Comparison of Electrofishing and Hoopnetting in Lotic Habitats of the Lower Mississippi River
Lawrence L. Pugh, Harold L. Schramm
Abstract
Lawrence L. Pugh, Harold L. Schramm
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.
OpenAlex reports 38 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.
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.
Key concepts: Electrofishing, River ecosystem, Fishery, Catch per unit effort, Environmental science, Fish <Actinopterygii>, Habitat, Ecology