Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst.
Number 419, 2018
Topical issue on Crayfish
Article Number 20
Number of page(s) 8
Published online 27 March 2018
  • Abrahamssons A. 1965. A method of marking crayfish Astacus astacus (Linneaus) in population studies. Oikos 16: 228–231. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using Lme4. J. Stat Softw 67: 1–48. [Google Scholar]
  • Black T, Herleth-King S, Mattingly H. 2010. Efficacy of internal PIT tagging of small-bodied crayfish for ecological study, Southeastern Naturalist 9, (Special Publication 3), pp. 257–266. [Google Scholar]
  • Bubb D, Lucas M, Thom T, Rycroft P. 2002. The potential use of PIT telemetry for identifying and tracking crayfish in their natural environment. Hydrobiologia 483: 225–230. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bubb D, Thom T, Lucas M. 2006. Movement patterns of the invasive signal crayfish determined by PIT telemetry. Can J Zool 84: 1202–1209. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bubb D, Thom T, Lucas M. 2008. Spatial ecology of the white-clawed crayfish in an upland stream and implications for the conservation of this endangered species. Aquat Conserv 18: 647–657. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Burnett N, Stamplecoskie K, Thiem J, Cooke S. 2013. Comparison of detection efficiency among three sizes of half-duplex passive integrated transponders using manual tracking and fixed antenna arrays. N Am J Fish Manag 33: 7–13. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Burnham K, Anderson D, Huyvaert K. 2011. AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioural ecology: some background, observations, and comparisons. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65: 23–35. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Buřič M, Kozák P, Vich P. 2008. Evaluation of different marking methods for spiny-cheek (Orconectes limosus). Knowl Manag Aquat Ecosyst 389: 2–8. [Google Scholar]
  • Figiel C, Miller G. 1995. The frequency of chela autotomy and its influence on the growth and survival of the crayfish Procambarus clarkii (Girard 1852) (Decapoda Cambaridae). Crustaceana 68: 472–483. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Füreder L, Gherardi F, Holdich D, Reynolds J, Sibley P, Souty-Grosset C. Austropotamobius pallipes. In: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010: e.T2430A9438817. Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK: International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2010, [Google Scholar]
  • Gibbons J, Andrews K. 2004. PIT tagging: simple technology at its best. Bio Sci 54: 447–454. [Google Scholar]
  • Gotteland P. 2013. Test of injectable elastomer tags on white-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes (Lereboullet). Freshw Crayfish 19: 45–51. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Guan R. 1997. An improved method for marking crayfish. Crustaceana 70: 641–652. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Haddaway N, Mortimer R, Christmas M, Dunn A. 2010. A review of marking techniques for crustacea and experimental appraisal of electric Cauterisation and Visible Implant Elastomer Tagging for Austropotamobius pallipes and Pacifastacus leniusculus. Freshw Crayfish 9: 55–67. [Google Scholar]
  • Louca V, Ream H, Findlay J, Latham D, Lucas M. 2014. Do culverts impact the movements of the endangered white-clawed crayfish? Knowl Manag Aquat Ecosyst 414: 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  • Matthews M.A, Reynolds J.D. 1995 A population study of the white-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes (Lereboullet) in an Irish reservoir. Biol Environ 95B: 99–109. [Google Scholar]
  • McMahan M, Cowan D, Sherwood G, Grabowski J, Chen Y. 2012. Evaluation of coded microwire tag retention in juvenile American lobster, Homarus americanus. J Crustac Biol 32: 497–502. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Morhardt J, Bishir D, Handlin C, Mulder S. 2000. A portable system for reading large passive integrated transponder tags from wild trout. N Am J Fish Manag 20: 276–283. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Nightingale J, Stebbing P, Sibley P, Brown O, Rushbrook B, Jones G. 2017. The use of ark sites and associated conservation measures to secure the long-term survival of white-clawed crayfish in the UK. Int Zoo Year J 53: 50–68. [Google Scholar]
  • Prentice E, Park D. 1983. A study to determine the biological feasibility of a new fish tagging system. Quarterly Progress Report, April–June 1983. Seattle: Coastal Zone and Estuarine Studies Division, Northwest Alaska Fisheries Centre National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [Google Scholar]
  • Ramalho R, McClain R, Anastácio P. 2010. An effective and simple method of temporarily marking crayfish. Freshw Crayfish 17: 57–60. [Google Scholar]
  • Robinson C, Thom T, Lucas M. 2000. Ranging behaviour of a large freshwater invertebrate, the white-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes. Freshw Biol 44: 509–521. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Roussel J, Cunjak R, Newbury R, Caissie D, Haro A. 2004. Movements and habitat use by PIT-tagged Atlantic salmon parr in early winter: the influence of anchor ice. Freshw Biol 49: 1026–1035. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Shepherd T, Gardner C, Green B, Richardson A. 2011. Estimating survival of the tayatea Astacopsis gouldi (Crustacea, Decapoda, Parastacidae), an iconic, threatened freshwater invertebrate. J Shellfish Res 30: 139–145. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Souty-Grosset C, Reynolds J. 2009. Current ideas on methodological approaches in European crayfish conservation and restocking procedures. Knowl Manag Aquat Ecosyst 401: 394–395. [Google Scholar]
  • Stead V, Cherrill A, Pope T. 2015. Tuning in to crayfish. Bull Chart Inst Ecol Environ Manag 89: 11–13. [Google Scholar]
  • Westhoff J, Sievert N. 2013. Mortality and growth of crayfish internally tagged with PIT tags. N Am J Fish Manag 33: 878–881. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wiles P, Guan R. 1993. Studies on a new method for permanently tagging crayfish with microchip implants. Freshw Crayfish 9: 419–425. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.