4.6 Article

Nursery areas of red mullet (Mullus barbatus), hake (Merluccius merluccius) and deep-water rose shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris) in the Eastern-Central Mediterranean Sea

期刊

ESTUARINE COASTAL AND SHELF SCIENCE
卷 83, 期 4, 页码 529-538

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecss.2009.04.034

关键词

Mullus barbatus; Merluccius merluccius; Parapenaeus longirostris; nursery areas; fishery management; Mediterranean Sea

资金

  1. Government of the Regione Puglia
  2. Localizzazioni delle aree di nursery di alcune importanti risorse ittiche lungo le coste pugliesi [3689/P]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The spatial pattern of the nursery areas of red mullet (Mullus barbatus), hake (Merluccius merluccius) (Linnaeus, 1758) and deep-water rose shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris) (Lucas, 1846) was studied in the South Adriatic and North Ionian Seas (Eastern-Central Mediterranean) applying geostatistical techniques and data from time series trawl surveys conducted in the area. The analysed variables were: R (number of recruits/km(2)) and R/Tot (fraction of recruits on the total sampled population). The structural analysis showed a spatial pattern of both variables characterized by continuity on a small scale. Predictions of nursery area localization with probability of finding recruits at different threshold values were obtained through median indicator kriging. For the red mullet the nurseries were mainly identified in the South Adriatic Sea off the Gargano peninsula and between Molfetta and Monopoli within 50 m in depth. The main concentration of hake juveniles was found to be between 100 and 200 m in depth along the Gargano peninsula and between Otranto and Santa Maria di Leuca, where a nursery of deep-water rose shrimp was also detected. An overlapping depth, between 100 and 200 m, was identified for hake and deep-water rose shrimp nurseries. Protection of these areas through limitations of fishing pressure is discussed. (C) 2009 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

4.6
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