{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016923076923076923, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008461538461538461, 'mean_word_length': 4.886877828054299, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Catch of channel catfish with tandem-set hoop nets and gill nets in lentic systems of Nebraska

Twenty-six Nebraska water bodies representing two ecosystem types (small standing waters and large standing waters) were surveyed during 2008 and 2009 with tandem- set hoop nets and experimental gill nets to determine if similar trends existed in catch rates and size structures of channel catfi sh Ictalurus punctatus captured with these gears. Gear effi ciency was assessed as the number of sets (nets) that would be required to capture 100 channel catfi sh given observed catch per unit effort (CPUE). Effi ciency of gill nets was not correlated with effi ciency of hoop nets for capturing channel catfi sh. Small sample sizes prohibited estimation of proportional size distributions in most surveys; in the four surveys for which sample size was suffi cient to quantify length-frequency distributions of captured channel catfi sh, distri- butions differed between gears. The CPUE of channel catfi sh did not differ between small and large water bodies for either gear. While catch rates of hoop nets were lower than rates recorded in previous studies, this gear was more effi cient than gill nets at capturing channel catfi sh. However, comparisons of size structure between gears may be problematic.