4.5 Article

Overlap of North Pacific albatrosses with the US west coast groundfish and shrimp fisheries

期刊

FISHERIES RESEARCH
卷 147, 期 -, 页码 222-234

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fishres.2013.06.009

关键词

Seabird bycatch; Risk assessment; North Pacific albatrosses; Demersal longline fisheries; Trawl fisheries

资金

  1. NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center
  2. NMFS Northwest Regional Office
  3. NOAA Fisheries National Seabird Program
  4. Washington Sea Grant, University of Washington

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We used a combination of seabird data (both fishery-dependent and fishery-independent) and fishing-effort data to evaluate the relative fisheries risk of five west coast groundfish fisheries and one shrimp fishery to black-footed (Phoebastria nigripes), short-tailed (P. albatrus) and Laysan albatrosses (P. immutabilis). To assess risk, an overlap index was derived as the product of total fishing effort and at-sea survey density of black-footed albatross. This index was used as the primary tool to estimate overlap with the endangered, relatively rare short-tailed albatross, which show similar habitat utilization from satellite telemetry tracks. Telemetry data indicate Laysan albatross primarily occur offshore beyond observed fishing effort. Black-footed and short-tailed albatross-fishery overlap was highest at the shelf-break (201-1000 m) north of 36 degrees N. Overlap and reported albatross mortality indicate that the sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) longline and Pacific hake (Merluccius productus) catcher-processor fisheries pose the greatest risk to these species; the near-shore rockfish (Seabastes spp.) longline, pink shrimp (Pandalus jordani) trawl, California halibut (Paralichthys californicus) trawl, and non-hake groundfish trawl fisheries pose relatively little risk. Implementing proven seabird bycatch-reduction measures will likely minimize albatross mortality in the highest-risk fishery, sablefish longline. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. 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