Clearhead icefish

Protosalanx chinensis

Protosalanx chinensis (Clearhead icefish)
Distribution
no distribution map available
data deficient



Information


Author: María J. Cabrera-Álvarez
Version: C | 1.0 (2022-12-28)

Please note: This part of the profile is currently being revised.


Reviewers: N/A
Editor: Jenny Volstorf

First published: 2022-12-28
Version information:
  • Appearance: C
  • Major version 1 published: 2022-12-28

Cite as: »Cabrera-Álvarez, María J.. 2022. Protosalanx chinensis (Farm: Short Profile). In: fair-fish database, ed. fair-fish. World Wide Web electronic publication. First published 2022-12-28. Version C | 1.0. https://fair-fish-database.net.«





FishEthoScore/farm

Protosalanx chinensis
LiPoCe
Criteria
Home range
Depth range
Migration
Reproduction
Aggregation
Aggression
Substrate
Stress
Malformations
Slaughter


Condensed assessment of the species' likelihood and potential for good fish welfare in aquaculture, based on ethological findings for 10 crucial criteria.

Li = Likelihood that the individuals of the species experience good welfare under minimal farming conditions
Po = Potential of the individuals of the species to experience good welfare under high-standard farming conditions
Ce = Certainty of our findings in Likelihood and Potential

FishEthoScore = Sum of criteria scoring "High" (max. 10)

Legend

High
Medium
Low
Unclear
No findings



General remarks

Protosalanx chinensis is an annual fish distributed in the coastline, estuaries, and rivers of the Yellow Sea, Boahi Sea, and East China Sea. P. chinensis natural populations decreased due to overfishing, habitat fragmentation, and environmental pollution of the spawning grounds. In recent years, due to its high commercial value in China, P. chinensis began to be transplanted in lakes and reservoirs all over China, and its culture became popular. However, being an ecological generalist, P. chinensis has become an invasive species in some Asian rivers. It is exported to Japan, Hong Kong, and South East Asia. Research on this species has increased in the past decade. However, still little is known about its home and depth range in the wild, its migration patterns, and natural aggregation. There is also very little English information available about its culture conditions, and more research needs to be done regarding feeding, and stunning and slaughter techniques.




1  Home range

Many species traverse in a limited horizontal space (even if just for a certain period of time per year); the home range may be described as a species' understanding of its environment (i.e., its cognitive map) for the most important resources it needs access to. What is the probability of providing the species' whole home range in captivity?

There are unclear findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: hatch in glass breeding containers: 0.1 m2 (1.3 x 0.8 m) 1. Transplanted to ponds and reservoirs at size 1.5-2.0 cm 1. Small- and large-size reservoirs 2: 400-4,000 ha 3.
  • LAB: does not apply.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: lakes 4 with unclear home range use.
  • FARM: transplanted to ponds and reservoirs at size 1.5-2.0 cm 1. Small- and large-size reservoirs 2: 400-4,000 ha 3.
  • LAB: does not apply.

ADULTS:

  • WILD: JUVENILES.
  • FARM: small- and large-size reservoirs 2: 400-4,000 ha 3.
  • LAB: does not apply.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: JUVENILES.
  • FARM: ADULTS.
  • LAB: does not apply.​



2  Depth range

Given the availability of resources (food, shelter) or the need to avoid predators, species spend their time within a certain depth range. What is the probability of providing the species' whole depth range in captivity?

It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Eggs:

  • WILD: adhesive 5 6, DEMERSAL 7 or BENTHIC 1: 0.9-1.3 m 6.
  • FARM: glass breeding containers: 1.2 m, water depth: 0.18-0.22 m 1; reservoirs: ≤18.5 m 3.
  • LAB: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY:

  • WILD: lake: ≤1.9 m 8, ≤2.0 m 9 both with unclear depth range use.
  • FARM: culture containers: 0.18-0.22 m 1; reservoirs: ≤18.5 m 1.
  • LAB: does not apply.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: caught at max 1.5 m 10. Lakes: ≤3.3 m 4, ≤1.9 m 8, ≤2.0 m 9 all with unclear depth range use.
  • FARM: reservoirs: ≤18.5 m 3.
  • LAB: does not apply.

