Does bait type and bait container configuration influence the performance of remote underwater video systems in temperate freshwater lakes for assessing fish community structure?
Methods for the use of baited remote underwater video stations (BRUVS) have been tested and refined such that they are now widely used in marine research for assessing fish community structure. There is comparatively less known about the effectiveness of different bait types or bait containers for u...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Hydrobiologia 2022-05, Vol.849 (9), p.1981-1994 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1994 |
---|---|
container_issue | 9 |
container_start_page | 1981 |
container_title | Hydrobiologia |
container_volume | 849 |
creator | Glassman, D. M. Chhor, A. Vermaire, J. C. Bennett, J. R. Cooke, S. J. |
description | Methods for the use of baited remote underwater video stations (BRUVS) have been tested and refined such that they are now widely used in marine research for assessing fish community structure. There is comparatively less known about the effectiveness of different bait types or bait containers for use with BRUVS in freshwater temperate environments. We conducted a field-based experiment in Lake Opinicon, located in southeastern Ontario, Canada to compare the effectiveness of three baits and two styles of bait container to unbaited systems. Species richness per deployment and the probability of detecting each species were used as measures of effectiveness. BRUVS were deployed in weedy habitats in the littoral zone of the lake (1–3 m depth) with corn, cat food, sardines, or no bait, in an accessible mesh bag, or an inaccessible perforated PVC container. The mean species richness detected was uniform across bait type and container. For
Micropterus salmoides
,
Cyprinidae
spp., and
Esox lucius
, there were associations between bait type and proportion of detections. BRUVS appear to be effective in observing species richness in a shallow, low-visibility freshwater environment; however, there is little evidence that use of bait improves effectiveness relative to unbaited RUVS. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10750-021-04776-7 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2654890624</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A701629664</galeid><sourcerecordid>A701629664</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-c7a70e8774b36bbb4ed644c800f4cfc0d715b9ee7cbd018cc7d7fd533bc8c4243</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kcFu1DAQhi1EpS6FF-jJEueUceLE2ROqCgWkSlzgbDn2eNdlYy8eB7Sv1SfE2yBxQz6Mx_6_mdH8jF0LuBEA6h0JUD000IoGpFJDo16wjehV1_RCqJdsAyDGZhT9eMleET1ChbYtbNjTh4TEJxMKL6cjchPdmtkUiwkR8_nmw27JpoQUeYj-sGC0yMse-RGzT3k25zx5nnFOBfkSHebfplT4V3CYOJ2o4EwV5jVWqP5xn5H2q-pgftQpaiVuiJAoxB33gfa19zwvMZQTp5IXW5aM71-zC28OhG_-xiv2_f7jt7vPzcPXT1_ubh8a2_VjaawyCnBUSk7dME2TRDdIaUcAL6234JTopy2ispOry7FWOeVd33WTHa1sZXfF3q51jzn9XJCKfkxLjrWlbodejlsYnlU3q2pnDqjrdlLJxtbjcA51dehDfb9VIIZ2OwxnoF0BmxNRRq-POcwmn7QAfTZTr2bqaqZ-NlOrCnUrRFUcd5j_zfIf6g8Rd6gU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2654890624</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Does bait type and bait container configuration influence the performance of remote underwater video systems in temperate freshwater lakes for assessing fish community structure?</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Glassman, D. M. ; Chhor, A. ; Vermaire, J. C. ; Bennett, J. R. ; Cooke, S. J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Glassman, D. M. ; Chhor, A. ; Vermaire, J. C. ; Bennett, J. R. ; Cooke, S. J.</creatorcontrib><description>Methods for the use of baited remote underwater video stations (BRUVS) have been tested and refined such that they are now widely used in marine research for assessing fish community structure. There is comparatively less known about the effectiveness of different bait types or bait containers for use with BRUVS in freshwater temperate environments. We conducted a field-based experiment in Lake Opinicon, located in southeastern Ontario, Canada to compare the effectiveness of three baits and two styles of bait container to unbaited systems. Species richness per deployment and the probability of detecting each species were used as measures of effectiveness. BRUVS were deployed in weedy habitats in the littoral zone of the lake (1–3 m depth) with corn, cat food, sardines, or no bait, in an accessible mesh bag, or an inaccessible perforated PVC container. The mean species richness detected was uniform across bait type and container. For
Micropterus salmoides
,
Cyprinidae
spp., and
Esox lucius
, there were associations between bait type and proportion of detections. BRUVS appear to be effective in observing species richness in a shallow, low-visibility freshwater environment; however, there is little evidence that use of bait improves effectiveness relative to unbaited RUVS.