Gear effectiveness and size selectivity for five cryptic madtom species (Noturus spp.)

More than half of the diminutive North American catfish species known as madtoms (Noturus spp.) are considered imperiled due to range reductions from habitat fragmentation and degradation. In response, government agencies regularly conduct sampling that targets these cryptic fishes. Unfortunately, t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of applied ichthyology 2019-06, Vol.35 (3), p.673-682
Hauptverfasser: Wagner, Matthew D., Schumann, David A., Smith, Bradley J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 682
container_issue 3
container_start_page 673
container_title Journal of applied ichthyology
container_volume 35
creator Wagner, Matthew D.
Schumann, David A.
Smith, Bradley J.
description More than half of the diminutive North American catfish species known as madtoms (Noturus spp.) are considered imperiled due to range reductions from habitat fragmentation and degradation. In response, government agencies regularly conduct sampling that targets these cryptic fishes. Unfortunately, the effectiveness and biases associated with common sampling gears has rarely been quantified for non‐game fish, including madtoms. To improve sampling protocols for diverse madtom species, we: (a) quantified the detection probabilities and effort necessary to detect five species of madtom with relative certainty using complimentary sampling gears, and (b) described biases associated with size‐selectivity of the same gears when used to sample madtoms. Five madtom species that are native to Mississippi streams and have two distinct coloration patterns were selected: uniform pattern, Brown Madtom (Noturus phaeus) and Freckled Madtom (Noturus nocturnus); patterned, Piebald Madtom (Noturus gladiator), Least Madtom (Noturus hildebrandi), and Brindled Madtom (Noturus miurus). These species were captured using four standardized sampling gears (i.e., backpack electrofisher, seine, dipnet, and Gee‐style minnow trap) from 13 isolated stream reaches in Mississippi during baseflow conditions between August and November 2016. Each gear was randomly assigned to up to five transects at each site resulting in a maximum of 20 unique samples per stream reach. We estimated the detection probability of each species with each gear using presence–absence capture data. Cumulative detection probabilities were calculated for each species and gear combination to describe the number of samples necessary to achieve a detection probability of 0.95. Additionally, we pooled all capture data across sampling sites to compare madtom size distributions among gears. Electrofishing was generally the most efficient gear for detecting madtoms, but slightly overestimated fish size distributions. By seining, managers can expect to capture all species evaluated with a modest amount of effort; however, are likely to catch relatively small individuals. Seining was the most effective gear for only Piebald Madtom, a species petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act. To be relatively certain that Piebald Madtom are absent from a stream reach would require sampling ten 100 m transects by seining. In contrast, the same certainty would require more than twenty 100 m electrofishing transects. Minnow
doi_str_mv 10.1111/jai.13892
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2231403926</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2231403926</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3322-856fdb14dcaf4ab992af97f3b55937df4b5b816bd8eb999f99dc9a066ddd8ecd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kD1PwzAQhi0EEqUw8A8ssdAhrT8SJx6rCkpRBQuwWo59lly1TbATUPj1GMLKLSc999yd9CJ0TcmcplrstJ9TXkl2giY05zIjOROnaEJoWWSVKOQ5uohxRwipSikm6G0NOmBwDkznP-AIMWJ9tDj6L8AR9r_YdwN2TcAuGdiEoe28wQdtu-aAYwvGQ8S3T03Xhz4m0M5nl-jM6X2Eq78-Ra_3dy-rh2z7vN6sltvMcM5YVhXC2Zrm1miX61pKpp0sHa-LQvLSurwu6oqK2laQhtJJaY3URAhrEzKWT9HNeLcNzXsPsVO7pg_H9FIxxmlOuGQiWbPRMqGJMYBTbfAHHQZFifqJTaXY1G9syV2M7qffw_C_qB6Xm3HjGzkGb90</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2231403926</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Gear effectiveness and size selectivity for five cryptic madtom species (Noturus spp.)</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Wagner, Matthew D. ; Schumann, David A. ; Smith, Bradley J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Wagner, Matthew D. ; Schumann, David A. ; Smith, Bradley J.