The European Standard EN 14757 recommends gillnet mesh sizes that range from 5 to 55mm (knot-to-knot) for the standard monitoring of fish assemblages and suggests adding gillnets with larger mesh sizes if necessary. Our research showed that the recommended range of mesh sizes did not provide a representative picture of fish sizes for larger species that commonly occur in continental Europe. We developed a novel, large mesh gillnet which consists of mesh sizes 70, 90, 110 and 135mm (knot to knot, 10m panels) and assessed its added value for monitoring purposes. From selectivity curves obtained by sampling with single mesh size gillnets (11 mesh sizes 6 – 55mm) and large mesh gillnets, we identified the threshold length of bream (Abramis brama) above which this widespread large species was underestimated by European standard gillnet catches. We tested the European Standard gillnet by comparing its size composition with that obtained during concurrent pelagic trawling and purse seining in a cyprinid-dominated reservoir and found that the European Standard underestimated fish larger than 292mm by 26 times. The inclusion of large mesh gillnets in the sampling design removed this underestimation. We analysed the length-age relationship of bream in the Římov Reservoir, and concluded that catches of bream larger than 292mm and older than five years were seriously underrepresented in European Standard gillnet catches. The Římov Reservoir is a typical cyprinid-dominated water body where the biomass of bream > 292mm formed 70% of the pelagic trawl and purse seine catch. The species-specific relationships between the large mesh gillnet catch and European Standard catch suggested that the presence of carp (Cyprinus carpio), European catfish (Silurus glanis), tench (Tinca tinca) or bream warrants the use of both gillnet types. We suggest extending the gillnet series in the European Standard to avoid misinterpretation of fish community biomass estimates.
Biology Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, v.v.i., Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic;Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, České Budějovice, Czech Republic;Biology Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, v.v.i., Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic;Biology Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, v.v.i., Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic;Biology Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, v.v.i., Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic;Biology Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, v.v.i., Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic;Biology Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, v.v.i., Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic;Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, České Budějovice, Czech Republic;Biology Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, v.v.i., Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic;Biology Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, v.v.i., Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic;Biology Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, v.v.i., Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic;Ecohydros S.L., Polígono Industrial de Cros, Maliaño (Cantabria), Spain;Department of Plant Biology and Ecology, Faculty of Biology, University of Seville, Seville, Spain;Biology Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, v.v.i., Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic;Biology Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, v.v.i., Institute of Hydrobiology, České Budějovice, Czech Republic
Recommended Citation:
Marek Šmejkal,Daniel Ricard,Marie Prchalová,et al. Biomass and Abundance Biases in European Standard Gillnet Sampling[J]. PLOS ONE,2015-01-01,10(3)