Evaluating mark–recapture sampling designs for fish in an open riverine system
Daniel C. Gwinn A C , Paul Brown B , Jakob C. Tetzlaff A and Mike S. Allen AA Program of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, 7922 NW 71st Street, Gainesville, FL 32653-3071, USA.
B Marine and Freshwater Fisheries Research Institute, Fisheries Victoria, Department of Primary Industries, Snobs Creek Centre, Private Bag 20, Alexandra, Vic. 3714, Australia.
C Corresponding author. Email: dgwinn@ufl.edu
Marine and Freshwater Research 62(7) 835-840 https://doi.org/10.1071/MF10217
Submitted: 11 August 2010 Accepted: 24 February 2011 Published: 25 July 2011
Abstract
Sampling designs for effective monitoring programs are often specific to individual systems and management needs. Failure to carefully evaluate sampling designs of monitoring programs can lead to data that are ineffective for informing management objectives. We demonstrated the use of an individual-based model to evaluate closed-population mark–recapture sampling designs for monitoring fish abundance in open systems, using Murray cod (Maccullochella peelii (Mitchell, 1838)) in the Murray–Darling River basin, Australia, as an example. The model used home-range, capture-probability and abundance estimates to evaluate the influence of the size of the sampling area and the number of sampling events on bias and precision of mark–recapture abundance estimates. Simulation results indicated a trade-off between the number of sampling events and the size of the sampling reach such that investigators could employ large sampling areas with relatively few sampling events, or smaller sampling areas with more sampling events to produce acceptably accurate and precise abundance estimates. The current paper presents a framework for evaluating parameter bias resulting from migration when applying closed-population mark–recapture models to open populations and demonstrates the use of simulation approaches for informing efficient and effective monitoring-program design.
Additional keywords: bias, home-range, mark–recapture, migration, Murray cod, sampling design.
References
Bolker, B. M. (2008). ‘Ecological Models and Data.’ (Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.)Coggins, L. G., Pine, W. E., Walters, C. J., VanHaverbeke, D. R., Ward, D., and Johnstone, H. C. (2006). Abundance trends and status of the Little Colorado River population of humpback chub. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 26, 233–245.
| Abundance trends and status of the Little Colorado River population of humpback chub.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Crook, D. A. (2004). Is the home range concept compatible with the movements of two species of lowland river fish? Journal of Animal Ecology 73, 353–366.
| Is the home range concept compatible with the movements of two species of lowland river fish?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hilborn, R., and Walters, C. J. (1992). ‘Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment: Choice, Dynamics and Uncertainty.’ (Chapman and Hall: New York.)
Johnson, D. G. (2008). In defence of indices: the case of bird surveys. The Journal of Wildlife Management 72, 857–868.
Jones, M., and Stuart, I. (2007). Movements and habitat use of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and Murray cod (Maccullochella peelii peelii) juveniles in a large lowland Australian river. Ecology Freshwater Fish 16, 210–220.
Kendall, W. L. (1999). Robustness of closed capture-recapture methods to violations of the closure assumption. Ecology 80, 2517–2525.
Koehn, J. D., McKenzie, J. A., O’Mahony, D. J., Nicol, S. J., O’Connor, J. P., and O’Connor, W. G. (2009). Movements of Murray cod (Maccullochella peelii peelii) in a large Australian lowland river. Ecology Freshwater Fish 18, 594–602.
| Movements of Murray cod (Maccullochella peelii peelii) in a large Australian lowland river.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Nelder, J. A., and Mead, R. (1965). A simplex algorithm for function minimization. The Computer Journal 7, 308–313.
Otis, D. L., Burnham, K. P., White, G. C., and Anderson, D. R. (1978). Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations. Wildlife Monographs 62, 1–135.
Pine, W. E., Pollock, K. H., Hightower, J. E., Kwak, T. J., and Rice, J. A. (2003). A review of tagging methods for estimating fish population size and components of mortality. Fisheries 28, 10–23.
| A review of tagging methods for estimating fish population size and components of mortality.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
R Development Core Team (2009). ‘R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, Reference Index, Version 2.9.2.’ Available at http://www.R-project.org [Verified 14 December 2010].
Robson, D. S., and Regier, H. A. (1964). Sample size in Petersen mark–recapture experiments. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 93, 215–226.
| Sample size in Petersen mark–recapture experiments.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Royle, J. A., and Young, K. V. (2008). A hierarchical model for spatial capture–recapture data. Ecology 89, 2281–2289.
| A hierarchical model for spatial capture–recapture data.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Schwarz, C. J., and Stobo, W. T. (1997). Estimating temporary migration using the robust design. Biometrics 53, 178–194.
| Estimating temporary migration using the robust design.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Seber, G. A. (1982). ‘The Estimation of Animal Abundance and Related Parameters.’ 2nd edn. (Macmillan: New York.)
Seber, G. A. (1986). A review of estimating animal abundance. Biometrics 42, 267–292.
| A review of estimating animal abundance.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaL283ps12mug%3D%3D&md5=ac6282b0b4e1c276c5318d56a6fa1217CAS |
White, G. C., and Garrott, R. A. (1990). ‘Analysis of Wildlife Radio-Tracking Data.’ (Academic Press: San Diego, CA.)
