Skip to main content
. 2010 Jan 25;3(3):291–304. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-4571.2009.00110.x

Table 1.

Sampling characteristics of the study

Proportion of occupied sites (mean sampling size ± 95% CI) Mean density (ind/100m²) (mean ± 95% CI) Mean effective population size (mean ± 95% CI) Mean body length (mm) (mean ± 95% CI)




Species Fragmented Continuous Fragmented Continuous Fragmented Continuous Fragmented Continuous
Leuciscus cephalus 8/10 (17.5 ± 0.96) 9/11 (18.44 ± 2.79) 1.43 ± 1.08 0.94 ± 0.49 33.31 ± 31.97 77.05 ± 55.43 212.30 ± 25.93 182.63 ± 25.27
Leuciscus leuciscus 8/10 (18.37 ± 1.97) 10/11 (15.12 ± 3.69) 0.94 ± 1.17 2.64 ± 2.99 65.38 ± 21.54 75.87 ± 46.90 185.68 ± 10.55 165.72 ± 38.82
Gobio gobio 10/10 (20.00 ± 0.00) 11/11 (19.72 ± 0.72) 20.12 ± 8.55 18.61 ± 9.70 123.60 ± 62.99 113.27 ± 74.40 83.11 ± 5.81 83.19 ± 7.11
Phoxinus phoxinus 10/10 (20.44 ± 0.92) 11/11 (19.81 ± 0.69) 26.29 ± 19.12 11.44 ± 5.85 126.30 ± 67.80 115.00 ± 81.92 59.54 ± 2.89 57.59 ± 4.01

This table shows, for each landscape (fragmented or continuous), the proportion of sampling sites that was occupied, the mean sample size, the mean population density, the mean effective population size, and the mean body length (total body length in mm) for each of the four sampled species (95% CI, 95% confidence interval).