Aquacultural Engineering 2 (1983) 101-118

Catch Efficiency and Retentive Ability of Commercial Crawfish Traps-~

Vernon A. Pfister and Robert P, Romaire
Fisheries Section, School of Forestry and Wildlife Management, Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803, USA

ABSTRA CT The catch efficiency and retentive ability o f lO commercial crawfish traps were evaluated in commercial ponds. Trap designs with three entrance funnels caught significantly more crawfish than did trap designs with one or two funnels. Conversely, the retentive ability o f the trap designs was inversely related to the number o f entrance funnels. Traps constructed from PVC plastic-coated wire caught significantly more crawfish than identical trap designs made from galvanized wire; however, retentive ability o f traps was not related to construction material. The posture (horizontal versus vertical) o f identically designed traps when set in the pond did not affect the catch efficiency nor retentive ability o f the traps. Traps with exposed bait caught 40-47% more crawfish than did traps with protected bait. An average o f 84, 80 and 64% o f marked crawfish were retained by traps after 12, 24 and 48 h, respectively.

INTRODUCTION Culture of red swamp and white river crawfish (Procambarus clarkii and Procambarus a c u t u s acutus, respectively) is the only large-scale, commercial crustacean aquaculture industry in the continental US. In 1981, there were over 2 3 0 0 0 h a of crawfish cultured in southern t This study was supported by the Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station. 101 Aquacultural Engineering 0144-8609/83/$03.00 Applied Science Publishers Ltd. England, 1983. Printed in Great Britain

102

v. A. Pfister, R. P. Romaire

Louisiana alone (Craft, 1980), and the crawfish industry is burgeoning in Texas, Mississippi and South Carolina. In 1980-1981 over 12-2 million kg of farm-raised crawfish with a wholesale value of t;25 million were harvested in Louisiana (Roberts, 1982). A major constraint to further expansion of the crawfish culture industry is harvesting (Avault, 1980). Crawfish are harvested almost exclusively with baited traps. The traps, which have one or more funnels that allow crawfish to enter, are constructed from 1-9-cm hexagonal mesh poultry wire to select for marketable crawfish (greater than 75 mm total length). Traps are baited with cut fish, with gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) being preferred (Huner et al., 1978). Fishermen typically set between 25 and 100 baited traps per hectare, and the catch is generally emptied after 12 or 24 h. Although numerous trap designs are used for harvesting crawfish, few data are available on the catch efficiency of different designs. Bean and Huner (1978) investigated the catch efficiency of several crawfish traps used in Louisiana. Nicola (1971) and Threinen (1958) described several wire traps used for harvesting wild populations of crawfish (Pacifastacus spp. and Orconectes spp.) in California and Wisconsin, respectively. Westman et al. (1978) evaluated the catchability and retentive ability of several traps constructed from nylon netting for use in harvesting crawfish (Astacus astacus) in Finland. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the catch efficiency and retentive ability of 10 standard commercial trap designs presently used to harvest crawfish.

MATERIALS AND METHODS Trap designs Major differences in the 10 trap designs evaluated included varying number of entrance funnels (1-4) per trap, wire used in the trap construction (black plastic, black plastic-coated, and galvanized) and the posture of trap when set (vertical or horizontal). Six of the traps were vertical types (i.e. set vertically erect in the water column with the base of the trap on the pond bottom and the top protruding above the water surface) and four traps were horizontal types (i.e. set horizontally submerged on the pond bottom). All traps were constructed from

Catch efJ~ciency and retentive ability of commercial crawfish traps

103

1.9-cm hexagonal mesh wire and had a standard inside diameter funnel opening o f 4.5 cm. A description o f the 10 trap designs follows:

Single-funnel horizontal trap (design 1)

This trap was 76 cm long, 51 cm in diameter and constructed from galvanized wire. One funnel opening (24.5 cm outer diameter X 4.5 cm inner diameter) was formed. One-half of the opposite end of the trap was permanently closed. The open portion, used to bait the trap and remove crawfish, was closed with a rubber clamp while the trap was set (Fig. 1).

