4.4 Article

Synchronous multidecadal fish recruitment patterns in Chesapeake Bay, USA

期刊

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING, NRC RESEARCH PRESS
DOI: 10.1139/F09-013

关键词

-

资金

  1. US Fish and Wildlife Service
  2. Virginia Marine Resources Commission [F-104]
  3. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multispecies fish recruitment patterns within Chesapeake Bay were investigated in four fishery-independent survey data sets (one primary and three ancillary data sets) that together span the years 1968-2004. These independently conducted surveys record interannual recruitment variability for 15 ecologically and economically important fish species of the Northeast US Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. Principal component analyses revealed that the strongest multispecies recruitment pattern (first principal component) present in each data set describes a negative recruitment relationship between anadromous and coastal shelf-spawning species. Among the data sets, the first principal component accounted for 31%-42% of multispecies variance. Locally weighted regression modeling revealed that the decadal-scale variability accounted for 62% of the variance in the primary data set's first principal component's (annual) scores, whereas interannual variability accounted for only 38%. Despite strong differences in sampling methods, sampled habitats, and sampling locations, this pattern of antagonistic recruitment between Chesapeake Bay anadromous and shelf-spawning (CBASS) species was Synchronously correlated among data sets at both decadal and interannual scales. The CBASS pattern has tended to persist in one mode for periods lasting longer than a decade and tends to reverse sign rather within only 2-3 years. A statistically significant regime shift occurred in 1992, when recruitment in anadromous fishes became favored at the expense of recruitment of shelf-spawning estuarine-dependant fishes.

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

4.4
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