Salvador Contreras-Balderas

USGS2024

An introduction to standardized sampling

In 2009, the first edition of Standard Methods for Sampling North American Freshwater Fishes was published. This was the first time in the history of fisheries science that standardization of methods and equipment had taken place on such a large geographic scale. Since its publication, the methods have been used extensively across North America by local, state, and federal agencies, organizations, and universities who have seen the advantages of large-scale data comparison. Authors have been invited to present these methods in other locations around the world to help with standard sampling programs on other continents. Now, with large-scale issues such as human-caused climate change, effects of landscape-scale regulations, and effects of habitat degradation continuing to increase in importance, the ability to compare data across wide regions and political boundaries, compare data over time, and collect data with improved accuracy and precision is more important than ever. This new edition of Standard Methods is sponsored by the American Fisheries Society (AFS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), with contributions by numerous state, provincial and federal agencies, and numerous academic institutions and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). It is authored by over 100 experts in fisheries sampling from across Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Most techniques for water body types addressed in the first edition have been kept the same-in the interest of standardization over time; however, many important additions have been made. Like the first edition, these methods are designed for fish community assessments in North American aquatic systems (e.g., for this edition, lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams containing warmwater and coldwater species; the Great Lakes, wetlands, and cenotes). Although other methods may be available that better target a more specific size-group or species, these techniques were selected as most effective for general surveys of these systems and typically are the most effective for capturing the common fishes found in these waters.

Book chapter↗

USGS2009

An introduction to standardized sampling

It was probably one of the oddest riots in the history of the United States. In Erie, Pennsylvania during 1853. federal marshals were called to restore order during bloody uprisings. A mob of women, equipped with sledgehammers, was tearing up railroad rack to protest standardization of track width (Nesmith 1985). All across the United States, standardization of rail gauges was talking place to improve transportation across the country,but many people did not want consistency. Jobs moving freight from, a train running on one gauge of track to a train running on another gauge were plentiful at this time, and standardization would mean these jobs would disappear. Fortunately, for us today, the riots were quelled and standardization of railroad tack gauges went ahead. The magnificent transportation system of North America was aided by the standardization of rails, contributing to robust economies. Standardization of industrial processes, languages, measurements, and data collection methods has been essential for world progress (Figure 1.1). Today , we are often unaware of the degree of standardization of the most basic elements of our society--from bolts and nuts where thread sizes are standard to computer components that can be used interchangeably to the standard sizes of photos we carry in our wallets or purses. Data collection and presentation are standardized in many disciplines, including medicine, meteorology, geology, and water chemistry. For example, our cholesterol, body temperature, and blood pressure are measured by standard medical tests and compared to averages calculated from the results of the same standard tests for many other people to determine if individuals are higher, lower, or average compared to the population in general. If these diagnostic tests were not standardized, it is unlikely that we would be able to evaluate eve the most basic data about our health. In fact, if standardization was not used in countless other facets of our society our lives would be much more difficult. For data collection purposes, standardization means to collect data in one way so comparisons can be easily made. Although routine data collection has been standardized in many other disciplines, data from freshwater fish sampling across North America have not. Previously, most data collection has been standardized only at local, state, and provincial levels (Bonar and Hubert 2002). Several years ago, when one of the authors (Bonar) was a biologist for a state agency, he was asked to compile as much data as he could about the state's warmwater fish communities to provide information to managers developing fishing regulations. These data had been collected by many biologists over time using different methods, including rotenone, electrofishing, gill netting, and hook-and-line sampling. Data were written carefully on detailed data sheets or in scribbled notes in a biologists's notebook. As you can imagine, these data were a nightmare to compile. However, they were even worse to interpret. How could length-frequency distributions be compared among lakes if the methods used to catch the fish were dissimilar with differing efficiencies in sampling fish of various species and lengths? How could catch per unit effort (CPUE), a common index of population density, be compared when samples were collected one year using fyke nets and the next year by electrofishing? Ultimately, how could one compare if fish population were high, low, or average in growth, body condition, or abundance if there was no compilation of distributions of standard data to facilitate comparison? Months were spent trying to interpret these data, and finally a body of comparable data gathered by similar methods was assimilated. However, much of the nonstandard data had to be discarded--data that had taken thousands of hours to collect but were essentially useless. If all data jhad been collected and recorded in a standard manner, whoch would have required very little extra work, all of these hours of survey effort would not have gone to naught and isights regardimng the fisheries would have been imporived by a larger number of samples.

Book chapter↗

USGS2008

Conservation status of imperiled north American freshwater and diadromous fishes

This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society's Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management.

Fisheries↗