4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Stocking is essential to meet the silver eel escapement target in a river system with currently low natural recruitment

期刊

ICES JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE
卷 73, 期 1, 页码 91-100

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsv113

关键词

Anguilla anguilla; eel model; Havel river; management; population parameters; recruitment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Under the European Eel Regulation EG 1100/2007, Member States exhibiting natural habitats for the European eel (Anguilla anguilla) on their territory are obliged to prepare Eel Management Plans (EMP) containing appropriate measures to safeguard the escapement of a river system specific silver eel target biomass. Stocking is one management option to reach this target. We used various methodical approaches to study population parameters in a large lowland river under the application of a multi-annual intense stocking programme. The approaches were used to further enhance modelling of stock dynamics and silver eel escapement, in particular. Parameterizing the German Eel Model III (GEM III) with values and functions obtained for recruitment, growth, and mortality resulted in an annual escapement estimate of roughly 32 000-64 000 silver eels from 2010 to 2012. Escapement estimates based on a mark-recapture study conducted in parallel revealed somewhat lower values (11 000-25 000) for the same years. In view of the small number of natural recruits, such values are only contingent if stocking had a profound effect on silver eel production. Results from modelling annual silver eel escapement values indicate that escapement targets set in the EMP for this tributary cannot be reached without stocking. This constellation is likely to apply to other Eel Management Units with low current natural immigration values as well, and might be considered a key dilemma in eel management in such catchments due to the current confusion whether translocation of recruits yields a net benefit to the panmictic stock of the European eel.

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