Content uploaded by Scott F Collins
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Scott F Collins on Dec 16, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujfm20
Download by: [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] Date: 03 December 2015, At: 06:35
North American Journal of Fisheries Management
ISSN: 0275-5947 (Print) 1548-8675 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujfm20
Catch Rates and Cost Effectiveness of Entrapment
Gears for Asian Carp: A Comparison of Pound
Nets, Hoop Nets, and Fyke Nets in Backwater
Lakes of the Illinois River
Scott F. Collins, Steven E. Butler, Matthew J. Diana & David H. Wahl
To cite this article: Scott F. Collins, Steven E. Butler, Matthew J. Diana & David H. Wahl (2015)
Catch Rates and Cost Effectiveness of Entrapment Gears for Asian Carp: A Comparison of
Pound Nets, Hoop Nets, and Fyke Nets in Backwater Lakes of the Illinois River, North American
Journal of Fisheries Management, 35:6, 1219-1225, DOI: 10.1080/02755947.2015.1091799
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02755947.2015.1091799
Published online: 02 Dec 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
ARTICLE
Catch Rates and Cost Effectiveness of Entrapment Gears for
Asian Carp: A Comparison of Pound Nets, Hoop Nets, and
Fyke Nets in Backwater Lakes of the Illinois River
Scott F. Collins,* Steven E. Butler, Matthew J. Diana, and David H. Wahl
Illinois Natural History Survey, Kaskaskia Biological Station, 1235 County Road 1000N, Sullivan,
Illinois 61951, USA
Abstract
We compared three entrapment gears to determine which method was the most effective for capturing invasive
Bighead Carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis and Silver Carp H. molitrix in terms of numbers of fish captured and
labor invested. Gears were deployed concurrently in two backwater lakes of the Illinois River during the summers
of 2012–2014. Overall, the nightly catch rates of all fishes, Bighead Carp, and Silver Carp were one to three orders
of magnitude greater in pound nets than in either fyke nets or hoop nets. Pound nets collected larger Bighead Carp
than hoop nets and fyke nets. Hoop nets were ineffective at catching Asian carp in backwater lakes. Estimation of
the effort required to deploy, maintain, and remove each gear type indicated that pound nets were the most cost-
effective gear due to their high catch rates of Asian carp relative to the labor hours invested to collect the catch.
Pound nets appear to be an effective means of removing Asian carp in backwater lake habitats of the Illinois River.
Bighead Carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis and Silver Carp
H. molitrix, collec tively referred to as Asian carp, were first
introduced into the United States in the 1970s for aquaculture.
The exponential increase and expansion of populations of
these species throughout the Mississippi River and its tributar -
ies has caused concern over the effect these species have on
freshwater ecosystems (Chick and Pegg 2001; Irons et al.
2007; Sass et al. 2010). Asian carp may deplete plankton den-
sities and alter zooplankton community composition (Burke
et al. 1986; Lu et al. 2002; Sass et al. 2014), potentially com-
peting with native planktivores for food resources (Schrank
et al. 2003; Irons et al. 2007; Sampson et al. 2009). Estab-
lished populations of Bighead Carp and Silver Carp therefore
pose considerable ecological and economic threat to the Mis-
sissippi River basin and the Laurentian Great Lakes (Kolar
et al. 2007; Rasmussen et al. 2011).
Identifying sampling gears that effectively capture invasive
fishes is critical for early detection, monitoring, and control
(Basler and Schramm 2006; Diana et al. 2006; Trebitz et al.
2009). Improving the catch rates of Asian carp within invaded
watersheds throughout the Mississippi River basin has been a
high priority among state, federal, and nongovernmental institu-
tions (Conover et al. 2007; Kolar et al. 2007). Because of their
propensity for jumping, Silver Carp in particular are difficult to
capture. Thus, there is the need to evaluate how effective both
traditional and novel gears are at capturing Asian carp. Entrap-
ment gears such as hoop nets and fyke nets vary in their ability
to capture various fish species in different habitats, and may
select for different sizes of fish (Carter 1954; Muoneke et al.
