A review of burrow counting as an alternative to other typical methods of assessment of Norway lobster populations
A review of burrow counting as an alternative to other typical methods of assessment of Norway lobster populations
复制标题
洞穴计数作为评估挪威龙虾种群的其他典型方法的替代方法的综述
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2012
影响因子：
6.2
通讯作者：
J. Aguzzi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
F. Sardá;J. Aguzzi
褐家鼠复杂的穴居行为的昼夜和季节性调节使该物种的种群评估复杂化。种群评估传统上通过虚拟种群分析（长度队列分析; LCA）和捕捞数据的扫掠区密度估计进行。然而，洞穴计数目视调查也获得了越来越多的重要性，近年来作为一种替代和显然有效的方法。所有这些方法在文献中产生了不等效的评估结果，因此，这些方法的比较和批判性讨论是必要的。在这次审查中，我们追求这一目标，使用已经公布和未公布的渔业数据的商业开发的西地中海大陆架（60-100米）人口为例。交叉评估进行了LCA，扫掠面积法和洞穴计数在不同的季节（春夏和秋冬），以突出的偏见，丰富的估计关系到Nephrops行为。我们还使用了该地区其他鱼类和十足类物种的新拖网密度数据，因为这些物种的穴居行为可能会在视觉调查中严重影响Nephrops丰度。LCA提供了中间的评估值相比，扫描面积和摄影估计，这超过和低估的丰度，分别。我们回顾了与产生这种不同量级的评估估计的物种的特有的穴居行为有关的问题。
The diurnal and seasonal regulation of the complex burrowing behavior of Nephrops norvegicus complicates population assessment for this species. Population assessment is traditionally carried out by Virtual Population Analysis (Length Cohort Analysis; LCA) and swept area density estimations from catch data. However, burrow counting from visual surveys has also acquired increasing importance in recent years as an alternative and apparently efficient method. All these approaches produced non-equivalent assessment results in the literature, and therefore, a comparison and critical discussion of these methods is warranted. In this review, we pursued this goal by using already published and unpublished fishery data for a commercially exploited western Mediterranean shelf (60–100 m) population as an example. The cross-assessment was carried out by LCA, the swept area method and burrow counting in different seasons (spring-summer and autumn–winter) to highlight biases in abundance estimations in relation to Nephrops behavior. We also used novel trawl density data for other fish and decapod species in the area because the burrowing behavior of these species may deeply bias Nephrops abundance in visual surveys. LCA provided intermediate assessment values when compared to the swept area and photographic estimates, which over- and underestimated the abundance, respectively. We reviewed the problems related to the peculiar burrowing behavior of the species that generate assessment estimations of such different magnitude.