EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues No 401 (2011) Knowl. Managt. Aquatic Ecosyst., 401 (2011) 07 References
Open Access
Issue
Knowl. Managt. Aquatic Ecosyst.
Number 401, 2011
European Crayfish: food, flagships and ecosystem services
Article Number 07
Number of page(s) 8
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2011016
Published online 18 May 2011
  • Abrahamsson S.A.A., 1966. Dynamics of an isolated population of the crayfish Astacus astacus Linné. Oikos, 17, 96–107. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Abrahamsson S.A.A., 1971. Fecundity and growth of some populations of Astacus astacus Linné in Sweden. Rep. Inst. Freshw. Res. Drottningholm, 52, 23–27. [Google Scholar]
  • Abrahamsson S.A.A., 1983. Trappability, locomotion and diel pattern of activity of the crayfish Astacus astacus and Pacifastacus leniusculus Dana. Freshw. Crayfish, 5, 239–253. [Google Scholar]
  • Acosta C.A. and Perry S.A., 2000. Effective sampling area: A quantitative method for sampling crayfish populations in freshwater marshes. Crustaceana, 73, 425–431. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Baillargeon S. and Rivest L., 2007. Rcapture: Loglinear models for capture-recapture in R. J. Stat. Soft., 19, 1–31. [Google Scholar]
  • Bergqvist B., Bohman P. and Edsman L., 2005. Provfiske efter kräfta i sjöar och vattendrag. http://www.naturvardsverket.se/upload/02_tillstandet_i_miljon/Miljoovervakning/undersokn_typ/sotvatten/kraftprov.pdf. Downloaded on 31 January 2011 (in Swedish). [Google Scholar]
  • Brewis J.M. and Bowler K., 1983. A study of the natural population of the freshwater crayfish, Austropotamobius pallipes. Freshw. Biol., 13, 443–452. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bubb D.H., Lucas M.C., Thom T.J. and Rycroft P., 2002. The potential use of PIT telemetry for identifying and tracking crayfish in their natural environment. Hydrobiologia, 483, 225–230. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Chan Y.H., 2003. Biostatistics 104: Correlational Analysis. Singapore Med. Journal, 44, 614–619. [Google Scholar]
  • Danielsen F., Burgess N.D. and Balmford A., 2005. Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches. Biodiversity Conserv., 14, 2507–2542. [Google Scholar]
  • Dorn N.J., Urgelles R. and Trexler J.C., 2005. Evaluating active and passive sampling methods to quantify crayfish density in a freshwater wetland. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 24, 346–356. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Erkamo E., Ruokonen T., Alapassi T., Ruokolainen J., Järvenpää T., Tulonen J. and Kirjavainen J., 2010. Evaluation of crayfish stocking success in Finland. Freshw. Crayfish, 17, 77–83. [Google Scholar]
  • Fischer J. and Lindenmayer D.B., 2000. An assessment of the published results of animal relocations. Biol. Conserv., 96, 1–11. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Goodyear C.P., Die D., Kerstetter D.W., Olson D.B., Prince E. and Scott G.P., 2003. Habitat standardization of CPUE indices: research needs. Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 55, 613–623. [Google Scholar]
  • Gydemo R., 1989. Reproduction and Growth in the Noble Crayfish Astacus astacus L., Ph.D. thesis, University of Stockholm, Stockholm. [Google Scholar]
  • Harley S.J., Myers R.A. and Dunn A., 2001. Is catch-per-unit-effort proportional to abundance? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 58, 1760–1772. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hinton M.G. and Maunder M.N., 2003. Methods for standardizing CPUE and how to select among them. Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 56, 169–177. [Google Scholar]
  • Hockley N.J., Jones J.P.G., Andriahajaina F.B., Manica A., Ranambitsoa E.H. and Randriamboahary J.A., 2005. When should communities and conservationists monitor exploited resources? Biodivers. Cons., 14, 2795–2806. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • IUCN (World Conservation Union), 1998. Guidelines for reintroductions, Gland and Cambridge. [Google Scholar]
  • IUCN/SSC (IUCN Species Survival Commission), 2008. Strategic Planning for Species Conservation: A Handbook, Version 1.0, Gland, 71 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Jones J.P.G., 2004. The sustainability of crayfish harvesting in Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar, Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, 161 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Kholodkevich S., Shumilova T., Fedotov V. and Zhuravlev D., 2005. Effects of the Astacus astacus L. population on biomass of macrophytes in a fresh water body. Russ. J. Ecol., 36, 271–276. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Kirjavainen J. and Westman K., 1999. Natural history and development of the introduced signal crayfish, Pacifastacus leniusculus, in a small, isolated Finnish lake, from 1968 to 1993. Aquat. Living Resour., 12, 387–401. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Laloë F., 2007. Modelling sustainability: from applied to involved modeling. Soc. Sci. Inform., 46, 87–107. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Maguire I., Hudina S. and Erben R., 2004. Estimation of noble crayfish (Astacus astacus L.) population size in the Velika Paklenica stream (Croatia). Bull. Fr. Pêche Piscic., 372-373, 353–366. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Maunder M.N., Sibert J.R., Fonteneau A., Hampton J., Kleiber P. and Harley S.J., 2006. Interpreting catch per unit effort data to assess the status of individual stocks and communities. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 63, 1373–1385. [Google Scholar]