ADULTS:

  • WILD: caught at max 1.5 m 11 10. Lakes: ≤3.3 m 4, ≤1.9 m 8, ≤2.0 m 9 all with unclear depth range use.
  • FARM: JUVENILES.
  • LAB: does not apply.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: caught at max 1.5 m 11 10. Spawning ground: ≤20-25 m 12. Lakes: ≤3.3 m 4, ≤1.9 m 8, ≤2.0 m 9 all with unclear depth range use.
  • FARM: JUVENILES.
  • LAB: does not apply.



3  Migration

Some species undergo seasonal changes of environments for different purposes (feeding, spawning, etc.) and with them, environmental parameters (photoperiod, temperature, salinity) may change, too. What is the probability of providing farming conditions that are compatible with the migrating or habitat-changing behaviour of the species?

There are unclear findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Two strains: one ANADROMOUS 7 13, one resident 13. EURYHALINE 11 12 12.

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY:

  • WILD: hatch at 4-5 °C 14; lakes: 0-38 °C 4.
  • FARM: hatching at 2-9 °C, room temperature of 8 °C after hatching 1.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: stay in river until maturity 7 or stay in estuaries 6, do not survive at salinities ≥14.7 ppm 6. Lakes: 0-38 °C 4, tolerate low temperatures 12 and salinity 2-7 ppm 6. Drifting in river ichthyoplankton with a peak in May 5.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

ADULTS:

  • WILD: may stay in sea or in the river until maturity 7. Lakes 15-7: 0-38 °C 4, tolerate low temperatures 12. No migration in introduced lake 4.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: migration from sea to river estuary 7. Lakes: 0-38 °C 4, incubation 1-15 °C 12, <12 ppm 12.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: no data found yet.



4  Reproduction

A species reproduces at a certain age, season, and sex ratio and possibly involving courtship rituals. What is the probability of the species reproducing naturally in captivity without manipulation?

There are unclear findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY: does not apply.

JUVENILES: does not apply.

ADULTS: does not apply.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: mature at 7-9 months 7 or 8-10 months 3 (females at 85 mm and 2.5 g, males at 80 mm and 3.1 g) 7 in December 16. Breeding season: late December  to mid February 1 or March 17 or late October-May 18-19-20, peak in January 7 3 or December 14. Spawning period: 30 days 21-8, mainly in January in norteastern China 16 10; asynchronous oocyte development 12 10 but single spawning 10. Sex ratio: female:male 0.3 22-8 or 1:1 18-19-16, population sex ratio: 1:1 10 23. SEMELPAROUS 19-11 24, die after spawning 7.
  • FARM: semi-dry fertilisation 1, artificial production of fertilised eggs 24; artificial breeding 25-26. Impossible to obtain eggs from natural spawning sites due to their small size 1. Natural breeding preferred due to higer fertilising rate than artificial breeding 24.
  • LAB: no data found yet.



5  Aggregation

Species differ in the way they co-exist with conspecifics or other species from being solitary to aggregating unstructured, casually roaming in shoals or closely coordinating in schools of varying densities. What is the probability of providing farming conditions that are compatible with the aggregation behaviour of the species?

There are unclear findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: 375,000-2,000,000 IND/m3 1.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: 936,000 IND/m3 when transplanted from breeding containers 1.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

ADULTS:

  • WILDno data found yet.
  • FARMno data found yet.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARMno data found yet.
  • LAB: no data found yet.



6  Aggression

There is a range of adverse reactions in species, spanning from being relatively indifferent towards others to defending valuable resources (e.g., food, territory, mates) to actively attacking opponents. What is the probability of the species being non-aggressive and non-territorial in captivity?

It is low for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY:

  • WILD: feed on zooplankton, cannibalism unlikely 10.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: cannibalism 10, feed on conspecifics 27-10, food competition 7, bimodal size distribution due to cannibalism 10.
  • FARM: cannibalistic with insufficient food 12.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

ADULTS:

  • WILD: JUVENILES.
  • FARM: JUVENILES.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: bimodal size distribution due to cannibalism 10.
  • FARMno data found yet.
  • LAB: no data found yet.



7  Substrate

Depending on where in the water column the species lives, it differs in interacting with or relying on various substrates for feeding or covering purposes (e.g., plants, rocks and stones, sand and mud). What is the probability of providing the species' substrate and shelter needs in captivity?