</creatorcontrib><description>More than half of the diminutive North American catfish species known as madtoms (Noturus spp.) are considered imperiled due to range reductions from habitat fragmentation and degradation. In response, government agencies regularly conduct sampling that targets these cryptic fishes. Unfortunately, the effectiveness and biases associated with common sampling gears has rarely been quantified for non‐game fish, including madtoms. To improve sampling protocols for diverse madtom species, we: (a) quantified the detection probabilities and effort necessary to detect five species of madtom with relative certainty using complimentary sampling gears, and (b) described biases associated with size‐selectivity of the same gears when used to sample madtoms. Five madtom species that are native to Mississippi streams and have two distinct coloration patterns were selected: uniform pattern, Brown Madtom (Noturus phaeus) and Freckled Madtom (Noturus nocturnus); patterned, Piebald Madtom (Noturus gladiator), Least Madtom (Noturus hildebrandi), and Brindled Madtom (Noturus miurus). These species were captured using four standardized sampling gears (i.e., backpack electrofisher, seine, dipnet, and Gee‐style minnow trap) from 13 isolated stream reaches in Mississippi during baseflow conditions between August and November 2016. Each gear was randomly assigned to up to five transects at each site resulting in a maximum of 20 unique samples per stream reach. We estimated the detection probability of each species with each gear using presence–absence capture data. Cumulative detection probabilities were calculated for each species and gear combination to describe the number of samples necessary to achieve a detection probability of 0.95. Additionally, we pooled all capture data across sampling sites to compare madtom size distributions among gears. Electrofishing was generally the most efficient gear for detecting madtoms, but slightly overestimated fish size distributions. By seining, managers can expect to capture all species evaluated with a modest amount of effort; however, are likely to catch relatively small individuals. Seining was the most effective gear for only Piebald Madtom, a species petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act. To be relatively certain that Piebald Madtom are absent from a stream reach would require sampling ten 100 m transects by seining. In contrast, the same certainty would require more than twenty 100 m electrofishing transects. Minnow traps and dipnetting generally performed poorly and failed to detect some species at occupied sites. Biologists can now consider using each of these complimentary gears assessed when evaluating species status and population structure for diverse madtom species, while explicitly acknowledging the biases associated with each gear.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0175-8659</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1439-0426</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/jai.13892</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Base flow ; Catfish ; Coloration ; Colour ; Cryptic species ; Detection ; Electric fishing ; Endangered &amp; extinct species ; Endangered species ; Environmental degradation ; Fish ; Freshwater fishes ; Game fishes ; Gears ; Government agencies ; Habitat fragmentation ; Indigenous species ; Noturus ; Population structure ; Probability theory ; Rare species ; Rivers ; Sampling ; Seining ; Selectivity ; Sport fishing</subject><ispartof>Journal of applied ichthyology, 2019-06, Vol.35 (3), p.673-682</ispartof><rights>2019 Blackwell Verlag GmbH</rights><rights>Copyright © 2019 Blackwell Verlag GmbH</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3322-856fdb14dcaf4ab992af97f3b55937df4b5b816bd8eb999f99dc9a066ddd8ecd3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3322-856fdb14dcaf4ab992af97f3b55937df4b5b816bd8eb999f99dc9a066ddd8ecd3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-3408-1104</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fjai.13892$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fjai.13892$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wagner, Matthew D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schumann, David A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Bradley J.</creatorcontrib><title>Gear effectiveness and size selectivity for five cryptic madtom species (Noturus spp.)</title><title>Journal of applied ichthyology</title><description>More than half of the diminutive North American catfish species known as madtoms (Noturus spp.) are considered imperiled due to range reductions from habitat fragmentation and degradation. In response, government agencies regularly conduct sampling that targets these cryptic fishes. Unfortunately, the effectiveness and biases associated with common sampling gears has rarely been quantified for non‐game fish, including madtoms. To improve sampling protocols for diverse madtom species, we: (a) quantified the detection probabilities and effort necessary to detect five species of madtom with relative certainty using complimentary sampling gears, and (b) described biases associated with size‐selectivity of the same gears when used to sample madtoms. Five madtom species that are native to Mississippi streams and have two distinct coloration patterns were selected: