Options for allocating the precautionary catch limit of krill among small-scale management units in the Scotia Sea

By R. Hewitt, G. Watters, P. Trathan, J. Croxall, M. Goebel, D. Ramm, K. Reid, W. Trivelpiece, J. Watkins. 2004

97 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/edaade2731d80a6d38e2197e150eeb785509f5ef

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. Anthony M. Cossio
2. David A. Demer
3. V. Siegel
4. C. Reiss
5. P. Ressler
6. Stéphane G. Conti

Citations in the corpus

• The fishery for Antarctic krill – recent developments (2012, background): “There has been considerable effort within CCAMLR devoted to the mechanism, whereby the catch limit can be subdivided amongst SSMUs, but there has been no agreement to date (Hewitt et al. 2004).”
• Variations in the biomass of Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) around the South Shetland Islands, 1996–2006 (2008, methodology): “More recently, Lawson et al. (2006) described an improved parameterization of Antarctic krill TS using the DWBA to model the scattering process.”
• Spatial association between hotspots of baleen whales and demographic patterns of Antarctic krill Euphausia superba suggests size-dependent predation (2010, unknown): “1), a region known for its elevated krill biomass (Laws 1977, Siegel 1988, Loeb et al. 1997, Reilly et al. 2004, Reiss et al. 2008), active krill fishery (Marin & Delgado 2001, Hewitt et al. 2004, Jones & Ramm 2004), and historical whaling (Mackintosh 1965, Laws 1977).”