Fisheries and Resources Monitoring System

EspañolFrançais
Deep-sea red crab - South East Atlantic
Fact Sheet Title  Fact Sheet
Stock status report 2023
Deep-sea red crab - South East Atlantic
Fact Sheet Citation  
Deep sea red crab
Owned bySouth East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (SEAFO) – ownership
ident Blockident Blockdisplay tree map
 
Species List:
Species Ref: en - Chaceon geryons nei, fr - Géryons Chaceon nca, es - Geriones Chaceon nep
ident Block Deep-sea red crab - South East Atlantic
Aq Res
Biological Stock: Yes         Value: Regional
Management unit: Yes        Reference year: 2023
 
 
Aq Res State Trend
Aq Res State Trend
Aq Res State Trend
Aq Res State TrendUncertain/Not assessedGray
Aq Res State TrendUncertain/Not assessed
History
 

The SEAFO deep-sea red crab fishery started in 2001 when a Spanish vessel first reported red crab catches of less than 1 tonne. Since then the fishery has been accessed by Japanese, Namibian, Portuguese and Korean flagged vessels respectively. The depth range of the SEAFO deep-sea red crab fishery has been recorded to be between 280 to 1150 meters. Specifications of the fishing vessels that were fishing deep-sea red crab are outlined in Table 1.


Table 1. Vessel specification of each year of fishing for Deep-sea red crab
Year Vessel Name Flag Callsign IMO Code Gear Type Length
2005 KINPO MARU 58 JPN JFXB LL, Pot 62.6
2007 CRAB QUEEN 1 NAM V5XD 8909628 LL, Pot 49.61
2010 SEIRYO MARU NO1 JPN JNNI 8617586 LL, Pot 37.06
2011 CRAB QUEEN 1 NAM V5XD 8909628 LL, Pot 49.61
2012 CRAB QUEEN 1 NAM V5XD 8909628 LL, Pot 49.61
2013 CRAB QUEEN 1 NAM V5XD 8909628 LL, Pot 49.61
2014 CRAB QUEEN 1 NAM V5XD 8909628 LL, Pot 49.61
2015 MERIDIAN NO8 KOR DTBX5 9230646 LL, Pot 54.55
2017 NOORDBURG KALAPUSE NAM V5WO 7121736 LL, Pot 48.9
2017 SEIRYO MARU NO1 JPN JNNI 8617586 LL, Pot 37.06
2018 CRAB QUEEN 1 NAM V5XD 8909628 LL, Pot 49.61
2020 SEIRYO MARU NO1 JPN JNNI 8617586 LL, Pot 37.06
2021 SEIRYO MARU NO1 JPN JNNI 8617586 LL, Pot 37.06

* LL = Longline * NAM = Namibia * JPN = Japan * KOR = Republic of Korea * IMO = International Maritime Organisation

The Namibian, Korean and Japanese vessels’ gear setup (design & set deployment) are very similar. Japanese beehive pots are used (Fig. 1). The beehive pots are conical metal frames covered in fishing net with an inlet shoot (trap entrance – Fig. 1) on the upper side of the structure and a catch retention bag on its underside. When settled on the seabed the upper side of the trap are roughly 50cm above the ground ensuring easy access to the entrance of the trap. The trap entrance leads to the kitchen area of the trap – which is sealed off by a plastic shoot that ensures all crabs end up in the bottom of the trap.


Figure 1. Deep-sea red crab fishing gear setup (set deployment and design) and illustration of a Japanese beehive pot (shown in enlarged form on the right).



One set or pot line consists of about 200-400 beehive pots, spaced roughly 18 m apart, on a float line attached to two (start & end) anchors for keeping the gear in place on the seabed (Fig. 1). The start & end points of a set are clearly marked on the surface of the water with floats and one A5 buoy that denotes the start of a line. Under this setup (i.e. 400 pots at 18 m intervals) one crab fishing line covers a distance of roughly 7.2 km (3.9 nm) on the sea floor and sea surface.
Habitat Bio
Climatic Zone: Temperate.   Bottom Type: Unspecified.   Depth Zone: Slope (200 m - 1000 m).   Horizontal Dist: Oceanic.   Vertical Dist: Demersal/Benthic.  


One species of deep-sea red crab has been recorded in Division B1, namely Chaceon erytheiae (López-Abellán et al. 2008) and is thus considered the target species of this fishery. Aside from the areas recorded in catch records the overall distribution of Chaceon erytheiae within the SEAFO CA is still unknown. Further encounter records documented through video footage during the 2015 FAO-Nansen VME survey in the SEAFO CA indicate that deep-sea red crab are distributed across a major part of the Valdivia seamount range, as well as the Ewing and Vema seamounts (DOC/SC/22/2015).


