A comparison of four enclosure traps and methods used to sample fishes in aquatic macrophytes

John H. Chick, Frank Jordan, Jeff P. Smith, Carole C. McIvor

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Sampling efficiency of four enclosure fish traps—a square, mesh-sided 1.0-m2 throw trap; a light weight, square, metal-sided 1.0-m2 throw trap; a heavier, square, metal-sided 1.0-m2 throw trap; and a circular 2.27-m2 drop trap—were compared in two vegetation types in Lake Okeechobee, Florida. Estimates of total fish/m2 for all species pooled, fish/m2 for each of the five most abundant species, and species/m2 were similar among traps. Clearing method (dip nets or bar seine) did not affect estimates of total fish/m2 for the heavier, metal-sided throw trap or the mesh-sided throw trap. Trap clearing and sample picking methods used with the light weight throw trap and 2.27-m2 drop trap required greater field effort. Samples from the 2.27-m2 drop trap required 18 times more laboratory processing time than the average sample taken with a throw trap. Although all traps yielded similar estimates of fish density and species density, a 1.0-m2 throw trap was the most efficient method with regard to field and laboratory effort.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)353-361
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Freshwater Ecology
Volume7
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1992
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Aquatic Science

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'A comparison of four enclosure traps and methods used to sample fishes in aquatic macrophytes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this