4.5 Article

Lessons learned from implementing three, large-scale tuna tagging programmes in the western and central Pacific Ocean

期刊

FISHERIES RESEARCH
卷 163, 期 -, 页码 23-33

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fishres.2013.09.001

关键词

Bigeye tuna; Yellowfin; Skipjack; Pacific Ocean; Mark-recapture

资金

  1. National Fisheries Authority of Papua New Guinea
  2. New Zealand Agency for International Development (PNG Tuna Tagging Project and Pacific Tuna Tagging Project Phase 2)
  3. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research
  4. 9th (SciFish project) and 10th (SciCoFish project) European Development Fund
  5. Global Environment Facility (Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management project)
  6. Republic of Korea
  7. Republique Francaise (Fond Pacifique)
  8. Republic of China
  9. Heinz Australia
  10. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission
  11. University of Hawaii (Pelagic Fisheries Research Programme)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the western and Central Pacific Ocean mark-recapture experiments have been an integral part of monitoring tuna stocks since the late 1970s. The data from tagging campaigns have been included in stock assessments since the 1980s and in integrated analyses since the late 1990s. Ensuring that tagging experiments are implemented in a manner that satisfies the incorporation of the data in stock assessment is important to maximize the return on investment. We review three large scale tuna experiments implemented in the western and central Pacific Ocean to synthesize the lessons learned so that future tagging programmes can save considerable time and money, and maximize the quantity and quality of the data needed to obtain more accurate and precise assessments of stock status. We highlight particular knowledge gaps that require further attention, and suggest some approaches, both technological and methodological, from which future studies could benefit in order to improve our understanding of tuna biology. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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