2015
DOI: 10.3354/meps11374
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fine-scale movement, activity patterns and home-ranges of European lobster Homarus gammarus

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
43
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 93 publications
1
43
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The relatively high density of recoveries in proximity to the island group supports that preferable habitat is extending beyond MPA and control area borders at this study site. Also, the size of the MPA may be too small to include the lobsters' full home ranges, as home range measured over a period of several years may be larger than the short-term home ranges estimated by Moland et al (2011b) for a period of 318 d (< 0.04 km 2 ), by Wiig et al (2013) for a period of less than 2 mo (< 0.64 km 2 ) and by Skerritt et al (2015) for a period spanning several months including spring and autumn study periods (< 0.01 km 2 ). By contrast, in Flødevigen, few MPA lobsters were recovered by fishers around the control area, and few control lobsters were recovered near MPA borders.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The relatively high density of recoveries in proximity to the island group supports that preferable habitat is extending beyond MPA and control area borders at this study site. Also, the size of the MPA may be too small to include the lobsters' full home ranges, as home range measured over a period of several years may be larger than the short-term home ranges estimated by Moland et al (2011b) for a period of 318 d (< 0.04 km 2 ), by Wiig et al (2013) for a period of less than 2 mo (< 0.64 km 2 ) and by Skerritt et al (2015) for a period spanning several months including spring and autumn study periods (< 0.01 km 2 ). By contrast, in Flødevigen, few MPA lobsters were recovered by fishers around the control area, and few control lobsters were recovered near MPA borders.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This reflected lobster movement during the pre-trap period of this study, and lobster movement from an adjacent study area of similar substrate composition [42]. However, it is possible that lobster movements were constrained by other factors that were not accounted for in the models such as, the direction of the current [22] or the distance from a known defensible shelter [23].…”
Section: Null Modelsmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…These data were subsequently classified as, 'Soft' , such as mud < 60, 'Mixed' , such as mud and rock > 60 and < 80, and 'Hard' , such as continuous rock > 80. It is not possible to infer habitat type using this method as substrate roughness is not measured [41]; however, these data are a broad indicator of substrate type and have been previously validated using drop-down cameras in the vicinity of the study site [42]. Trap locations within each substrate were chosen randomly, although an effort was made to avoid areas close to hydrophone moorings and ground lines to avoid entanglement and displacement of hydrophones.…”
Section: Experimental Trapsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For the majority of inshore fisheries, the existence of finescale spatial heterogeneity both in F and in fish demographics may be the rule rather than the exception. This is especially true for many coastal invertebrate fisheries, which often apply fine-scale patterns of fishing effort to a target organism with relatively sedentary behavior during the harvest period (Gendron and Brethes 2002;Wiig et al 2013;Skerritt et al 2015). More recently, there has been a growing appreciation for the importance of geographic variation in demography and life history traits of mobile fishes, as such variation can be present even at modest spatial scales and can interact with regional patterns of harvest to impact fishery yield (Andrews et al 2006;Hamilton et al 2011;Wilson et al 2012).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%