4.4 Review

Informing the Great Fish Stocking Debate: An Australian Case Study

期刊

REVIEWS IN FISHERIES SCIENCE & AQUACULTURE
卷 26, 期 3, 页码 275-308

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/23308249.2017.1407916

关键词

Culture; enhancement; fisheries; freshwater; hatchery; management

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fish stocking is commonly used in developed countries and aims to improve recreational fish stocks and rebuild threatened species populations. Fish stocking is often contentious due to its high investment, limited scientific evaluation, and typically divided opinion from key stakeholders. Debates over the efficacy and effects of fish stocking continue to occur in the absence of key information about current and past practices, and their degree of alignment with the accepted responsible approach previously published in platform papers. Consequently, using Australia as a case study, this paper presents a framework for assessing fish stocking practices. First, recent fish stocking practices were benchmarked by compiling freshwater fish stocking statistics from every state and territory in Australia. Over 84 million fish were found to have been stocked in Australia between 2009 and 2015, with recreational species, both native and salmonid, comprising the majority of numbers and weight of fish stocked, respectively. Second, historical trends in fish stocking were assessed over a 106 year period across one major jurisdiction, finding significant changes in practices including a strong move toward native species, and a reduction in the number of salmonids stocked, but an increase in size. Third, a literature review was conducted to evaluate Australia's fish stocking practices and found they could be generally considered responsible, however improvements could be made in areas highlighted. This study provides a valuable framework to assess fish stocking practices, aiding our understanding, informing future discussion, and fostering better outcomes from this popular fisheries management tool.

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

4.4
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