4.6 Review

The role of temperature in the capture and release of fish

期刊

FISH AND FISHERIES
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 1-33

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2011.00441.x

关键词

By-catch; catch and release; climate change; discards; fishing; temperature

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  2. University of British Columbia
  3. NSERC CGS-M Alexander Graham Bell scholarship
  4. NSERC CGS-D3 Alexander Graham Bell scholarship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We searched major electronic databases to identify peer-reviewed literature investigating the role of temperature on the stress response and mortality of captured and released fish. We identified 83 studies that fit these criteria, the majority of which were conducted in North America (81%) on freshwater fish (76%) in the orders Perciformes (52%) and Salmoniformes (28%). We found that hook-and-line fisheries (65% of all studies) were more commonly studied than all net fisheries combined (24%). Despite the wide recognition for many species that high water temperatures exacerbate the effects of capture on released fish, this review is the first to quantitatively investigate this problem, finding that warming contributed to both mortality and indices of stress in 70% of articles that measured each of those endpoints. However, more than half (58%) of the articles failed to place the experimental temperatures into a biological context, therefore limiting their broad applicability to management. Integration of survival and sublethal effects to investigate mechanisms of fish mortality was relatively rare (28%). Collectively, the results suggest that capturerelease mortality increases at temperatures within, rather than above, species-specific thermal preferenda. We illustrate how knowledge of ecologically relevant high temperatures in the capture and release of fish can be incorporated into management, which will become increasingly important as climate change exerts additional pressure on fish and fisheries.

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