Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26685761›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2015

Comparison of catch per unit effort among four minnow trap models in the three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) fishery.

Alexandre Budria, Jacquelin DeFaveri, Juha Merilä

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alexandre BudriaEcological Genetics Research Unit, Department Biosciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, FI-00014, Finland.
Jacquelin DeFaveriEcological Genetics Research Unit, Department Biosciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, FI-00014, Finland.
Juha MeriläEcological Genetics Research Unit, Department Biosciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, FI-00014, Finland.
University of Helsinki · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Minnow traps are commonly used in the stickleback (Gasterostidae) fishery, but the potential differences in catch per unit effort (CPUE) among different minnow trap models are little studied. We compared the CPUE of four different minnow trap models in field experiments conducted with three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Marked (up to 26 fold) differences in median CPUE among different trap models were observed. Metallic uncoated traps yielded the largest CPUE (2.8 fish/h), followed by metallic black nylon-coated traps (1.3 fish/h). Collapsible canvas traps yielded substantially lower CPUEs (black: 0.7 fish/h; red: 0.1 fish/h) than the metallic traps. Laboratory trials further revealed significant differences in escape probabilities among the different trap models. While the differences in escape probability can explain at least part of the differences in CPUE among the trap models (e.g. high escape rate and low CPUE in red canvas traps), discrepancies between model-specific CPUEs and escape rates suggests that variation in entrance rate also contributes to the differences in CPUE. In general, and in accordance with earlier data on nine-spined stickleback (Pungitius pungitius) trapping, the results suggest that uncoated metallic (Gee-type) traps are superior to the other commonly used minnow trap models in stickleback fisheries.

Indexed as

CyprinidaeFisheriesSmegmamorphaAnimals

Identifiers

PMID26685761
PMCPMC4685258
OpenAlexW2249617664

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.