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0018-8158</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-5117</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10750-021-04776-7</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer International Publishing</publisher><subject>Baits ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Cameras ; Community structure ; Configuration management ; Containers ; Ecology ; Fish ; Fishing bait ; Fresh water ; Freshwater ; Freshwater & Marine Ecology ; Freshwater environments ; Freshwater fish ; Freshwater lakes ; Inland water environment ; Lakes ; Life Sciences ; Littoral environments ; Littoral zone ; Marine fishes ; Marine sciences ; Methods ; Performance evaluation ; Primary Research Paper ; Probability theory ; Species richness ; Temperate environments ; Underwater ; Visibility ; Water depth ; Zoology</subject><ispartof>Hydrobiologia, 2022-05, Vol.849 (9), p.1981-1994</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 Springer</rights><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-c7a70e8774b36bbb4ed644c800f4cfc0d715b9ee7cbd018cc7d7fd533bc8c4243</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-c7a70e8774b36bbb4ed644c800f4cfc0d715b9ee7cbd018cc7d7fd533bc8c4243</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3901-9513 ; 0000-0002-5407-0659 ; 0000-0003-1785-4902 ; 0000-0002-9921-6148 ; 0000-0002-1090-0219</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10750-021-04776-7$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10750-021-04776-7$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906,41469,42538,51300</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Glassman, D. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chhor, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vermaire, J. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bennett, J. R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cooke, S. J.</creatorcontrib><title>Does bait type and bait container configuration influence the performance of remote underwater video systems in temperate freshwater lakes for assessing fish community structure?</title><title>Hydrobiologia</title><addtitle>Hydrobiologia</addtitle><description>Methods for the use of baited remote underwater video stations (BRUVS) have been tested and refined such that they are now widely used in marine research for assessing fish community structure. There is comparatively less known about the effectiveness of different bait types or bait containers for use with BRUVS in freshwater temperate environments. We conducted a field-based experiment in Lake Opinicon, located in southeastern Ontario, Canada to compare the effectiveness of three baits and two styles of bait container to unbaited systems. Species richness per deployment and the probability of detecting each species were used as measures of effectiveness. BRUVS were deployed in weedy habitats in the littoral zone of the lake (1–3 m depth) with corn, cat food, sardines, or no bait, in an accessible mesh bag, or an inaccessible perforated PVC container. The mean species richness detected was uniform across bait type and container. For
Micropterus salmoides
,
Cyprinidae
spp., and
Esox lucius
, there were associations between bait type and proportion of detections. BRUVS appear to be effective in observing species richness in a shallow, low-visibility freshwater environment; however, there is little evidence that use of bait improves effectiveness relative to unbaited RUVS.</description><subject>Baits</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Cameras</subject><subject>Community structure</subject><subject>Configuration management</subject><subject>Containers</subject><subject>Ecology</subject><subject>Fish</subject><subject>Fishing bait</subject><subject>Fresh water</subject><subject>Freshwater</subject><subject>Freshwater & Marine Ecology</subject><subject>Freshwater environments</subject><subject>Freshwater fish</subject><subject>Freshwater lakes</subject><subject>Inland water environment</subject><subject>Lakes</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Littoral environments</subject><subject>Littoral zone</subject><subject>Marine fishes</subject><subject>Marine sciences</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Performance evaluation</subject><subject>Primary Research Paper</subject><subject>Probability theory</subject><subject>Species richness</subject><subject>Temperate environments</subject><subject>Underwater</subject><subject>Visibility</subject><subject>Water depth</subject><subject>Zoology</subject><issn>0018-8158</issn><issn>1573-5117</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kcFu1DAQhi1EpS6FF-jJEueUceLE2ROqCgWkSlzgbDn2eNdlYy8eB7Sv1SfE2yBxQz6Mx_6_mdH8jF0LuBEA6h0JUD000IoGpFJDo16wjehV1_RCqJdsAyDGZhT9eMleET1ChbYtbNjTh4TEJxMKL6cjchPdmtkUiwkR8_nmw27JpoQUeYj-sGC0yMse-RGzT3k25zx5nnFOBfkSHebfplT4V3CYOJ2o4EwV5jVWqP5xn5H2q-pgftQpaiVuiJAoxB33gfa19zwvMZQTp5IXW5aM71-zC28OhG_-xiv2_f7jt7vPzcPXT1_ubh8a2_VjaawyCnBUSk7dME2TRDdIaUcAL6234JTopy2ispOry7FWOeVd33WTHa1sZXfF3q51jzn9XJCKfkxLjrWlbodejlsYnlU3q2pnDqjrdlLJxtbjcA51dehDfb9VIIZ2OwxnoF0BmxNRRq-POcwmn7QAfTZTr2bqaqZ-NlOrCnUrRFUcd5j_zfIf6g8Rd6gU</recordid><startdate>20220501</startdate><enddate>20220501</enddate><creator>Glassman, D. M.</creator><creator>Chhor, A.</creator><creator>Vermaire, J. C.</creator><creator>Bennett, J. R.</creator><creator>Cooke, S. J.</creator><general>Springer International Publishing</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3901-9513</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5407-0659</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1785-4902</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9921-6148</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1090-0219</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220501</creationdate><title>Does bait type and bait container configuration influence the performance of remote underwater video systems in temperate freshwater lakes for assessing fish community structure?