Abstract
When estimating fish population abundance, it is important to recognize that differing habitat use may cause one gear type to be more effective and less biased than another. We generated and compared population abundance estimates (PE) for adult Yellow Perch Perca flavescens in Crystal Lake, Wisconsin using a spring mini-fyke net mark–recapture survey and summer hydroacoustic surveys. Mean PE from the spring mark–recapture survey was 11,051 adult Yellow Perch (95% confidence limits of 9,878 and 12,541). This mean was 4.0–8.5 times greater than the range of mean summer hydroacoustic estimates (mean ± 95% CI = 1,291 ± 312 and 2,912 ± 703). Due to Yellow Perch spawning behavior, we assumed that the spring mark–recapture survey sampled the entire adult population, while summer hydroacoustics sampled the postspawn pelagic component. Using the mean of all hydroacoustic surveys (PE = 2,492; n = 5), we estimated that approximately 22% of adult Yellow Perch selected for pelagic habitats postspawn. Our study emphasizes the importance of evaluating gear bias and has implications for future assessments, particularly when the target species may exhibit multiple habitat preferences within a lake.
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 1079-1087 |
Number of pages | 9 |
Journal | North American Journal of Fisheries Management |
Volume | 41 |
Issue number | 4 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Aug 2021 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:We thank Amber Mrnak for providing invaluable support with data collection and technical assistance in the field and Trout Lake Research Station for support of our field program. We thank Stephanie Shaw for making the study area map and Holly Embke for providing advice during the review process. We thank the three anonymous referees as well as the editor and associate editor for providing a critical and constructive review of our manuscript. Funding for J. T. Mrnak was provided by the Tug Juday Memorial Fund, a Juday/Lane Fellowship, the Anna Grant Birge Memorial Fund, and the National Science Foundation North Temperate Lakes Long‐term Ecological Research Program (grants DEB‐0217533 and DEB‐1440297). Funding for L. W. Sikora was provided by the University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Aid in Sportfish Restoration program. Funding for M. J. Vander Zanden was provided by the University of Wisconsin‐Madison. Funding for T. R. Hrabik was provided by the University of Minnesota‐Duluth. Funding for G. G. Sass was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Aid in Sportfish Restoration program and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. There is no conflict of interest declared in this article.
Funding Information:
We thank Amber Mrnak for providing invaluable support with data collection and technical assistance in the field and Trout Lake Research Station for support of our field program. We thank Stephanie Shaw for making the study area map and Holly Embke for providing advice during the review process. We thank the three anonymous referees as well as the editor and associate editor for providing a critical and constructive review of our manuscript. Funding for J. T. Mrnak was provided by the Tug Juday Memorial Fund, a Juday/Lane Fellowship, the Anna Grant Birge Memorial Fund, and the National Science Foundation North Temperate Lakes Long-term Ecological Research Program (grants DEB-0217533 and DEB-1440297). Funding for L. W. Sikora was provided by the University of Wisconsin?Stevens Point and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Aid in Sportfish Restoration program. Funding for M. J. Vander Zanden was provided by the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Funding for T. R. Hrabik was provided by the University of Minnesota-Duluth. Funding for G. G. Sass was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Aid in Sportfish Restoration program and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. There is no conflict of interest declared in this article.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 American Fisheries Society