Comparison of Electrofishing and Hoopnetting in Lotic Habitats of the Lower Mississippi River

We compared catch rates and sampling costs of two types of hoop nets (61 cm and 122 cm diameter) and two types of pulsed DC electrofishing (500 V/60 Hz and 1,000 V/15 Hz) in lotic habitats in main and secondary channels of the lower Mississippi River. Forty fish species were collected in 474 hoop‐ne...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:North American journal of fisheries management 1998-08, Vol.18 (3), p.649-656
Main Authors: Pugh, Lawrence L., Schramm, Harold L.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Freshwater
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2339-a44c0bcf12d75958995283627a574a4dc52ad6d0cb424961eec07bbd5901b4693
container_end_page 656
container_issue 3
container_start_page 649
container_title North American journal of fisheries management
container_volume 18
creator Pugh, Lawrence L.
Schramm, Harold L.
description We compared catch rates and sampling costs of two types of hoop nets (61 cm and 122 cm diameter) and two types of pulsed DC electrofishing (500 V/60 Hz and 1,000 V/15 Hz) in lotic habitats in main and secondary channels of the lower Mississippi River. Forty fish species were collected in 474 hoop‐net‐nights and 320 electrofishing samples (5 min each). Two species were collected only by hoop nets, whereas 19 species were collected only by electrofishing. Using field personnel time as the unit of effort, electrofishing catch per unit of effort for most species was higher and less variable than for hoop nets. Electrofishing collected wider length ranges of fish and cost less per fish collected than did hoopnetting. Compared to hoopnetting, we found low frequency (15 Hz) and high frequency (60 Hz) pulsed DC electrofishing was an effective method for assessment of fishes in lotic habitats in the lower Mississippi River.
doi_str_mv 10.1577/1548-8675(1998)018<0649:COEAHI>2.0.CO;2
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_17113136</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>17113136</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2339-a44c0bcf12d75958995283627a574a4dc52ad6d0cb424961eec07bbd5901b4693</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqdkN9KwzAUh4MoOKfv0CvRi25JmjSNijDK_gibA9FLCWmaukjX1KRz7O1tmPgAQuDknPM738UHwBjBEaKMjRElWZyljN4gzrNbiLIHmBJ-l6-nk8XTIx7BUb6-xydg8Jc8BQOIGY0pJ-wcXHj_CSGkGcUD8J7bbSud8baJbBVNa606ZyvjN6b5iGRTRgtr20Z3XehNEy1tZ1S0kIXpZOfDTbfR_XSvXbQy3ofXtiZ6Md_aXYKzStZeX_3WIXibTV_zRbxcz5_yyTJWOEl4LAlRsFAVwiWjnGacU5wlKWaSMiJJqSiWZVpCVRBMeIq0VpAVRUk5RAVJeTIE10du6-zXTvtObI1Xuq5lo-3OC8QQSlCS9sH5Maic9d7pSrTObKU7CARF0CuCNBGkiaBX9HpF0CuOegUWsP8K3JNWR9Le1PrwX4x4nsxWYZH8ABa4iAM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>17113136</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Electrofishing and Hoopnetting in Lotic Habitats of the Lower Mississippi River</title><source>Wiley</source><creator>Pugh, Lawrence L. ; Schramm, Harold L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Pugh, Lawrence L. ; Schramm, Harold L.</creatorcontrib><description>We compared catch rates and sampling costs of two types of hoop nets (61 cm and 122 cm diameter) and two types of pulsed DC electrofishing (500 V/60 Hz and 1,000 V/15 Hz) in lotic habitats in main and secondary channels of the lower Mississippi River. Forty fish species were collected in 474 hoop‐net‐nights and 320 electrofishing samples (5 min each). Two species were collected only by hoop nets, whereas 19 species were collected only by electrofishing. Using field personnel time as the unit of effort, electrofishing catch per unit of effort for most species was higher and less variable than for hoop nets. Electrofishing collected wider length ranges of fish and cost less per fish collected than did hoopnetting. Compared to hoopnetting, we found low frequency (15 Hz) and high frequency (60 Hz) pulsed DC electrofishing was an effective method for assessment of fishes in lotic habitats in the lower Mississippi River.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0275-5947</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1548-8675</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1577/1548-8675(1998)018&lt;0649:COEAHI&gt;2.0.CO;2</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Taylor &amp; Francis Group</publisher><subject>Freshwater</subject><ispartof>North American journal of fisheries management, 1998-08, Vol.18 (3), p.649-656</ispartof><rights>1998 American Fisheries Society</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2339-a44c0bcf12d75958995283627a574a4dc52ad6d0cb424961eec07bbd5901b4693</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pugh, Lawrence L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schramm, Harold L.