Comparison of Underwater Video with Electrofishing and Dive Counts for Stream Fish Abundance Estimation

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorHitt, Nathaniel P.en
dc.contributor.authorRogers, Karli M.en
dc.contributor.authorSnyder, Craig D.en
dc.contributor.authorDolloff, C. Andrewen
dc.contributor.departmentFish and Wildlife Conservationen
dc.date.accessioned2021-02-22T19:57:34Zen
dc.date.available2021-02-22T19:57:34Zen
dc.date.issued2021-01en
dc.description.abstractAdvances in video technology enable new strategies for stream fish research. We compared juvenile (age-0) and adult (age-1 and older) Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis abundance estimates from underwater video with those from backpack electrofishing and dive count methods across a series of stream pools in Shenandoah National Park, Virginia (n = 41). Video methods estimated greater mean abundance of adult trout than did one-pass electrofishing, but video estimates of adult abundance were not different than estimates from three-pass electrofishing or dive count methods. In contrast, videos underestimated the abundance of juvenile trout; we suggest that this is because predator avoidance behaviors by juvenile trout limit their use of microhabitat locations visible to cameras. Integrated abundance estimates from two cameras increased correspondence to comparison methods relative to estimates from single cameras, demonstrating the importance of an expanded field of view for video sampling in streams. Geomorphic features helped to explain methodwise differences: more adult Brook Trout were estimated with video than with three-pass electrofishing as riffle crest depth and boulder composition increased, indicating habitat associations with trout escapement from electrofishing. Our results demonstrated that video techniques can provide a robust alternative or supplement to traditional methods for estimating adult trout abundance in stream pools.en
dc.description.adminPublic domain – authored by a U.S. government employeeen
dc.description.notesWe thank the following individuals for assistance with this study: S. Faulkner, T. O'Connell, A. Ostroff, S. Phillips, K. Hyer, E. Rodway, S. Brown, J. Dehnert, K. Kessler, Z. Kelly, K. Krause, and C. Muhlfeld (U.S. Geological Survey); C. Krause, C. Roghair, K. Schaefer, and K. Thornhill (USFS); and J. Cummings, J. Schaberl, D. Demarest, and E. Childress (National Park Service). Funding was provided by the U.S. Geological Survey's Ecosystems Mission Area, Chesapeake Bay studies, and Natural Resource Preservation Program. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. There is no conflict of interest declared in this article.en
dc.description.sponsorshipU.S. Geological Survey's Ecosystems Mission Area; Chesapeake Bay studies; Natural Resource Preservation Programen
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1002/tafs.10245en
dc.identifier.eissn1548-8659en
dc.identifier.issn0002-8487en
dc.identifier.issue1en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/102421en
dc.identifier.volume150en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.rightsCC0 1.0 Universalen
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/en
dc.titleComparison of Underwater Video with Electrofishing and Dive Counts for Stream Fish Abundance Estimationen
dc.title.serialTransactions of the American Fisheries Societyen
dc.typeArticle - Refereeden
dc.type.dcmitypeTexten
dc.type.dcmitypeStillImageen

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
tafs.10245.pdf
Size:
2.12 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download

Collections

Scholarly Works, Fish and Wildlife Conservation