Trapping for invasive crayfish: comparisons of efficacy and selectivity of baited traps versus novel artificial refuge traps

Non-native crayfish can dominate the invertebrate biomass of invaded freshwaters, with their high ecological impacts resulting in their populations being controlled by numerous methods, especially trapping. Although baited funnel traps (BTs) are commonly used, they tend to be selective in mainly cat...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Green Nicky [verfasserIn] Bentley Matt [verfasserIn] Stebbing Paul [verfasserIn] Andreou Demetra [verfasserIn] Britton Robert [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2018

Schlagwörter:	Alien species introduction invasion management crayfish trap Pacifastacus leniusculus

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems - EDP Sciences, 2010, (2018), 419, p 15
Übergeordnetes Werk:	year:2018 ; number:419, p 15

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.1051/kmae/2018007

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ012925519

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ012925519
003	DE-627
005	20230502080139.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230225s2018 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1051/kmae/2018007 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ012925519
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJ54216175f14f43e9a5d29fb69ce45077
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a SH1-691
100	0		\|a Green Nicky \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Trapping for invasive crayfish: comparisons of efficacy and selectivity of baited traps versus novel artificial refuge traps
264		1	\|c 2018
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Non-native crayfish can dominate the invertebrate biomass of invaded freshwaters, with their high ecological impacts resulting in their populations being controlled by numerous methods, especially trapping. Although baited funnel traps (BTs) are commonly used, they tend to be selective in mainly catching large-bodied males. Here, the efficacy and selectivity of BTs were tested against an alternative trapping method based on artificial refuges (ARTs) that comprised of a metal base with several tubes (refuges) attached. The target species was signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus in an upland river in southwest England. Trapping was completed in April to October over two consecutive years. In total, 5897 crayfish were captured, with 87% captured in ARTs. Comparison of the catch per unit effort (CPUE) between the trapping methods in the same 24 hour periods revealed significantly higher CPUE in ARTs than of BTs. ARTs fished for 6 consecutive days had higher catches than both methods over 24 hours. Whilst catches in BTs were significantly dominated by males (1.49M:1F), the sex ratio of catches in ARTs was 0.99M:1F. The mean carapace length of crayfish was also significantly larger in BTs (43.2 ± 0.6 mm) than in ARTs (33.6 ± 0.2 mm). Thus, ARTs had higher CPUE over 24 hour and 6 day periods versus BTs and also captured a greater proportion of smaller and female individuals. These results indicate that when trapping methods are deployed for managing invasions, the use of ARTs removes substantial numbers of crayfish of both sexes and of varying body sizes.
650		4	\|a Alien species
650		4	\|a introduction
650		4	\|a invasion management
650		4	\|a crayfish trap
650		4	\|a Pacifastacus leniusculus
653		0	\|a Aquaculture. Fisheries. Angling
700	0		\|a Bentley Matt \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Stebbing Paul \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Andreou Demetra \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Britton Robert \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems \|d EDP Sciences, 2010 \|g (2018), 419, p 15 \|w (DE-627)604078730 \|w (DE-600)2502926-5 \|x 19619502 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g year:2018 \|g number:419, p 15
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2018007 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/54216175f14f43e9a5d29fb69ce45077 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2018007 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/1961-9502 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2147
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2148
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|j 2018 \|e 419, p 15

Indexfelder

author_variant	g n gn b m bm s p sp a d ad b r br
matchkey_str	article:19619502:2018----::rpigoivsvcafscmaiosffiaynslciiyfatdrpvr
hierarchy_sort_str	2018
callnumber-subject-code	SH
publishDate	2018