Two-funnel horizontal trap (design 2)

This trap was made from galvanized wire, and was identical to design 1 except it had two funnel entrances ( 1 2 c m outer d i a m e t e r 4.5 cm inner diameter), one in each corner of a closed section.

Two-funnel horizontal trap, coated (design 3)

This trap was identical in configuration to design 2 except the wire was coated with black polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic (Fig. 2).

Fig. 1.

Single-funnel horizontal trap, galvanized wire (design 1).

104

V. A. Pftster, R. P. Romaire

Fig. 2.

Two-funnel horizontal trap, PVC-coated wire (design 3).

Two-funnel vertical trap (design 4) This trap was 76 cm long, 64 cm in diameter and constructed from galvanized wire. The b o t t o m o f the trap was closed and flattened, and two funnel openings (12 cm outer diameter 4.5 cm inner diameter) were inverted into the b o t t o m opposite each other. A 6-4 mm diameter metal rod, 91 cm long, was clamped to the side o f the trap with steel rings and held the trap upright when set in the pond. The top o f the trap remained open. Two-funnel vertical trap, coated (design 5) This trap was identical in configuration to design 4 except the wire was coated with black PVC plastic (Fig. 3). Two-funnel vertical, cone-shaped and coated (design 6) This trap was constructed from black PVC plastic-coated wire. The trap lay upright on its base (61 cm diameter) and two funnels (20 cm outer diameter 4.5 cm inner diameter) protruded inward from the fringe o f the base. The top (33 cm diameter) remained open (Fig. 4).

Catch effieieney and retentive ability of commercial crawfish traps

105

Fig. 3.

Two-funnel vertical trap, PVC-coated wire (design 5).

Three-funnel horizontal trap, coated (design 7)

This trap was 79 cm long and 36 cm in diameter and made from black PVC-coated wire. One end o f the trap was closed with wire rings, and two funnels ( 1 4 c m o u t e r d i a m e t e r 4-5 cm inner diameter) were inverted in the end o f the clamped section. The opposite end was partially clamped and a single funnel was inverted in the end o f the clamped section. The open end adjacent to the clamped section was fitted with a hinged d o o r to facilitate baiting and removal o f crawfish (Fig. 5).

Three-funnel vertical trap, coated (design 8)

This trap was 76 cm long and 46 structed from 6.4 mm diameter galvanized wire which was coated asphalt-base preservative).t Three cm in diameter and had a frame conrods. T he frame was covered with with black tar (Texaco Net Coat e, an funnels (15-5 cm out er diameter X 4-5

t The use of a trade name does not imply endorsement by the authors or Louisiana State University.

106

V. A. Pfister, R. P. Romaire

Fig. 4.

Two-funnel vertical trap, cone-shaped, PVC-coated wire (design 6).

cm inner diameter) were spaced equidistant from each other and were located 5 cm from the trap bottom. The top o f the trap was open (Fig. 6).

Four-funnel vertical trap (design 9) This trap was constructed from Vexar plastic wire.? The trap lay upright on its b o t t o m (61 cm diameter), and four entrance funnels (10 cm outer diameter X 4-5 cm inner diameter) protruded inward from the base of the trap toward a central baitwell (45 cm long X 10 cm diameter). The top (20.3 cm diameter) was open. Four-funnel vertical trap (design 1 O) This trap was identical to design 9 except it lacked a central baitwell (Fig. 7).
t The use of a trade name does not imply endorsement by the authors or Louisiana State University.

Catch efficiency and retentive ability of commercial crawfish traps

107

Fig. 5.

Three-funnel horizontal trap, PVC-coated wire (design 7).

Fig. 6.

Three-funnel vertical trap, tar-coated wire (design 8).

108

V. A. Pfister, R. P. Romaire

Fig. 7.

Four-funnel vertical trap, Vexar plastic wire (design 10).

