4.5 Article

Bigger is better in eel stocking measures? Comparison of growth performance, body condition, and benefit-cost ratio of simultaneously stocked glass and farmed eels in a brackish fjord

期刊

FISHERIES RESEARCH
卷 205, 期 -, 页码 132-140

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fishres.2018.04.009

关键词

European eel; Farmed eels; Glass eels; Specific growth rate; Stocking measures; Benefit-cost ratio

资金

  1. Fisheries Tax of the Federal State of Schleswig-Holstein

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recruitment of the European eel stock has collapsed and the stock is in a perilous state compared to the reference period between 1960 and 1979. Despite extensive European Union wide stocking efforts towards a stock recovery and a self-reproducing stock, recruitment stagnates at historical low levels. The aim of this study was to compare the most commonly used stocking forms (glass and farmed eels) in terms of their growth performance, body condition, and benefit-cost ratio to test whether stocking efficiency can be increased by the choice of the stocking form. Therefore, glass eels (117 kg) and farmed eels (1040 kg) were purchased in a cost ratio of 1:1 and then marked chemically with alizarin red S prior to stocking in a brackish Baltic Sea fjord. Two years after stocking, farmed eels (374 +/- 36 mm; 86.9 +/- 25.8 g) showed a significantly higher total length (TL) and body weight (W) than stocked glass eels (323 +/- 39 mm; 56.8 +/- 25.0 g). Moreover, within age group 2, no statistically differences in the specific growth rates for length and weight were found between stocking forms indicating that the initial advantage in TL and W of farmed recruits is likely to persist. Derived from the recapture ratio, the mortality of age 2 glass eels was 3.9 times higher than in farmed eels indicating a higher benefit-cost ratio for farmed recruits to refill local eel stocks more efficiently. However, the farmed recruits in this study have been found to be infected with the anguillid herpesvirus 1 which negates the conservation claim specified by the EU regulation.

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