|
|
|
|
LEADER |
02740nam a2200517Ia 4500 |
001 |
10.1016-j.ecolind.2021.108116 |
008 |
220427s2021 CNT 000 0 und d |
020 |
|
|
|a 1470160X (ISSN)
|
245 |
1 |
0 |
|a Accounting for the fish condition in assessing the reproductivity of a marine eel to achieve fishery sustainability
|
260 |
|
0 |
|b Elsevier B.V.
|c 2021
|
856 |
|
|
|z View Fulltext in Publisher
|u https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108116
|
520 |
3 |
|
|a Spawning potential ratio (SPR) is a commonly used biological reference point to inform management decisions; however, the fish reproductivity may vary substantially with different body conditions, and the variability has not been well understood. Here, we examined the maturity, fecundity, and SPR of a marine eel Conger myriaster. The results showed that total fecundity increased with length and hepatosomatic indices (HSI), whereas relative fecundity (total fecundity/body weight) decreased with body weight, suggesting length- and condition-driven reproductive strategies. A length-structured per-recruit model was used to estimate SPR and examine the influence of HSI in resultant management decisions. Our results suggested that this stock was subject to a high risk of recruitment overfishing. Fish condition greatly influences the estimates of SPR-related reference points. For example, when HSI increased from 0.6% to 1.8%, F40% increased by 91%. In addition, using spawning stock biomass to calculate F40% could produce a bias of 23%. We highlight the need for monitoring the changes in fish fecundity and conditions in fisheries assessment, which may contribute to the robust management of data-poor fisheries. © 2021 The Author(s)
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a biomass
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a body condition
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Body condition
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Body condition
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Cong myriaster
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Conger myriaster
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Conger myriaster
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a decision making
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Decision making
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Decision support systems
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a fecundity
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Fecundity
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Fecundity
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Fish
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Fisheries
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Harvest restriction
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Harvest restriction
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Hepatosomatic indices
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a recruitment (population dynamics)
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Reference points
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a reproduction
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Reproductivity
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a spawning
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Spawning potential ratio
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Spawnings
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a SPR
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a sustainability
|
700 |
1 |
|
|a Ji, Y.
|e author
|
700 |
1 |
|
|a Mu, X.
|e author
|
700 |
1 |
|
|a Ren, Y.
|e author
|
700 |
1 |
|
|a Xu, B.
|e author
|
700 |
1 |
|
|a Xue, Y.
|e author
|
700 |
1 |
|
|a Zhang, C.
|e author
|
773 |
|
|
|t Ecological Indicators
|