Catchability

study

The catch efficiency of the 10 trap designs was evaluated in two commercial crawfish ponds which had surface areas of 14.6 and 18.9 ha, respectively, and averaged 0.6 m in depth. The predominant plants in the ponds were Alternanthera philoxeroides, Polygonun spp., Ludwigia peploides and Sesbania spp. Three replicates o f each o f the 10 trap designs were randomly assigned among three 4-m wide trapping lanes in each pond. To minimize possible trap interaction, traps were spaced 15 m from each other (Morrissy, 1975). Each trap was positioned on the pond b o t t o m so as not to obstruct funnel entrances. Traps were baited at approximately 1800 h with 150-200 g of cut gizzard shad and were emptied 12 h later. Each trap was shaken after it was removed from the water to allow non-marketable crawfish to fall through the mesh. The total number and total weight o f crawfish in each trap were recorded. Ten crawfish were obtained at random from each trap and each crawfish was identified to species and its total length (tip o f the rostrum to the tip o f the telson) measured. No crawfish were

Catch elficiency and retentive ability o f commercial crawfish traps

109

returned to the ponds. The trapping procedure was repeated bi-weekly from 2 March to 14 May 1981. Just prior to emptying traps (about 0600 h) dissolved oxygen (DO) and water temperature were measured with a polarographic oxygen meter with thermistor in a single location 15 cm from each pond bottom. Secchi disc visibility was measured at 1000 h.

Retentive ability
This investigation evaluated the ability o f each of the 10 trap designs to retain crawfish once captured. Four replicates of each of the l0 trap designs were assigned at random among four trapping lanes in the 14.6 ha pond on 11 May 1981. Two of the replicates o f each design were baited at 1800 h with 200 g of gizzard shad and the other two replicates received no bait. After the traps were baited, 20 marked P. clarkii (range: 8 4 - 9 6 mm total length) were immediately distributed at random into each of the 40 traps. Each crawfish was marked by excising about one-third o f the left uropod (Romaire, 1976). The number of marked and unmarked crawfish present in each trap was recorded and returned to the trap after 12, 24 and 48 h. Traps that received bait initially were rebaited with 200 g o f fresh shad at 12 and 24 tl.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Catchability study Highly significant differences were observed in the efficiency with which crawfish were captured for the 10 trap designs after 12 h (P < 0.01; Table 1). The three-funnel vertical trap (design 8 ; 2 = 25 crawfish and 543 g/trap set) and the four-funnel trap without baitwell (design 10; 2 = 25 crawfish and 471 g/trap set) caught significantly more crawfish than did the other eight trap designs ( P < 0 . 0 5 ; Table 1). The average catch of crawfish per trap (in weight) did not significantly differ among trap designs 9, 7, 6, 5 , 4 , 3 and 2 (P > 0.05 ; Table 1). The single-funnel trap (2 = 8 crawfish and 170 g/trap set) caught significantly fewer crawfish in number and weight than did all other trap

110

V. A. Pfister, R. P. Romaire

TABLE 1 Catch Efficiency of 10 Commercial Crawfish Trap Designs as Evaluated in Two Commercial Ponds

Trap description

Trap design

Mean Mean number weight of of craw- crawfish fish~trap (g)/trap seJ set

Mean Wholesale total cost length per trap (ram) (USdollars, 1981)

Three-funnel vertical (PVC coated) Four-funnel vertical (Vexar) Two-funnel vertical (cone-shaped, PVC coated) Two-funnel vertical (PVC coated) Four-funnel vertical (Vexar, baitwell) Two-funnel horizontal (PVC coated) Three-funnel horizontal (PVC coated) Two-funnel vertical (galvanized) Two-funnel horizontal (galvanized) Single-funnel horizontal (galvanized)

8 10

25 a 2 25 a

543 a 471 b

87 84

12.00 17.00

6 5 9 3 7 4 2 1

19 b 18 b 17 bc 17 bc 16 bc 15 dc 12 d 8e

340 c 350 c 337 c 337 c 353 c 296 c 291 c 170 d

82 83 85 83 86 84 88 81

6.57 3.71 18.50 2.70 3.75 2.73 1.79 2.37

1 Catch data were based on 36 observations from 12-h nocturnal sets. 2 Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different based on Duncan's multiple range test, P > 0.05 (vertical comparisons only).

designs t e s t e d (P < 0-05). T h e m o s t e f f e c t i v e t r a p ( t h r e e - f u n n e l vertical t r a p ) c a u g h t triple t h e a m o u n t o f crawfish (in n u m b e r and w e i g h t ) t h a n did t h e least e f f e c t i v e t r a p (single-funnel trap).

