Fisheries Research, 3 (1985) 147--155 147

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam -- Printed in The Netherlands

THE ESTIMATE OF FISH DENSITY AND BIOMASS IN RIVERS ON

THE BASIS OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SPECIMEN SIZE AND
EFFICIENCY OF ELECTROFISHING

MACIEJ Z A L E W S K I
Institute of Environmental Biology, University of Zbd2, 90-237 Zbd2, Banacha 16
(Poland)
(Accepted for publication 28 January 1985)

ABSTRACT

Zalewski, M., 1985. The estimate of fish density and biomass in rivers on the basis of
relationships between specimen size and efficiency of electrofishing. Fish. Res.,
3: 147--155.

It is shown that the catch-effort electrofishing methods, which are those most often
employed for estimates of riverine fish density and biomass, are often not precise. These
multiple sampling procedures are time- and manpower-consuming, and can change the
habitat and fish community structure. The results, collected in rivers of different size
and character, show curvilinear relationships between the average specimen size and
the percentage, number and biomass of fish caught by one electrofishing. Using such
relationships minimizes the alteration of fish community structure by the sampling
procedure. Conditions which must be fulfilled for proper use of the proposed relation-
ships are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

Many types of methods have been employed for estimates of fish density
and biomass in rivers. Application of piscicides (e.g. rotenone) usually
provides the most accurate estimates (Mahon, 1980), but results in high
fish mortality up to 300 m below the sampling station, despite detoxi-
fication by potassium permanganate (Mahon and Balon, 1980). This prevents
its use in most situations.
Other sampling procedures are based mostly on electrofishing, which
does not provide a complete collection of fish but only a sufficiently large
part of the community or population for the use of indirect population
estimation techniques such as mark-recapture or catch~ffort statistics.
Both of these methods have weak points (Cowx, 1983; Zalewski, 1983).
However, the most important disadvantages are that they demand much
time and manpower, and that the sampling procedure itself can change
the habitat and fish community structure. The last fault can be especially

0165-7836/85/$03.30 © 1985 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

148

important in the case of repeated monitoring research, which is funda-

mental to the study of population dynamics and fishery management.
Thus attempts to develop new methods for estimating fish density and
biomass should be directed towards those which are not only more precise
and less labour consuming, but which also lessen the damage to the fish
community structure.
This paper is an attempt to develop equations for estimating fish density
on the basis of a single electrofishing by including data from a large river
and small regulated streams. In addition, an equation for the prediction of
fish biomass in rivers on the basis of one electrofishing is introduced.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FISH SIZE AND ELECTROFISHING EFFICIENCY

On the basis of laboratory and field experiments, fish size is considered

to be a most important factor affecting the efficiency of electrofishing
in rivers (Funk, 1949; Holton and Sullivan, 1954; Larimore, 1961; Backiel,
1964; Vibert, 1967; Karlstrom, 1976; Sternin et al., 1976). Zalewski (1983)
demonstrated that is was possible to formulate a regression equation based
on the relationship between the log of the average fish weight in the first
electrofishing and the number of fish within the section estimated from
multiple electrofishing and the application of rotenone. The basic data
for this equation were collected in Poland and Canada (Mahon, 1980),
where riverine fish communities differ very much in diversity and the size
structure of species. Consequently, it can be expected to be applicable
for many small natural rivers with diversified habitats. Whether it is also
applicable in the case of regulated and straightened lowland rivers with
good visibility, sandy substrate, little vegetation and few hiding places
can be examined using data from Penczak et al. (1981). They repeatedly
electrofished sections of rivers complying with the above description (width
1.5--5.5 m; depth 0.2 m). Not surprisingly in such a shallow river, the
efficiency of the first electrofishing was higher, by about 10% of the total
catch, than was predicted by the equation of Zalewski (1983). This increase
is not only due to the non-diversified habitat, good visibility and low flow
rate, but also to the schooling habits of the dominant species (Gasterosteus
aculeatus L.), which made fish collection easy.
The second test of the equation was to examine its applicability for
estimating fish density in large rivers. However, to formulate an answer
in this case is more complicated because of problems with unification
of the methods. The use of rotenone in a river 50 m wide is unacceptable
because of the numbers of fish killed. Therefore, for comparative purposes,
the results obtained by another verification system were employed. A
section of the river was carefully closed by fyke nets and then multiple
electrofishing was performed from a boat (Penczak and Zalewski, 1973).
Fish captured in fyke nets were considered to be analogous to those killed
and captured by rotenone treatment.
 149

