4.6 Article

Assessment of fish assemblages in coastal lagoon habitats: Effect of sampling method

期刊

ESTUARINE COASTAL AND SHELF SCIENCE
卷 112, 期 -, 页码 115-125

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecss.2011.08.015

关键词

Water Framework Directive; fish sampling gear; ecological guilds; trophic guilds; shallow water habitats; Mediterranean lagoon

资金

  1. OOCMUR
  2. ONEMA (French National Agency for Water and Aquatic Environments)
  3. WISER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The structure of fish assemblages accounted for by different sampling methods (namely fyke net, seine nets, visual census) applied to vegetated and unvegetated lagoon habitats was investigated in terms of species composition, functional groups (ecological and trophic guilds), and fish size distribution. Significant differences were detected among methods, even among similar ones (seine nets). Visual census and fyke net detected more easily pelagic species, allowing the sampling of larger fish, whereas seine nets targeted more efficiently benthic-demersal species, with a dominance of 2-10 cm size classes in the fish catches. Differences were detected also among habitats, reflecting the different fish assemblages associated to vegetated and unvegetated habitats in coastal lagoons and transitional waters. However a different ability of discriminating between habitat-associated fish assemblages was recorded for the sampling methods. The different selectivity and functioning of the tested sampling methods confirm the importance of considering the targeted scale at which the research is being carried out, as well as the method that will be used to assess the ecological status of lagoon fish assemblages when choosing the most appropriate sampling method. A cross-validation of fish sampling methodologies in transitional waters is necessary to cope with the mandatory of the Water Framework Directive of standardization and comparability of monitoring methods. (C) 2011 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