1993; Lapointe et al. 2006). Although these conventional
entrapment gears have been used in large rivers and backwater
lakes to collect native fishes, there is uncertainty about their
effectiveness for Asian carp. Instead, unconventional fisheries
gears may prove to be more effective at capturing Asian carp.
Pound nets are large, stationary entrapment gears that have
long been used in coastal marine and Great Lakes fisheries
*Corresponding author email: collscot@illinois.edu
Received April 20, 2015; accepted September 3, 2015
1219
North American Journal of Fisheries Management 35:1219–1225, 2015
Ó American Fisheries Society 2015
ISSN: 0275-5947 print / 1548-8675 online
DOI: 10.1080/02755947.2015.1091799
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 06:35 03 December 2015
(Chittenden 1991; Bogue 2001), although their utility for cap-
turing Asian carp in backwater lake habitats is presently
unknown. Though similar in design, pound nets are much
larger than fyke nets and are typically deployed for longer
durations. Catch is removed from a central collecting chamber
(von Brandt 1984). Pound nets tend to catch a wide range of
fish sizes and can capture large numbers of fish, making them
a potentially useful tool for Asian carp monitoring and
removal. Unfortunately, given their size, pound nets may
require additional labor to deploy and maintain relative to
other gear types.
Our goal was to compare the catch rates of Asian carp in
entrapment gears deployed in backwater lake habitats of the
Illinois River. Our objectives were to determine which entrap-
ment gears had the greatest catch rates of Asian carp in back-
water (i.e., adjacent to main-stem river) habitats, and to
compare the size distributions of Asian carp among entrap-
ment gears. Finally, we estimated the effort and cost effective-
ness (yield per labor hour) of these entrapment gears for two
different scenarios using field data to better inform manage-
ment decisions.
METHODS
Study system.—The Illinois River is a tributary of the Mis-
sissippi River that flows approximately 440 km from northeast
to west-central Illinois, draining over 75,000 km
2
, with a mea n
daily discharge of 730.1 m
3
/s in the lower reaches (U.S. Geo-
logical Survey gauge 5586100; 1980–2014, Valley City, Illi-
nois). The Illinois River has numerous backwater lake habitats
that are often occupied by Asian carp. Two backwater lakes
with established populations of Asian carp were selected for
comparison of entrapment gears (LaGrange and Marseilles
navigation pools). Lily Lake (river kilometer [rkm] 133.6) is a
292-ha backwater lake located in the LaGrange Pool, where
abundances of adult Bighead Carp and Silver Carp are high
(Sass et al. 2010). The Han son Material Service pit at Morris
(rkm 423.2) is a 596-ha artificial backwater located in the Mar-
seilles Pool. Asian carp densities in the Marseilles Pool are
considerably lower than in the LaGrange Pool, although large
numbers of Asian carp have recently been captured from this
area by contracted commercial fishers (MRWG 2014).
Entrapment gears.—Three passive entrapment gears, two
conventional (hoop net and fyke net) and one novel (pound
net), were deployed in backwater habitats of the Illinois River
(Figure 1). Gears were deployed to collect fishes within the
same area and were spaced 20–40 m apart. The deployment of
gears did not block backwater lake inlets, thus allowing Asian
carp to move between main channel and backwater habitats.
The gears were positioned so that they did not block or inhibit
access to other gears. In effect, Asian carp could freely swim
in from the main channel and be collected by any of the three
gear types without concern that one gear blocked another.
Hoop nets were 1.2 m in diameter and 4.8 m in length, with
FIGURE 1. Schematics of hoop, fyke, and pound nets used during the experimental evaluation in backwater lakes of Illinois from 2012 to 2014. Note differen-
ces in scale for each gear type.
