4.6 Article

Who is fishing on what stock: population-of-origin of individual cod (Gadus morhua) in commercial and recreational fisheries

Journal

ICES JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE
Volume 75, Issue 6, Pages 2153-2162

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsy080

Keywords

fishery management; Gadus morhua; genetic stock identification; recreational fisheries; shrimp trawl

Funding

  1. Norwegian Research Council [216410/O10]
  2. Aust Agder Knowledge Foundation
  3. Sorlandet Knowledge Foundation
  4. European Regional Development Fund (Interreg IVa, MarGen project)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) in Skagerrak are structured into distinct ecotypes or stock components that have been severely depleted over the past decades. To improve our understanding of how local commercial and recreational fisheries influence cod stocks, we investigated whether these user groups target different stock components of cod. Cod were sampled from the recreational rod and line fishery and from commercial shrimp trawlers catching cod as by-catch. Based on a large set of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), we defined a subset of 27 semi-diagnostic SNPs designed to discriminate between two cod stock components: inner fjord cod and North Sea cod, designated by their dominant habitat preferences. Genetic assignments of fishery-caught cod indicated that 4% of individuals caught by shrimp trawlers belonged to the inner fjord cod component and 96% to the North Sea, whereas among cod caught by recreational fishers, the estimated percentages were 11.8 and 88.2%, respectively. Our findings confirm the existence of two sympatric cod stock components in coastal Skagerrak, indicating that existing management units are biologically inappropriate and should be reconsidered. Furthermore, more attention should be given to recreational angling to reduce fishing mortality on the depleted inner fjord cod component.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available