Catch efficiency and retentive ability of commercial crawfish traps N u m b e r o f entrance funnels

111

The catch of crawfish increased significantly as the number of funnel entrances per trap increased from one to three (P < 0-05). Traps with three entrance funnels (designs 7 and 8) caught 1.2-1.9 times more crawfish (in weight) than did two-funnel traps (designs 2, 3, 4 and 5) and 2-1-3.0 times more crawfish than the single-funnel trap. Fourfunnel traps (designs 9 and 10), however, captured no more crawfish than did three-funnel traps (Table 1). The average catch of crawfish (in weight) in two-funnel traps (designs 2, 3, 4 and 5) was 1.7-2.1 times greater than the catch in the single-funnel trap (design 1). Westman et al. (1978) reported that a crawfish trap with one entrance caught about half that of traps with two entrances which agrees with the findings of this study. Bean and Huner (1978) observed that a trap with six entrance funnels caught four times more crawfish than did a twofunnel trap.
Vertical versus horizontal posture

The average number, weight and size of crawfish caught in two-funnel horizontal traps (designs 2 and 3) did not significantly differ from the catch in two-funnel vertical traps (designs 4 and 5) of similar size and design ( P > 0.05). Bean and Huner (1978) found no difference in the average catch of crawfish between a two-funnel vertical trap and twofunnel horizontal trap of similar design. The three-funnel vertical trap (design 8), however, caught significantly more crawfish (in number and weight) than did the three-funnel horizontal trap (design 7 ) ( P < 0.01) of dissimilar size and design. No difference in the average size of crawfish captured was noted between the two, three-funnel designs ( P > 0.05). The catch efficiency of a crawfish trap was obviously influenced more by its design than by the posture of the trap when set.
Construction material

Two-funnel traps constructed from black PVC plastic-coated wire (designs 3 and 5; 9~ = 18 crawfish and 344 g/trap set) caught 30 and 18% more crawfish in number (P < 0.05) and weight (0.10 > P > 0.05), respectively, than did two-funnel traps constructed from galvanized wire (designs 2 and 4; ~ = 14 crawfish and 294 g/trap set). The average size of crawfish caught in the PVC-coated traps was (~ = 83 mm total length) significantly smaller than those caught in galvanized traps

1 12

V.A. Pfister, R. P. Romaire

(~ = 86 mm total length) (P < 0-05). The plastic coating apparently reduced the diameter of the mesh slightly thereby retaining smaller crawfish that were not held by galvanized wire traps. The increased catch o f crawfish in PVC-coated traps may also have resulted from crawfish being more attracted to black-coloured traps than traps constructed from lighter-coloured (galvanized) wire. It was also possible that metallic elements (such as zinc) in and/or the texture of the galvanized coating could have been objectionable to crawfish. Galvanized and plastic-coated wire are utilized in construction of crawfish traps to prolong the life o f the trap.

B a i t w e l l versus no b a i t w e l l

The four-funnel trap without the baitwell (i.e. bait exposed) caught 47 and 40% more crawfish per trap in number and weight, respectively, than did the duplicate design with the central baitwell in which the bait was protected (P < 0.01). Westman et al. (1978) reported that crawfish traps with protected bait caught less than one-half the nmnber of crawfish than did similar traps with exposed bait. When bait was exposed, crawfish were able to masticate more of the material thereby allowing a greater amount o f attractants in the bait to be released into the water. In addition, mastication of bait might involve an auditory response that stimulates crawfish movement toward traps.

Species composition P r o c a m b a r u s clarkii comprised 21.7 and 17-2% of the total crawfish caught in the two ponds, respectively with P. a c u t u s a c u t u s comprising the remainder. The percentage of P. clarkii in the catch decreased

dramatically from 40.5% on 16 March to only 15.4% on 14 May (Table 2). P. clarkii and P. a c u t u s a c u t u s are generally present together in commercial ponds. Although P. clarkii comprises an average of 90% of the commercial catch from ponds (Huner and Barr, 1980) the proportion of the two species may vary considerably among ponds. Both species have been observed to gain dominance in commercial ponds over a period of several years; however, the factors which result in one species dominating over the other species have not been identified. Many consumers consider P. a c u t u s a c u t u s less palatable and therefore less desirable than P. clarkii.

