ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2021
Comparison of three sampling methods for small-bodied fish in lentic nearshore and open water habitats.
Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring effectiveness of two common trap designs for capturing fish diversity in small freshwater bodies.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2026Article
- Environmental DNA Insights into the Spatial Status of Fish Diversity in the Mainstem of the Jialing River.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We performed a preliminary evaluation of a mobile sampling platform with adjustable push net and live box (Platform) against two common methods for sampling small-bodied fish (i.e., 10-100 mm) in two distinct lentic habitats. Nearshore (NS) littoral habitat was sampled by Platform and beach seine, and open water (OW) pelagic habitat by Platform and Kodiak trawl. Our goal was to evaluate the Platform's ability to describe fish assemblage structure across habitat types in contrast to common techniques restricted to single habitat types that are less comparable due to gear-specific bias. Platform sample speed had a significant positive effect on recapture efficiency of both nearly neutrally buoyant objects and marked fish. Marked fish recapture efficiencies were similar for Platform in NS and OW, indicating similar efficiency across habitat types. Platform capture efficiency was similar to beach seine and greater than Kodiak trawl. With similar sampling time, the Platform collected more individuals and taxa in NS relative to beach seine and in OW relative to Kodiak trawl. Greater taxa detection by the Platform suggests that it may be effective at detecting species that are numerically rare in specific habitats when compared to these methods. Fish CPUE was significantly greater NS regardless of technique. However, by using the Platform, there is greater confidence that this difference was reliable and not a gear selectivity artifact. Overall, this preliminary study demonstrates the Platform's potential to collect standardized data across NS and OW habitats, track ontogenetic habitat shifts, and detect differences in small-bodied fish taxa richness, relative abundance, and density between NS and OW habitats. Continued experimentation beyond a single reservoir and fish size range is required before consensus can be established regarding the utility of this new push net design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.