2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.fishres.2016.06.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A fishery-independent survey of juvenile shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) and blue (Prionace glauca) sharks in the Southern California Bight, 1994–2013

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Despite this bias in our tracking data, studies using fishery observer data from the drift gillnet fishery have shown that shark bycatch spans all size classes and occurs in the same regions as our tracking data (Urbisci et al, ). It is possible that our tagging sample size, or location of tagging particularly for the different size classes, resulted in our inability to capture the N‐S pattern as expected; however, at sea tagging is costly due to vessel time, and our tagging was semi‐random as most of tag deployments occurred in association with periodic survey efforts over a broad region (Runcie et al, ). While the tracking data reflect similar patterns to fisheries observer studies (Urbisci et al, ), we cannot be certain about the degree to which our tracking data are fully reflective of the entire blue shark population given the tagging location bias.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Despite this bias in our tracking data, studies using fishery observer data from the drift gillnet fishery have shown that shark bycatch spans all size classes and occurs in the same regions as our tracking data (Urbisci et al, ). It is possible that our tagging sample size, or location of tagging particularly for the different size classes, resulted in our inability to capture the N‐S pattern as expected; however, at sea tagging is costly due to vessel time, and our tagging was semi‐random as most of tag deployments occurred in association with periodic survey efforts over a broad region (Runcie et al, ). While the tracking data reflect similar patterns to fisheries observer studies (Urbisci et al, ), we cannot be certain about the degree to which our tracking data are fully reflective of the entire blue shark population given the tagging location bias.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A total of 54 blue sharks were tagged between 2004 and 2012 using fin‐mounted Smart Position‐Only Tag (SPOT) satellite transmitters (Wildlife Computers Inc.). All sharks were caught using commercial longline gear either (a) off California during the NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center's annual juvenile shark survey (Runcie et al, ), (b) on commercial vessels operating in Mexican waters off the Baja Peninsula or (c) during surveys conducted by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans of Canada off British Columbia (Figure ). Sharks were pulled onto a cradle, their eyes were covered with a soft cloth, the hook removed, and the gills irrigated with seawater.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, CPUE is not always proportional to relative abundance because many factors affect catch rates (e.g., fleet efficiency, gear effects, and environment), and, mainly for sexually dimorphic species like the Smooth Dogfish, the CPUE often differs between sexes due to intrinsic variability in the catchability coefficient as fish size changes (Hilborn and Walters 1992;Walters 2003;Maunder and Punt 2004;Maunder et al 2006). Nevertheless, CPUE has been commonly used as a proxy for fish population trends and abundance when derived from standardized fishery-independent surveys (Runcie et al 2016;Dell'Apa et al 2017), which was done in this study, as this can reduce the lack of linearity between CPUE and fish relative abundance (Maunder and Punt 2004).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Data from 34 SLRT tags were used for model development. All tags were placed on Makos (between 152 and 259 cm TL; total length) in the Southern California Bight as part of the annual juvenile shark survey conducted by the NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) [ 38 ]. Tags were deployed between 2004–2015 primarily during the summer (June-August).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%