TABLE 2 The Percentage of Red Swamp Crawfish (Procambarus clarkii) Captured by the 10 Trap Designs (The remainder of the catch was comprised of the white river crawfish (P. acutus acutus))

Trap description 16 March 2 7 March 11 April 25 April 14 May

Trap design

% P. clarkii in catch j

Average 2

e~

Four-funnel vertical (Vexar, baitwell) Four-funnel vertical (Vexar) Three-funnel vertical (coated) Two-funnel horizontal (coated) Two-funnel vertical (cone-shaped, coated) Two-funnel vertical (coated) Single-funnel horizontal (galvanized) Two-funnel vertical (galvanized) Two-funnel horizontal (galvanized) Three-funnel horizontal (coated) 40-5 23-0 11-4 6.6

9 10 8 3 6 5 1 4 2 7

53-3 6 ! -7 61.7 25-0 31-7 26.7 30-0 38.3 40.0 36.7

41.7 48-3 21.7 26-7 11.7 16.7 16-7 15.0 18-3 13.3

28-3 6.0 15-0 10.0 15.0 11-7 5-0 8-3 5.0 8.3

20.0 13-3 1-7 3.3 5-7 10-0 5-0 5.0 0 1-7

16-7 15-0 5-0 33-3 30.0 16.7 18-3 6.7 8-3 8-3 15-4

32.0 a 29.7 a 21-0 b 19-7 b 18.4 b 16.3 b 15-0 b 14.7 b 14-3 b 13.7 b

Average

ln~6.

2 Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different based on Duncan's multiple range test, P > 0.05 (vertical comparisons only).

1 14

V.A. Pfister, R. P. Romaire

The four-funnel traps constructed from Vexar plastic wire caught more P. clarkii than did the remaining trap designs (P < 0.05 ; Table 2). No difference was noted in the percentage catch ofP. clarkii among the other trap designs (P > 0.05). It is not known why the four-funnel traps caught more P. clarkii than the other trap designs. The increase could have been related to one or more factors including construction material, n u m b e r o f funnels, trap posture, trap design, etc. Unfortunately, little is known of the behavioral and social interactions between P. clarkii and P. a c u t u s acutus. Further studies are needed to ascertain if materials used in trap construction are species selective.
Water quality

Water temperatures ranged from a low 15.5C on 16 March to a high of 29-9C on 14 May. Dissolved oxygen exceeded 4.0 mg/litre on all sample dates. Water was very turbid in both ponds with Secchi disc visibilities often less than 20 cm (range: 5-30 cm). Turbid water in commercial ponds is generally indicative o f a high crawfish population density. The catch o f crawfish differed significantly between sample periods (P < 0-01) and ranged from a mean low of 12 crawfish/trap (253 g/trap set) on 16 March to a mean high of 22 crawfish/trap (440 g/trap set) on 11 April. No correlation was found between water temperature, DO, Secchi disc visibility and the catch o f crawfish (averaged for all trap designs) (P > 0.05). This was not surprising because water quality measured on each date were within limits considered conducive to good catches of P. clarkii and P. a c u t u s acutus (Hobbs and Hall, 1974; Huner and Barr, 1980). Crawfish growth, changes in population densities, and fluxes in other environmental conditions were probably responsible for temporal differences in crawfish catch (Morrissy 1975).

