There are various ways of estimating the size of a natural population of large, mobile animals in a freshwater habitat. Obviously, the most accurate method would involve catching or, in some way, counting the entire population. However, this approach is usually either impossible to do in practice or, at least, destructive to the natural populations. Instead, a mark-and-recapture procedure frequently is used to obtain a statistical estimate of the size of the natural population.
The mark-and-recapture technique is based on the premise that recognizable (marked) organisms released to the population will be recaught in numbers proportional to their abundance in that population. The size of the natural population can be estimated from the proportion of marked to unmarked organisms in random samples obtained from the entire population.
There can be no difference in mortality or emigration between marked and unmarked organisms.
Tags or other marks must remain recognizable and must not be lost. All marks on recaptures must be reported.
There must not be a difference in catch-ability between marked and unmarked organisms.
Marked organisms must be mixed randomly within the entire population.
There can be no unknown recruitment or immigration to the population.
There are many modifications of the basic Petersen relationship [cf., Ricker (1975)], but only the two commonly used for fish or other aquatic vertebrates will be presented here.
KeywordsFish Population Population Estimate Aquatic Animal Aquatic Vertebrate Mobile Animal
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bennett, G.W. 1962. Management of Artificial Lakes and Ponds. Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
- Carlander, K.D. 1953. Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology. William C. Brown, Dubuque, IA. 429 pp.Google Scholar
- Carlander, K.D. 1977. Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology. Vol. 2. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, IA. 431 pp.Google Scholar
- Everhart, W.H., A.W. Eipper, and WD. Youngs. 1975. Principles of Fishery Science. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, NY. 288 pp.Google Scholar
- Lagler, K.F. 1956. Freshwater Fishery Biology. 2nd Ed. William C. Brown, Dubuque, IA. 421 pp.Google Scholar
- Lincoln, F.C. 1930. Calculating waterfowl abundance on the basis of banding returns. U.S.D.A. Circ. 118:1–4.Google Scholar
- McFarland, W.N. 1960. The use of anesthetics for the handling and the transport of fishes. California Fish and Game 46:407–131.Google Scholar
- McFarland, WN. and G.W Klontz. 1969. Anesthesia in fishes. Federation Proc. 28:1535–1540.Google Scholar
- Petersen, C.G.J. 1896. The yearly immigration of young plaice into the Limfjord from the German Sea, etc. Rep. Dan. Biol. Sta. 6:1–18. [As cited in Ricker (1975).]Google Scholar
- Ricker, W.E. 1968. Methods for Assessment of Fish Production in Fresh Waters. Blackwell Scientific Publ., Oxford. 313 pp.Google Scholar
- Ricker, W.E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Bull. Fish. Res. Board Can. 191. 382 pp.Google Scholar
- Rounsefell, G.A. and H.W Everhart. 1953. Fishery Science: Its Methods and Applications. Wiley, New York. 444 pp.Google Scholar
- Southwood, T.R.E. 1978. Ecological Methods: With Particular Reference to the Study of Insect Populations. 2nd Ed. Chapman and Hall, London. 524 pp.Google Scholar