1. Status of Fish Data Standardization
in the Southeastern US
Southern Division
American Fisheries Society
Annual Meeting
January 31, 2015
Mary Davis, Ph.D., SARP
Stephan Magnelia, TPWD

2. Presentation Objectives
• Review users of standardized fish data
• Present results of a SD AFS/SARP survey about
fish data standardization in the SE
• Present outcomes from SD AFS/SARP Data
Standardization Workshop

3. Common Uses for Fish Data
State Fisheries Programs (often game species)
• Population status and trends
• Reproduction, growth and health
• Regulation and management
Regional/National Studies (often community)
• Species distributions and habitat requirements
• Composition and diversity
• Habitat quality
• Impacts from human activities
• Effects of climate change

4. National Fish Habitat Partnership
Aquatic Habitat Assessment

5. Multistate Aquatic Resources Information System
Fish Data for SARP States

6. Fish Data for SARP States
Used for National Inland Assessment

7. Standardization increases the utility of
fish data for all users:
• Sampling protocols increase comparability
over time and among locations
• Centralized digital data storage requires
QA/QC and increases access and sharing
• Metadata enable the proper use of the data
• Improved analyses help meet project
objectives and effective management

8. SD AFS Warmwater Stream Committee
And SARP
Fish Data Survey Results
• Collection
• Management
• Reporting
• Sharing

9. Fish Data Collection
Of 13 states responding to the survey:
• 12 have statewide sampling protocols
• All 12 states have sampling protocols for
o game fish
o lakes/reservoirs
• Some state have sampling protocols for
o Non-game fish
o Rivers and streams
• 6 used the AFS protocols as models
• 6 evaluated for sampling bias

10. Fish Data Management
Of 13 states responding to the survey:
• 13 use digital databases
• 10 use centralized, statewide databases
• 13 require some level of metadata

11. Fish Survey Reporting
Of 13 states responding to the survey:
• Measures reported
o 12 species presence
o 12 relative abundance and length frequency
• Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE)
o 7 record for all gear types
o 6 record for boat EF, backpack EF, seining, gill net
• Analyses performed
o 13 population trends
o 11 change in community composition

12. Fish Data Sharing
Of 13 states responding to the survey:
• 3 were aware their data were in a national database
• 7 saw the benefit of their data being used in
regional/national efforts
• 4 saw benefit of sharing data for
o Access for others
o Mapping tools
o Species distributions
• 9 recommend contributing data on a regular basis

13. Fish Data Standardization
SD AFS/SARP Workshop Outcomes
1. Recommendations to AFS:
• Use AFS Sampling Protocols where possible
and
• Data sharing requirements for publication;
• Standards for deploying equipment in rivers
for fish community analyses; and
• Standards for sampling other aquatic
habitats (e.g., swamps)

14. Fish Data Standardization
SD AFS/SARP Workshop Outcomes (cont.)
2. Improve sampling protocols
• Investigate barriers to implementation of
standardized protocols
• Quantify sampling bias (i.e., capture efficiency)
3. Help states establish infrastructure to manage
fish data
4. Share data
• Update national fish database (i.e., MARIS)
• Develop user-friendly tools to share fish data
• Identify additional data requirements for 2o users

15. Fish Data Standardization
Next steps
• Work with AFS committees to explore
recommendations for improving sampling
protocols
• Pursue funding to assist states with new
infrastructure and improved fish data utility