allfields	10.1051/kmae/2018007 doi (DE-627)DOAJ012925519 (DE-599)DOAJ54216175f14f43e9a5d29fb69ce45077 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng SH1-691 Green Nicky verfasserin aut Trapping for invasive crayfish: comparisons of efficacy and selectivity of baited traps versus novel artificial refuge traps 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Non-native crayfish can dominate the invertebrate biomass of invaded freshwaters, with their high ecological impacts resulting in their populations being controlled by numerous methods, especially trapping. Although baited funnel traps (BTs) are commonly used, they tend to be selective in mainly catching large-bodied males. Here, the efficacy and selectivity of BTs were tested against an alternative trapping method based on artificial refuges (ARTs) that comprised of a metal base with several tubes (refuges) attached. The target species was signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus in an upland river in southwest England. Trapping was completed in April to October over two consecutive years. In total, 5897 crayfish were captured, with 87% captured in ARTs. Comparison of the catch per unit effort (CPUE) between the trapping methods in the same 24 hour periods revealed significantly higher CPUE in ARTs than of BTs. ARTs fished for 6 consecutive days had higher catches than both methods over 24 hours. Whilst catches in BTs were significantly dominated by males (1.49M:1F), the sex ratio of catches in ARTs was 0.99M:1F. The mean carapace length of crayfish was also significantly larger in BTs (43.2 ± 0.6 mm) than in ARTs (33.6 ± 0.2 mm). Thus, ARTs had higher CPUE over 24 hour and 6 day periods versus BTs and also captured a greater proportion of smaller and female individuals. These results indicate that when trapping methods are deployed for managing invasions, the use of ARTs removes substantial numbers of crayfish of both sexes and of varying body sizes. Alien species introduction invasion management crayfish trap Pacifastacus leniusculus Aquaculture. Fisheries. Angling Bentley Matt verfasserin aut Stebbing Paul verfasserin aut Andreou Demetra verfasserin aut Britton Robert verfasserin aut In Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems EDP Sciences, 2010 (2018), 419, p 15 (DE-627)604078730 (DE-600)2502926-5 19619502 nnns year:2018 number:419, p 15 https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2018007 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/54216175f14f43e9a5d29fb69ce45077 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2018007 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1961-9502 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 2018 419, p 15
spelling	10.1051/kmae/2018007 doi (DE-627)DOAJ012925519 (DE-599)DOAJ54216175f14f43e9a5d29fb69ce45077 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng SH1-691 Green Nicky verfasserin aut Trapping for invasive crayfish: comparisons of efficacy and selectivity of baited traps versus novel artificial refuge traps 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Non-native crayfish can dominate the invertebrate biomass of invaded freshwaters, with their high ecological impacts resulting in their populations being controlled by numerous methods, especially trapping. Although baited funnel traps (BTs) are commonly used, they tend to be selective in mainly catching large-bodied males. Here, the efficacy and selectivity of BTs were tested against an alternative trapping method based on artificial refuges (ARTs) that comprised of a metal base with several tubes (refuges) attached. The target species was signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus in an upland river in southwest England. Trapping was completed in April to October over two consecutive years. In total, 5897 crayfish were captured, with 87% captured in ARTs. Comparison of the catch per unit effort (CPUE) between the trapping methods in the same 24 hour periods revealed significantly higher CPUE in ARTs than of BTs. ARTs fished for 6 consecutive days had higher catches than both methods over 24 hours. Whilst catches in BTs were significantly dominated by males (1.49M:1F), the sex ratio of catches in ARTs was 0.99M:1F. The mean carapace length of crayfish was also significantly larger in BTs (43.2 ± 0.6 mm) than in ARTs (33.6 ± 0.2 mm). Thus, ARTs had higher CPUE over 24 hour and 6 day periods versus BTs and also captured a greater proportion of smaller and female individuals. These results indicate that when trapping methods are deployed for managing invasions, the use of ARTs removes substantial numbers of crayfish of both sexes and of varying body sizes. Alien species introduction invasion management crayfish trap Pacifastacus leniusculus Aquaculture. Fisheries. Angling Bentley Matt verfasserin aut Stebbing Paul verfasserin aut Andreou Demetra verfasserin aut Britton Robert verfasserin aut In Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems EDP Sciences, 2010 (2018), 419, p 15 (DE-627)604078730 (DE-600)2502926-5 19619502 nnns year:2018 number:419, p 15 https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2018007 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/54216175f14f43e9a5d29fb69ce45077 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2018007 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1961-9502 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 2018 419, p 15