T w o river sections were sampled in this way, each one representing

a different type of riverine habitat. One of them was on the concave bank
of a meander, the other on the convex bank, partially covered by densely
overhanging willow branches, which made sampling more difficult. The
differences in habitat accessibility were reflected by the percentage of
fish captured in the first electrofishing; p = 0.76 and 0.51, respectively.

A~

o 8O

0
o'-6O

"e Q4 0
:E

Z 20
~ x o

J J

1 2
log ~ / g / from c1

BI

oo 8O
×
0
o ,.

o'--60 0

~n

~40
:E
0
2O

L L

1 2
tog w / g / from c1

Fig. I. The relationships between log of average weight of fish from the firstelectro-
fishing ( log t~ CI) and percentage of fish collected in the first electrofishing (CI). A,
number; B, biomass. Data from: 0 Penczak and Zalewski (1973); ×, Poland; o, Canada,
M a h o n (1980); e, Penczak et ah (1981).
150

By combining results from small diversified rivers in Poland and Canada

(Mahon, 1980) with data from large Polish rivers (Penczak and Zalewski,
1973) a sigmoidal curve has been obtained (Fig. 1A). The shape of this curve,
which reflects the speciality of the dependence of electrofishing efficiency
on fish size, could be foreseen theoretically. The lower plateau of the curve
describes the efficiency of electrofishing in the case of fish communities

TABLE I

The approximate description of conditions which should be fulfilled for proper use
of the curvilinear relationships for fish density and biomass estimates in rivers

Factor Value and characteristics Authors

Conductivity Above 200 mhon-~(if below should Alabaster and Hartley (1962)
be compensated by higher voltage,
up to 1000 v).

Stream width In streams with diversified b o t t o m Kennedy and Strenge (1981)

substratum; 2 dipnets for 6-m
width; 3 dipnets for l l - m width.
In rivers (e.g. 50-m width).
Separate channels closed by nets, Penczak and Zalewski(1973)
10--15 m per boat, with 2 dipnets.
Prevailing uniform sandy bottom, Mann and Penczak (1984)
minor depth; about 15-m section
for two dipnets per boat.

Diversity of Low -- large number of pulses, e.g.

habitat 100 s-~; more stunning effect to
prevent fish escape.
High -- small number of pulses, Mann(1974)
e.g. 50 s-1, more galvanotaxis effect
to prevent fish remaining in hiding
places.

Temperature Below 4°C fish quickly pass into Lelek (1966)

galvanonarcosis so that quantita-
tive sampling can be done only in
water which is transparent, habitat
not too diversified,and current
with a small number of pulse (50
S-l).

Water level Should not be high enough to de- Heggberget

crease visibility and aid fish dis- and Hesthagen
persion. (1979)

Velocity If high, the dipnets should be re-

placed by a blocking net about 2 m
wide, about 1.5 m behind the anode.
 151

dominated by fish of small body size, such as minnows, e.g. Phoxinus

phoxinus (L.), sticklebacks, e.g. Gasterosteus aculeatus L., or darters, e.g.
Etheostoma spp. In the above case, the variability of results depends on
the diversity of habitat (Fig. 1) and fish behaviour (Zalewski and Penczak,
1981).
The dependence of electrofishing catehability on average fish body
size in a single electrofishing begins from about 6 g (log w C1 = 0.7) and
continues to 35 g (log ~ C1 = 1.5). The efficiency is highest in fish larger
than 35 g, but there is no strong dependence with regard to size and it
varies mainly due to environmental conditions such as a transparency,
conductivity, diversity of habitat and temperature. Adjustment of the
electrofishing techniques to riverine conditions is given in Table I.

