We use cookies to collect anonymous data to help us improve your site browsing experience.

Click 'Accept all cookies' to agree to all cookies that collect anonymous data. To only allow the cookies that make the site work, click 'Use essential cookies only.' Visit 'Set cookie preferences' to control specific cookies.

Set cookie preferences

Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Publication - Progress report

Technical, Logistical, and Economic Considerations for the Development and Implementation of a Scottish Salmon Counter Network: Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science Vol 7 No 2

Published 22 March 2016
Part of
Marine and fisheries
ISBN
9781785449642

This report provides an extensive review of electronic counter technologies and their potential for implementation in Scotland’s rivers. We consider all major types of proven counter technologies and software implemented by companies and government agenci

View supporting documents Supporting documents

List of Tables

Table 2.1. Equipment costs for all major types of counters. List may not be exhaustive, nor may all components be required at all site locations. Cost ranges encompass the base cost through to the highest cost likely to be incurred………………………………………………………………………...

Table 2.2. Example of data output from Logie resistivity counter…………….

Table 3.1. Summary of time requirements and number of fish enumerated from Case Study 1: Kitwanga River Steelhead enumeration using low-resolution DIDSON data using Echoview…………………………………..

Table 3.2. Summary of time requirements and number of fish enumerated from Case Study 2: Mitchell River Sockeye migration estimation using high-resolution DIDSON data using Echoview…………………………….

Table 3.3. Summary of total time requirements for DIDSON data analysis using Echoview. Verification is the average time of all fish analyzed…...

Table 3.4. Estimation of training cost in relation to the hourly rate of a MSS biologist………………………………………………………………………...

Table 3.5. Cost summary of Echoview software modules used in analysis…

Table 3.6. Comparison of fish counts in manual and Echoview analysis files……………………………………………………………………………..

Table 4.1. Maintenance and operation costs associated with optical beam, hydroacoustic, resistivity and video counters…………………………….

Table 4.2. Example of a validation dataset. Date_time is a record of when a fish passed through the counter, channel is the channel it passed through, direction is the direction of fish movement (U=up, D=down), counter is whether or not the counter recorded the fish (1=recorded, 0=missed), video is whether or not each record was observed as a fish on the video (1=fish, 0=no fish), and species is whether or not the fish was the target species (1=target species, 0=other species). Note, date_time and channel were not used in simulations; these variables are presented to illustrate a typical validation dataset……………………….

Table 4.3. The minimum sample size and validation time required to attain < 5% and < 10% relative error for accuracy, precision and bias. Validation time is calculated using equation 4.3.3 with a migration period of 4 months, a population abundance of 2000 fish, and a video constant of 1.1……………………………………………………………………………..

Table 5.1.Site Data.csv. These data were collected by IFR during site visits in October 2014. Description of variables can be found in Table 5.2…….

Table 5.2. Descriptions of variables in Site Data.cvs file……………………..

Table 5.3. Counter Option.csv. These represent all counter options considered by the decision and cost model………………………………

Table 5.4. Descriptions of variables in Counter Option.csv file……………...

Table 5.5. Validation Data.csv. These are the validation data used to determine the number of fish that should be validated………………….

Table 5.6. Summary of characteristics of potential counter sites visited by IFR staff in October 2014………………………………………………………..

Table 5.7. Decision and cost model output for the River Spey confluence site on the River Avon. Options are ranked by 10-year total cost, from least to most expensive. Costs are provided in GBP, and cost rankings are provided in parentheses. Res. represents resolution……………………

Table 5.8. Decision and cost model output for the Bught Park site on the River Ness. Options are ranked by 10-year total cost, from least to most expensive. Costs are provided in GBP, and cost rankings are provided in parentheses. Res. represents resolution…………………………………

Table 5.9. Decision and cost model output for the ocean confluence site on Little Gruinard River. Options are ranked by 10-year total cost, from least to most expensive. Costs are provided in GBP, and cost rankings are provided in parentheses. Res. represents resolution……………………

Table 5.10. Decision and cost model output for the Clova Bridge site on the River South Esk. Options are ranked by 10-year total cost, from least to most expensive. Costs are provided in GBP, and cost rankings are provided in parentheses. Res. represents resolution……………………

Table 5.11. Decision and cost model output for the Prosen Bridge site on the River South Esk. Options are ranked by 10-year total cost, from least to most expensive. Costs are provided in GBP, and cost rankings are provided in parentheses. Res. represents resolution……………………

Table 5.12. Decision and cost model output for the weir site on the River South Esk. Options are ranked by 10-year total cost, from least to most expensive. Costs are provided in GBP, and cost rankings are provided in parentheses. Res. represents resolution…………………………………

Table 5.13. Decision and cost model output for the footbridge site on the River South Esk. Options are ranked by 10-year total cost, from least to most expensive. Costs are provided in GBP, and cost rankings are provided in parentheses. Res. represents resolution…………………………………

Contact

Back to top