allfields_unstemmed	10.1051/kmae/2018007 doi (DE-627)DOAJ012925519 (DE-599)DOAJ54216175f14f43e9a5d29fb69ce45077 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng SH1-691 Green Nicky verfasserin aut Trapping for invasive crayfish: comparisons of efficacy and selectivity of baited traps versus novel artificial refuge traps 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Non-native crayfish can dominate the invertebrate biomass of invaded freshwaters, with their high ecological impacts resulting in their populations being controlled by numerous methods, especially trapping. Although baited funnel traps (BTs) are commonly used, they tend to be selective in mainly catching large-bodied males. Here, the efficacy and selectivity of BTs were tested against an alternative trapping method based on artificial refuges (ARTs) that comprised of a metal base with several tubes (refuges) attached. The target species was signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus in an upland river in southwest England. Trapping was completed in April to October over two consecutive years. In total, 5897 crayfish were captured, with 87% captured in ARTs. Comparison of the catch per unit effort (CPUE) between the trapping methods in the same 24 hour periods revealed significantly higher CPUE in ARTs than of BTs. ARTs fished for 6 consecutive days had higher catches than both methods over 24 hours. Whilst catches in BTs were significantly dominated by males (1.49M:1F), the sex ratio of catches in ARTs was 0.99M:1F. The mean carapace length of crayfish was also significantly larger in BTs (43.2 ± 0.6 mm) than in ARTs (33.6 ± 0.2 mm). Thus, ARTs had higher CPUE over 24 hour and 6 day periods versus BTs and also captured a greater proportion of smaller and female individuals. These results indicate that when trapping methods are deployed for managing invasions, the use of ARTs removes substantial numbers of crayfish of both sexes and of varying body sizes. Alien species introduction invasion management crayfish trap Pacifastacus leniusculus Aquaculture. Fisheries. Angling Bentley Matt verfasserin aut Stebbing Paul verfasserin aut Andreou Demetra verfasserin aut Britton Robert verfasserin aut In Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems EDP Sciences, 2010 (2018), 419, p 15 (DE-627)604078730 (DE-600)2502926-5 19619502 nnns year:2018 number:419, p 15 https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2018007 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/54216175f14f43e9a5d29fb69ce45077 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2018007 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1961-9502 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 2018 419, p 15
allfieldsGer	10.1051/kmae/2018007 doi (DE-627)DOAJ012925519 (DE-599)DOAJ54216175f14f43e9a5d29fb69ce45077 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng SH1-691 Green Nicky verfasserin aut Trapping for invasive crayfish: comparisons of efficacy and selectivity of baited traps versus novel artificial refuge traps 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Non-native crayfish can dominate the invertebrate biomass of invaded freshwaters, with their high ecological impacts resulting in their populations being controlled by numerous methods, especially trapping. Although baited funnel traps (BTs) are commonly used, they tend to be selective in mainly catching large-bodied males. Here, the efficacy and selectivity of BTs were tested against an alternative trapping method based on artificial refuges (ARTs) that comprised of a metal base with several tubes (refuges) attached. The target species was signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus in an upland river in southwest England. Trapping was completed in April to October over two consecutive years. In total, 5897 crayfish were captured, with 87% captured in ARTs. Comparison of the catch per unit effort (CPUE) between the trapping methods in the same 24 hour periods revealed significantly higher CPUE in ARTs than of BTs. ARTs fished for 6 consecutive days had higher catches than both methods over 24 hours. Whilst catches in BTs were significantly dominated by males (1.49M:1F), the sex ratio of catches in ARTs was 0.99M:1F. The mean carapace length of crayfish