4.6 Article

A heuristic model of socially learned migration behaviour exhibits distinctive spatial and reproductive dynamics

期刊

ICES JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE
卷 76, 期 2, 页码 598-608

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsy091

关键词

entrainment hypothesis; evolutionarily stable strategy; homing behaviour; non-stationary stock-recruitment relationship; socially learned migration; spatial population dynamics

资金

  1. Packard Foundation, through its Ocean Modelling Forum
  2. Pew Charitable Trusts (Ocean Science Division)
  3. Pew Charitable Trusts (Pew Forage Fish Conservation Initiative)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We explore a Go With the Older Fish (GWOF) mechanism of learned migration behaviour for exploited fish populations, where recruits learn a viable migration path by randomly joining a school of older fish. We develop a non-age-structured biomass model of spatially independent spawning sites with local density dependence, based on Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii). We compare a diffusion (DIFF) strategy, where recruits adopt spawning sites near their natal site without regard to older fish, with GWOF, where recruits adopt the same spawning sites, but in proportion to the abundance of adults using those sites. In both models, older individuals return to their previous spawning site. The GWOF model leads to higher spatial variance in biomass. As total mortality increases, the DIFF strategy results in an approximately proportional decrease in biomass among spawning sites, whereas the GWOF strategy results in abandonment of less productive sites and maintenance of high biomass at more productive sites. A DIFF strategy leads to dynamics comparable to non-spatially structured populations. While the aggregate response of the GWOF strategy is distorted, non-stationary and slow to equilibrate, with a production curve that is distinctly flattened and relatively unproductive. These results indicate that fishing will disproportionately affect populations with GWOF behaviour.

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

4.6
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