Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33835292›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2021

Comparison of three sampling methods for small-bodied fish in lentic nearshore and open water habitats.

Joseph E Merz, Jesse T Anderson, Jesse Wiesenfeld, Steven C Zeug

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Joseph E MerzCramer Fish Sciences, 3300 Industrial Blvd., Suite 100, West Sacramento, CA, 95691, USA. jmerz@fishsciences.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8514-9407
Jesse T AndersonCramer Fish Sciences, 3300 Industrial Blvd., Suite 100, West Sacramento, CA, 95691, USA.
Jesse WiesenfeldCramer Fish Sciences, 3300 Industrial Blvd., Suite 100, West Sacramento, CA, 95691, USA.
Steven C ZeugCramer Fish Sciences, 3300 Industrial Blvd., Suite 100, West Sacramento, CA, 95691, USA.

Funding

U.S. Department of the Interior R18AP00053
6 · The paper itself

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

Environmental MonitoringWaterAnimalsEcosystemFishesHumansWaterFish samplingGear comparisonLentic fish communityMonitoringPush netSampling Platform

Identifiers

PMID33835292
PMCPMC8035114

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.