2003
DOI: 10.1577/1548-8446(2003)28[10:arotmf]2.0.co;2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Review of Tagging Methods for Estimating Fish Population Size and Components of Mortality

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
228
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 266 publications
(233 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
(23 reference statements)
1
228
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Individual recognition of fishes by markings and tags has been made in several ways for many years (Pine et al, 2003), but the potential of using photo-identification with teleost species has only recently started to be demonstrated (e.g. Correia et al, 2014).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Individual recognition of fishes by markings and tags has been made in several ways for many years (Pine et al, 2003), but the potential of using photo-identification with teleost species has only recently started to be demonstrated (e.g. Correia et al, 2014).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is particularly true for deepwater species due the complications and high mortality rates resulting from the barotrauma caused by bringing the individuals to the surface for tagging (Nichol and Chilton 2006;Winter et al 2007). In addition, tagging studies usually involve high operational costs, which include tag deployment, recapture surveys, and (or) publicity campaigns to increase voluntary tag reporting rates in the fisheries, and, in some cases, high costs associated with the tags themselves (Pine et al 2003). Despite the high costs and the large effort associated with tagging studies, the data quality is frequently diminished by violation of basic assumptions of tagging experiments, such as changes in reporting rates over time, time-varying catchability, and influence of the tag on fish behavior (Pine et al 2003).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, tagging studies usually involve high operational costs, which include tag deployment, recapture surveys, and (or) publicity campaigns to increase voluntary tag reporting rates in the fisheries, and, in some cases, high costs associated with the tags themselves (Pine et al 2003). Despite the high costs and the large effort associated with tagging studies, the data quality is frequently diminished by violation of basic assumptions of tagging experiments, such as changes in reporting rates over time, time-varying catchability, and influence of the tag on fish behavior (Pine et al 2003). These difficulties associated with tagging data frequently result in the lack of enough information in the data, despite extraordinary expense and effort, to accurately resolve the movement dynamics of the species of interest without a number of simplifying assumptions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although conventional tagging data have been widely used to examine population size and mortality, exploitation, growth, and movement rates in fisheries (Kurota et al 2009), two assumptions must be met: (1) the reporting rate must be known and (2) fish behavior must not be impacted by tagging (Sibert et al 1999;Pine et al 2003). Our study suggests that given a sufficient contrast in CPUE between two areas, tagging is not required to estimate biomass, fishing efficiency, growth, movement rate, and K. Eliminating the need for tagging data is one advantage of the present model, which is easily implemented for new data sets.…”
Section: Required Data and Model Assumptionsmentioning
confidence: 99%