Jump to content

Talk:European plaice

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orange Spots

[edit]

The most distinctive identifying feature of the European Plaice is its pronounced and regular orange spots on the back, sadly the photograph is lit in such a fashion as to make this feature less obvious. We need a better photograph of a more representative specimen.

When you create an article about an animal, it helps non-english speakers if you create a redirect from the Latin name, because otherwise they often won't be able to find it. (I have done that now with Pleuronectes platessa). --Fred-Chess 08:50, August 27, 2005 (UTC)


Is this now a full article and not a stub? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Celticbattlepants (talk • contribs) 2006-04-22 15:35:05 (UTC)

Abundant?

[edit]

Re-inserted 'abundant' which was removed because the editor claims they are overfished. Overfishing and abundance are not mutually exclusive, abundance is a specific ecological term referring to population density. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Celticbattlepants (talk • contribs) 2006-04-28 19:23:55 (UTC)

If so, it might be a good idea to wikilink "abundant" to an explanation of the particular technical meaning you have in mind. Otherwise it will inevitably be read as the everyday meaning. Henning Makholm 23:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There are 6 links off the disambiguation page for "Abundance", none of them are the ecological term mentioned above. It is misleading to leave "abundant" in the article in that context. - 11:11 GST, 4 May 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.169.138.156 (talk • contribs) .

The idea that overfishing and abundance are not mutually exclusive also depends on your understanding of "overfishing". If it is "fishing beyond quotas" than this could be true. But if it is, as wikipedia defines it, "fishing beyond sustainable biomass", than this is not true. Plaice have been at below recommended spawning stock in recent years (http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-2529) so "abundant" does not seem to fit by any definition. - 80.169.138.156 14:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that plaice have been overfished (but only in the North Sea), for many years actually to get to the current levels of spawning biomass. The term overfishing as applied to fisheries management refers to the use of the logistic model of population growth, the idea that increasing densities of a population reduces the growth rate of the population, and is manifested as lower per-unit biomass. From this model, fisheries managers attempt to reduce the biomass of the target species to the point where growth rate is at a maximum. This point, according to the logistic growth model, is when the biomass of the population is at half of the theoretical maximum supported by the populations habitat (maximum population supported is called the carrying capacity of the habitat). At the maximum growth rate, the highest yield of biomass can be harvested, this is known as maximum sustainable yield (or MSY) Now, overfishing is when the population has been reduced to below MSY, so, in terms of abundance, overfishing could mean when the biomass is at 45% of the populations theoretical maximum. 45% of, as an example, 2 million individuals, is still 0.95 million individuals, which is abundant by whatever definition you use. I use 2 million because thats how many plaice were estimated to inhabit the Firth of Forth in Scotland, and that is considered marginal habitat for P. platessa. My own work on plaice in this area suggests that was an understimate (due to incorrect identification of the extent of plaice habitat usage in the area). In Port Erin Bay on the Isle of Man, juvenile plaice were measured at a population maximum of over 300 000 individuals. I would find more examples but its 2am and I have work tomorrow (erm today). By your definition of abundance, this jncc page suggests that plaice are "within safe biological limits..." therefore, according to you, abundant, in the Irish Sea. Thats why ovefishing and abundance are not mutually exclusive. Organisations like JNCC, ICES, CEFAS, NFS, NRS and FAO etc use overfishing in that specific context. Now, I will not put the word abundant back in the article, however, I would like whoever removed it in the first place to look at the following link CEFAS Report and then please tell me which two of the species (mentioned in the second paragraph) in this scientific survey are most abundant. When I have more time (phd on plaice ecology requires immediate attention), I will add some references from primary literature. Celticbattlepants 01:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another link to a peer-reviewed article, read the first parapgraph of the introduction report. Another (lengthy) CEFAS Report with relative abundance data in the Western English Channel, again showing plaice and sole the two most abundant flatfish species in this area. One final link here. Look at page 6. The estimated numbers of plaice in ICES division IV (North Sea) in 1998, was approximately 250 million.Celticbattlepants 10:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at page 5. "ICES considers the stock outside safe biological limits" for the North Sea, same for the English Channel. You are correct on the Irish Sea. This is obviously your area of specialisation, and I don't mean to step on any toes. There are, of course, lots of fish in the sea (ahem). I just feel that using that word in an article for broad readership about a food fish suggests that there is no ecological impact in eating it - a controversial claim. Maybe we're straying into NPOV territory here, but we can at least agree that there is no consensus on that view. 80.169.138.156 10:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consensus on the view of abundance, as I explained above. Terms such as 'outside safe biological limits' 'overfished' etc, refer to MSY and fisheries management. MSY and management are aimed at maximising a harvest. Abundance is an ecological term that refers to the likelihood of encountering an individual of a species over its range, there is no value judgement attached to the term. However, if you feel that using the word abundant gives an impression to readers, perhaps you can add the stock advice from ICES and other statutory bodies (JNCC etc), as I feel that removing the word gives the wrong impression. Your own, please dont take offence, confusion regarding the meaning of the two terms warrants this. If you like I can add a section on fisheries and then a qualifier for the word abundant to show the terms are not linked.Celticbattlepants 12:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is not what the term means, but how it will be read. It's a matter of common usage and intended audience. I understand abundance as an ecological term, but this is not a specialist publication. Most people will simply read it as a synonym for "plentiful" - which does carry a value judgment, and a misleading one, imo. The solution here is probably to reference and extend as you suggest. How about a simple modifier - "ecologically abundant"? 80.169.138.156 10:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am working (slowly) on compiling this. I am in the middle of fieldwork and preparing a manuscript to be submitted for publication (nearly done). Once I have a bit more time, I will add a small section on fisheries, as I have already started it. I am having a hard time aimimg at the right level, so am fully expecting some help in editing once I have written and submitted it.Celticbattlepants 22:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on European plaice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on European plaice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

Hello! I have recently done a project at university on the European Plaice. I want to add in some new references and update a couple of facts. Anna2624 (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Age and size

[edit]

I have updated the information on age and size. Previous information said maximum size of 100 cm and 50 years. This information originates from a fish id book which does not provide references for the information, and is unlikely to be accurate and cannot be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clumpus (talk • contribs) 12:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_plaice&oldid=1207149477"