<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:contributor>J.P. McIntyre</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>K. H. Pollock</dc:contributor>
  <dc:creator>M. R. Meador</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2003</dc:date>
  <dc:description>&lt;p&gt;Two-pass backpack electrofishing data collected as part of the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water-Quality Assessment Program were analyzed to assess the efficacy of single-pass backpack electrofishing. A two-capture removal model was used to estimate, within 10 river basins across the United States, proportional fish species richness from one-pass electrofishing and probabilities of detection for individual fish species. Mean estimated species richness from first-pass sampling (p&lt;sub&gt;s1&lt;/sub&gt;) ranged from 80.7% to 100% of estimated total species richness for each river basin, based on at least seven samples per basin. However, p&lt;sub&gt;s1&lt;/sub&gt; values for individual sites ranged from 40% to 100% of estimated total species richness. Additional species unique to the second pass were collected in 50.3% of the samples. Of these, cyprinids and centrarchids were collected most frequently. Proportional fish species richness estimated for the first pass increased significantly with decreasing stream width for 1 of the 10 river basins. When used to calculate probabilities of detection of individual fish species, the removal model failed 48% of the time because the number of individuals of a species was greater in the second pass than in the first pass. Single-pass backpack electrofishing data alone may make it difficult to determine whether characterized fish community structure data are real or spurious. The two-pass removal model can be used to assess the effectiveness of sampling species richness with a single electrofishing pass. However, the two-pass removal model may have limited utility to determine probabilities of detection of individual species and, thus, limit the ability to assess the effectiveness of single-pass sampling to characterize species relative abundances. Multiple-pass (at least three passes) backpack electrofishing at a large number of sites may not be cost-effective as part of a standardized sampling protocol for large-geographic-scale studies. However, multiple-pass electrofishing at some sites may be necessary to better evaluate the adequacy of single-pass electrofishing and to help make meaningful interpretations of fish community structure.&lt;/p&gt;</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.1577/1548-8659(2003)132&lt;0039:ATEOSP&gt;2.0.CO;2</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:title>Assessing the efficacy of single-pass backpack electrofishing to characterize fish community structure</dc:title>
  <dc:type>article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>