1220 COLLINS ET AL.
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 06:35 03 December 2015
square mesh sizes of either 3.8 or 6.4 cm. Hoop nets were set
parallel to the shoreline. Fyke nets consisted of a 0.9 £ 1.8-m
frame leading into a series of 1.2-m diameter hoops, with a
single 15 £ 1.3-m lead and 3.8-cm square mesh. Fyke nets
were set by attaching the lead to shore and stretching the net
out perpendicular to shore and anchoring the collecting cham-
ber offshore. Pound nets were constructed of 6.1 £ 3.0 £ 3.0-
m collecting chambers, with a 100-m lead that ran parallel
with the shore and two wings of adjustable length that spanned
from the opening of the collecting chamber to either shore and
effectively blocked the channel. Pound net square mes h sizes
were either 3.8 or 6.4 cm. Pound nets are much larger than
hoop and fyke nets. Our study required two boats and a three
or four person crew to deploy the pound nets. The first boat
held the pound nets and was positioned in the middle of the
channel, while the second boat pulled out the lead and king
lines parallel to the shoreline, the wings angled towards the
shorelines, and anchor lines attached to the central collecting
chamber. Once the pound nets were set, they remained in place
for a week during each sampling event. Signs directing boaters
to marked passage gaps were also installed, which allowed
recreational anglers to motor past the pound nets.
Sampling and analyses.—Average catch rates (number/net-
night) between gears were evaluated by comparing concurrent
gear deployments over 28 net-nights at Lily Lake and Morris
from 2012 to 2014. All fishes were identified to species and
measured for TL. Average catch rates between gear types
were compared using ANOVA. The mesh size of pound nets
was compared using ANOVA to determine if catch rates dif-
fered between 3.8- or 6.4-cm square sizes. Post hoc Tukey’s
highly significant difference (HSD) test was used to test differ-
ences between gears. Length-frequency histograms were gen-
erated for each species–gear combination to determine if gears
exhibited preferential size selection for either species of Asian
carp. Comparisons between gears were evaluated using the
Kruskal–Wallis test to determine whether lengths of Bighead
Carp and Silver Carp differed between gears.
Cost effectiveness.—Accounting for differences in both
catch rates and effort required to deploy and maintain the
entrapment gears provides a means of identifying the most
cost-effective (in terms of labor invested) approach to collect-
ing fish. Because management goals vary, two scenarios were
modeled to evaluate (1) cost effectiveness in terms of weekly
labor hours based on equivalent catches of fish among gears,
and (2) cost effectiveness in terms of catch per labor hour. For
both scenarios, we estimated the effort required to maintain
the gears for 1 week (Monday–Friday; Table 1). Hoop and
fyke nets were operated with a two-person crew with one boat.
For pound nets, a four-person crew with two boats was
required for the first day, then a reduced two-person crew for
the remainder of the week to maintain the gear (Table 1).
There is an initial investment of labor when deploying pound
nets due to preparing the gear in the boat (90 min) and the
time required to deploy the gear (90 min), based on our
evaluations. The effort required to deploy or collect and rede -
ploy hoop and fyke nets without time to process fish was esti-
mated to be between 5 and 9 min (Pugh and Schramm 1998).
The time required to reset a pound net varied between 45 and
83 min. Experimental effect sizes (i.e., differences in catch
rates between gears) were used to determine how many fyke
or hoop nets would be required to achieve similar catches in
relation to pound nets. Daily labor estimates, LD
i
, were calcu-
lated as
LD
i
D
G
i
£ E
i
60
£ C
i
;
where G
i
is the number of gears of type i deployed, E
i
is the
daily effort required to maintain the gear in minutes, and C
i
is
the field crew size. Total labor hours were summed for the
week for each gear. For scenario 2, we considered cost effec-
tiveness by using an initial purchase cost for a pound net of
US$10,000 and then estimating the number of other gears that
could be purchased for the same amount, the total yield of fish
for each gear based on catch rates, and the effort required to
maintain the gears. Costs of gears were based on 2013 dollars
from commercial vendors of purchases made by the Illinois
Natural History Survey. Cost effectiveness was calculated as
the ratio between the numbers of fish captured relative to the
effort required to maintain the gears. Thus, a higher number
indicates a more cost-effective gear . Our models do not
account for the effort requi red to process individual fishes
(e.g., measure lengths and weights) because sampling and
monitoring programs may differ in protocols, and we assume
that the time required to handle individual fish is not depen-
dent on the gear but on the crew and therefore is not part of
the gear evaluation. Travel times between sites were not
included as these also vary by program.