Geo Dist
Geo Dist: Straddling between High Seas and EEZ


In the SEAFO Convention Area fishing for deep-sea red crab is focussed mainly on Chaceon erytheiae on Valdivia Bank – a fairly extensive seamount that forms part of the Walvis Ridge. This seamount is located in Division B1 of the SEAFO Convention Area (CA) and has been the main fishing area of the deep-sea crab fishery since 2005. The spatial distribution of the catches aggregated to a 10 km2 hexagonal area for each year can be seen in Figures 2 to 9. Fishing occurred over a depth range of 280-1150 meters.


Figure 2. The 2010 catch distributions for Deep-sea red crab in Division B1 aggregated to a 10 km2 hexagonal area.


Figure 3. The 2011 catch distributions for Deep-sea red crab in Division B1 aggregated to a 10 km2 hexagonal area.


Figure 4. The 2012 catch distributions for Deep-sea red crab in Division B1 aggregated to a 10 km2 hexagonal area.


Figure 5. The 2013 catch distributions for Deep-sea red crab in Division B1 aggregated to a 10 km2 hexagonal area.


Figure 6. The 2014 catch distributions for Deep-sea red crab in Division B1 aggregated to a 10 km2 hexagonal area.


Figure 7. The 2015 catch distributions for Deep-sea red crab in Division B1 aggregated to a 10 km2 hexagonal area.
Figure 8. The 2017 catch distributions for Deep-sea red crab in Division B1 aggregated to a 10 km2 hexagonal area.
Figure 9. The 2018 catch distributions for Deep-sea red crab in Division B1 aggregated to a 10 km2 hexagonal area.
Figure 10. The spatial distribution of Deep-sea red crab during 2020 and 2021 in SEAFO Division B1. This catch position data shown here represents a single fishing trip that spanned the months of December 2020 and January 2021 - for this reason the data were presented on a single map (and not split into two separate maps - i.e. 2020 and 2021 maps).


Water Area Overview
Spatial Scale: Regional

Water Area Overview
Aq Res Struct
Biological Stock: Yes

Exploit
 

Reported landings (Table 2) comprise of catches made by Japanese, Namibian, Spanish, Portuguese and Korean-flagged vessels over the period 2001-2021. No fishing for Deep-sea red crab took place during 2022. From Table 3 the two main players in the SEAFO Deep-sea red crab fishery are Japan and Namibia, respectively, with Spanish and Portuguese vessels having only sporadically fished for Deep-sea red crab in the SEAFO CA over the period from 2003 to 2007. Spanish-flagged vessels actively fished for Deep-sea red crab in the SEAFO CA during 2003 and 2004, whereas Portuguese-flagged vessels only fished for Deep-sea red crab during 2007. The only reported catch outside SEAFO Division B1 was made by Portugal in SEAFO Division A1 during 2007.


Table 2. Catches (tonnes) of Deep-sea red crab (Chaceon spp. – considered to be mostly Chaceon erytheiae).
Flag State Japan Rep of Korea Namibia Spain Portugal Research
Fishing method Pots Pots Pots Pots Pots Bottom Trawl
Management Area B1 B1 B1 UNK A B1
Year (t) Retain Discard Retain Discard Retain Discard Retain Discard Retain Discard Retain TOTAL
2001 N/F N/F <1 <1
2002 N/F N/F 0
2003 N/F N/F 5 5
2004 N/F N/F 24 24
2005 253 0 N/F N/F 54 307
2006 389 N/F N/F 389
2007 770 N/F N/F 3 0 35 808
2008 39 N/F N/F 39
2009 196 N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F 196
2010 200 0 N/F N/F N/F N/F 200
2011 N/F N/F N/F N/F 175 0 N/F N/F N/F N/F 175
2012 N/F N/F N/F N/F 198 0 N/F N/F N/F N/F 198
2013 N/F N/F N/F N/F 196 0 N/F N/F N/F N/F 196
2014 N/F N/F N/F N/F 135 0 N/F N/F N/F N/F 135
2015 N/F N/F 104 0 N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F 104
2016 N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F 0
2017 140 0 N/F N/F 7 0 N/F N/F 147
2018 N/F N/F N/F N/F 173 0 N/F N/F N/F N/F 173
2019 N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F
2020 31 0 N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F 31
2021 20 0 N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F 20
2022 N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F <1 <1
2023* N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F N/F
TOTAL 2038 0 104 0 941 0 29 0 35 0 0 3147

* Provisional (August 2023); N/F = No Fishing; Blank fields = No data available; UNK = Unknown.

