4.2 Article

Diel Variations in Survey Catch Rates and Survey Catchability of Spiny Dogfish and their Pelagic Prey in the Northeast US Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem

期刊

MARINE AND COASTAL FISHERIES
卷 8, 期 1, 页码 244-262

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1080/19425120.2015.1135219

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Marine Fisheries Service Sea Grant Fellowship in Population Dynamics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the potential uncertainty in survey biomass estimates of Spiny Dogfish Squalus acanthias in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem (NES LME). Diel catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) estimates are examined from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center bottom trawl surveys conducted during autumn (1963-2009) and spring (1968-2009). Influential environmental variables on survey catchability are identified for Spiny Dogfish life history stages and five pelagic prey species: Butterfish Peprilus triacanthus, Atlantic Herring Clupea harengus, shortfin squid Illex spp., longfin squid Doryteuthis spp., and Atlantic Mackerel Scomber scombrus. Daytime survey catchability was significantly higher than nighttime catchability for most species during autumn and for mature male Spiny Dogfish, shortfin squid, and longfin squid during spring in the NES LME. For most stages and species examined, breakpoint analyses identified significant increases in CPUE in the morning, peak CPUE during the day, and significant declines in CPUE in the late afternoon. Seasonal probabilities of daytime catch were largely driven by solar zenith angle for most species, with stronger trends identified during autumn. Unadjusted CPUE estimates appear to overestimate absolute abundance, with adjustments resulting in reductions in absolute abundance ranging from 41% for Spiny Dogfish to 91% for shortfin and longfin squids. These findings have important implications for Spiny Dogfish regarding estimates of population consumption of key pelagic prey species and their ecological footprint within the NES LME.

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