RESULTS
Catch Rates
Catch rates of fishes were consistently higher in pound nets
than in traditional entrapment gears. The average nightly catch
of all species was, on average, 134 times greater in pound nets
than in hoop nets and five to six times greater than in fyke nets
TABLE 1. Model parameters for estimating effort between pound, fyke, and
hoop nets for the cost effectiveness analysis. Effect sizes were used from the
experimental analysis. Daily crew sizes differed between gears as pound nets
require more initial effort to deploy. M D Monday, T D Tuesday, F D Friday.
Gear Crew sizes Effort per trap (min)
Pound 4 M, 2 T–F 180 (M)
45–83 (T–F)
Fyke 2 (M–F) 5–9 (M–F)
Hoop 2 (M–F) 5–9 (M–F)
CATCH AND COST EFFECTIVENESS OF ENTRAPMENT GEARS
1221
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 06:35 03 December 2015
(Figure 2a; F
3, 46
D 10.13, P < 0.01). The pattern was similar
for Asian carp, with overnight catch rates of Bighead Carp in
pound nets 113 times greater than hoop nets and 41 times
greater than fyke nets (Figure 2b; F
3, 46
D 6.31, P < 0.01).
High catch rates of Silver Carp in pound nets, coupled with
low overall catches in hoop nets, resulted in pound net catch
rates nearly 3,200 times greater than that of hoop nets (Fig-
ure 2c; F
3, 46
D 6.42, P < 0.01). Pound net catch rates of Sil-
ver Carp were 360 times greater than that for fyke nets. Catch
rates were also higher in pound nets (6 of 15 species) for fishes
common to large river ecosystems (P < 0.05; Table 2). We
detected no effect of mesh size on the catch rates of Bighead
Carp (F
1, 27
D 0.94, P D 0.33) or Silver Carp (F
1, 27
D 1.12,
P D 0.29) in pound nets.
Size Distribution
Pound nets tended to collect larger Bighead Carp relative to
hoop nets and fyke nets. The mean length § SD of Bighead
Carp was 829 § 103 mm in pound nets, 635 § 98 mm in hoop
nets, and 744 § 111 mm in fyke nets (Kruskal–Wallis: P <
0.0001). In contrast, mean length § SD of Silver Carp was
582 § 62 mm in pound nets, 593 § 87 mm in hoop nets, and
562 § 64 mm in fyke nets, and no differences were observed
between gears (Kruskal–Wallis: P D 0.27).
Effort and Cost Effectiveness
To achieve catch rates equivalent to a single pound net set
for all species would require deploying 6 fyke or 134 hoop
nets. Effort in terms of labor hours for all species was lowest
for fyke nets, intermediate for pound nets, and highest for
hoop nets (Table 3). However, to attain equal catch rates for
Bighead Carp or Silver Carp, the required labor was consider-
ably lower when using pound nets (Table 3).
With the approximate cost of a single pound net, 10 fyke or
40 hoop nets could be purchased. Based on a 5-min redeploy-
ment time for fyke nets and hoop nets, and 45 min for pound
nets, we estimated that labor would range from 8.3 to 33.3 h/
week for all gear types. Estimated yields of catch rate for all
gears ranged between 96 and 354 total individuals per week
(Table 4). Using total weekly catch of all species indicated
that fyke nets were most cost effective. However, when focus-
ing specifically on Asian carp, pound n ets were consistently
more cost effective in terms of labor hours than hoop or fyke
nets.