Retentive ability
The percentage o f marked crawfish retained by the 10 trap designs after 12, 24 and 48 h is presented in Table 3. The retentive ability of the trap designs was inversely correlated with number o f entrance funnels. The single-funnel and two-funnel horizontal traps (design 1, 2 and 3), and the two-funnel, vertical trap (design 6) retained significantly more crawfish after 12 h than did the four-funnel traps (designs 9 and 10) (P <

Catch efficiency and retentive ability of commercial crawfish traps

115

TABLE 3 Percentage of Marked Proeambarus clarkii Retained in 10 Commercial Trap Designs After 12, 24 and 48 h

Trap description

Trap design

Average % retained 1 12 h elapsed 24 h elapsed 86 90 84 85 88 84 80 66 75 60 80 b 48 h elapsed 80 68 71 70 59 61 40 60 54 48 61 c

Two-funnel horizontal (coated) Two-funnel vertical (cone-shaped, coated) Two-funnel horizontal (galvanized) Single-funnel horizontal (galvanized) Three-funnel vertical (coated) Two-funnel vertical (coated) Two-funnel vertical (galvanized) Three-funnel horizontal (coated) Four-funnel vertical (Vexar) Four-funnel vertical (Vexar, baitwell) Average2

3 6 2 1 8 5 4 7 10 9

92 90 91 89 88 82 85 79 75 71 84 a

ln=4. 2 These means were significantly different based on Duncan's multiple range test, P<0.05.

0.05). There were no significant differences in retentive ability after 12 h among the other trap designs ( P > 0 - 0 5 ) . The four-funnel traps and the three-funnel horizontal trap (design 7) retained significantly less crawfish after 24 h than did the other trap designs (P < 0.05). The retentive ability of two-funnel horizontal traps (designs 2 and 3) did not differ significantly from two-funnel vertical traps (designs 3 and 4) of similar size and design (P > 0.05). Moreover, the retentive ability of the two-funnel traps constructed from galvanized wire (designs 2 and 4) did not significantly differ from the two-funnel traps constructed from PVC-coated wire (designs 3, 5 and 6) ( P > 0-05). The number o f marked crawfish retained by the three-funnel horizontal trap did not significantly differ from the three-funnel vertical trap, nor did

116

v. A. Pfister, R. P. Romaire

the retentive ability differ between the four-funnel trap with the baitwell and four-funnel trap without the baitwell ( P > 0.05). The two funnel, vertical traps (designs 4, 5 and 6; 2 = 84-7%), however, did retain 17.2% more crawfish after 24 h than did the four-funnel vertical traps (designs 9 and 10;)? = 67.5%). The number o f crawfish escaping from the traps increased significantly as the length o f the trap set increased from 12 to 48 h (P < 0.05; Table 3). An average o f 84% of the marked crawfish remained in the traps after 12 h, and only 80 and 61% were present after 24 and 48 h, respectively. The ability of the 10 trap designs to retain crawfish was not affected by the presence of 'fresh' bait in the traps (P > 0.05). Crawfish were adept at escaping from traps if sufficient time lapsed before the traps were emptied. The principal escape routes in horizontal traps were the entrance funnels. Crawfish were able to escape from both the entrance funnels and open tops of vertical traps. Fishermen generally leave the tops of vertical traps open because it significantly reduces the time required to .empty the catch. In fact, crawfish were frequently seen crawling out from the open tops o f vertical traps. Westman et al. (1978) observed that A s t a c u s a s t a c u s and P a c i f a s t a c u s l e n i u s c u l u s were adept at escaping through entrance funnels of traps and the authors described modifications in entrance funnels that minimized crawfish loss. Although an increased catch of crawfish was observed with an increase in the number o f funnel entrances per trap, this study also revealed a corresponding increase in the number o f crawfish escaping as the number of funnels per trap increased. Westman e t al. (1978) also reported an increase in retentive ability o f crawfish traps with a decrease in the number of entrance funnels.

CONCLUSIONS Highly significant differences in the catch efficiency and retentive ability were found in the 10 commercial crawfish trap designs evaluated in this study. However, several other factors such as fishability, longevity and cost must be considered when selecting a trap design for commercial use. A trap must be easily handled in the ponds. Horizontal traps are often more difficult to locate because they are totally submerged when set. They must also be lifted to the surface by means o f an attached line and the closed end must be opened before the crawfish

