4.1 Article

Assessing the impact of spear fishing by using competitions records and underwater visual censuses

期刊

SCIENTIA MARINA
卷 80, 期 1, 页码 27-38

出版社

CONSEJO SUPERIOR INVESTIGACIONES CIENTIFICAS-CSIC
DOI: 10.3989/scimar.04352.15A

关键词

underwater visual censuses; fish assemblages; recreational fisheries; spear fishing; fishing impacts; coastal ecosystems

资金

  1. Autonomous Government of Galicia, Xunta de Galicia (Plan Galego de Investigacion, Desesnvolvemento e Innovacion Tecnoloxica), PECOS project [PGIDIT05RMA10301PR]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recreational fishers are increasingly competing for space and resources with commercial fishers worldwide, but have been poorly studied. In particular, the impacts of spearfishing competitions on the temperate fish assemblages have seldom been analysed. In Galicia (NW Spain), there are currently 5000 spear fishers, and 500 of them participate in spearfishing competitions. An historic archive of spearfishing competitions was used to assess their influence on the subsequent competitions in the area and to analyse their effect on the fish abundances estimated by underwater visual censuses. The annual recreational catch of the spear fishers was also estimated and comparisons with the commercial landings were performed. The spear fishers targeted 29 species, although six accounted for 95% of the catch. Most of the species show low vulnerabilities to fishing pressure and only Dicentrarchus labrax, among frequently caught species, can be considered as moderately vulnerable. The overall impact of spearfishing competitions on fish populations was limited, although some competitions temporarily reduced the abundances of Labrus bergylta, the main target species, by up to 83%. Spear fishers caught a large proportion of the total catch of common species, with recreational catches of some species (e.g. L. bergylta) matching or exceeding the commercial catch. The inclusion of this fishery in the management models of the coastal ecosystems is strongly recommended.

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

4.1
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