DISCUSSION
Overnight catch rates in pound nets were greater than in
conventional fyke and hoop nets in backwater habitats of the
Illinois River. In general, the catch rates of pound nets were
one to three orders of magnitude higher than that of hoop nets
or fyke nets when deployed concurrently. Many hoop net sets
did not collect fish, reducing catch rates and inflating the effect
size compared with pound nets. Our data suggests that the use
of pound nets in backwater habitats is a viable and eff ective
means of collecting large numbers of Asian carp.
FIGURE 2. Nightly catch rates of hoop, fyke, and pound nets for (a) all spe-
cies, (b) Bighead Carp, and (c) Silver Carp deployed concurrently in backwa-
ter lake habitats of the Illinois River. Error bars represent § SE. Letters above
columns denote differences between gears as determined by Tukey’s HSD
tests.
1222 COLLINS ET AL.
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 06:35 03 December 2015
Overnight catches of pound nets, like all gears, were highly
variable for Asian carp. Although tracking of movements of
Asian carp has shown that individuals select main channel bor-
ders and wing dyke habitats (i.e., manmade barriers that extend
partway into a river) over backwater habitats (DeGrandchamp
et al. 2008; Calkins et al. 2012), we observed large numbers of
Asian carp in these backwater habitats (MRWG 2014). When
conditions are appropriate, pound nets have the potential to
capture large quantities of Asian carp in backwater lakes of
large rivers. For example, during one overnight deployment of
a single pound net in the summer of 2014, 588 Asian carp
(546 Silver Carp, 42 Bighead Carp) were collected, totaling
1,058 kg (Figure 3). For perspective, that single pound net col-
lected more Asian carp in one night than all hoop and fyke
nets combined during that field season. With respect to hoop
nets, the extreme disparity in catch rates was a function of their
relative ineffectiveness in backwater habitats in our study.
However, hoop nets have been used widely with more success
for other species (Michaletz and Sullivan 2002) and may still
prove to be useful for capturing Asian carp in other habitats.
Size distributions of harvested Asian carp varied by both
gear type and species. Pound nets tended to collect larger
Bighead Carp relative to hoop nets and fyke nets. The cross-
sectional area covered by the wings and collecting chamber of
the pound net is far greater than that of fyke or hoop nets and
likely diverts more fishes and larger Bighead Carp that would
otherwise be missed by conventional sampling gears. Fyke
nets that extend perpendicularly from the shoreline can only
fish efficiently up to limited depths, and the diameter of hoop
nets can only cover so much cross-sectional area, so gear size
and positioning may limit catches of large numbers of Asian
carp. Taken together, the lar ger size distribution of Bighead
Carp in pound nets suggests that these adults are occupying
habitats away from the shoreline and higher in the water col-
umn, above the sampling area of hoop nets. Alternatively,
characteristics of each gear’s design such as the throat diame-
ter, which directs fish into the collection chamber, may also
influence catches and sizes (Shoup et al. 2003). There is the
potential that the large size of the pound net did not constrain
the size of individual fishes collected. Our findings suggest
that fyke and hoop gears may be underreprese nting the size
distributions for Bighead Carp, which demonstrated a clear
separation in size distributions between gears. No differences
were observed between mesh sizes, and adult Asian carp that
TABLE 2. Average nightly catch rates of the most common fishes in hoop, pound, and fyke nets set in backwater lakes of the Illinois River during 2012–2014.
Bold italic values indicate the highest statistically significant catch rate between gears for each species.
Hoop Fyke Pound
Common name Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD P-value
Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus 0.05 0.11 0.03 0.08 8.45 13.57 0.001
Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.53 2.26 0.430
Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 0.00 0.00 3.68 6.15 1.14 3.48 0.030
Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.56 0.07 0.26 <0.0001
Common Carp Cyprinus carpio 0.00 0.00 1.03 1.05 1.52 3.87 0.065
Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus 0.11 0.17 0.25 0.26 2.96 4.42 0.005
Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris 0.02 0.07 0.18 0.29 0.41 0.95 0.298
Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.59 2.80 4.02 0.004
Grass Carp Ctenopharyngodon idella 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.90 0.150
Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.09 0.34 0.77 0.002
River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio 0.00 0.00 1.34 1.99 2.63 3.44 0.004
Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 0.21 0.37 0.28 0.20 13.23 18.70 <0.0001
Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.78 0.03 0.18 0.020
Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum 0.04 0.15 0.38 0.58 0.04 0.19 0.006
White Bass Morone chrysops 0.00 0.00 3.15 2.36 1.28 2.25 0.001
TABLE 3. Effort required to deploy and maintain pound nets, fyke nets, and hoop nets in Illinois River backwater lakes to achieve equivalent catch rates.
