共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
2.
3.
4.
- 1. The movement patterns of Australian and New Zealand fur seals trapped on salmon farms in south‐east Tasmania and relocated hundreds of kilometres away, were monitored using satellite telemetry. Australian fur seals released 470 km away by sea returned to farms after an average of 8.5±4.4 days (n=9 trips) and those released at 140 km returned after 3.2±0.8 days (n=4 trips). New Zealand fur seals (n=5 trips) averaged a return time of 6.8±1.2 days from 300 km.
- 2. When in south‐east Tasmania, both seal species undertook short trips to sea (mean 2.6 days) from haul‐out sites (minimum distance from farms 21 km) with 33% (1.8 days) of this time spent within 5 km of farms. Mean haul‐out duration was 1.1 days.
- 3. In summer, Australian fur seals repeatedly travelled between northern Bass Strait islands and southern Tasmanian waters following the Tasmanian east coast. Seals did not visit farms during this time.
- 4. Southern Tasmanian waters are important foraging grounds for fur seals and potential exists for a substantial number of seals to visit nearby fish farms. Farms provide predictable food resources from penned and escaped salmon, and wild fish attracted to the area.
- 5. Australian fur seals trapped at Tasmanian salmon farms regularly visited breeding colonies on islands in Victoria.
5.
6.
Louise Cunningham John M. Baxter Ian L. Boyd Callan D. Duck Mike Lonergan Simon E. Moss Bernie McConnell 《水产资源保护:海洋与淡水生态系统》2009,19(4):398-407
- 1. Compliance with conservation legislation requires knowledge on the behaviour, abundance and distribution of protected species. Seal life history is characterized by a combination of marine foraging and a requirement to haul out on a solid substrate for reproduction and moulting. Thus understanding the use of haul out sites, where seals are counted, as well as their at‐sea movements is crucial for designing effective monitoring and management plans.
- 2. This study used satellite transmitters deployed on 24 harbour seals in western Scotland to examine movements and haul‐out patterns.
- 3. The proportion of time harbour seals spent hauled out (daily means of between 11 and 27%) varied spatially, temporally and according to sex. The mean haul‐out duration was 5 h, with a maximum of over 24 h.
- 4. Patterns of movement were observed at two geographical scales; while some seals travelled over 100 km, 50% of trips were within 25 km of a haul‐out site. These patterns are important for the identification of a marine component to designated protected areas for the species.
- 5. On average seals returned to the haul‐out sites they last used during 40% of trips, indicating a degree of site fidelity, though there was wide variation between different haul‐out sites (range 0% to >75%).
- 6. Low fidelity haul‐out sites could form a network of land‐based protected areas, while high fidelity sites might form appropriate management units.
7.
8.
James R.A. Butler Stuart J. Middlemas Simon A. McKelvey Iain McMyn Ben Leyshon Ian Walker Paul M. Thompson Ian L. Boyd Callan Duck John D. Armstrong Isla M. Graham John M. Baxter 《水产资源保护:海洋与淡水生态系统》2008,18(6):1025-1038
- 1. Within the Moray Firth, north‐east Scotland, there is a history of conflict between seals and salmon fisheries. Under the UK's Conservation of Seals Act 1970 (CoSA) seals are shot to protect fisheries. In 1999 six rivers in the Moray Firth were designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for Atlantic salmon under the EU Habitats Directive, and in 2000 an SAC for harbour seals was designated in the Dornoch Firth.
- 2. In the 1990s salmon stocks declined. Fisheries managers believed the decline was partly caused by seal predation and consequently increased shooting effort. In years 1993–2003 Moray Firth harbour seal numbers declined possibly due to shooting, posing a potential threat to the status of the Dornoch Firth SAC. Meanwhile wildlife tourism based on marine mammals has increased. The declines in salmon and harbour seals, and the implementation of the Habitats Directive forced a watershed in the approach of statutory authorities to managing seals, salmon and tourism.
- 3. In years 2002–2005 local District Salmon Fishery Boards, the Scottish Executive, Scottish Natural Heritage and stakeholders negotiated a pilot Moray Firth Seal Management Plan to restore the favourable conservation status of seal and salmon SACs, and to reduce shooting of harbour seals and seal predation on salmon.
- 4. Key facets of the plan are the management of the Moray Firth region under a CoSA Conservation Order; application of the Potential Biological Removal concept to identify a limit of seals to be killed; management areas where removal of seals is targeted to protect salmon, while avoiding seal pupping and tourism sites; a training and reporting system for marksmen; a research programme, and a framework allowing an annual review of the plan.
- 5. The plan was introduced in April 2005. A maximum limit of 60 harbour and 70 grey seals was set. Forty‐six harbour and 33 grey seals were killed in 2005 while in 2006 these figures were 16 and 42 respectively. Although the numbers killed were below the maximum limits in both years the returns raised questions about the plan's ability to manage seal shooting at netting stations. The plan provides a useful adaptive co‐management framework for balancing seal and salmon conservation with the protection of fisheries and/or fish farms and tourism for application in the UK and internationally.