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Electrofishing and Hoopnetting in Lotic Habitats of the Lower Mississippi River</title><title>North American journal of fisheries management</title><description>We compared catch rates and sampling costs of two types of hoop nets (61 cm and 122 cm diameter) and two types of pulsed DC electrofishing (500 V/60 Hz and 1,000 V/15 Hz) in lotic habitats in main and secondary channels of the lower Mississippi River. Forty fish species were collected in 474 hoop‐net‐nights and 320 electrofishing samples (5 min each). Two species were collected only by hoop nets, whereas 19 species were collected only by electrofishing. Using field personnel time as the unit of effort, electrofishing catch per unit of effort for most species was higher and less variable than for hoop nets. Electrofishing collected wider length ranges of fish and cost less per fish collected than did hoopnetting. Compared to hoopnetting, we found low frequency (15 Hz) and high frequency (60 Hz) pulsed DC electrofishing was an effective method for assessment of fishes in lotic habitats in the lower Mississippi River.</description><subject>Freshwater</subject><issn>0275-5947</issn><issn>1548-8675</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1998</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqdkN9KwzAUh4MoOKfv0CvRi25JmjSNijDK_gibA9FLCWmaukjX1KRz7O1tmPgAQuDknPM738UHwBjBEaKMjRElWZyljN4gzrNbiLIHmBJ-l6-nk8XTIx7BUb6-xydg8Jc8BQOIGY0pJ-wcXHj_CSGkGcUD8J7bbSud8baJbBVNa606ZyvjN6b5iGRTRgtr20Z3XehNEy1tZ1S0kIXpZOfDTbfR_XSvXbQy3ofXtiZ6Md_aXYKzStZeX_3WIXibTV_zRbxcz5_yyTJWOEl4LAlRsFAVwiWjnGacU5wlKWaSMiJJqSiWZVpCVRBMeIq0VpAVRUk5RAVJeTIE10du6-zXTvtObI1Xuq5lo-3OC8QQSlCS9sH5Maic9d7pSrTObKU7CARF0CuCNBGkiaBX9HpF0CuOegUWsP8K3JNWR9Le1PrwX4x4nsxWYZH8ABa4iAM</recordid><startdate>199808</startdate><enddate>199808</enddate><creator>Pugh, Lawrence L.</creator><creator>Schramm, Harold L.</creator><general>Taylor &amp; Francis Group</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>L.G</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199808</creationdate><title>Comparison of Electrofishing and Hoopnetting in Lotic Habitats of the Lower Mississippi River</title><author>Pugh, Lawrence L. ; Schramm, Harold L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2339-a44c0bcf12d75958995283627a574a4dc52ad6d0cb424961eec07bbd5901b4693</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1998</creationdate><topic>Freshwater</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pugh, Lawrence L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schramm, Harold L.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences &amp; Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>North American journal of fisheries management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pugh, Lawrence L.</au><au>Schramm, Harold L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Electrofishing and Hoopnetting in Lotic Habitats of the Lower Mississippi River</atitle><jtitle>North American journal of fisheries management</jtitle><date>1998-08</date><risdate>1998</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>649</spage><epage>656</epage><pages>649-656</pages><issn>0275-5947</issn><eissn>1548-8675</eissn><abstract>We compared catch rates and sampling costs of two types of hoop nets (61 cm and 122 cm diameter) and two types of pulsed DC electrofishing (500 V/60 Hz and 1,000 V/15 Hz) in lotic habitats in main and secondary channels of the lower Mississippi River. Forty fish species were collected in 474 hoop‐net‐nights and 320 electrofishing samples (5 min each). Two species were collected only by hoop nets, whereas 19 species were collected only by electrofishing. Using field personnel time as the unit of effort, electrofishing catch per unit of effort for most species was higher and less variable than for hoop nets. Electrofishing collected wider length ranges of fish and cost less per fish collected than did hoopnetting. Compared to hoopnetting, we found low frequency (15 Hz) and high frequency (60 Hz) pulsed DC electrofishing was an effective method for assessment of fishes in lotic habitats in the lower Mississippi River.</abstract><pub>Taylor &amp; Francis Group</pub><doi>10.1577/1548-8675(1998)018&lt;0649:COEAHI&gt;2.0.CO;2</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0275-5947
ispartof North American journal of fisheries management, 1998-08, Vol.18 (3), p.649-656
issn 0275-5947
1548-8675
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_17113136
source Wiley
subjects Freshwater
title Comparison of Electrofishing and Hoopnetting in Lotic Habitats of the Lower Mississippi River
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T17%3A41%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Electrofishing%20and%20Hoopnetting%20in%20Lotic%20Habitats%20of%20the%20Lower%20Mississippi%20River&rft.jtitle=North%20American%20journal%20of%20fisheries%20management&rft.au=Pugh,%20Lawrence%20L.&rft.date=1998-08&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=649&rft.epage=656&rft.pages=649-656&rft.issn=0275-5947&rft.eissn=1548-8675&rft_id=info:doi/10.1577/1548-8675(1998)018%3C0649:COEAHI%3E2.0.CO;2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E17113136%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2339-a44c0bcf12d75958995283627a574a4dc52ad6d0cb424961eec07bbd5901b4693%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=17113136&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true