Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T20:02:07.346Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Fish

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2012

Isabelle M. Côté
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Martin R. Perrow
Affiliation:
ECON Ecological Consultancy, School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
William J. Sutherland
Affiliation:
University of East Anglia
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Fish are the most abundant, widespread and diverse group of vertebrates, comprising about 22 000 species with a dazzling variety of form, size and habits. To exploit this profusion of potential food, humans have devised a wide array of gears to capture fish. Ecologists rely heavily on modified forms of these methods to census fish populations, since fish are often difficult to observe in their natural habitat.

Sampling fish requires a high level of resources (e.g. time, labour, cost of equipment), and this increases with the size of the habitat (e.g. a pond versus the sea). Many commercial-scale techniques (e.g. deep-sea seines and trawls) are beyond the scope of ecological sampling, but they can be scaled down to suit smaller habitats. To census fish in the largest aquatic systems, we recommend using data from commercial catches, where available, or visiting markets where fish are landed. The use of local knowledge and technology, particularly where resources are limited, is always recommended.

Methods for capturing fish fall into two categories: passive methods, which rely on the fish swimming into a net or a trap; and active methods, in which fish are pursued. The fact that fish are cold-blooded influences the choice of method and timing of sampling. For example, in temperate zones, active methods may be more successful in winter when fish are less mobile, whereas passive techniques may work best in summer when fish are more active. The choice of method will also be guided by gear selectivity.

Type
Chapter
Information
Ecological Census Techniques
A Handbook
, pp. 250 - 277
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bagenal, T. B. (1972). The variability in the number of perch, Perca fluviatilis L., caught in traps. Freshwater Biology 2, 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobek, M. (1990). Applied hydroacoustics in cyprinid research. In Fisheries in the Year 2000, ed. O'Grady, K. T., Butterworth, A. J. B., Spillett, P. B. & Domaniewski, J. L. J.. Nottingham, Institute of Fisheries Management.Google Scholar
Bowles, R. R., Merriner, J. V. & Grant, G. C. (1978). Factors Associated with Accuracy in Sampling Fish Eggs and Larvae. Ann Arbor, Michigan, US Fish and Wildlife Service.Google Scholar
Brandt, A., (1984). Fish Catching Methods of the World. Farnham, Surrey, Fishing News Books.Google Scholar
Buckley, B. (1987). Seine Netting. Advisory Booklet from the Specialist Section – Management. Nottingham, Publications of the Institute of Fisheries Management.Google Scholar
Copp, G. H. & Peñáz, M. (1988). Ecology of fish spawning and nursery zones in the flood plain, using a new sampling approach. Hydrobiologia 169, 209–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowx, I. G. (ed) (1991). Catch Effort Sampling Strategies – Their Application in Freshwater Fisheries Management. Oxford, Fishing News Books, Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Cowx, I. G., Wheatley, G. A. & Hickley, P. (1990). Developments of boom electric fishing equipment for use in large rivers and canals in the United Kingdom. Aquaculture and Fisheries Management 19, 205–212.Google Scholar
Ehrenberg, J. E. (1973). Estimation of the Intensity of a Filtered Poisson Process and its Application to Acoustic Assessment of Marine Organisms. Seattle, Washington, University of Washington Sea Grant Publication WSG 73-2.Google Scholar
Garner, P. (1997). Sample sizes for length and density estimation of 0+ fish when using point sampling by electrofishing. Journal of Fish Biology 50, 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamley, J. M. (1975). Review of gill net selectivity. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32, 1943–1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hankin, D. G. & Reeves, G. H. (1988). Estimating total fish abundance and total habitat area in small streams based on visual estimation methods. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45, 834–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horne, J. K. (2000). Acoustic approaches to remote species identification: a review. Fisheries Oceanography 9, 356–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hylén, A. & Jakobsen, T. (1979). A fishing experiment with multifilament, monofilament and monotwine gill nets in Lofoten during the spawning season of Arcto-Norwegian cod in 1974. Fiskeridirektoratets Skrifter, Serie Havunderskelser 16, 531–550.Google Scholar
Jones, R. S. & Thompson, M. J. (1978). Comparison of Florida reef fish assemblages using a rapid visual technique. Bulletin of Marine Science 28, 159–172.Google Scholar
Kennedy, G. J. A. & Strange, C. D. (1981). Efficiency of electric fishing for salmonids in relation to river width. Fisheries Management 12, 55–60.Google Scholar
McClanahan, T. R. & Mangi, S. C. (2004). Gear-based management of a tropical artisanal fishery based on species selectivity and capture size. Fisheries Management and Ecology 11, 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minns, C. K. & Hurley, D. A. (1988). Effects of net length and set time on fish catches in gill nets. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 8, 216–223.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, B. R. & Willis, D. W. (eds.) (1996). Fisheries Techniques, 2nd edn. Bethesda, Maryland, American Fisheries Society.Google Scholar
Newman, S. J. & Williams, D. M. (1995). Mesh size selection and diel variability in catch of fish traps on the central Great Barrier Reef, Australia – a preliminary investigation. Fisheries Research 23, 237–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, K. (1980). A direct method for estimating northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax, spawning biomass. Fisheries Bulletin US 78, 5541–5544.Google Scholar
Pereyra, W. T. (1963). Scope ratio–depth relationships for beam trawl, shrimp trawl, and otter trawl. Commercial Fisheries Review 25, 7–10.Google Scholar
Perrow, M. R., Jowitt, A. J. D. & Zambrano, González L. (1996). Sampling fish communities in shallow lowland lakes: point-sample electrofishing versus electrofishing within stop-nets. Fisheries Management & Ecology 3, 303–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samoilys, M. A. & Carlos, G. (2000). Determining methods for underwater visual census for estimating the abundance of coral reef fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 57, 289–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, P. E. & Richardson, S. L. (1977). Standard Techniques for Pelagic Fish Egg and Larva Surveys. Fisheries Technical Paper 175. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
Stepnowski, A. & Moszynski, M. (2000). Inverse problem solution techniques as applied to indirect in situ estimation of fish target strength. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 107, 2554–2562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yokota, K.Fujimori, Y., Shimode, D. & Tokai, T. (2001). Effect of thin twine on fill net size-selectivity analyzed with the direct estimation method. Fisheries Science 67, 851–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zalewski, M. (1983). The influence of fish community structure on the efficiency of electrofishing. Fish Management 14, 177–186.Google Scholar
Zalewski, M. & Cowx, I. G. (1990). Factors affecting the efficiency of electric fishing. In Fishing with Electricity – Applications in Freshwater Fisheries Management, ed. Cowx, I. G. & Lamarque, P.. Oxford, Fishing News Books, Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Fish
    • By Isabelle M. Côté, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6, Martin R. Perrow, ECON Ecological Consultancy, School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
  • Edited by William J. Sutherland, University of East Anglia
  • Book: Ecological Census Techniques
  • Online publication: 05 September 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790508.007
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Fish
    • By Isabelle M. Côté, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6, Martin R. Perrow, ECON Ecological Consultancy, School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
  • Edited by William J. Sutherland, University of East Anglia
  • Book: Ecological Census Techniques
  • Online publication: 05 September 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790508.007
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Fish
    • By Isabelle M. Côté, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6, Martin R. Perrow, ECON Ecological Consultancy, School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
  • Edited by William J. Sutherland, University of East Anglia
  • Book: Ecological Census Techniques
  • Online publication: 05 September 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790508.007
Available formats
×