2006
DOI: 10.1007/s00227-006-0253-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Geostatistical analysis of densities of Liocarcinus depurator (Brachyura: Portunidae) on the western Mediterranean from 1994 to 2003

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
12
1

Year Published

2010
2010
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
1
12
1
Order By: Relevance
“…1a, DAAR 2010) and a progressive decrease in the abundance of crustaceans in the Western Mediterranean (Rufino et al 2005(Rufino et al , 2006. This situation highlights a strong fishing pressure on the benthic community of this area due to trawling activity, in line with results from ecological models (Coll et al 2006(Coll et al , 2008.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 59%
“…1a, DAAR 2010) and a progressive decrease in the abundance of crustaceans in the Western Mediterranean (Rufino et al 2005(Rufino et al , 2006. This situation highlights a strong fishing pressure on the benthic community of this area due to trawling activity, in line with results from ecological models (Coll et al 2006(Coll et al , 2008.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 59%
“…The smallest patch sizes were reported for Inachus dorsettensis (2 km), Liocarcinus corrugatus (2.25 km), Liocarcinus depurator (3 km), and Liocarcinus arcuatus (3.5 km) in the Rı´a de Ferrol (Table 5). If we consider the sampling area (Table 5), it would appear that patch size estimation is closely related to the extension of the study area, as reported by Rufino et al (2006), although this does not hold true for regions above a certain extension. Patch size reported for L. depurator, for example, is similar in the studies conducted by Rufino et al (2004) and Rufino et al (2006), although the area sampled in each study differs greatly (Table 5).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 77%
“…If we consider the sampling area (Table 5), it would appear that patch size estimation is closely related to the extension of the study area, as reported by Rufino et al (2006), although this does not hold true for regions above a certain extension. Patch size reported for L. depurator, for example, is similar in the studies conducted by Rufino et al (2004) and Rufino et al (2006), although the area sampled in each study differs greatly (Table 5). Studying the same species, Gonza´lez found a smaller patch size than that reported by Rufino et al (2004), despite the fact that the sampling area was much larger.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 77%
See 2 more Smart Citations