4.5 Article

Harvest patterns and effort dynamics of indigenous and non-indigenous commercial sectors of the eastern Torres Strait reef line fishery

期刊

CONTINENTAL SHELF RESEARCH
卷 28, 期 16, 页码 2117-2128

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.csr.2008.03.030

关键词

Catch statistics; Fishing effort; Reef fisheries; Fishery resources; Fishery management; Indigenous fisheries; Torres Strait; Australia

资金

  1. CRC Torres Strait

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The reef line fishery (RLF) in eastern Torres Strait (ETS) is unique in that it has both a commercial indigenous sector and a commercial non-indigenous sector. Recently, concerns have been expressed by all stakeholders about the long-term sustainability of the fishery. These concerns have been exacerbated by the lack of detailed catch and effort information from both sectors, which has precluded any formal assessment of the fishery. In this paper, we characterise the harvest patterns and effort dynamics of the indigenous and non-indigenous commercial sectors of the ETS RLF using a range of data sources including commercial logbooks. community freezer records, voluntary logbooks and observer surveys. We demonstrate that bycatch is a significant component of the catch for both sectors and identify substantial differences in harvest patterns and effort dynamics between the sectors. Differences between sectors were observed in species composition and spatial and temporal patterns in catch, effort and catch per unit effort. These results highlight the inherent variation in catch and effort dynamics between the two commercial sectors of the ETS RLF and provide valuable information for the development of future assessments and appropriate management strategies for the fishery. The more reliable estimates of harvest patterns and effort dynamics for both sectors obtained from observer surveys will also assist in resolving issues relating to allocation of reef fish resources in Torres Strait. (c) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. 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