Catch efficiency and retentive ability of commercial crawfish traps

117

can be removed. Consequently, fewer traps can be emptied per unit time than can vertical traps. Also, crawfish often suffocate in horizontal traps when oxygen depletion occurs in the hypolimnion because the crawfish are not able to reach oxygenated surface waters (Avault et al., 1974). Horizontal traps, however, are used in ponds where the water depth exceeds 1 m. Traps constructed from galvanized wire have a commercial life of only one to two years whereas traps made from PVC plastic-coated wire will generally last from three to five years. In addition, traps constructed from PVC-coated wire were more catch efficient than galvanized traps. Traps constructed from Vexar plastic are very durable and can be expected to have a useful life in excess of five years. The cost o f a trap is very important in selecting a design, especially when a large number of traps must be purchased. The most expensive traps were made from Vexar plastic and PVC plastic-coated wire (Table 1); however, expense must be weighed for increased longevity and catchability exhibited by these designs. Traps made from PVC plasticcoated wire cost about $0.90 more than galvanized wire traps o f like design (Table 1). The four-funnel Vexar traps (designs 9 and 10) and three-funnel vertical trap (design 8) although being the most catch efficient were also considerably more expensive than the two-funnel traps (Table 1). We believe that the two-funnel, PVC-coated vertical trap (design 5) was the best overall trap design based on the catch efficiency and retentive ability, fishability, longevity and cost. Furthermore, it is more catch efficient to e m p t y the traps after 12 h rather than 24 or 48 h. Further research is needed to determine the relationship between the size, shape and angle of entrance funnels of crawfish traps, and the retentive ability and catchability o f traps. Likewise, research is needed to define the relationship between crawfish behavioural and social patterns and if and how these patterns influence the catch efficiency of different traps designs.

REFERENCES Avault, J. W., Jr, de la Bretonne, L. W. & Huner, J. (1974). Two major problems in culturing crayfish in ponds: oxygen depletion and overcrowding. Proc. 2nd Int. Crayfish Symp., 2,139.

118

I1. A, P]ister, R. P. Romaire

Avault, J. W., Jr (1980). Crawfish species plan. US Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture, 27 pp. (Unpublished.) Bean, R. A. & Huner, J. V. (1978). An evaluation of selected crawfish traps and trapping methods. Proc. 4th lnt. Crayfish Syrup., 4, 141. Craft, B. J. (1980). Louisiana inventory o f crawfish farmers - 1980. Alexandria, Louisiana, United States Soil Conservation Service. Hobbs, H. H. & Hall, E. T. (1974). Freshwater crayfishes. In: Pollution ecology o f freshwater invertebrates, eds. C. W. Hart, Jr and S. H. Fuller, New York, Academic Press Inc. Huner, J. V., Bean, R. A., Miltner, M. R. & Witzig, J. (1978). Crawfish bait study. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Louisiana Crawfish Farmers Association, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 6 pp. (Mimeograph.) Huner, J. V. & Barr, J. E. (1980). Red swamp crawfish: biology and exploitation. Louisiana Sea Grant Program, Publication No. LSU-T-80-001, Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University, 148 pp. Morrissy, N. M. (1975). The influence of sampling intensity on the catchability of marron, Cherax tenuimanus (Smith) (Decapod: Parastacidae). Australian J. o f Marine and Freshwater Res., 26, 47. Nicola, S. J. (1971). Report on a new crayfish fishery in the Sacramento River delta. California Department of Fish and Game. Inland Fisheries Administrative Report No. 71-7, 21 pp. Roberts, K. J. (1982). Louisiana crawfish farming: an economic view. Presented at the Second National Crawfish Culture Workshop, Lafayette, Louisiana, University of Southwestern Louisiana, pp. 1-9. (Mimeograph.) Romaire, R. P. (1976). Population dynamics of red swamp crawfish, Procambarus clarkii, in ponds receiving fertilization and two agricultural forages as supplemental feed. M.S. thesis. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Louisiana State University, 97 pp. Threinen, C. W. (1958). A summary of observations on the commercial harvest of crayfish in northwest Wisconsin, with notes on the life history of Orconectes virilis. Madison, Wisconsin Conservation Department, Fisheries Mgmt. Division, No. 2, 14 pp. Westman, K., Pursiainen, M. & Vilkman, R. (1978). A new folding trap which prevents crayfish from escaping. Proc. 4th Int. Crayfish Symp., 4, 235.