4.2 Article

Elemental composition and microbial decomposition of different angling baits

期刊

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGY
卷 29, 期 5, 页码 552-559

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/fme.12537

关键词

artificial subsidies; fisheries; groundbaiting; natural subsidies; recreational fishing; stoichiometry

资金

  1. Office Francais de la Biodiversite

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recreational fishing provides a potential nutrition supplement to freshwater ecosystems through groundbaiting. The C:N:P composition of angling baits affects microbial decomposition, with faster decomposition for more industrialised baits. Compared to natural subsidies, angling baits are more conducive to bacterial growth.
Recreational fishing, through groundbaiting, provides a potentially important trophic subsidy to freshwater ecosystems that could promote eutrophication. To date, our understanding of the role of bait properties on their fate when they are not consumed remains limited. The present study aimed to determine if the C:N:P composition of some of the most commonly used angling baits modulated microbial decomposition. The C:N:P composition of 28 models of four commercially available angling baits was assessed and a microcosm experiment was used to quantify microbial decomposition. Elemental composition strongly varied among angling baits, with N content varying by a factor of three and P content varying by a factor of five. Microbial decomposition of angling baits was highly variable and faster for more industrialised baits. Microbial decomposition was five times faster for angling baits rather than natural subsidies (leaves) and was not significantly correlated with high N or P content. Compared to natural subsidies, angling baits were a favourable substrate for bacterial growth. Angling baits represent a source of highly available nutrients and the most-enriched angling baits might affect ecological processes and water quality in ecosystems with high angling pressure, especially when their use is not regulated.

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