No action required, just documenting how we dealt with the revisited sites.
Thompson creek downstream sites (123377_ds_ef1, 123377_ds_ef2, 123377_ds_ef3) were revisited to estimate surveyor efficiency. These sites were enclosed, sample, fish tagged and then returned to the site (sept 14). 24h later (sept 15) the site was revisited, sampled, and the fish were scanned for pit tags to determine surveyor efficiency.
In the habitat_confirmations spreadsheet and the form_fiss_2023.gpkg, 123377_ds_ef4, 123377_ds_ef5, 123377_ds_ef6 reference the revisited sites. We made separate reference numbers and site names for the revisited sites because they have a different sample dates as well as their own temp, cond, and turb data.
For example, 123377_ds_ef6 is the same site at 123377_ds_ef3. The site was enclosed, sampled, and the fish returned (123377_ds_ef3). 24 hours later the site was resample and the fish were scanned for pit tags to determine surveyor efficiency (123377_ds_ef6).
123377_ds_ef4, 123377_ds_ef5, 123377_ds_ef6 were added to the bottom of the spreadsheet so the reference number order was not changed.
Previously, in step 3 (Individual fish data), the different sampling days were differentiated by haul pass = 1 (sept 14) and haul pass = 2 (sept 15), but multiple haul passes are usually used to show that a site is clear of the fish (salvaging) so this was not the best way to document the data. We changed 123377_ds_ef1, 123377_ds_ef2, 123377_ds_ef3 rows which had a haul pass = 2 to 123377_ds_ef4, 123377_ds_ef5, 123377_ds_ef6 respectively, now with haul pass = 1.
NewGraphEnvironment
commented
6 months ago
No action required, just documenting how we dealt with the revisited sites.
Thompson creek downstream sites (
123377_ds_ef1,123377_ds_ef2,123377_ds_ef3) were revisited to estimate surveyor efficiency. These sites were enclosed, sample, fish tagged and then returned to the site (sept 14). 24h later (sept 15) the site was revisited, sampled, and the fish were scanned for pit tags to determine surveyor efficiency.In the
habitat_confirmationsspreadsheet and theform_fiss_2023.gpkg,123377_ds_ef4,123377_ds_ef5,123377_ds_ef6reference the revisited sites. We made separate reference numbers and site names for the revisited sites because they have a different sample dates as well as their own temp, cond, and turb data.For example,
123377_ds_ef6is the same site at123377_ds_ef3. The site was enclosed, sampled, and the fish returned (123377_ds_ef3). 24 hours later the site was resample and the fish were scanned for pit tags to determine surveyor efficiency (123377_ds_ef6).123377_ds_ef4,123377_ds_ef5,123377_ds_ef6were added to the bottom of the spreadsheet so the reference number order was not changed.Previously, in step 3 (Individual fish data), the different sampling days were differentiated by haul pass = 1 (sept 14) and haul pass = 2 (sept 15), but multiple haul passes are usually used to show that a site is clear of the fish (salvaging) so this was not the best way to document the data. We changed
123377_ds_ef1,123377_ds_ef2,123377_ds_ef3rows which had ahaul pass = 2to123377_ds_ef4,123377_ds_ef5,123377_ds_ef6respectively, now with haul pass = 1.