MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4299959899 · doi:10.47886/9781888569698.ch10

Propagated Fish in Resource Management

2004· book-chapter· en· W4299959899 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueAmerican Fisheries Society eBooks · 2004
Typebook-chapter
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueFish Ecology and Management Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésStockingFish stockBusinessFisheries managementAgency (philosophy)FisheryBiodiversityFish <Actinopterygii>Environmental resource managementGeographyEcologyBiologyFishingEnvironmental science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

&lt;em&gt;Abstract.&lt;/em&gt;—The use of cultured fishes by fisheries agencies is a long-standing management technique. In recent decades, however, potential negative impacts of fish stocking programs have received increased attention, particularly as they affect native fish communities and the genetic integrity of wild fish populations. In 1994, a facilitated workshop was organized to develop recommended procedures for the use of cultured fishes that would be compatible with these broader environmental concerns. We administered a survey to state and provincial fisheries management agencies in the United States and Canada to determine the current status of fish culture and stocking programs and assess progress toward adoption of these procedures. With 54 of 62 agencies reporting, our results indicated that stocking programs continue to be an integral part of management programs, but that substantial progress has been made toward addressing concerns about potential negative effects of cultured fishes. The percentage of responding agencies reporting use of management plans in which stocking was considered as part of a larger management program more than doubled in the years since 1980. Consistent with this finding, agency emphasis on alternative management approaches was evidenced by a twofold greater increase in expenditures on habitat management programs relative to culture programs in six agencies that provided budget figures. The percentage of responding agencies evaluating appropriateness of stocking through the use of formal criteria on at least half the waters where cultured fish were used tripled since 1980, and decisions not to stock due to potential impacts on biodiversity or the genetic integrity of recipient fish communities were reported to be four times more likely today than in 1980. Emphasis on the use of native fishes in stocking programs since 1980 was reported to have increased for more than half the agencies responding to our survey, and the number of agencies reporting development of broodstock plans for at least some of the species they cultured also doubled since 1980. Agency perceptions of angler attitudes concerning the importance of stocking indicated that the percentage of anglers who believed that stocking was the primary or only solution to low fish abundance remained high, at 61%, a decline of only 27% from reported attitudes in 1980. While positive strides have been made by agencies toward more careful evaluation of the appropriateness of stocking for achieving management objectives and in the institution of programs to minimize impacts of cultured fishes, these policies have not been adopted by all agencies, nor are they routinely used on all stocked waters by the agencies that have them. To make continued progress, agencies may be required to make difficult decisions regarding allocation of funding, and a more concerted effort to educate anglers and reduce public pressure for stockings will be needed to create an atmosphere where reduced emphasis on stocking is possible. The American Fisheries Society should play a continuing role in providing opportunities for scientists and policy makers to interact and discuss prevailing and emerging issues relative to the use of propagated fishes in resource management.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,022
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,003
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,009
Tête enseignante GPT0,190
Écart entre enseignants0,181 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2004
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAmerican Fisheries Society eBooksMême sujetFish Ecology and Management StudiesTravaux en français237 207