was also significantly larger in BTs (43.2 ± 0.6 mm) than in ARTs (33.6 ± 0.2 mm). Thus, ARTs had higher CPUE over 24 hour and 6 day periods versus BTs and also captured a greater proportion of smaller and female individuals. These results indicate that when trapping methods are deployed for managing invasions, the use of ARTs removes substantial numbers of crayfish of both sexes and of varying body sizes. Alien species introduction invasion management crayfish trap Pacifastacus leniusculus Aquaculture. Fisheries. Angling Bentley Matt verfasserin aut Stebbing Paul verfasserin aut Andreou Demetra verfasserin aut Britton Robert verfasserin aut In Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems EDP Sciences, 2010 (2018), 419, p 15 (DE-627)604078730 (DE-600)2502926-5 19619502 nnns year:2018 number:419, p 15 https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2018007 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/54216175f14f43e9a5d29fb69ce45077 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2018007 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1961-9502 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 2018 419, p 15
allfieldsSound	10.1051/kmae/2018007 doi (DE-627)DOAJ012925519 (DE-599)DOAJ54216175f14f43e9a5d29fb69ce45077 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng SH1-691 Green Nicky verfasserin aut Trapping for invasive crayfish: comparisons of efficacy and selectivity of baited traps versus novel artificial refuge traps 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Non-native crayfish can dominate the invertebrate biomass of invaded freshwaters, with their high ecological impacts resulting in their populations being controlled by numerous methods, especially trapping. Although baited funnel traps (BTs) are commonly used, they tend to be selective in mainly catching large-bodied males. Here, the efficacy and selectivity of BTs were tested against an alternative trapping method based on artificial refuges (ARTs) that comprised of a metal base with several tubes (refuges) attached. The target species was signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus in an upland river in southwest England. Trapping was completed in April to October over two consecutive years. In total, 5897 crayfish were captured, with 87% captured in ARTs. Comparison of the catch per unit effort (CPUE) between the trapping methods in the same 24 hour periods revealed significantly higher CPUE in ARTs than of BTs. ARTs fished for 6 consecutive days had higher catches than both methods over 24 hours. Whilst catches in BTs were significantly dominated by males (1.49M:1F), the sex ratio of catches in ARTs was 0.99M:1F. The mean carapace length of crayfish was also significantly larger in BTs (43.2 ± 0.6 mm) than in ARTs (33.6 ± 0.2 mm). Thus, ARTs had higher CPUE over 24 hour and 6 day periods versus BTs and also captured a greater proportion of smaller and female individuals. These results indicate that when trapping methods are deployed for managing invasions, the use of ARTs removes substantial numbers of crayfish of both sexes and of varying body sizes. Alien species introduction invasion management crayfish trap Pacifastacus leniusculus Aquaculture. Fisheries. Angling Bentley Matt verfasserin aut Stebbing Paul verfasserin aut Andreou Demetra verfasserin aut Britton Robert verfasserin aut In Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems EDP Sciences, 2010 (2018), 419, p 15 (DE-627)604078730 (DE-600)2502926-5 19619502 nnns year:2018 number:419, p 15 https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2018007 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/54216175f14f43e9a5d29fb69ce45077 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2018007 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1961-9502 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 2018 419, p 15
language	English
source	In Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems (2018), 419, p 15 year:2018 number:419, p 15
sourceStr	In Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems (2018), 419, p 15 year:2018 number:419, p 15
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Alien species introduction invasion management crayfish trap Pacifastacus leniusculus Aquaculture. Fisheries. Angling
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Green Nicky @@aut@@ Bentley Matt @@aut@@ Stebbing Paul @@aut@@ Andreou Demetra @@aut@@ Britton Robert @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2018-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	604078730
id	DOAJ012925519