All species Bighead Carp Silver Carp
Gear Number of traps Labor hours Number of traps Labor hours Number of traps Labor hours
Pound 1 18.0–23.1 1 18.0–23.1 1 18.0–23.1
Fyke 6 5.0–9.0 41 34.2–61.5 360 300.0–540.0
Hoop 134 111.7–201.0 113 94.2–169.5 3,200
a
a
Labor hours were not calculated due to the high number of net sets required.
CATCH AND COST EFFECTIVENESS OF ENTRAPMENT GEARS
1223
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 06:35 03 December 2015
were captured were typically much larger in body depth than
the mesh size of pound nets. No intermediate size-c lasses
(100–400 mm) missing from these gears were observed in
other sampling gears during a concurrent study (i.e., electro-
shocking, gill nets; S. F. Collins, personal observation); there-
fore, we cannot ascertain whether pound nets are effective at
these smaller sizes. Juveniles that were observed were small,
ranging from 30 to 70 mm, and could easily pass through the
net mesh.
Cost effectiveness of entrapment gears in terms of catch per
labor hour may be an important determinant of management
and policy decisions. Indee d, the benefits of enhanced catch
rates must be weighed against the effort needed to set and
retrieve the gears, especially when monetary, temporal, and
logistical constraints weigh heavily on decision making.
Pound nets perf ormed best in both cost effectiveness scenarios
for Asian carp. We anticipated the initial labor to set the nets
would have rendered the pound net to be cost prohibitive;
however, this was not the case. Overall, when accounting for
the added time of retrieving more fyke or hoop nets, effort rel-
ative to catch was much lower in pound nets. Estimates were
conservative by design, and it should be recognized that there
would be additional costs in terms of travel time between
gears. Thus, more gears deployed would incur more travel
time to each gear for processing. When considering the effec-
tiveness of gears in terms of initial purchase costs, pound nets
were again more cost effective in the collection of Asian carp
than were hoop and fyke nets.
Considerations and Limitations
Although pound nets had high catch rates and were cost
effective, there are some limitations to their use. Deploying
the nets successfully takes substantial effort, training, and
experience. Once they are in place, the effort decreases and
they can be fished for an extended period. Given their size, the
transport and storage of the nets is also an issue. The large size
is also an issue and limits where they can be deployed. For
instance, pound nets could be deployed in lotic habitats, but
they would be difficult to set in free-flowing areas due to
potential damage from woody debris. Connected backwater
habitats worked well, but sampling locations should consider
water level fluctuations, particularly near locks and dams or in
areas affected by strong seiche activi ty (e.g., marsh habitats of
large lakes).
TABLE 4. Estimates of projected weekly catches and cost effectiveness of entrapment gears in backwater lakes of the Illinois River based on an initial gear
budget of $10,000. Total weekly catches were estimated based on the number of traps purchased and mean catch rates for each species obtained from sampling
data collected during 2012–2014. Cost effectiveness was estimated as the ratio of the weekly catch relative to the labor hours needed to maintain the gears. BHC
D Bighead Carp, SCP D Silver Carp.
