2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.fishres.2014.10.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comment on “Fisheries catch misreporting and its implications: The case of Senegal”

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Constant over‐reporting occurs when promotions or bonuses are based on output, as in China (Watson and Pauly ), or due to assumptions made in catch reconstructions such as overestimates of discard rates (Chaboud et al . ). Increasing reporting rates in major commercial fisheries in developed countries have resulted from increased observer coverage, better estimates of discards and reduction in illegal harvest for some of the world's most commercially valuable species, such as tuna (Agnew et al .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 93%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Constant over‐reporting occurs when promotions or bonuses are based on output, as in China (Watson and Pauly ), or due to assumptions made in catch reconstructions such as overestimates of discard rates (Chaboud et al . ). Increasing reporting rates in major commercial fisheries in developed countries have resulted from increased observer coverage, better estimates of discards and reduction in illegal harvest for some of the world's most commercially valuable species, such as tuna (Agnew et al .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…, ; Chaboud et al . ), reconstructed catch time series could conceivably be lower, higher or have different trends than true catches. Given these scenarios, our results provide substantive advice for making management decisions in the face of uncertainty.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After sorting the data by port, gear type and period (fortnightly intervals), total landings per port were estimated by multiplying the mean number of fish landed for the sampled trips by the total number of fishing trips made (Chaboud et al ., ). The landings were summed by month for each landing port (Chaboud et al ., ). Growth (July 2013–June 2014) and reproduction (1995–2011) data by size, sex, maturity stages and landing sites were extrapolated with landing data from 1995 to 2014.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The number of trips per fishing gear was recorded on a daily basis, while landings data were randomly collected for about 5 days a week. After aggregating the data by port, gear and period (fortnightly), total landings per port were estimated by multiplying mean landings of sampled trips by the total number of fishing trips (Chaboud et al., ; Thiao, ). Note that landings were summed per month for each landing port (Chaboud et al., ; Thiao, Ngom, & Thiam, ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After aggregating the data by port, gear and period (fortnightly), total landings per port were estimated by multiplying mean landings of sampled trips by the total number of fishing trips (Chaboud et al., ; Thiao, ). Note that landings were summed per month for each landing port (Chaboud et al., ; Thiao, Ngom, & Thiam, ). (ii) A secondary data set was only used for the VPA, the monthly size distributions of both species from the same landing ports within a period of 15 months between July 2014 and September 2015.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%