4.2 Article

Comparison of anchovy biomass estimates measured by trawls, egg production methods and hydro-acoustics in the Chesapeake Bay and the Korea Strait

期刊

OCEAN SCIENCE JOURNAL
卷 49, 期 2, 页码 115-126

出版社

KOREA INST OCEAN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY-KIOST
DOI: 10.1007/s12601-014-0012-y

关键词

stock assessment; anchovy; acoustics; trawl; egg production method; Chesapeake Bay; Korea Strait

资金

  1. U.S. National Science Foundation [DEB94-12113]
  2. scientific promotion program - Jeju National University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We compared estimates of anchovy biomass derived from trawl surveys, egg production method (EPM) and acoustic surveys, conducted in two remote regions. Biomass density of bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli was estimated in Chesapeake Bay, USA, by trawls, EPM and acoustics from 1989 to 2000. Biomass density of Pacific anchovy Engraulis japonicus was estimated in the Korea Strait using EPM, simulation-based daily cohort analysis and acoustics from 1984 to 2006. Most of the existing estimates already had considered body-size-dependent gear selectivity, highlyvariable instantaneous natural mortality of anchovy eggs, and avoidance of trawl nets by adult anchovy. Despite great variability in the ratio of trawl to acoustic biomass estimates (0.034-8.35), annually-averaged biomass density of young-ofthe-year individuals derived by the two methods were similar for bay anchovy in Chesapeake Bay and Pacific anchovy in the Korea Strait (0.83 and 0.70 g m(-3), respectively). Results suggested that, despite substantial uncertainty, anchovy biomass estimates are generally compatible between EPM and acoustics. However, reported estimates of biomass density derived from the two acoustic surveys in the Korea Strait differed by a factor of 28, suggesting that further improvements in calibrations are required to reliably estimate anchovy biomass. The comparisons suggested that all biomass estimates could be biased and will require comparison and validation by other, independent sampling methods.

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

4.2
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