Annual catches in relation to TAC for Deep-sea red crab in SEAFO Division B1 and the remaining SEAFO CA are illustrated graphically in Figure 11.
Figure 11. Annual catches in relation to TAC for Deep-sea red crab in SEAFO Division B1 and the remaining SEAFO CA. The only reported catch outside B1 is that made by Portugal in SEAFO Division A1 during 2007 (see Table 3 for clarity).



Being a pot fishery, the Deep-sea red crab fishery has an almost negligible bycatch impact. To date only 5kg of teleost (Marine nei and European sprat) fish discards have been recorded during 2010 from this fishery. As of 2010, however, minimal to moderate bycatches of king crabs have been recorded (see Section 5.3 for additional information).


Bio Assess
 

Currently the only data available for the assessment for C. erytheiae abundance within the SEAFO CA are the catch and effort data from which a limited catch-per-unit effort (CPUE) series can be constructed.

As part of the annual updating of the Deep-sea red crab abundance index another attempt was made during 2021 at standardizing the CPUE index. Following the outcomes of the 2015 assessment that revealed “SoakTime” as an unreliable factor for consideration in the CPUE standardization, “SoakTime” was again omitted from the 2021 standardization of the annual CPUE from the SEAFO Deep-sea red crab fishery. Table 3 outlines the number of sets used in the CPUE standardization.


Table 3. Number of sets per year for which catch and effort data are available for the CPUE standardization. No fishing was recorded during 2016 and 2019.
2005 2007 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2017 2018 2020 2021
157 10 181 133 129 103 107 73 142 177 38 27



The records from 2007 were excluded from the analysis as they were derived from an area not exploited in the remaining years, constituting only 10 sets, and were not comparable to datasets from the rest of the data series. In addition to this the 7 sets from a Namibian vessel that conducted some very uncharacteristic crab fishing operations during 2017 were also removed from the analysis as the data from this vessel was severely disparate (both in terms of total set number and catch) from all of the remaining data in the SEAFO database.

The following variables from each record were considered in the model:

Year - A 12-month period – explanatory variable (covariate).

SEASON - The seasonal cycle – explanatory variable (covariate).

VesselID - Identification code for a participating vessel – explanatory variable (covariate).

Zone - Identification code for a fishing area – explanatory variable (covariate).Co-ordinates where categorized into three smaller fishing zones reflecting the fishing records within Division B1.

Depth-Fishing depth – explanatory variable (covariate). Depth was categorized into 50 metre intervals covering the entire range of depths recorded by the fishery.

Pots - The number of baited pots used per set during fishing operations – explanatory variable (co-variate).

CPUE - Catch/number of pots – response variable.



Results from the CPUE standardization are presented below to illustrate some of the more important outputs and methods applied.

The maximum set of model parameters offered to the stepwise selection procedure was:

CPUE = β0 + β1 Year + β2 VesselID + β3 Depth + β4Zone + β5Season + β6Pots + ɛ

A stepwise backward model selection procedure was deployed in selecting the covariates, to the model. The model with lowest Akaike value (AIC - Akaike Information Criterion) was selected as the best model, since it has a better predictive power. The best model (outlined below) was then used for further analysis.

CPUE = β0 + β1 Year + β3 Depth+ β4 Zone +β5 Season + β6Pots + ɛ

Table 4 presents the estimates of the coefficients, standard error and t values for different levels of the factors entered into the selected model. Model, covariates year, depth, zone, season and pots all had very significance with p-values of 2.2*10-16, 1.037*10-9,3.766*10-4,5.084*10-4 and 2.2*10-16 indicating strong covariance with deep-sea red crab catch rates.


Table 4. ANOVA results for the CPUE model.
Covariates Df Deviance Residual Df Residual Deviance Pr(>Chi)
NULL 1262 1546.83
Year 10 713.11 1252 833.72 < 2.2e-16 ***
Depth 17 30.79 1235 771.34 1.481e-14 ***
Zone 2 7.00 1233 755.13 1.316e-06 ***
as.factor(SEASON) 3 7.85 1230 736.44 7.668e-07 ***

Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1



Model diagnostics of the best model were assessed. This involved checking for normality of the residuals and the spread of the residuals across the fitted values. A total of 82 outliers were removed (out of a total of 1198 data points – i.e. outliers removed equates to 6.8% of entire dataset) on the basis of residual skewness and Cook’s Distance disparity. After the removal of the outlier’s, diagnostic plots revealed improved distributions thus indicating that model assumptions were not violated. QQ plots of the residuals indicated that the model residuals were well within the excepted limits for data skewness (Fig. 12). Plots of the residuals versus fitted values indicated evenly distributed data points, no overridingly skewed patterns in the plot (Fig. 12). Therefore, there is no evidence of non-constant error variance in the residual plot and independence assumption also appeared reasonable.


