Laserfiche WebLink
<br />native fish. <br /> <br />Removal Feasibility <br /> <br /> <br />In 1998, all gear types captured 1,343 catfish weighing 342.5 kg. In 1999, a total of 2,766 <br /> <br /> <br />channel catfish weighing 729.4 kg were removed in five angling passes through the study area. An <br /> <br />additional 147 catfish were removed in 1999 with electro fishing gear in an unrelated study. No <br /> <br />differences were observed in the catch rates of the last removal pass between control and treatment <br /> <br />reaches in 1998 (t= -0.82, df=3, P=0.470), whereas significant differences occurred between <br /> <br />channel catfish catch rates in treatment and control reaches in 1999 (t= -5.94, df=3, P=0.009) <br />(Table 5). <br /> <br />Based on the presence of detectable slopes, estimates of population size was possible in <br /> <br />three of four reaches (figure 3). Estimates for treatment reaches 2, 3, and 4, were 718 (SE =134), <br /> <br /> <br />1,153 (SE = 1,195), 710 (SE=88) respectively. These estimates represent densities of 101.1 <br /> <br /> <br />fish/km, 180.2 fish/km, and 87.7 fish/Ian respectively for treatment reaches 2, 3 and 4. Based on <br /> <br /> <br />known number offish removed, the estimated removal efficiency was 70.3%, 57.4%, and 81.5% in <br /> <br />reaches 2, 3, and 4 respectively. The assumptions ofthe model used are that all fish in the <br /> <br />population/reach were equally vulnerable to removal through all removal efforts. In addition, we <br /> <br />assumed that fish did not move among reaches. Some bias due to angler access was surely evident <br /> <br />and therefore the assumption of equal vulnerability was certainly not met, and population estimates <br /> <br />may underestimate real abundance. Thus, the population estimates should be interpreted as rough <br /> <br />estimates. <br /> <br />9 <br />