9.
- 1. At Tasmanian salmon aquaculture farms, fur seals were trapped and relocated to reduce interactions with stock, operations and equipment. From 1990 to 2005, 4517 relocations of 1124 seals were undertaken, peaking at 1203 relocations in 2003.
- 2. Of the relocations, 56% were recaptured seals. Most seals had less than 10 captures (46%), with 3% trapped more than 20 times.
- 3. Relocations were mostly seasonal, occurring in the austral winter and spring with a peak in August.
- 4. Seal recapture intervals were highly variable, ranging from days to years. Within the same year, recapture intervals per seal ranged from 4 to 258 days, mean 36 days.
- 5. Australian fur seals were trapped more frequently than New Zealand fur seals. The first trapped New Zealand fur seal was identified in 2000.
- 6. Relocation provides short‐term relief from seal interactions but does not mitigate the interaction problem in the longer term.
- 7. The core of the seal interaction problem is the current inability to exclude seals from pens and fish stock. Salmon farms are providing a predictable, accessible food source for seals.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Jorge Chávez-Villalba María López-Tapia José Mazón-Suástegui & Miguel Robles-Mungaray 《Aquaculture Research》2005,36(14):1337-1344
This is the first evaluation of growth and survival of spat of the Cortez oyster Crassostrea corteziensis (Hertlein) produced under controlled conditions in a coastal area in the state of Sonora, Mexico for aquaculture purposes. A suspended culture technique, used for the Pacific oyster C. gigas, was used. The Cortez oyster has an isometric shell growth during the first 13 months, reaching 71.3±1.9 mm length, 52.6±1.3 mm thickness and 25.1±0.8 mm width. Allometric growth was found between total weight and length, thickness and width (survival was 70%). The relationships between particulate organic, inorganic material, chlorophyll a and environmental parameters with growth are described. Growth rates of C. corteziensis were affected by temperature with retardation at less than 18°C. For aquaculture purposes, it is recommended that spat be sowed after winter, and oyster harvest occur at the end of autumn. According to the von Bertalanffy equation, Cortez oysters would reach the traditional exploitation size of 65 mm (mean length) at harvest. Finally, the results of this study have shown that C. corteziensis is a good candidate for aquaculture projects in this region. 相似文献
14.
Karen Backe Ellen Hines Karina J. Nielsen Doug George Elinor Twohy Mark Lowry 《水产资源保护:海洋与淡水生态系统》2021,31(7):1749-1759
- Patterns and changes in the distribution of coastal marine mammals can serve as indicators of environmental change that fill critical information gaps in coastal and marine environments. Coastal habitats are particularly vulnerable to the effects of near-term sea-level rise.
- In California, Pacific harbour seals (Phoca vitulina richardii) are a natural indicator species of coastal change because of their reliance on terrestrial habitats, abundance, distribution, and site fidelity. Pacific harbour seals are marine top predators that are easily observed while hauled out at terrestrial sites, which are essential for resting, pupping, and moulting.
- Although increasing inundation from recent sea-level rise and storm-driven flooding has changed the Californian coastline, little is known about the effect of future sea-level rise and increased storm frequency and strength on harbour seal haulout site availability and quality in California.
- Harbour seal habitat was modelled at two sandbar-built estuaries under a series of likely sea-level rise and storm scenarios. The model outputs suggest that, over time, habitat at both estuaries decreased with increasing sea level, and storm-enhanced water levels contributed significantly to habitat flooding. These changes reflect pressures on coastal habitats that have an impact on human and natural systems.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
- 1. Seals that attacked fish on 15 marine fish-farms in south-eastern Tasmania were large subadult and adult male Australian fur seals Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus. From July to November 1988 there were 235 attacks on fish-farms where Atlantic salmon Salmo salar and rainbow trout S. gairdneri were held in pens. Single animals usually attacked pens at night, irrespective of the size and species of fish in the pens. The seals damaged both pens and fish, and sometimes fish escaped as a result of the attacks.
- 2. The vulnerability of fish-farms was influenced by their proximity to seal haul-out sites. Proximity to fishing ports and size of the fish-farm had little influence.
- 3. The use of shooting as a protection method was inefficient and ineffective because seals usually entered fish-farms at night and showed no fear of shooters. There were many attacks in the presence of underwater acoustic seal scarers. Deterrents such as pursuit with boats, lights, seal crackers and emetics helped reduce the number of seal attacks.
- 4. The only way totally to prevent seals from attacking fish-farms is to exclude them from the vicinity of the fish pens with physical barriers that they cannot penetrate. These are currently in use, and include perimeter fences and protection nets made of steel mesh set around individual pens.