uniform pattern, Brown Madtom (Noturus phaeus) and Freckled Madtom (Noturus nocturnus); patterned, Piebald Madtom (Noturus gladiator), Least Madtom (Noturus hildebrandi), and Brindled Madtom (Noturus miurus). These species were captured using four standardized sampling gears (i.e., backpack electrofisher, seine, dipnet, and Gee‐style minnow trap) from 13 isolated stream reaches in Mississippi during baseflow conditions between August and November 2016. Each gear was randomly assigned to up to five transects at each site resulting in a maximum of 20 unique samples per stream reach. We estimated the detection probability of each species with each gear using presence–absence capture data. Cumulative detection probabilities were calculated for each species and gear combination to describe the number of samples necessary to achieve a detection probability of 0.95. Additionally, we pooled all capture data across sampling sites to compare madtom size distributions among gears. Electrofishing was generally the most efficient gear for detecting madtoms, but slightly overestimated fish size distributions. By seining, managers can expect to capture all species evaluated with a modest amount of effort; however, are likely to catch relatively small individuals. Seining was the most effective gear for only Piebald Madtom, a species petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act. To be relatively certain that Piebald Madtom are absent from a stream reach would require sampling ten 100 m transects by seining. In contrast, the same certainty would require more than twenty 100 m electrofishing transects. Minnow traps and dipnetting generally performed poorly and failed to detect some species at occupied sites. Biologists can now consider using each of these complimentary gears assessed when evaluating species status and population structure for diverse madtom species, while explicitly acknowledging the biases associated with each gear.</description><subject>Base flow</subject><subject>Catfish</subject><subject>Coloration</subject><subject>Colour</subject><subject>Cryptic species</subject><subject>Detection</subject><subject>Electric fishing</subject><subject>Endangered &amp; extinct species</subject><subject>Endangered species</subject><subject>Environmental degradation</subject><subject>Fish</subject><subject>Freshwater fishes</subject><subject>Game fishes</subject><subject>Gears</subject><subject>Government agencies</subject><subject>Habitat fragmentation</subject><subject>Indigenous species</subject><subject>Noturus</subject><subject>Population structure</subject><subject>Probability theory</subject><subject>Rare species</subject><subject>Rivers</subject><subject>Sampling</subject><subject>Seining</subject><subject>Selectivity</subject><subject>Sport fishing</subject><issn>0175-8659</issn><issn>1439-0426</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kD1PwzAQhi0EEqUw8A8ssdAhrT8SJx6rCkpRBQuwWo59lly1TbATUPj1GMLKLSc999yd9CJ0TcmcplrstJ9TXkl2giY05zIjOROnaEJoWWSVKOQ5uohxRwipSikm6G0NOmBwDkznP-AIMWJ9tDj6L8AR9r_YdwN2TcAuGdiEoe28wQdtu-aAYwvGQ8S3T03Xhz4m0M5nl-jM6X2Eq78-Ra_3dy-rh2z7vN6sltvMcM5YVhXC2Zrm1miX61pKpp0sHa-LQvLSurwu6oqK2laQhtJJaY3URAhrEzKWT9HNeLcNzXsPsVO7pg_H9FIxxmlOuGQiWbPRMqGJMYBTbfAHHQZFifqJTaXY1G9syV2M7qffw_C_qB6Xm3HjGzkGb90</recordid><startdate>201906</startdate><enddate>201906</enddate><creator>Wagner, Matthew D.</creator><creator>Schumann, David A.</creator><creator>Smith, Bradley J.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3408-1104</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201906</creationdate><title>Gear effectiveness and size selectivity for five cryptic madtom species (Noturus spp.)</title><author>Wagner, Matthew D. ; Schumann, David A. ; Smith, Bradley J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3322-856fdb14dcaf4ab992af97f3b55937df4b5b816bd8eb999f99dc9a066ddd8ecd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Base flow</topic><topic>Catfish</topic><topic>Coloration</topic><topic>Colour</topic><topic>Cryptic species</topic><topic>Detection</topic><topic>Electric fishing</topic><topic>Endangered &amp; extinct species</topic><topic>Endangered species</topic><topic>Environmental degradation</topic><topic>Fish</topic><topic>Freshwater fishes</topic><topic>Game fishes</topic><topic>Gears</topic><topic>Government agencies</topic><topic>Habitat fragmentation</topic><topic>Indigenous species</topic><topic>Noturus</topic><topic>Population structure</topic><topic>Probability theory</topic><topic>Rare species</topic><topic>Rivers</topic><topic>Sampling</topic><topic>Seining</topic><topic>Selectivity</topic><topic>Sport fishing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wagner, Matthew D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schumann, David A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Bradley J.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of applied ichthyology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wagner, Matthew D.