2009
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2009.02148.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The relationship between marine fronts and fish diversity in the Patagonian Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem

Abstract: Aim  To evaluate the relationship between marine fronts and (1) fish diversity patterns, (2) fish biomass distribution, and (3) fish assemblage structure. Location  Patagonian Shelf, Southwestern Atlantic Ocean. Methods  Three main frontal systems and eight nearby zones (frontal vs. non‐frontal areas) were compared. An extensive fishery database, obtained during an a priori sampling scheme (spatial resolution 1 × 1) from 1978 to 1979, was employed. Analyses of 248 trawling stations were performed using a combi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
27
0
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
(79 reference statements)
2
27
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The aggregation of foraging seabirds at frontal systems, including the ISF, is well documented (Le Fèvre 1986, Stone et al 1994, Schneider 1990, Begg & Reid 1997, Durazo et al 1998, Vlietstra et al 2005. Frontal systems increase primary production (Savidge 1976, Beardall et al 1982, Le Fèvre 1986, Yoder et al 1994) and encourage aggregation (Scrope-Howe & Jones 1985) or physical retention of zooplankton and nektonic organisms (Herman et al 1981, Yoder et al 1994, attracting high densities of pelagic fish (Laurs et al 1977, Alemany et al 2009). Physical retention of coastally spawned fish larvae by associated cyclonic gyre currents (as in the WIS) can also drive stable seasonal recruitment (Hill et al 1994, Dickey-Collas et al 1997, providing a reliable prey resource for higher trophic levels, including seabirds (Durazo et al 1998).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The aggregation of foraging seabirds at frontal systems, including the ISF, is well documented (Le Fèvre 1986, Stone et al 1994, Schneider 1990, Begg & Reid 1997, Durazo et al 1998, Vlietstra et al 2005. Frontal systems increase primary production (Savidge 1976, Beardall et al 1982, Le Fèvre 1986, Yoder et al 1994) and encourage aggregation (Scrope-Howe & Jones 1985) or physical retention of zooplankton and nektonic organisms (Herman et al 1981, Yoder et al 1994, attracting high densities of pelagic fish (Laurs et al 1977, Alemany et al 2009). Physical retention of coastally spawned fish larvae by associated cyclonic gyre currents (as in the WIS) can also drive stable seasonal recruitment (Hill et al 1994, Dickey-Collas et al 1997, providing a reliable prey resource for higher trophic levels, including seabirds (Durazo et al 1998).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The minor Patagonian Coastal Current (PCC) influences the Atlantic Patagonia coast and moves northward up to 38°S [110-112]. Moreover, oceanographic fronts such as the Atlantic Patagonian cold estuarine front on the eastern margin of the Strait of Magellan has been described as an oceanographic barrier between Pacific Patagonia and the southern Atlantic coast [113-115]. As expected under the general circulation pattern in this region, we found asymmetrical gene flow in the species among Pacific Patagonia, Atlantic Patagonia and the Falkland/Malvinas Islands.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…; Alemany et al . ). Therefore, the observed contrasting evolutionary histories of these species may have resulted from an interaction between life history traits and the stratification of the Benguela Current oceanographic features with depth (White et al .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Despite being an offshore demersal species, the spatial structure of M. capensis closely resembles that of other inshore marine taxa, where genetic breaks appear to be linked with coastal oceanographic features (Alemany et al . ; Henriques et al . , , ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%