4.5 Article

ELFSim - A model for evaluating management options for spatially structured reef fish populations: An illustration of the larval subsidy effect

期刊

ECOLOGICAL MODELLING
卷 205, 期 3-4, 页码 381-396

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.03.005

关键词

coral reefs; fisheries management; great barrier reef; larval subsidy; marine reserves; marine protected areas; simulation

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A spatially-structured simulation model of the metapopulation dynamics of common coral trout (Plectropomus leopardus) and their harvest by line fishing was developed to evaluate potential management options on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), including closing areas to fishing. The effects of line fishing simulator (ELFSim) incorporates a spatially-structured model of the life-history of common coral trout, including larval dispersal, harvest by multiple fishing sectors (commercial, charter and recreational), and a range of mechanisms for regulating harvest. The model is designed to allow considerable flexibility in biological and fishery dynamics, to be portable to contexts other than the GBR, and to be modular to allow comparison of different implementations of biological and harvest model components. In this paper, we describe the details of the model and discuss its utility as a tool for evaluating fishery management strategies in the context of diverse stakeholder expectations. We illustrate a simple application by changing the rate at which larvae settle on the reef from which they were spawned, under a range of spatial closures and a scenario of steadily increasing fishing effort. The results identify the conditions under which a larval subsidy effect may be important to the performance of fishery management strategies. This effect was manifest as increased catches outside of areas closed to fishing when larvae were freely exchanged among reefs compared to when larval exchange was diminished or absent. (c) 2007 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