</title><author>Glassman, D. M. ; Chhor, A. ; Vermaire, J. C. ; Bennett, J. R. ; Cooke, S. J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-c7a70e8774b36bbb4ed644c800f4cfc0d715b9ee7cbd018cc7d7fd533bc8c4243</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Baits</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Cameras</topic><topic>Community structure</topic><topic>Configuration management</topic><topic>Containers</topic><topic>Ecology</topic><topic>Fish</topic><topic>Fishing bait</topic><topic>Fresh water</topic><topic>Freshwater</topic><topic>Freshwater & Marine Ecology</topic><topic>Freshwater environments</topic><topic>Freshwater fish</topic><topic>Freshwater lakes</topic><topic>Inland water environment</topic><topic>Lakes</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Littoral environments</topic><topic>Littoral zone</topic><topic>Marine fishes</topic><topic>Marine sciences</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Performance evaluation</topic><topic>Primary Research Paper</topic><topic>Probability theory</topic><topic>Species richness</topic><topic>Temperate environments</topic><topic>Underwater</topic><topic>Visibility</topic><topic>Water depth</topic><topic>Zoology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Glassman, D. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chhor, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vermaire, J. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bennett, J. R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cooke, S. J.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Hydrobiologia</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Glassman, D. M.</au><au>Chhor, A.</au><au>Vermaire, J. C.</au><au>Bennett, J. R.</au><au>Cooke, S. J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Does bait type and bait container configuration influence the performance of remote underwater video systems in temperate freshwater lakes for assessing fish community structure?</atitle><jtitle>Hydrobiologia</jtitle><stitle>Hydrobiologia</stitle><date>2022-05-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>849</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1981</spage><epage>1994</epage><pages>1981-1994</pages><issn>0018-8158</issn><eissn>1573-5117</eissn><abstract>Methods for the use of baited remote underwater video stations (BRUVS) have been tested and refined such that they are now widely used in marine research for assessing fish community structure. There is comparatively less known about the effectiveness of different bait types or bait containers for use with BRUVS in freshwater temperate environments. We conducted a field-based experiment in Lake Opinicon, located in southeastern Ontario, Canada to compare the effectiveness of three baits and two styles of bait container to unbaited systems. Species richness per deployment and the probability of detecting each species were used as measures of effectiveness. BRUVS were deployed in weedy habitats in the littoral zone of the lake (1–3 m depth) with corn, cat food, sardines, or no bait, in an accessible mesh bag, or an inaccessible perforated PVC container. The mean species richness detected was uniform across bait type and container. For
Micropterus salmoides
,
Cyprinidae
spp., and
Esox lucius
, there were associations between bait type and proportion of detections. BRUVS appear to be effective in observing species richness in a shallow, low-visibility freshwater environment; however, there is little evidence that use of bait improves effectiveness relative to unbaited RUVS.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer International Publishing</pub><doi>10.1007/s10750-021-04776-7</doi><tpages>14</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3901-9513</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5407-0659</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1785-4902</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9921-6148</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1090-0219</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0018-8158 |
ispartof | Hydrobiologia, 2022-05, Vol.849 (9), p.1981-1994 |
issn | 0018-8158 1573-5117 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2654890624 |
source | SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
subjects | Baits Biomedical and Life Sciences Cameras Community structure Configuration management Containers Ecology Fish Fishing bait Fresh water Freshwater Freshwater & Marine Ecology Freshwater environments Freshwater fish Freshwater lakes Inland water environment Lakes Life Sciences Littoral environments Littoral zone Marine fishes Marine sciences Methods Performance evaluation Primary Research Paper Probability theory Species richness Temperate environments Underwater Visibility Water depth Zoology |
title | Does bait type and bait container configuration influence the performance of remote underwater video systems in temperate freshwater lakes for assessing fish community structure? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-19T01%3A11%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Does%20bait%20type%20and%20bait%20container%20configuration%20influence%20the%20performance%20of%20remote%20underwater%20video%20systems%20in%20temperate%20freshwater%20lakes%20for%20assessing%20fish%20community%20structure?&rft.jtitle=Hydrobiologia&rft.au=Glassman,%20D.%20M.&rft.date=2022-05-01&rft.volume=849&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1981&rft.epage=1994&rft.pages=1981-1994&rft.issn=0018-8158&rft.eissn=1573-5117&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10750-021-04776-7&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA701629664%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2654890624&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A701629664&rfr_iscdi=true |