Estimated weekly catch Cost effectiveness
Gear Individual cost ($) Number of traps Estimated weekly labor (h) All spp. BHC SCP All spp. BHC SCP
Pound 10,000 1 18.0 354 51 131 19.7 2.8 7.3
Fyke 1,000 10 8.3 632 12 4 76.1 1.4 0.5
Hoop 250 40 33.3 96 16 3 2.9 0.5 0.1
FIGURE 3. A total of 588 Asian carp (546 Silver Carp, 42 Bighead Carp;
»1,058 kg) were collected in one overnight net at Lily Lake (rkm 133.6), a
backwater habitat of the Illinois River. Although catch rates such as this are
atypically high, this photo illustrates that pound nets have the capacity to catch
large quantities of Asian carp when conditions are optimal. Photo by Kevin
Irons, Illinois Department of Natural Resources.
1224 COLLINS ET AL.
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 06:35 03 December 2015
Bycatch mortalities of native fishes and turtles based on
anecdotal observations were low, in part, because pound nets
were attended daily. However, we did observe mortality when
pound nets collected large numbers of Asian carp, likely due
to crowding and increased stress of native fishes. Additionally,
fishes became entangl ed in the long wings of the pound net,
resulting in the mortality of both native and nonnative fishes.
Other pound net deployments, concurrent with this study in
other locations, were set for as long as 2 months. Longer sets
had problematic accumulations of woody debris and zebra
mussels Dreissena polymorpha, so consideration of site-spe-
cific biotic and abiotic conditions should be used in determin-
ing the duration of sets. Finally, based on our experience, we
strongly advocate for daily checking and maintenance to alle-
viate or lessen bycatch mortality and gear saturation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was supported by the Great Lakes Research Ini-
tiative, with funding administered through the IDNR
(CAFWS-93). We thank K. Irons, M. O’Hara, D. Wyffels, J.
Mick, and V. Santucci of the IDNR for their assistance in coor-
dinating this project. In addition, we thank L. Chadderton, M.
McClelland, J. Dettmers, D. Chapman, S. Finney, and J. Gross
for initial discussions on the use of pound nets. Todd Stuth
and crews of Hickey Brothers Research made the pound nets
and provided initial training of personnel. We are grateful to
Joshua Tompkins and the numerous individuals who provided
field assistance to make this project possible, including the
graduate students and staff of the Kaskaskia and Sam Parr Bio-
logical Stations, Illinois Natural History Survey, and the Uni-
versity of Illinois.
REFERENCES
Basler, M. C, and H. L. Schramm Jr. 2006. Evaluation of electrofishing and
fyke netting for collecting Black Carp in small ponds. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 135:277–280.
Bogue, M. B. 2001. Fishing the Great Lakes: an environmental history, 1783–
1933. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
Burke, J. S., D. R. Bayne, and H. Rea. 1986. Impact of Silver and Bighead
carps on plankton communities of Channel Catfish ponds. Aquaculture
55:59–68.
Calkins, H. A., S. J. Tripp, and J. E. Garvey. 2012. Linking Silver Carp habitat
selection to flow and phytoplankton in the Mississippi River. Biological
Invasions 14:949–958.
Carter, E. R. 1954. An evaluation of nine types of commercial fishing gear
in Kentucky Lake. Transactions of the Kentucky Academy of Science
15:56–80.
Chick, J. H., and M. A. Pegg. 2001. Invasive carp in the Mississippi River
basin. Science 292:2250–2251.
Chittenden, M. E. 1991. Operational procedures and sampling in the Chesa-
peake Bay pound-net fishery. Fisheries 16(5):22–27.
Conover, G., R. Simmonds, and M. Whalen. 2007. Management and con-
trol plan for Bighead, Black, Grass, and Silver carps in the United
States. Asian Carp Working Group, Aquatic Nuisance Species Task
Force, Washington, D.C.
DeGrandchamp, K. L., J. E. Garvey, and R. E. Colombo. 2008. Movement and
habitat selection by invasive Asian carps in a large river. Transactions of
the American Fisheries Society 137:45–56.
Diana, C. M., J. L. Jonas, R. M. Claramunt, J. D. Fitzsimons, and J. E. Mars-
den. 2006. A comparison of methods for sampling Round Goby in rocky lit-
toral areas. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 26:514–522.
