4.2 Article

Data-poor stock assessment of fish stocks co-exploited by commercial and recreational fisheries: Applications to pike Esox lucius in the western Baltic Sea

期刊

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGY
卷 29, 期 1, 页码 16-28

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/fme.12514

关键词

catch-only models; coastal stocks; ensemble models; freshwater stocks; mixed-use fisheries; stock status

资金

  1. European Maritime Fisheries Fund (EMFF) of the EU
  2. State of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany) [B 730117000069, MV-I.18-LM-004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrates the potential of using catch-only models to assess the status of previously unassessed coastal and freshwater stocks facing recreational fishing pressure. By studying a northern pike stock as a case study, it was found to be fully exploited and currently declining, highlighting the importance of incorporating recreational removals for reliable insights into the status of mixed-use stocks.
Information on catch and effort of recreational angling in mixed-use fisheries (co-exploited by commercial and recreational fishers) is often scarce, preventing the application of data-rich stock assessments typically performed for industrialised commercial fisheries. This study shows how data-poor stock assessment methods developed for marine fisheries, particularly a model class labelled as catch-only models (COMs), offer a possible solution. As a case study, COMs are used to assess a northern pike Esox lucius L. stock around the German Baltic island of Rugen. Multiple COMs were fitted to a time series of total pike removals, and their outputs were used as explanatory variables in ensemble models. The stock was found to be fully exploited and currently declining. This study highlights the potential for using COMs to determine status of previously unassessed coastal and freshwater stocks facing recreational fishing pressure and demonstrates how incorporating recreational removals is crucial for achieving reliable insights into the status of mixed-use 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

4.2
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