There are unclear findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Eggs:

  • WILD: adhesive 5. Lakes and reservoirs: sediment 28. Killed by thick silt 1.
  • FARM: no substrate 1. For details of holding systems S1.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

LARVAE and FRY:

  • WILD: sand 11. Lakes and reservoirs: sediment 28. Strong phototaxis 29.
  • FARM: reservoirs: manure added 2. For details of holding systems S2 and S1.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: sand 11. Lakes and reservoirs: sediment 28. Lakes: open waters 4.
  • FARM: LARVAE and FRY.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

ADULTS:

  • WILD:  JUVENILES.
  • FARM LARVAE and FRY.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: sand 11. Lakes and reservoirs: sediment 28.
  • FARM LARVAE and FRY.
  • LAB: no data found yet.



8  Stress

Farming involves subjecting the species to diverse procedures (e.g., handling, air exposure, short-term confinement, short-term crowding, transport), sudden parameter changes or repeated disturbances (e.g., husbandry, size-grading). What is the probability of the species not being stressed?

There are unclear findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Eggs:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

LARVAE and FRY:

  • WILD: low survival rate from LARVAE to JUVENILES 7. Heavily predated 7.
  • FARM: low survival rate from LARVAE to JUVENILES 1.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: sensitive to environmental changes: freshwater influx, water temperature, rainfall, environmental pollution 7. Heavily predated 7.
  • FARM: 98% survival rate after 20 h transportation trip 1, 93.1% survival rate after 29 h transportation 1.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

ADULTS:

  • WILD:  JUVENILES.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD:  JUVENILES.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: no data found yet.



9  Malformations

Deformities that – in contrast to diseases – are commonly irreversible may indicate sub-optimal rearing conditions (e.g., mechanical stress during hatching and rearing, environmental factors unless mentioned in crit. 3, aquatic pollutants, nutritional deficiencies) or a general incompatibility of the species with being farmed. What is the probability of the species being malformed rarely?

It is low for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Eggs:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

LARVAE and FRY:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: 75% survival rate 1. Unable to open the mouth 1.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

ADULTS:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: no data found yet.
  • FARM: no data found yet.
  • LAB: no data found yet.



10  Slaughter

The cornerstone for a humane treatment is that slaughter a) immediately follows stunning (i.e., while the individual is unconscious), b) happens according to a clear and reproducible set of instructions verified under farming conditions, and c) avoids pain, suffering, and distress. What is the probability of the species being slaughtered according to a humane slaughter protocol?

There are no findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions.

Likelihood
Potential
Certainty

Eggs: does not apply.

LARVAE and FRY: does not apply.

JUVENILES:

  • WILD: does not apply.
  • FARM: common slaughter method: no data found yet. High-standard slaughter method: no data found yet.
  • LAB: no data found yet.

ADULTS:

  • WILD: does not apply.
  • FARMno data found yet
  • LAB: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS:

  • WILD: does not apply.
  • FARMno data found yet
  • LAB: no data found yet.



Side note: Domestication

Teletchea and Fontaine introduced 5 domestication levels illustrating how far species are from having their life cycle closed in captivity without wild input, how long they have been reared in captivity, and whether breeding programmes are in place. What is the species’ domestication level?

DOMESTICATION LEVEL 2 30, level 5 being fully domesticated.




Side note: Forage fish in the feed

450-1,000 milliard wild-caught fishes end up being processed into fish meal and fish oil each year which contributes to overfishing and represents enormous suffering. There is a broad range of feeding types within species reared in captivity. To what degree may fish meal and fish oil based on forage fish be replaced by non-forage fishery components (e.g., poultry blood meal) or sustainable sources (e.g., soybean cake)?

All age classes:




Glossary


ADULTS = mature individuals, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
ANADROMOUS = migrating from the sea into fresh water to spawn
BENTHIC = living at the bottom of a body of water, able to rest on the floor
DEMERSAL = living and feeding on or near the bottom of a body of water, mostly benthopelagic, some benthic
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 2 = part of the life cycle closed in captivity, also known as capture-based aquaculture 30
EURYHALINE = tolerant of a wide range of salinities
FARM = setting in farming environment or under conditions simulating farming environment in terms of size of facility or number of individuals
FRY = larvae from external feeding on, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
IND = individuals
JUVENILES = fully developed but immature individuals, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
LARVAE = hatching to mouth opening, for details Findings 10.1 Ontogenetic development
SPAWNERS = adults during the spawning season; in farms: adults that are kept as broodstock
WILD = setting in the wild
SEMELPAROUS = dies after one time reproducing