Irons, K. S., G. G. Sass, M. A. McClelland, and J. D. Stafford. 2007. Reduced
condition factor of two native fish species coincident with invasion of non-
native Asian carps in the Illinois River, USA. Is this evidence for competi-
tion and reduced fitness? Journal of Fish Biology 71:258–273.
Kolar, C. S., D. C. Chapman, W. R. Courtenay, C. M. Housel, J. D. Williams,
and D. P. Jennings. 2007. Bigheaded Carps: a biological synopsis and envi-
ronmental risk assessment. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication
33, Bethesda, Maryland.
Lapointe, N. W. R., L. D. Corkum, and N. E. Mandrak. 2006. A comparison of
methods for sampling fish diversity in shallow offshore waters of large riv-
ers. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 26:503–513.
Lu, M., P. Xie, H. Tang, Z. Shao, and L. Xie. 2002. Experimental study of tro-
phic cascade effect of Silver Carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix in a sub-
tropical lake, Lake Donghu: on plankton community and underlying
mechanisms of change of crustacean community. Hydrobiologia 487:19–31.
Michaletz, P. H., and K. P. Sullivan. 2002. Sampling Channel Catfish with tan-
dem hoop nets in small impoundments. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 22:870–878.
MRWG (Monitoring and Response Workgroup). 2014. 2013 Asian carp moni-
toring and response plan interim summary reports. Asian Carp Regional
Coordinating Committee, Council on Environmental Quality, Washington,
D.C.
Muoneke, M. I., O. E. Maughan, and C. C. Henry. 1993. Comparative capture
efficiencies of frame and hoop nets for White Crappie (Pomoxis annularis
Rafinesque). Fisheries Research 18:231–240.
Pugh, L. L., and H. L. Schramm Jr. 1998. Comparison of electrofishing and
hoopnetting in lotic habitats of the lower Mississippi River. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 18:649–656.
Rasmussen, J. L., H. A. Regier, R. E. Sparks, and W. W. Taylor. 2011. Divid-
ing the waters: the case for hydrologic separation of the North American
Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins. Journal of Great Lakes Research
37:588–592.
Sampson, S. J., J. H. Chick, and M. A. Pegg. 2009. Diet overlap among two
Asian carp and thee native fishes in backwater lakes on the Illinois and Mis-
sissippi rivers. Biological Invasions 11:483–496.
Sass, G. G., T. R. Cook, K. S. Irons, M. A. McClelland, N. N. Michaels, T. M.
O’Hara, and M. R. Stroub. 2010. A mark–recapture population estimate for
invasive Silver Carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) in the La Grange
Reach, Illinois River. Biological Invasions 12:433–436.
Sass, G. G., C. Hinz, A. C. Erickson, N. N. McClelland, M. A. McClelland,
and J. M. Epifanio. 2014. Invasive Bighead and Silver carp effects on zoo-
plankton communities in the Illinois River, Illinois, USA. Journal of Great
Lakes Research 40:911–921.
Schrank, S. J., C. S. Guy, and J. F. Fairchild. 2003. Competitive interactions
between age-0 Bighead Carp and Paddlefish. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 132:1222–1228.
Shoup, D. E., R. E. Carlson, R. T. Heath, and M. W. Kershner. 2003.
Comparison of the species composition, catch rate, and length distribu-
tion of the catch from t rap nets with three different mesh and throat
size combinations. North American Journal of Fisheries Management
23:462–469.
Trebitz, A. S., J. R. Kelly, J. C. Hoffman, G. S. Peterson, and C. W. West.
2009. Exploiting habitat and gear patterns for efficient detection of rare and
non-native benthos and fish in Great Lakes coastal ecosystems. Aquatic
Invasions 4:651–667.
von Brandt, A. 1984. Fish catching methods of the world, 3rd editor. Fishing
News Books, Farnham, UK.
CATCH AND COST EFFECTIVENESS OF ENTRAPMENT GEARS
1225
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 06:35 03 December 2015
