Physical Habitat Evaluation of Small Stream Fishes: Point vs. Transect, Observation vs. Capture Methodologies
John N. Rinne
Abstract
John N. Rinne
Abstract
Physical habitat data (velocity and depth of water, and percentage substrate composition) for several southwestern fishes collected by point and transect methodologies were similar. Velocity estimates showed less agreement and greatest variation. Choice of direct observation or capture by electrofishing as methods to locate fishes for habitat evaluation is problematic. Fish location techniques may induce more error in measurement of habitat than do different habitat evaluation techniques.
OpenAlex reports 17 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Physical habitat data (velocity and depth of water, and percentage substrate composition) for several southwestern fishes collected by point and transect methodologies were similar. Velocity estimates showed less agreement and greatest variation. Choice of direct observation or capture by electrofishing as methods to locate fishes for habitat evaluation is problematic. Fish location techniques may induce more error in measurement of habitat than do different habitat evaluation techniques.
Key concepts: Electrofishing, Transect, Habitat, Environmental science, Fish <Actinopterygii>, Substrate (aquarium), Ecology, Fishery