4.4 Article

The effects of environmental factors on daytime sandeel distribution and abundance on the Dogger Bank

期刊

JOURNAL OF SEA RESEARCH
卷 60, 期 3, 页码 201-209

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.seares.2008.07.003

关键词

Sandeels; Sand Lance; Ecology; Oceanography; Fronts; Zooplankton; Patchiness; Acoustics; Generalized Additive Model

资金

  1. UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [MF0323]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spring distribution and abundance of lesser sandeels during the day were linked to zooplankton densities, seabed substrate and various hydrographic factors using small scale empirical data collected in two areas on the Dogger Bank in 2004, 2005 and 2006. The results of a two-step generalized additive model (GAM) suggested that suitable seabed substrate and temperature best explain sandeel distribution (presence/absence) and that sandeel abundance (given presence) was best described by a model that included bottom temperature, difference between surface and bottom temperature and surface salinity. The current study suggests that suitable seabed substrate explains sandeel distribution in the water column. Bottom temperature and surface salinity also played an important role in explaining distribution and abundance, and we speculate that sandeels favour hydrographically dynamic areas. Contrary to our hypothesis sandeels were not strongly associated with areas of high zooplankton density. We speculate that in early spring on the western Dogger Bank plankton is still patchily distributed and that sandeels only emerge from the seabed when feeding conditions near their night-time burrowing habitat are optimal. The results also suggested that when abundance is over a threshold level, the number of sandeel schools increased rather than the schools becoming bigger. This relationship between patchiness and abundance has implications for mortality rates and hence fisheries management. Crown Copyright (C) 2008 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据