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ012925519</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502080139.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230225s2018 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1051/kmae/2018007</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ012925519</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ54216175f14f43e9a5d29fb69ce45077</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">SH1-691</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Green Nicky</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Trapping for invasive crayfish: comparisons of efficacy and selectivity of baited traps versus novel artificial refuge traps</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Non-native crayfish can dominate the invertebrate biomass of invaded freshwaters, with their high ecological impacts resulting in their populations being controlled by numerous methods, especially trapping. Although baited funnel traps (BTs) are commonly used, they tend to be selective in mainly catching large-bodied males. Here, the efficacy and selectivity of BTs were tested against an alternative trapping method based on artificial refuges (ARTs) that comprised of a metal base with several tubes (refuges) attached. The target species was signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus in an upland river in southwest England. Trapping was completed in April to October over two consecutive years. In total, 5897 crayfish were captured, with 87% captured in ARTs. Comparison of the catch per unit effort (CPUE) between the trapping methods in the same 24 hour periods revealed significantly higher CPUE in ARTs than of BTs. ARTs fished for 6 consecutive days had higher catches than both methods over 24 hours. Whilst catches in BTs were significantly dominated by males (1.49M:1F), the sex ratio of catches in ARTs was 0.99M:1F. The mean carapace length of crayfish was also significantly larger in BTs (43.2 ± 0.6 mm) than in ARTs (33.6 ± 0.2 mm). Thus, ARTs had higher CPUE over 24 hour and 6 day periods versus BTs and also captured a greater proportion of smaller and female individuals. These results indicate that when trapping methods are deployed for managing invasions, the use of ARTs removes substantial numbers of crayfish of both sexes and of varying body sizes.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Alien species</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">introduction</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">invasion management</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">crayfish trap</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Pacifastacus leniusculus</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Aquaculture. Fisheries. Angling</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bentley Matt</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Stebbing Paul</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Andreou Demetra</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Britton Robert</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems</subfield><subfield code="d">EDP Sciences, 2010</subfield><subfield code="g">(2018), 419, p 15</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)604078730</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2502926-5</subfield><subfield code="x">19619502</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">number:419, p 15</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2018007</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/54216175f14f43e9a5d29fb69ce45077</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2018007</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1961-9502</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2148</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="e">419, p 15</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	S - Agriculture
author	Green Nicky
spellingShingle	Green Nicky misc SH1-691 misc Alien species misc introduction misc invasion management misc crayfish trap misc Pacifastacus leniusculus misc Aquaculture. Fisheries. Angling Trapping for invasive crayfish: comparisons of efficacy and selectivity of baited traps versus novel artificial refuge traps
authorStr	Green Nicky
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)604078730
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	SH1-691
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	19619502
topic_title	SH1-691 Trapping for invasive crayfish: comparisons of efficacy and selectivity of baited traps versus novel artificial refuge traps Alien species introduction invasion management crayfish trap Pacifastacus leniusculus
topic	misc SH1-691 misc Alien species misc introduction misc invasion management misc crayfish trap misc Pacifastacus leniusculus misc Aquaculture. Fisheries. Angling
topic_unstemmed	misc SH1-691 misc Alien species misc introduction misc invasion management misc crayfish trap misc Pacifastacus leniusculus misc Aquaculture. Fisheries. Angling
