监控捕鱼对大西洋鲑产卵期洄游距离的影响

IF 1.3 4区 农林科学 Q3 FISHERIES
Johan O. Munkeby, Jan G. Davidsen, Torgeir B. Havn, Eva M. Ulvan, Tor F. Næsje, Dag H. Karlsen, Øyvind Solem, Robert J. Lennox
{"title":"监控捕鱼对大西洋鲑产卵期洄游距离的影响","authors":"Johan O. Munkeby, Jan G. Davidsen, Torgeir B. Havn, Eva M. Ulvan, Tor F. Næsje, Dag H. Karlsen, Øyvind Solem, Robert J. Lennox","doi":"10.1002/nafm.11020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ObjectiveSurveillance fishing surveys can be performed to estimate the proportion of farmed salmon represented in the spawning stock of native Atlantic Salmon <jats:italic>Salmo salar</jats:italic> populations. These surveys take place after the recreational fishing period and therefore closer to the spawning period than the open recreational fishing season. Although catch‐and‐release angling has been demonstrated to affect salmon migration during the summer months, surveillance fishing that is conducted close to the spawning time could have more severe effects.MethodsTo test this, the migration distance of Atlantic Salmon (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 74) caught in the Orkla River, Norway, was tracked by use of radiotelemetry. One group was tagged during the regular fishing season in the summer (control group), whereas another group was tagged in autumn during surveillance fishing (surveillance group).ResultSixty‐one salmon remained for analysis after we excluded fish that were recaptured, died, or migrated to other rivers. Relocation of the salmon during autumn (October 11–31) was used to compare movements and test for differences in migration using negative binomial regression because distances were nonnegative integers. During the tracking period, the surveillance group moved 12 ± 14 km (mean ± standard deviation) and the control group moved 13 ± 15 km; both groups moved 1 ± 2 km/day on average. There was no evidence that surveillance fishing impacted movement of the salmon compared to controls. However, one salmon died after tagging and three were not released due to injuries; total mortality of 9% during surveillance fishing could be unsustainable for smaller populations. Consequently, factors such as surveillance sample size, the status of the salmon population, and the population size should be assessed for each river individually when deciding the necessity of and approach to surveillance fishing.ConclusionThe results support existing recommendations to use careful handling and to end surveillance at least 2 weeks prior to the expected onset of spawning, thus providing a sufficiently long period for recovery after surveillance fishing.","PeriodicalId":19263,"journal":{"name":"North American Journal of Fisheries Management","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effect of surveillance fishing on migration distance of Atlantic Salmon during the spawning period\",\"authors\":\"Johan O. Munkeby, Jan G. Davidsen, Torgeir B. Havn, Eva M. Ulvan, Tor F. Næsje, Dag H. Karlsen, Øyvind Solem, Robert J. Lennox\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/nafm.11020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ObjectiveSurveillance fishing surveys can be performed to estimate the proportion of farmed salmon represented in the spawning stock of native Atlantic Salmon <jats:italic>Salmo salar</jats:italic> populations. These surveys take place after the recreational fishing period and therefore closer to the spawning period than the open recreational fishing season. Although catch‐and‐release angling has been demonstrated to affect salmon migration during the summer months, surveillance fishing that is conducted close to the spawning time could have more severe effects.MethodsTo test this, the migration distance of Atlantic Salmon (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 74) caught in the Orkla River, Norway, was tracked by use of radiotelemetry. One group was tagged during the regular fishing season in the summer (control group), whereas another group was tagged in autumn during surveillance fishing (surveillance group).ResultSixty‐one salmon remained for analysis after we excluded fish that were recaptured, died, or migrated to other rivers. Relocation of the salmon during autumn (October 11–31) was used to compare movements and test for differences in migration using negative binomial regression because distances were nonnegative integers. During the tracking period, the surveillance group moved 12 ± 14 km (mean ± standard deviation) and the control group moved 13 ± 15 km; both groups moved 1 ± 2 km/day on average. There was no evidence that surveillance fishing impacted movement of the salmon compared to controls. However, one salmon died after tagging and three were not released due to injuries; total mortality of 9% during surveillance fishing could be unsustainable for smaller populations. Consequently, factors such as surveillance sample size, the status of the salmon population, and the population size should be assessed for each river individually when deciding the necessity of and approach to surveillance fishing.ConclusionThe results support existing recommendations to use careful handling and to end surveillance at least 2 weeks prior to the expected onset of spawning, thus providing a sufficiently long period for recovery after surveillance fishing.