DISCUSSION

In the early days of research into electro fishing, the efficiency of the
technique for making estimates of fish density in rivers was evaluated at
between 10 and 100% (Webster et al., 1955; Le Cren, 1958; Hartman,
1959; Iwaszkiewicz, 1964). The use of piscicides for verifying electrofishing
results enabled the efficiency of electrofishing to be more strictly defined
(Larimore, 1961; Boccardy and Cooper, 1963; Mahon, 1980). Although
most often employed, catch-effort statistical methods can give biased esti-
mates (Mahon, 1980). Such estimates can be more related to the numbers
of fish caught than to the real number of fish in the section of river studied.
This is exemplified in Fig. 2, where the numbers of fish caught over 5--7
electrofishings, plus those gathered after rotenone treatment in various
sections, are compared with estimates made from catch-effort methods
in the same sections.
The above effect is mainly due to specific specimen size (Junge and
Libosvarsky, 1965; Zalewski, 1983) and the depletion of catchability during
subsequent electrofishing runs (Lelek, 1966; Libosvarsky, 1966; Chmiel-
ewski et al., 1973; Hendricks et al., 1980; Mahon, 1980), although it can
also be amplified by environmental factors. It is possible to quantify these
in some cases, e.g. conductivity (Alabaster and Hartley, 1962) or width
of the stream (Kennedy and Strenge, 1981) but the effect of the others,
such as temperature, can be the subject of great controversy. The general
opinion is that in temperatures below 4°C fish are less vulnerable to electric
current due to their quick passage into a state of narcosis, and therefore
catch~fficiency is low (Lelek, 1966; Libosvarsky, 1966; Vibert, 1967;
Chmielewski et al., 1973; Heggberget and Hesthagen, 1979). However,
some authors show results supporting an opposite opinion (Lukashov and
Usachev, 1963; Hofstede, 1976; Karlstrom, 1976). During the summer
they observed lower efficiency which they explain by higher fish activity
enabling them to escape more easily.
These differences are probably due to differences in the authors' expe-
 152

TOTAL CATCH

2 Noemachitus b a r b a t u t u s ( L ) ~
E - benthic species
Leslie
Zippin
"~ 400 Ricker
L~
LO
De Lury
C O M B I N E D ELECTROFISHINGS
D
tO
S/;. "
tO
. 300 f/>"
C
T-
tO

~ 2o0

"U
100

E
O

100 200 300 400 500 600

Total cotch
tO
"~ TOTAL CATCH
o Phoxinus phoxinus (L) /

/
E -nectonic species
~4000.
tO
~ " Ricker
/ Leslie
~ 3000. /
/
//
/ / . COMBINED ELECTROFISHINGS
.t~f.'. De Lury

2000. /

~S

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Tote[ catch
Fig. 2. T h e c o m p a r i s o n o f a c c u r a c y o f results o b t a i n e d by t h e d i f f e r e n t c a t c h - e f f o r t
statistical m e t h o d s as r e l a t e d t o t h e t o t a l c a t c h (5--7 e l e c t r o f i s h i n g r u n s a n d r o t e n o n e
t r e a t m e n t ) o n t h e e x a m p l e o f t w o species w h i c h d i f f e r in t h e i r b e h a v i o u r in t h e electric
field. B e n t h i c species - - Noemachilus barbatulus (L.); Z i p p i n , y = 0 . 8 3 5 5 x + ( - 2 8 . 7 8 2 ) ,
P < 0.1; Leslie a n d Davis, y = 0 . 8 3 6 x + ( - 1 9 . 3 7 0 ) , P < 0.05; Ricker, y = 0 . 7 5 0 x + 3.702,
P< 0.01; De Lury, y = 0 . 7 9 9 x + ( - 3 6 . 5 4 8 ) , P < 0.05; combined electrofishing
y = 0 . 6 4 7 x + 9.222, P < 0.05. N e c t o n i c species - - Phoxinus phoxinus (L.); Ricker,
y = 0.710x + ( - 8 . 6 9 5 ) ; Leslie and Davis, y = 0 . 6 6 3 x + 1.055; C o m b i n e d electrofishing,
y = 0 . 6 1 4 x + ( - 3 . 3 9 4 ) ; De Lury, y = 0 . 6 0 0 x + ( - 1 3 . 4 5 0 ) ; Z i p p i n , y = 0 . 5 7 3 x + 17.380.
In all cases P < 0.001. Basic data f r o m M a h o n (1980).
 153