topic_browse	misc SH1-691 misc Alien species misc introduction misc invasion management misc crayfish trap misc Pacifastacus leniusculus misc Aquaculture. Fisheries. Angling
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems
hierarchy_parent_id	604078730
hierarchy_top_title	Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)604078730 (DE-600)2502926-5
title	Trapping for invasive crayfish: comparisons of efficacy and selectivity of baited traps versus novel artificial refuge traps
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ012925519 (DE-599)DOAJ54216175f14f43e9a5d29fb69ce45077
title_full	Trapping for invasive crayfish: comparisons of efficacy and selectivity of baited traps versus novel artificial refuge traps
author_sort	Green Nicky
journal	Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems
journalStr	Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems
callnumber-first-code	S
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2018
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Green Nicky Bentley Matt Stebbing Paul Andreou Demetra Britton Robert
class	SH1-691
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Green Nicky
doi_str_mv	10.1051/kmae/2018007
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	trapping for invasive crayfish: comparisons of efficacy and selectivity of baited traps versus novel artificial refuge traps
callnumber	SH1-691
title_auth	Trapping for invasive crayfish: comparisons of efficacy and selectivity of baited traps versus novel artificial refuge traps
abstract	Non-native crayfish can dominate the invertebrate biomass of invaded freshwaters, with their high ecological impacts resulting in their populations being controlled by numerous methods, especially trapping. Although baited funnel traps (BTs) are commonly used, they tend to be selective in mainly catching large-bodied males. Here, the efficacy and selectivity of BTs were tested against an alternative trapping method based on artificial refuges (ARTs) that comprised of a metal base with several tubes (refuges) attached. The target species was signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus in an upland river in southwest England. Trapping was completed in April to October over two consecutive years. In total, 5897 crayfish were captured, with 87% captured in ARTs. Comparison of the catch per unit effort (CPUE) between the trapping methods in the same 24 hour periods revealed significantly higher CPUE in ARTs than of BTs. ARTs fished for 6 consecutive days had higher catches than both methods over 24 hours. Whilst catches in BTs were significantly dominated by males (1.49M:1F), the sex ratio of catches in ARTs was 0.99M:1F. The mean carapace length of crayfish was also significantly larger in BTs (43.2 ± 0.6 mm) than in ARTs (33.6 ± 0.2 mm). Thus, ARTs had higher CPUE over 24 hour and 6 day periods versus BTs and also captured a greater proportion of smaller and female individuals. These results indicate that when trapping methods are deployed for managing invasions, the use of ARTs removes substantial numbers of crayfish of both sexes and of varying body sizes.
abstractGer	Non-native crayfish can dominate the invertebrate biomass of invaded freshwaters, with their high ecological impacts resulting in their populations being controlled by numerous methods, especially trapping. Although baited funnel traps (BTs) are commonly used, they tend to be selective in mainly catching large-bodied males. Here, the efficacy and selectivity of BTs were tested against an alternative trapping method based on artificial refuges (ARTs) that comprised of a metal base with several tubes (refuges) attached. The target species was signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus in an upland river in southwest England. Trapping was completed in April to October over two consecutive years. In total, 5897 crayfish were captured, with 87% captured in ARTs. Comparison of the catch per unit effort (CPUE) between the trapping methods in the same 24 hour periods revealed significantly higher CPUE in ARTs than of BTs. ARTs fished for 6 consecutive days had higher catches than both methods over 24 hours. Whilst catches in BTs were significantly dominated by males (1.49M:1F), the sex ratio of catches in ARTs was 0.99M:1F. The mean carapace length of crayfish was also significantly larger in BTs (43.2 ± 0.6 mm) than in ARTs (33.6 ± 0.2 mm). Thus, ARTs had higher CPUE over 24 hour and 6 day periods versus BTs and also captured a greater proportion of smaller and female individuals. These results indicate that when trapping methods are deployed for managing invasions, the use of ARTs removes substantial numbers of crayfish of both sexes and of varying body sizes.