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19263,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"North American Journal of Fisheries Management\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"North American Journal of Fisheries Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/nafm.11020\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"FISHERIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"North American Journal of Fisheries Management","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/nafm.11020","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"FISHERIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标可通过监控捕鱼调查来估算养殖鲑鱼在本地大西洋鲑产卵种群中所占的比例。这些调查在休闲捕鱼期之后进行,因此比开放的休闲捕鱼期更接近产卵期。为了验证这一点,我们使用无线电遥测技术跟踪了在挪威奥克拉河捕获的大西洋鲑鱼(n = 74)的洄游距离。结果在剔除重新捕获、死亡或洄游到其他河流的鱼类后,仍有61条大马哈鱼可供分析。在秋季(10 月 11-31 日)对大马哈鱼进行重新定位,以比较迁移情况,并使用负二项回归法检验迁移的差异,因为距离是非负整数。在追踪期间,监控组移动了 12 ± 14 千米(平均 ± 标准偏差),对照组移动了 13 ± 15 千米;两组平均每天移动 1 ± 2 千米。与对照组相比,没有证据表明监控捕捞影响了大马哈鱼的移动。不过,有一条大马哈鱼在标记后死亡,三条因受伤而未被释放;监控捕捞期间的总死亡率为 9%,这对于较小的种群来说可能是不可持续的。因此,在决定监控捕捞的必要性和方法时,应对每条河流的监控样本大小、鲑鱼种群状况和种群数量等因素进行单独评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The effect of surveillance fishing on migration distance of Atlantic Salmon during the spawning period
ObjectiveSurveillance fishing surveys can be performed to estimate the proportion of farmed salmon represented in the spawning stock of native Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar populations. These surveys take place after the recreational fishing period and therefore closer to the spawning period than the open recreational fishing season. Although catch‐and‐release angling has been demonstrated to affect salmon migration during the summer months, surveillance fishing that is conducted close to the spawning time could have more severe effects.MethodsTo test this, the migration distance of Atlantic Salmon (n = 74) caught in the Orkla River, Norway, was tracked by use of radiotelemetry. One group was tagged during the regular fishing season in the summer (control group), whereas another group was tagged in autumn during surveillance fishing (surveillance group).ResultSixty‐one salmon remained for analysis after we excluded fish that were recaptured, died, or migrated to other rivers. Relocation of the salmon during autumn (October 11–31) was used to compare movements and test for differences in migration using negative binomial regression because distances were nonnegative integers. During the tracking period, the surveillance group moved 12 ± 14 km (mean ± standard deviation) and the control group moved 13 ± 15 km; both groups moved 1 ± 2 km/day on average. There was no evidence that surveillance fishing impacted movement of the salmon compared to controls. However, one salmon died after tagging and three were not released due to injuries; total mortality of 9% during surveillance fishing could be unsustainable for smaller populations. Consequently, factors such as surveillance sample size, the status of the salmon population, and the population size should be assessed for each river individually when deciding the necessity of and approach to surveillance fishing.ConclusionThe results support existing recommendations to use careful handling and to end surveillance at least 2 weeks prior to the expected onset of spawning, thus providing a sufficiently long period for recovery after surveillance fishing.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
18.20%
发文量
118
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The North American Journal of Fisheries Management promotes communication among fishery managers with an emphasis on North America, and addresses the maintenance, enhancement, and allocation of fisheries resources. It chronicles the development of practical monitoring and management programs for finfish and exploitable shellfish in marine and freshwater environments. Contributions relate to the management of fish populations, habitats, and users to protect and enhance fish and fishery resources for societal benefits. Case histories of successes, failures, and effects of fisheries programs help convey practical management experience to others.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信