4.6 Article

Regional and stock-specific differences in contemporary growth of Baltic cod revealed through tag-recapture data

期刊

ICES JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE
卷 77, 期 6, 页码 2078-2088

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsaa104

关键词

Atlantic cod; Baltic Sea; fish stock productivity; individual growth rate estimation; mark-recapture; stock assignment

资金

  1. Nienhagen Reef project [TVA 7221.3-1-060/15]
  2. Fehmarn project [V 244-7224.121.9-6 (84-6/14)]
  3. German TABACOD T-bar tagging [AZ 7221.3.1-029/15]
  4. German TABACOD DST tagging [AZ 7221.3.1-007/18]
  5. Danish TABACOD T-bar and DST tagging [016-15-0201-00929]
  6. Polish TABACOD T-bar tagging [19/2016]
  7. Swedish TABACOD T-bar and DST tagging [5.8.18-14823/2018]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of growth estimation methods that depend on unreliable age data has previously hindered the quantification of perceived differences in growth rates between the two cod stocks inhabiting the Baltic Sea. Data from cod tagged in different regions of the Baltic Sea during 2007-2019 were combined, and general linear models were fit to investigate inter-regional (defined as area of release) and inter-stock (assigned to a subset of recaptures using genetic and otolith shape analyses) differences in individual growth. An average-sized cod (364 mm) caught in the western Baltic Sea and assigned to the western Baltic cod stock grew at more than double the rate (145 mm year(-1)) on average than a cod of the same size caught in the eastern Baltic Sea and assigned to the eastern Baltic cod stock (58 mm year(-1)), highlighting the current poor conditions for the growth of cod in the eastern Baltic Sea. The regional differences in growth rate were more than twice as large (63 mm year(-1)) as the stock differences (24 mm year(-1)). Although the relative importance of environmental and genetic factors cannot be fully resolved through this study, these results suggest that environmental experience may contribute to growth differences between Baltic cod stocks.

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

4.6
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