abstract_unstemmed	Non-native crayfish can dominate the invertebrate biomass of invaded freshwaters, with their high ecological impacts resulting in their populations being controlled by numerous methods, especially trapping. Although baited funnel traps (BTs) are commonly used, they tend to be selective in mainly catching large-bodied males. Here, the efficacy and selectivity of BTs were tested against an alternative trapping method based on artificial refuges (ARTs) that comprised of a metal base with several tubes (refuges) attached. The target species was signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus in an upland river in southwest England. Trapping was completed in April to October over two consecutive years. In total, 5897 crayfish were captured, with 87% captured in ARTs. Comparison of the catch per unit effort (CPUE) between the trapping methods in the same 24 hour periods revealed significantly higher CPUE in ARTs than of BTs. ARTs fished for 6 consecutive days had higher catches than both methods over 24 hours. Whilst catches in BTs were significantly dominated by males (1.49M:1F), the sex ratio of catches in ARTs was 0.99M:1F. The mean carapace length of crayfish was also significantly larger in BTs (43.2 ± 0.6 mm) than in ARTs (33.6 ± 0.2 mm). Thus, ARTs had higher CPUE over 24 hour and 6 day periods versus BTs and also captured a greater proportion of smaller and female individuals. These results indicate that when trapping methods are deployed for managing invasions, the use of ARTs removes substantial numbers of crayfish of both sexes and of varying body sizes.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	419, p 15
title_short	Trapping for invasive crayfish: comparisons of efficacy and selectivity of baited traps versus novel artificial refuge traps
url	https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2018007 https://doaj.org/article/54216175f14f43e9a5d29fb69ce45077 https://doaj.org/toc/1961-9502
remote_bool	true
author2	Bentley Matt Stebbing Paul Andreou Demetra Britton Robert
author2Str	Bentley Matt Stebbing Paul Andreou Demetra Britton Robert
ppnlink	604078730
callnumber-subject	SH - Aquaculture, Fisheries, Angling
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1051/kmae/2018007
callnumber-a	SH1-691
up_date	2024-07-03T14:48:26.748Z
_version_	1803569706307682304
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ012925519</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502080139.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230225s2018 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1051/kmae/2018007</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ012925519</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ54216175f14f43e9a5d29fb69ce45077</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">SH1-691</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Green Nicky</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Trapping for invasive crayfish: comparisons of efficacy and selectivity of baited traps versus novel artificial refuge traps</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Non-native crayfish can dominate the invertebrate biomass of invaded freshwaters, with their high ecological impacts resulting in their populations being controlled by numerous methods, especially trapping. Although baited funnel traps (BTs) are commonly used, they tend to be selective in mainly catching large-bodied males. Here, the efficacy and selectivity of BTs were tested against an alternative trapping method based on artificial refuges (ARTs) that comprised of a metal base with several tubes (refuges) attached. The target species was signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus in an upland river in southwest England. Trapping was completed in April to October over two consecutive years. In total, 5897 crayfish were captured, with 87% captured in ARTs. Comparison of the catch per unit effort (CPUE) between the trapping methods in the same 24 hour periods revealed significantly higher CPUE in ARTs than of BTs. ARTs fished for 6 consecutive days had higher catches than both methods over 24 hours. Whilst catches in BTs were significantly dominated by males (1.49M:1F), the sex ratio of catches in ARTs was 0.99M:1F. The mean carapace length of crayfish was also significantly larger in BTs (43.2 ± 0.6 mm) than in ARTs (33.6 ± 0.2 mm). Thus, ARTs had higher CPUE over 24 hour and 6 day periods versus BTs and also captured a greater proportion of smaller and female individuals. These results indicate that when trapping methods are deployed for managing invasions, the use of ARTs removes substantial numbers of crayfish of both sexes and of varying body sizes.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Alien species</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">introduction</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">invasion management</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">crayfish trap</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Pacifastacus leniusculus</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Aquaculture. Fisheries. Angling</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bentley Matt</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Stebbing Paul</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Andreou Demetra</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Britton Robert</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems</subfield><subfield code="d">EDP Sciences, 2010</subfield><subfield code="g">(2018), 419, p 15</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)604078730</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2502926-5</subfield><subfield code="x">19619502</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">number:419, p 15</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2018007</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/54216175f14f43e9a5d29fb69ce45077</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2018007</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1961-9502</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2148</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="e">419, p 15</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.401025

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Trapping for invasive crayfish: comparisons of efficacy and selectivity of baited traps versus novel artificial refuge traps

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?