4.6 Article

Consumption of important pelagic fish and squid by predatory fish in the northeastern USA shelf ecosystem with some fishery comparisons

期刊

ICES JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE
卷 57, 期 4, 页码 1147-1159

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.1006/jmsc.2000.0802

关键词

consumption; predation; diet compositions; pelagic fishes; predator diet analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The fish biomass on the continental shelf off the eastern USA and Southeastern Canada has shifted towards a higher proportion of pelagic fishes in the 1990s. This study provides estimates of consumption by 12 piscivorous fishes on Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus), Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus), butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus), sand lance (Ammodytes sp.), short-finned squid (Illex illecebrosus), and long-finned squid (Loligo pealei during 1977-1997. Results suggest that total consumption tall prey) by the 12 predatory fish species is probably large relative to standing stocks of the above prey. Total consumption by these piscivores (all prey) ranged from 1.5-3.0 million tonnes during this period. The flow of fish biomass from these prey pelagic species to these 12 predators is an important and large fraction of the overall energy budget of the Northeast USA shelf ecosystem. The abundance of prey fishes and squids was reflected in the diets of individual predators; for example several prey species, such as sand lance and Atlantic herring, were very prominent at specific times during the period 1977-1997. Consumption of pelagic fish and squid by predatory fish appears to equal or exceed landings in most years from 1977-1997. In several cases, notably for long-finned squid, Atlantic herring and butterfish, consumption by piscivores may approach or exceed the current estimates of maximum sustainable yield, suggesting that changes in predator abundance may have important implications for long-term fishery yields of pelagic species. (C) 2000 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.

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