  • Momot W.T., 1967. Population dynamics and productivity of the crayfish, Orconectes virilis, in a marl lake. Am. Mid. Nat., 78, 55–81. [Google Scholar]
  • Nichols J.D., 1992. Capture-recapture models. BioScience, 42, 94–102. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Nowicki P., Tirelli T., Mussat Sartor R., Bona F. and Pessani D., 2008. Monitoring crayfish using a mark-recapture method: potentials, recommendations, and limitations. Biodivers. Conserv., 17, 3513–3530. [Google Scholar]
  • Odelström T. and Johansson S., 1999. Flodkräftodling i Norrland – biologiska och ekonomiska förutsättningar. In: Fiskeriverket rapport 1999:1, Stockholm, 17 p. (in Swedish). [Google Scholar]
  • Olsson K., Granéli W., Ripa J. and Nyström P., 2010. Fluctuations in harvest of native and introduced crayfish are driven by temperature and population density in previous years. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 67, 157–164. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Otis D.L., Burnham K.P., White G.C. and Anderson D.R., 1978. Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations. Wildlife Monogr., 62,135 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Pollock K.H., 1982. A capture-recapture design robust to unequal probability of capture. J. Wildlife Manage., 46, 752–757. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Pollock K.H., Nichols J.D., Brownie C. and Hines J.E., 1990. Statistical inference for capture-recapture experiments. Wildlife Monogr., 107, 3–97. [Google Scholar]
  • Price J.E. and Welch S.M., 2009. Semi-quantitative methods for crayfish sampling: Sex, size, habitat bias. J. Crustacean Biol., 29, 208–216. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Rabeni C.F., Collier F.J., Parkyn S.M. and Hicks B.J., 1997. Evaluating techniques for sampling stream crayfish (Paranephrops planifrons). New Zeal. J. Mar. Fresh., 31, 693–700. [Google Scholar]
  • Rist J., Milner-Gulland E.J., Cowlishaw G. and Rowcliffe M., 2009. Hunter reporting of catch per unit effort as a monitoring tool in a bushmeat-harvesting system. Conserv. Biol., 24, 489–499. [Google Scholar]
  • Sahlin U., Smith H.G., Edsman L. and Bengtsson G., 2010. Time to establishment success for introduced signal crayfish in Sweden – a statistical evaluation when success is partially known. J. Appl. Ecol., 47, 1044–1052. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Scalici M., Belluscio A. and Gibertini G., 2008. Understanding population structure and dynamics in threatened crayfish. J. Zool., 275, 160–171. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Schaefer M.B., 1954. Some aspects of the dynamics of populations important to the management of commercial marine fisheries. Bull. Inter-Am. Tropical Tuna Comm., 1, 25–56. [Google Scholar]
  • Schwarz C.J. and Seber G.A.F., 1999. Estimating animal abundance. Review III. Stat. Sci., 14, 427–456. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Seber G.A.F., 1986. A review of estimating animal abundances. Biometrics, 42, 267–292. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Seddon P.J., Armstrong D.P. and Maloney R.F., 2007. Developing the science of reintroduction biology. Conserv. Biol., 21, 303–312. [Google Scholar]
  • Skurdal J. and Taugbøl T., 2002. Astacus. In: Holdich D.M. (ed.), Biology of freshwater crayfish, Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford, 467–510. [Google Scholar]
  • Skurdal J., Qvenild T. and Taugbøl T., 1992. Mark-recapture experiments with noble crayfish, Astacus astacus L., in a Norwegian lake. Aquac. Res., 23, 227–223. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Skurdal J., Garnås E. and Taugbøl T., 2002. Management strategies, yield and population development of the noble crayfish Astacus astacus in lake steinsfjorden. Bull. Fr. Pêche Piscic., 367, 845–860. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Somers K. and Stechey D.P.M., 1986. Variable trappability of crayfish associated with bait type, water temperature and lunar phase. Am. Mid. Nat., 116, 36–44. [Google Scholar]
  • Westman K. and Pursiainen M., 1982. Size and structure of crayfish (Astacus astacus) populations on different habitats in Finland. Hydrobiologia, 86, 67–72. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Westman K. and Savolainen R., 2001. Long term study of competition between two co-occurring crayfish species, the native Astacus astacus L. and the introduced Pacifastacus leniusculus Dana, in a Finnish lake. Bull. Fr. Pêche Piscic., 361, 613–627. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Westman K., Savolainen R. and Julkunen M., 2002. Replacement of the native crayfish Astacus astacus by the introduced species Pacifastacus leniusculus in a small, enclosed Finnish lake: a 30-year study. Ecography, 25, 53–73. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • White G.C., Anderson D.R., Burnham K.P. and Otis D.L., 1982. Chapter 1: Introduction. In: Capture-recapture and removal methods for sampling closed populations, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Park Ridge, 4 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Zimmerman J.K.M. and Palo R.T., 2010. Influence of water regulation and water flow on noble crayfish (Astacus astacus) catch yield in the river Ljungan. Freshw. Crayfish, 17, 141–144. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.