riences. Those w h o collected fish in habitats which are easy to investigate

could have achieved a positive effect due to fast galvanotaxis which reduced
escape ability. In a diversified environment, fast galvanonarcosis can strongly
reduce efficiency, because a high percentage of stunned fish remain among
roots, branches and vegetation.
M a h o n (1980) suggested that the development of an equation to predict
the numbers of fish within a studied section of a river without complete
collection would be very useful. In the case of large rivers, the most dif-
ficult condition to fulfil in developing the proposed equation is the variable
efficiency between electrofishing in narrow and wide sections. T w o methods
of increasing the efficiency of electrofishing in wide sections of a river
have been proposed. Penczak and Zalewski (1973) suggested dividing the
studied section into a series of separate channels with nets. Alternatively,
M a n n and Penczak (1984) have suggested increasing the numbers of electro-
fishing boats and teams as the studied sections become wider.
By comparison with the methods used for quantitative fish sampling
in rivers, the proposed equation is remarkable in reducing the amount
of effort at each sampling station. This enables quantitative estimates
to be made for a larger number of sites in the same unit of time, resulting
in a better overall estimate of fish density in the river, especially when
the population is distributed in a series of shoals. It also allows estimates
of fish density and biomass to be made immediately in the field. By di-
#iding the weight of caught fish by their number, the average weight of
a specimen is obtained. Plotting the log of this value on the curves (Fig. 1A,
B) gives information on what percentage of the actual number or biomass
of fish was collected. In addition, electrofishing a section o f a river only
once does less damage to the fish population and the habitat.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to thank Robin Mahon, Richard Mann and Tim Coles
for stimulating discussions a b o u t problems of riverine fish sampling. A
review of the article and improvements of the English by Tim Coles and
Richard Mann are greatly appreciated. This study was partially done during
the tenure o f a Post-doctoral Fellowship given to the author by the Canadian
Government.

REFERENCES

Alabaster, J.S and Hartley, W.G., 1962. The efficiency of a direct-current electric fishing
method in trout streams. J. Anita. Ecol., 31: 385--388.
Backiel, T., 1964. Fish populations in the Drw~ca River system. Roczn. Nauk Roln.,
ser. B, 84: 193--214.
Boccardy, J.A. and Cooper, E.L., 1963. The use of Rotenone and electrofishing in
surveying small streams. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 92: 307--310.
154

