4.1 Article

USING THE PUMPED AREA METHOD FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF RECREATIONAL RAZOR CLAM, SILIQUA PATULA POPULATIONS IN WASHINGTON STATE

期刊

JOURNAL OF SHELLFISH RESEARCH
卷 42, 期 1, 页码 91-98

出版社

NATL SHELLFISHERIES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2983/035.042.0109

关键词

Siliqua patula; shellfish; management; coastal; stock assessment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Since 1898, the Pacific razor clam has been a valuable resource, contributing to coastal communities' economic revenue in the Pacific Northwest. Washington State adopted the Pumped Area Method in 1996 to accurately assess razor clam populations, utilizing a water pump and random sampling to estimate the total population. This method, combined with biweekly sampling of toxic algae, supports sustainable harvest and generates significant economic income for Washington State.
Since 1898, the Pacific razor clam, Siliqua patula has represented an important resource for commercial and recreational diggers and has been an important source of economic revenue to coastal communities in the Pacific Northwest from central California to southern Alaska. In 1996, Washington State adopted the Pumped Area Method as the preferred method to accurately assess populations of razor clams on coastal beaches. The Pumped Area Method utilizes a water pump and a series of hoses to draw water out of the surf to liquefy the clam bed exposing clams so they can be measured and recorded. This method relies on a fixed stratified random sampling of transects across all managed beaches to produce a robust estimate of the total population of clams. The Pumped Area Method has been adopted by state and tribal management agencies along the west coast to determine the total allowable catch in each management area but never been formally described. This method in conjunction with a biweekly sampling of toxic algae abundance supports the sustainable harvest of razor clams, providing up to 40 million dollars annually in economic income to the state of Washington for the last 25 y.

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