No abstract

1. Research has often focused on the pelagic areas of lakes; the littoral zone has received less attention. The few studies concerning fish distribution in littoral habitats have concentrated on stands of submersed macrophytes, whereas other littoral habitat types have seldom been investigated. 2. This study aimed to predict the occurrence of juvenile fish in several littoral habitats of a shallow lake as a function of food availability, complexity of habitat structure, water depth and substrate. Habitats comprising reed, woody structures, and two open water areas differing in depth were sampled for fish and invertebrate biomasses on two shores, over 6 months and during both daylight and at night. 3. The juvenile fish community consisted almost exclusively of 0+ and 1+ roach and perch. There was a strong diel component in habitat use, with a predominant occurrence of fish in complex habitats (mainly woody structures) during the day, and a partial migration towards the open habitats at night, more strongly expressed in roach than in perch. 4. The diet of all fish groups was relatively constant over the seasonal cycle, and was independent of habitat. There was a higher degree of planktivory in roach than in perch, but both species fed on benthic macroinvertebrates to a substantial extent. 5. According to a logistic regression model, the biomass of potential food organisms in the different habitats had little predictive effect on the spatial distribution of the fish, whereas the structural complexity of the habitats combined with the diel cycle explained about 28% of the occurrence patterns in 0+ and 1+ perch and 1+ roach.

No abstract

Marine recreational fishing (MRF) has been shown to substantially contribute to fishing mortality of marine fish. However, European MRF catches are only quantified for a small number of stocks, so it is unclear whether a significant part of fishing mortality is excluded from stock assessments. This study estimated: (i) European MRF removals, which were defined as landings plus dead releases; and (ii) impact at stock level by comparing the percentage contribution to total removal by MRF and commercial fishing. As MRF data were limited for some European countries, catches were reconstructed using a mixture of average release proportions, average fish weights, and extrapolation using the catch per fisher of the nearest country providing catch estimates. Where catch reconstructions exceeded 50%, data were excluded from further analysis. Furthermore, as MRF survey methodology can be variable, semi-quantitative estimates of bias and error were calculated for each stock. Only 10 of the 20 stocks assessed in this study had sufficient MRF data for full reliable estimates. Percentage contribution to total removals (MRF + commercial removals) by MRF ranged between 2% for Atlantic mackerel in the North Sea and Skagerrak and 43% for Atlantic pollack in the Celtic Seas and English Channel. The biomass removed ranged between 297 (± 116) tonnes (Atlantic cod in the western English Channel and southern Celtic seas) and 4820 (± 1889) tonnes (Atlantic mackerel in the North Sea and Skagerrak), but the errors were substantial. Additionally, the bias in the estimated removals was low for most stocks, with some positive biases found. The present study indicates that removals by MRF can represent a high proportion of the total removals for some European marine fish stocks, so inclusion in stock assessments should be routine. To achieve this, regular surveys of MRF are required to collect data essential for stock assessments.

No abstract