=exp[(0.45/2)+1.61 + 1.22x], (equation 4)
=6.26x '22. (equation 5)
These results were substituted into equation 1 and used to compute sample size requirements:
N=6.26x122x20.125-2 (equation 6)
N=6.26x0780.125-2. (equation 7)
Differences in seasonal catch rates were not consistent among lakes nor size classes (Table 1). CPUE of
"small" saugeye was higher in the fall from Holdenville, whereas no seasonal differences in CPUE of the "small" size
class were observed in the Jean Neustadt and Thunderbird data (Table 1). CPUE of the "intermediate" size class was
higher in the fall from Jean Neustadt and Thunderbird; no seasonal difference was detected from Holdenville (Table
1). CPUE of "large" saugeye was higher in the spring from Holdenville and Jean Neustadt; however, higher CPUE's
were found in the fall samples from Thunderbird (Table 1). Catch rates for all size classes combined did not differ by
season from Holdenville and Jean Neustadt, but were higher at Thunderbird in the fall (Table 1).
Analysis of the monthly electrofishing data did not provide additional insight into temporal differences in
CPUE. Therefore, monthly comparisons will not be discussed further.
Precision of most samples was poor. Precision of the Thunderbird data was higher than that for Holdenville
and Jean Neustadt (Table 1). However, a minimum of 5 hours of electrofishing was required to obtain a CVx=0.125
in fall sampling with size classes, day time, and habitats combined (Table 1). Stratifying the data by size class generally
made sampling requirements unrealistic. Ten hours of electrofishing would meet the specified target of precision in
only three of the 24 sampling strata depicted in Table 1.
Diurnal differences in CPUE were more consistent. CPUE's of night samples were higher for all lakes for
the "small" and "intermediate" size classes (Table 2). No diurnal differences in catch rates of "large" saugeye were
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.