Bibliography


1 Weigang, Shi, Zhang Minying, Liu Kai, Duan Jinrong, and Xu Dongpo. 2008. Method for cultivating Protosalanx hyalocranius fingerling.
2 Huang, Daoming, Jiashou Liu, and Chuanlin Hu. 2001. Fish resources in Chinese reservoirs and their utilisation. In Reservoir and culture-based fisheries: Biology and Management, 98:16–21. ACIAR Proceedings.
3 Wu, Hongjuan, and Musheng Xu. 2001. Growth Rates of Transplanted Large Icefish (Protosalanx hyalocranius) in Daoguanhe Reservoir, China. In Reservoir and culture-based fisheries: Biology and management, 98:179–182. ACIAR Proceedings.
4 Shi, Cheng-xi, and Rui-ju Liang. 1987. Lake Tai: The limnology of a shallow lake in China. GeoJournal 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00208205.
5 Jiang, Wei, Huan-Zhang Liu, Zhong-Hua Duan, and Wen-Xuan Cao. 2010. Seasonal Variation in Drifting Eggs and Larvae in the Upper Yangtze, China. Zoological Science 27: 402–409. https://doi.org/10.2108/zsj.27.402.
6 Weng, Xi, Cuiling Jiang, Menglin Yuan, Manxue Zhang, Tianshan Zeng, and Chun Jin. 2021. An ecologically dispatch strategy using environmental flows for a cascade multi-sluice system: A case study of the Yongjiang River Basin, China. Ecological Indicators 121: 107053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107053.
7 Shuozeng, Dou, and Chen Dagang. 1994. Taxonomy, biology and abundance of icefishes, or noodlefishes (Salangidae), in the Yellow River estuary of the Bohai Sea, China. Journal of Fish Biology 45: 737–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1994.tb00940.x.
8 Xiao, Zhao, Zhang Yalan, and Li Shiyu. 2008. Ecological Risk Assessment of DDT Accumulation in Aquatic Organisms of Taihu Lake, China. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal 14: 819–834. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807030802235268.
9 Zeng, Jin, Liuyan Yang, Xue Wang, Wen-Xiong Wang, and Qinglong L. Wu. 2012. Metal accumulation in fish from different zones of a large, shallow freshwater lake. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 86: 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2012.09.003.
10 Tang, Fujiang, Wei Liu, Jilong Wang, and James Henne. 2020. Life-history traits and intra-cohort divergence of clearhead icefish (Protosalanx chinensis), indicating cannibalism increased fitness. PeerJ 8: e9900. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9900.
11 Tang, F. J., W. Liu, J. L. Wang, J. Henne, and X. S. Cui. 2015. Clearhead icefish, (Protosalanx hyalocranius Abbott, 1901) (Salmoniformes, Salangidae), a new non-native species has established a population in the Amur River, China. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 31: 177–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.12454.
12 Kang, Bin, Junming Deng, Zhongming Wang, and Jie Zhang. 2015. Transplantation of Icefish (Salangidae) in China: Glory or Disaster? Reviews in Aquaculture 7: 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12047.
13 Xing, Tengfei, Yulong Li, and Jinxian Liu. 2022. Anthropogenic influences on genetic diversity and differentiation of the clearhead icefish (Protosalanx hyalocranius), as revealed by mitochondrial and microsatellite DNA markers. Regional Studies in Marine Science 55: 102547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2022.102547.
14 Cheng, Hanliang, Xuefeng Han, Quancheng Zhang, and Shaojie Zhang. 2003. Reproductive biology of Protosalanx hyalocranius in Liaohe River water syste. Zhongguo shui chan ke xue = Journal of fishery sciences of China 10: 437–439.
15 Sun, G. Y. 1982. Study on Salangidae of the Yangzte River Delta and its adjacent waters. J East China Nor University 1: 111–119.
16 Tang, F. J., W. Liu, J. Wang, R. Froese, and S. Xie. 2012. Growth, length-weight relationship and biological information on the clearhead icefish ( Protosalanx hyalocranius Abbott, 1901) in Lake Khanka (Xingkai): Data on Protosalanx hyalocranius in Lake Khanka. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 28: 842–844. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2012.01961.x.
