribution or temporal trends are the only goal, fixed site sampling would be sufficient.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02705060.2019.1631222sampling comparisonspotted bassrandom samplingfixed versus random sampling |
| spellingShingle | Evan C. Boone Scott J. Meiners Leslie D. Frankland Jeffrey R. Laursen Robert E. Colombo A comparison between fixed and random sampling of a low density spotted bass population in a large river Journal of Freshwater Ecology sampling comparison spotted bass random sampling fixed versus random sampling |
| title | A comparison between fixed and random sampling of a low density spotted bass population in a large river |
| title_full | A comparison between fixed and random sampling of a low density spotted bass population in a large river |
| title_fullStr | A comparison between fixed and random sampling of a low density spotted bass population in a large river |
| title_full_unstemmed | A comparison between fixed and random sampling of a low density spotted bass population in a large river |
| title_short | A comparison between fixed and random sampling of a low density spotted bass population in a large river |
| title_sort | comparison between fixed and random sampling of a low density spotted bass population in a large river |
| topic | sampling comparison spotted bass random sampling fixed versus random sampling |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02705060.2019.1631222 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT evancboone acomparisonbetweenfixedandrandomsamplingofalowdensityspottedbasspopulationinalargeriver AT scottjmeiners acomparisonbetweenfixedandrandomsamplingofalowdensityspottedbasspopulationinalargeriver AT lesliedfrankland acomparisonbetweenfixedandrandomsamplingofalowdensityspottedbasspopulationinalargeriver AT jeffreyrlaursen acomparisonbetweenfixedandrandomsamplingofalowdensityspottedbasspopulationinalargeriver AT robertecolombo acomparisonbetweenfixedandrandomsamplingofalowdensityspottedbasspopulationinalargeriver AT evancboone comparisonbetweenfixedandrandomsamplingofalowdensityspottedbasspopulationinalargeriver AT scottjmeiners comparisonbetweenfixedandrandomsamplingofalowdensityspottedbasspopulationinalargeriver AT lesliedfrankland comparisonbetweenfixedandrandomsamplingofalowdensityspottedbasspopulationinalargeriver AT jeffreyrlaursen comparisonbetweenfixedandrandomsamplingofalowdensityspottedbasspopulationinalargeriver AT robertecolombo comparisonbetweenfixedandrandomsamplingofalowdensityspottedbasspopulationinalargeriver |