Tanga Fisheries Analysis - IUCN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 13 - Mean CPUE (Kg/Gr/Hr, with 90% CI) by Year/Month for Kigombe (Ngalawa/Mishipi), 2001-2004 Mean Catch Per Gear Hour (Mishipi) by Year Month TCZCDP Data 3rd Protocol Kigombe Data Only 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 2001 8 2001 9 2001 10 2001 11 2001 12 2002 1 2002 2 2002 3 2002 4 2002 5 2002 6 2002 7 2002 8 2002 9 2002 10 2002 11 2002 12 2003 1 2003 2 2003 3 2003 4 2003 5 2003 6 2003 7 2003 8 Mean Catch per Gear (KG per Gear Hour) 2003 9 2003 10 2003 11 2003 12 2004 1 2004 2 2004 3 2004 4 2004 5 2004 6 2004 7 Year/Month 24
7.2.3. Annual Variations in CPUE for Ngalawa using Madema Figure 14 presents a simple graph of mean annual catch-rate by year for the Kigombe data for ngalawas using madema (fish traps). This graph indicates that there was actually a decrease in CPUE from 1996 through 1999/00, with a recovery in 2003/04. Figure 14 - Mean Annual CPUE (kg/gr/trip) Ngalawa/Madema (with 90% Confidence Interval) Mean Annual Catch Rate (Kg/Gr/Trip) Ngalawa/Madema Mean CPUE (kg/gr/trip) 2.25 2 1.75 1.5 1.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 Mar 96 - Feb 97 Mar 97 - Feb 98 Mar 98 - Feb 99 Mar 99 - Feb 00 Mar 00 - Feb 01 Mar 01 - Feb 02 Mar 02 - Feb 03 Mar 03 - Feb 04 Year Again to test the significance of the differences between years, annual mean CPUE data was compared using the same Tukey Test. Statistical analyses show that the CPUE in 1998/99, 1999/00 and 2000/01 were significantly lower than the previous year of 1996/97 and 1997/98, and were also significantly lower than the most recent data from 2003/04. CPUE for 2003/04 is not significantly different from 2001/02 or 2002/03. The pattern shown indicates a significant decline between 1997/98 and 2000/01, but significant recovery from 2001/02. 7.2.4. Seasonal Variations in CPUE for Ngalawas using Madema Figure 15 presents monthly CPUE data for ngalawas using madema. The high proportion of N
Page 1 and 2: IUCN Eastern Africa Regional Progra
Page 3 and 4: The designation of geographical ent
Page 5 and 6: 9. References and further reading .
Page 7 and 8: Acknowledgements I would like to th
Page 9: approximately 30% between 1996 and
Page 12 and 13: • The local Central Coordinating
Page 14 and 15: 4. Summary Description of Previous
Page 16 and 17: Mishipi Madema Nyavu RingNet Jarife
Page 18 and 19: Figure 3. Table 8 - Landing Sites S
Page 20 and 21: Table 9 - Comparison of CPUE data f
Page 22 and 23: Figure 4 - Fisheries Data Collectio
Page 24 and 25: the fish levy at the market place.
Page 26 and 27: • Data for spatial analysis over
Page 28 and 29: profile of the sampled data was not
Page 30 and 31: 7.2. The Spatial and Temporal profi
Page 32 and 33: increased catch per trip (per gear)
Page 36 and 37: Figure 15 - Mean CPUE (Kg/Gr/Trip,
Page 38 and 39: Figure 17 - Mean CPUE (Kg/Gr/Trip,
Page 40 and 41: 7.3. Catch Composition The 1 st Pro
Page 42 and 43: Figure 19 - Proportion of Monthly C
Page 44 and 45: 7.4. Variations in Price of Fish by
Page 46 and 47: produced of mean catch per trip aga
Page 48 and 49: Figure 27 - Mean Price against Mean
Page 50 and 51: 7.5. The Use of Different CMAs by L
Page 52 and 53: Figure 28 - Sampled Fishing Activit
Page 54 and 55: Table 19 - Objectives/Result Areas
Page 56 and 57: Table 20 - Summary Table of Results
Page 58 and 59: 8.3.3. Fishing Gear Definitions The
Page 60 and 61: Appendix 1 - Vessel and Fishing Gea

Tanga Fisheries Analysis - IUCN

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?