</au><au>Schumann, David A.</au><au>Smith, Bradley J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Gear effectiveness and size selectivity for five cryptic madtom species (Noturus spp.)</atitle><jtitle>Journal of applied ichthyology</jtitle><date>2019-06</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>673</spage><epage>682</epage><pages>673-682</pages><issn>0175-8659</issn><eissn>1439-0426</eissn><abstract>More than half of the diminutive North American catfish species known as madtoms (Noturus spp.) are considered imperiled due to range reductions from habitat fragmentation and degradation. In response, government agencies regularly conduct sampling that targets these cryptic fishes. Unfortunately, the effectiveness and biases associated with common sampling gears has rarely been quantified for non‐game fish, including madtoms. To improve sampling protocols for diverse madtom species, we: (a) quantified the detection probabilities and effort necessary to detect five species of madtom with relative certainty using complimentary sampling gears, and (b) described biases associated with size‐selectivity of the same gears when used to sample madtoms. Five madtom species that are native to Mississippi streams and have two distinct coloration patterns were selected: uniform pattern, Brown Madtom (Noturus phaeus) and Freckled Madtom (Noturus nocturnus); patterned, Piebald Madtom (Noturus gladiator), Least Madtom (Noturus hildebrandi), and Brindled Madtom (Noturus miurus). These species were captured using four standardized sampling gears (i.e., backpack electrofisher, seine, dipnet, and Gee‐style minnow trap) from 13 isolated stream reaches in Mississippi during baseflow conditions between August and November 2016. Each gear was randomly assigned to up to five transects at each site resulting in a maximum of 20 unique samples per stream reach. We estimated the detection probability of each species with each gear using presence–absence capture data. Cumulative detection probabilities were calculated for each species and gear combination to describe the number of samples necessary to achieve a detection probability of 0.95. Additionally, we pooled all capture data across sampling sites to compare madtom size distributions among gears. Electrofishing was generally the most efficient gear for detecting madtoms, but slightly overestimated fish size distributions. By seining, managers can expect to capture all species evaluated with a modest amount of effort; however, are likely to catch relatively small individuals. Seining was the most effective gear for only Piebald Madtom, a species petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act. To be relatively certain that Piebald Madtom are absent from a stream reach would require sampling ten 100 m transects by seining. In contrast, the same certainty would require more than twenty 100 m electrofishing transects. Minnow traps and dipnetting generally performed poorly and failed to detect some species at occupied sites. Biologists can now consider using each of these complimentary gears assessed when evaluating species status and population structure for diverse madtom species, while explicitly acknowledging the biases associated with each gear.</abstract><cop>Berlin</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/jai.13892</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3408-1104</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0175-8659
ispartof Journal of applied ichthyology, 2019-06, Vol.35 (3), p.673-682
issn 0175-8659
1439-0426
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2231403926
source Access via Wiley Online Library
subjects Base flow
Catfish
Coloration
Colour
Cryptic species
Detection
Electric fishing
Endangered & extinct species
Endangered species
Environmental degradation
Fish
Freshwater fishes
Game fishes
Gears
Government agencies
Habitat fragmentation
Indigenous species
Noturus
Population structure
Probability theory
Rare species
Rivers
Sampling
Seining
Selectivity
Sport fishing
title Gear effectiveness and size selectivity for five cryptic madtom species (Noturus spp.)
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T18%3A50%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Gear%20effectiveness%20and%20size%20selectivity%20for%20five%20cryptic%20madtom%20species%20(Noturus%20spp.)&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20applied%20ichthyology&rft.au=Wagner,%20Matthew%20D.&rft.date=2019-06&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=673&rft.epage=682&rft.pages=673-682&rft.issn=0175-8659&rft.eissn=1439-0426&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/jai.13892&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2231403926%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2231403926&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true