4.6 Article

Recreational fishing pressure impacts the density and behaviour of the western rock lobster (Panulirus cygnus, George): evidence from small, no-take marine reserves

Journal

ICES JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE
Volume 79, Issue 9, Pages 2413-2421

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsac175

Keywords

behaviour; fishing pressure; lobster; no-take reserves; Panulirus cygnus; Rottnest Island; sublethal predation

Funding

  1. UWA School of Biological Sciences

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the impact of recreational fishing on the behaviour of western rock lobster. The results show that the density of legal-sized lobster is higher in no-take reserves compared to fished sites, and lobster in fished sites spend less time with bait.
It is unknown whether lobster behaviour is sensitive to fishing, as has been previously suggested for fish. This study investigated the impacts of recreational fishing on the wariness of western rock lobster (Panulirus cygnus, George) through comparisons between fished sites and no-take reserves (NTRs) at Rottnest Island. We used visual census to survey the density and size structure of lobster at sites inside and outside three comparable NTRs, and baited remote underwater video to study the behaviour of lobster at comparable sites. The density of legal-sized P. cygnus was twice as high within NTRs (0.34 +/- 0.05) than fished sites (0.16 +/- 0.03). P. cygnus also spent less time with bait in fished sites (0.42 +/- 0.15 min) than NTRs (1.15 +/- 0.28 min). This study provides the first evidence that behaviour of decapods, namely P. cygnus, is sensitive to noninjury-related disturbance associated with recreational fishing, with higher wariness in fished areas. Investigation is required into potentially confounding biotic and abiotic factors to further explore the applicability of lobster wariness as an indicator for fishing pressure.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available