Chmielewski, A., Cuinat, R., Dembinski, W. and Lamarque, P., 1973. Investigation
of a method for comparing the efficiency of electrical fishing machines. Pol. Arch.
Hydrobiol., 20: 319--340.
Cowx, J.G., 1983. Review of the methods for estimating fish population size from survey
removal data. Fish. Manage., 14: 67--82.
Funk, J.L., 1949. Wider application of the electrical method of collecting fish. Trans.
Am. Fish. Soc., 77: 49--60.
Hartman, W.L., 1959. Biology and vital statisticsof Rainbow Trout in the Finger Lakes
region, N e w York. G a m e Fish J.N.Y., 6: 121--177.
Heggberget, T.G. and Hesthagen, T., 1979. Population estimates of young Atlantic
salmon, Salmo salar, L., and Brown Trout, Salmo trutta L., by electrofishing in two
small streams in north Norway. Rep. Inst. Freshwater Res. Drottningholm, 58: 27--
33.
Hendricks, M.L., Hocutt, Ch.H. and Stauffer, J.R., Jr., 1980. Monitoring of fish in
lotic habitats. In: Ch.H. Hocutt and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. (Editors), Biological Moni-
toring of Fish. Lexington Books, Lexington, M A , and Toronto, pp. 205--231.
Hofstede, A.E., 1967. Electric fishing devices used in the Netherlands in still waters.
In: R. Vibert (Editor), Fishing with Electricity; its Application to Biology and Man-
agement. F A O of UN, Fishing News (Books), London, pp. 131--173.
Holton, G.D. and Sullivan, C.R., 1954. West Virginia's electrical fish-collecting methods.
Prog. Fish Cult., 16: 10--18.
Iwaszkiewicz, M., 1964. The course of natural regeneration of ichthyofauna in the
section of a stream after an experimental outcatch of fish by electrofishing. Pr. Kom.
Nauk Roln. Leg, Pozn. TPN, 18 (1): 1--41.
Junge, C.O. and Libosvarsky, J., 1965. Effects of size selectivity on population estimates
based on successive removals with electric fishing gear. Zool. Listy, 14: 171--178.
Karlstrom, O., 1976. Quantitative methods in electrical fishing in Swedish salmon rivers.
Zoon, 4 : 53--63.
Kennedy, G.J.A. and Strenge, C.D., 1981. Efficiency of electric fishing for salmonids
in relation to river width. Fish Manage., 2: 55--60.
Larimore, R.W., 1961. Fish population and electrofishing success in a warm-water stream.
J. Wildl. Manage., 25: 1--12.
Le Cren, E.D., 1958. Preliminary observations on populations of Salmo trutta in becks
in northern England. Verh. Intern. Vet. Limnol., 1 3 : 7 5 4 - - 7 5 7 .
Lelek, A., 1966. The field experiment on the receptivity of chub, Leuciscus cephalus
(L.) to the repeated effects of pulsating direct current. Verh. Int. Ver. Limnol., 16:
1217--1222.
Libosvarsky, J., 1966. Successive removals with electrical fishing gear -- a suitable method
for making population estimates in small streams. Verh. Int. Vet. Limnol., 16: 1212--
1216.
Lukashov, V.N. and Usachev, V.V., 1963. The behaviour of the Caspian "Vabla" (Ru-
tilus rutilus caspicus), bream and pikeperch in an electric field. Tr. Kasp. Nauchno-
Issled. Inst. Rybn. Khoz., 19: 3--10.
Mahon, R., 1980. Accuracy of catch-effort methods for estimating fish density and
biomass in streams. Env. Biol. Fish., 5: 343--360.
Mahon, R. and Balon, E.K., 1980. Quantitative collection of fishes from small fast
flowing streams. Arch. Hydrobiol., 90: 324--329.
Mann, R.K.H., (1974). Quantitative fish sampling in two hard-water rivers in southern
England. EIFAC, 74/4/Syrup. No. 4, Ed. FAO of UN, Aviemore, Scotland.
Mann, R.H.K. and Penczak, T., 1984. The efficiency of a new electrofishing technique
in determining fish numbers in a large river in central Poland. J. Fish Biol., 24: 173--
185.
Penczak, T. and Zalewski, M., 1973. The efficiency of electrofishing with rectified
pulsating current in the zones of a river of medium size, evaluated by the method
of successive catches. Acta Hydrobiol., 15: 343--355.
 155

Penczak, T., Zalewski, M., Suszycka, E. and Molifmki, M., 1981. Estimation of the den-
sity, biomass, and growth rate of fish populations in two small lowland rivers. Ekol.
Pol., 29: 233--255.
Stermin, V.G., Nikonorov, I.V. and Bumeister, Yu K., 1976. Electrical Fishing Theory
and Practice. Holsted Press, New York, 316 pp.
Vihert, R., 1967. Applications of electricity to inland fishery biology and management.
In: R. Vibert (Editor), Fishing with Electricity; its application to Biology and Man-
agement. FAG of UN, Fishing News (Books), London, pp. 3--51.
Webster, D.E., Forney, J.L., Gibbs, R.H., Severus, J.H. and Woert, W.F., 1955. A com-
paxison of alternating and direct currents in fishery work. N.Y. Fish Game, J., Jan.:
106--113.
Zalewski, M., 1983. The influence of fish community structure on the efficiency of
electrofishing. Fish Manage., 14: 111--120.
Zalewski, M. and Penczak, T., (1981). Characterization of the fish community of the
Utrata River drainage basin, and evaluation of the efficiency of catching methods.
Pol. Arch. Hydrobiol., 28: 385--396.