550 likes | 702 Views
INDICANG – 7-8 oct 2004 - San Sebastian. Adour basin. Information : Adera-Cereca, Ifremer, Institution Adour, Migradour Presentation : Institution Adour, Migradour Mapmaking : Agence de l’Eau Adour Garonne, Cereca, Ifremer, Observatoire de l’Eau des Pays de l’Adour, Migradour. Adour Basin.
E N D
INDICANG – 7-8 oct 2004 - San Sebastian Adour basin
Information : Adera-Cereca, Ifremer, Institution Adour, Migradour Presentation : Institution Adour, Migradour Mapmaking : Agence de l’Eau Adour Garonne, Cereca, Ifremer, Observatoire de l’Eau des Pays de l’Adour, Migradour Adour Basin
Geographical information • 16,000 km² • 2 “régions” • 4 “départements” • 1,238 “communes” • 960,000 inhabitants • 57 inhab./km² 40 32 AQUITAINE MIDI PYRENEES 64 65
Physical aspects Midouze - many underground water tables - moderate floods and low levels • Adour axis • - plain river pattern • rich alluvial water table • inundating floods • severe low levels Hillsides - contrasted pattern - sudden and short flood - severe and early low levels Gaves and Nives - sustained flow - late low levels - rich alluvial water table - torrential floods
Noticeable milieus « GREEN ZONES » BARTHES (wetlands) BAS-ARMAGNAC PONDS ESTUARY SALIGUES (wetlands) ALLUVIAL CORRIDORS NOTICEABLE RIVERS
Rivers with migratory fish Axis priority # 1 Axis priority # 2
Pressure – land use “artificial” territories ploughed lands permanent cultivation grasslands, heterogeneous lands forests, semi-natural milieus wetlands
40 000 35 000 30 000 25 000 20 000 15 000 10 000 5 000 0 1970 1979 1988 2000 Cattle evolution in the Adour basinfrom 1970 to 2000 Poultry (nb/10) Numbers Bovine Ewes Swine (fattening) Equine Sows
Pressure on the environment – diseases • parasitism by Anguillicola crassus • one study Adour-Nivelle-Bidassoa (1998) • determination of prevalence and intensity rates • MIGRADOUR, CSP, IFREMER, GDSAA • 19 rivers, 26 stations • glass eel: no trace • yellow eel: whole basin contaminated (prevalence ~50%; variable intensity)
Anguillicola crassus prevalence intensity
Eel exploitation • glass eel: economic stake • yellow eel: commercial fishery decreasing • silver eel: not in the basin
Glass eel exploitation • a fishery dating back to the beginning of the 20th century
Glass eel exploitation • a fishery dating back to the beginning of the 20th century • a commercial fishery + a leisure fishery • around 200 commercial fishermen (among them, 70% fish only glass eel)
Evolution of commercial fishermen in the maritime part of the estuary 90 80 70 licenses maximum, since 1993 70 License number 60 50 40 30 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Glass eel exploitation • 3 commercial fishing methods • 1 hand net • 2 trawl nets (since 1995) • 2 nets, anchored ship (experimental since 2003) • 1 leisure fishing method • 1 hand net • fishing gear of “modest” dimensions • commercial net: 1.20m in diameter • leisure net: 0.50m in diameter
Glass eel exploitation • CPUE evolution by gear type (hand net, trawl net)
Glass eel exploitation • a fishery dating back to the beginning of the 20th century • a commercial fishery + a leisure fishery • a heavy economic importance in the commercial fisheries
Glass eel fishery turnover (maritime estuarine fishermen) 61% 57%
Yellow eel exploitation • a commercial fishery with decreasing number of fishermen
production prod / fisherman fishermen Yellow eel exploitation 12 25 10 20 8 production per fisherman (t/10) 15 Production (tons) Number of fishermen 6 10 4 5 2 0 0 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Année de capture
Yellow eel exploitation • a commercial fishery with decreasing number of fishermen • an unknown leisure fishery
Silver eel exploitation • not in the Adour basin, strictly speaking • 2 commercial fisheries in coastal short rivers, stopping for good at the end of 2004
Biological studies • migration • biology and physiology • stock and exploitation
Biological studies • migration • glass eel estuarine behaviour modelling • Cereca, Ifremer, Université de Grenoble, Université de Pau
Description of behavioural model • conditions of current (river flow / tide) • one-dimension model (IFREMER-UPPA) • light conditions • estimated turbidity • moon phase • cloud cover
Daytime? YES on the bottom NO River flow < -0.3 m/s ? YES buried NO MES>40 NTU ? YES NO surface FQ and LQ Moon phase NM FM Cloudy? column surface little much surface column Conceptual behavioural model Question: does it migrate or not?
Biological studies • migration • glass eel estuarine behaviour modelling • study of downstream migration on a hydroelectric production unit • EDF, INRA • location : Halsou, on the river Nive
Biological studies • migration • biology and physiology • glass eel “flows” characterisation • Cereca, Université de Perpignan • for example : otolithometry
Transition marks and pigmentation stages Type 1 Type 2 Type 3
Biological studies • migration • biology and physiology • glass eel “flows” characterisation • parasitism (seen earlier)
Biological studies • migration • biology and physiology • stock and exploitation • surveys • eel network - Migradour
Migradour + CSP, FDAAPPMA, AAPPMA fish surveys 29 stations 18 rivers complementary studies age/length keys (otolithometry) characterisation of silvering (ocular index) parasitism survey (Anguilicola crassus) Eel network
Eel network • results • difficulty to detect density trends on a short period • prospects • redefining the choice of stations and sampling method
Biological studies • migration • biology and physiology • stock and exploitation • surveys • glass eel “flow” estimation (from daily to seasonal) and estimation of exploitation rate by commercial fishing in the marine part of the estuary • Cereca, Ifremer, Université de Grenoble, Université de Pau
Estuary sampling Data base Biometry Density Catch Hydrodynamics Environment Climate Daily biomass 30 samplings 3 years Seasonal biomass Estimation of glass eel “flow”
Statistical modelling ofglass eel “flow” • biomass estimation for one tide, through scientific sampling • comparison with catch intensity by commercial fishermen in the same area • estimation of daily exploitation rate • median between 6 and 26%, for fishing seasons 1998/99 to 2000/2001