17 ZhongSuo, Wang, F. U. CuiZhang, and L. E. I. GuangChun. 2002. Biodiversity of Chinese Icefishes (Salangidae) and their conserving strategies. Biodiversity Science 10: 416. https://doi.org/10.17520/biods.2002057.
18 Zhang, K. X., D. D. Zhuang, L. Zhang, C. L. Gao, J. Y. Zhang, and A. Z. Xu. 1981. On the Protosalanx hyalocranius and its propagation in Hongze Hu. Journal of Fisheries of China 5: 29–39.
19 Xie, Han, Zuo-peng Tang, Tu-hao Xie, Bo Li, Xing-you Li, Fu-rong Yuan, Kai-ming Duan, and Ya-quan Sun. 2001. Aspects of repoductive biology of large icefish (Protosalanx hyalocranius ) in Shuifeng Reservoir.pdf. Journal of Dalian Fisheries University 16: 79–86.
20 Tang, F. J., W. Liu, J. L. Wang, and A. Brown. 2013. On the occurrence of the clearhead icefish, Protosalanx hyaloranius (Salmoniformes: Salangidae), in the Songhua River, the largest tributary of Amur River. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 29: 237–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2012.02050.x.
21 Li, Y, and CD Zhu. 2005. Fish Dictionary of the Taihu Lake. , Shanghai, China. Shanghai, China: Science Publishing Company.
22 Xia, D. Q., Y. Cao, W. U. Ting Ting, and H. Yang. 1999. Genetic structures of population of Protosalanx chinensis, Neosalanx taihuensis and Neosalanx oligodontis in Lake Taihu. J Fish China 3: 254–60.
23 Li, Yu-Long, Teng-Fei Xing, and Jin-Xian Liu. 2020. Genome-wide association analyses based on whole-genome sequencing of Protosalanx hyalocranius provide insights into sex determination of Salangid fishes. Molecular Ecology Resources 20: 1038–1049. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13172.
24 Tang, Fujiang, Wenyan Gao, Huiqin Li, and Wei Liu. 2020. Biology and fishery ecology of Protosalanx chinensis: a review. Journal of Fisheries of China 44: 2100–2111. https://doi.org/10.11964/jfc.20200312210.
25 Wang, Y., J. Chen, H. Wang, K. Zhang, and H. Li. 2019. Study on the technique of artificial propagation of large ice fish (Protosalanx hyalocranius). Journal of Aquaculture 12: 18.
26 Xing, Teng-Fei, Yu-Long Li, and Jin-Xian Liu. 2021. Female-specific genomic regions and molecular sex identification of the clearhead icefish (Protosalanx hyalocranius). BMC Genomics 22: 495. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-021-07830-9.
27 Tang, Fu-Jiang, Wei Liu, Ji-Long Wang, Zhe Li, and Song-Guang Xie. 2013. Diet composition and transition of clearhead icefish( Protosalanx hyalocranius )in Lake Xingkai. Zoological Research 34: 493–498. https://doi.org/10.11813/j.issn.0254-5853.2013.5.0493.
28 ZhaoTing, Fan, Chen WeiXing, Liu Yi, Fang JingJie, and Liu QingZhen. 2010. Prosperity and disappearance of introduced fishes in Xiangmoshan reservoir. Journal of Northeast Agricultural University (English Edition) 17: 29–37.
29 Gong, Shiyuan, Xuefen Yang, Ruibin Yang, Yongquan Xu, Shouhua Lu, Xunpu Zhang, Kaixue Liang, Yingjie Liu, Guozhang Yan, and Yanqing Wang. 1997. Observation of the development of embryoes of Protosalanx hyalocranius in Wuhan region and their transplanting proble. Journal Huazhong Agricultural University 16: 394–398.
30 Teletchea, Fabrice, and Pascal Fontaine. 2012. Levels of domestication in fish: implications for the sustainable future of aquaculture. Fish and Fisheries 15: 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12006.
31 Zhu, C. 1985. Preliminary studies on the growth and feeding habits of the large icefish. J. Fish 9: 275–287.
32 Jiashou, Liu, Peng Jianhua, Yu Fuhu, Jiang Jie, Yao Xianquin, and Yi Yuanhong. 2001. Estimation of the New Icefish Neolsalanx taihuensis Yield in Zhanghe Reservoir, China. In Reservoir and culture-based fisheries: Biology and Management, ed. Sena S. De Silva, 183–187. Proceedings of an International Workshop Held in Bangkok, Thailand from 15–18 February 2000. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research.


contents
show all details
«