Figure 12. QQ and studentized residual plots of the best lognormal fit model for retained catch CPUE (kg/pot).



Results from the standardized CPUE exercise suggest that the CPUE has fluctuated during the period 2005 to 2015. However, the confidence margins are fairly wide for the main part of the CPUE series (especially for 2013 and 2015 – Fig. 13), which indicates that the CPUE for these years (i.e. 2005, 2013 & 2015) are more comparable to each other than the CPUEs for the rest of the time series (Fig. 13). Furthermore, with the exception of 2010 - 2017 the CPUEs for the last two years of the data series were very close to zero (0.08 and 0.05 Kg/Pot, respectively) (Fig. 13).
Figure 13. Trends in catch CPUE indexes for catches per pot – with soak time as a categorical variable (factor) not included in the model. Standardized Index (black line) with the 95% Confidence Intervals (whiskers).


Data

The available SEAFO data (2005-2021) for purposes of considering possible assessment strategies are presented in Table 5.


Table 5. Description of the entire Deep-sea red crab database highlighting important datasets.
Year Flag State Data Type - Source Brief Description [NB Data Groups only]
2005 JPN Catch Data – Observer Report Set-by-Set data (vessel ID, set-haul positions & dates), Depth, Catch, Effort - (157 records).
2007 NAM Catch Data –Observer Report Set-by-Set data (vessel ID, set-haul positions & dates), Depth, Catch, Effort - (10 records - sets).
2010 JPN Catch & Biological Data – Observer Report Set data (vessel ID, set-haul positions & dates), Depth, Length, Weight, Catch, Effort - (Catch: 181 records, Biological: 5430 records).
2011 NAM Catch & Biol. Data – Observer Report Set-by-Set data (vessel ID, set-haul positions & dates), Depth, Length, Weight, Catch, Effort - (Catch: 133 records, Biological: 3990 records).
2012 NAM Catch & Biol. Data – Obs. Report & Captain’s Logbook [log sheet data] Set-by-Set data (vessel ID, set-haul positions & dates), Depth, Length, Weight, Catch, Effort - (Catch: 129 records, Biological: 3600 records).
2013 NAM Catch Data – Captain’s Logbook [log sheet data] Set-by-Set data (vessel ID, set-haul positions & dates), Depth, Catch, Effort - (Catch: 103 records, Biological: 3090 records).
2014 NAM Catch Data – Captain’s Logbook [log sheet data] Set-by-Set data (vessel ID, set-haul positions and dates), Depth, Length, Weight, Catch, Effort – (Catch: 107 records, Biological: 10660 records)
2015 KOR Catch Data – Fishing Logbook data Set-by-Set data (vessel ID, set-haul positions and dates), Depth, Length, Weight, Catch, Effort – (Catch: 73 records, Biological: 5554 records)
2017 JPN & NAM Catch Data – Fishing Logbook data Set-by-Set data (vessel ID, set-haul positions and dates), Depth, Length, Weight, Catch, Effort – (Catch: 142 records, Biological: 5554 records)
2018 NAM Catch Data – Fishing Logbook data& Biological Data (not from Observer Report) Set-by-Set data (vessel ID, set-haul positions and dates), Depth, Length, Weight, Catch, Effort – (Catch: 177 records, Biological: 17700 records)
2020 JPN Catch Data – Fishing Logbook data & Biological Data Set-by-Set data (vessel ID, set-haul positions and dates), Depth, Length, Weight, Catch, Effort – (Catch: 38 records, Biological: 3800 records)
2021 JPN Catch Data – Fishing Logbook data & Biological Data Set-by-Set data (vessel ID, set-haul positions and dates), Depth, Length, Weight, Catch, Effort – (Catch: 27 records, Biological: 2700 records)



Very limited fisheries-independent data on deep-sea red crabs exists for the SEAFO CA. A total of 479 deep-sea red crabs were sampled during the 2008 Spanish-Namibia survey on Valdivia Bank. The data was collected over a depth range of 867-1660 m. Additionally 127 deep-sea red crab samples were collected onboard the RV Fridtjof Nansen during the SEAFO VME mapping survey conducted at the start of 2015.

Fishery-dependent data exist only for more recent years (2010-2021) of the SEAFO Deep-sea red crab fishery (Fig. 14). During 2022 a small quantity of Deep-sea red crab (157 kg) was caught during a research bottom trawl survey in Division B1 – the results of which are still pending. Biological data from the fishery comprise gender-specific length-frequency, weight-at-length, female maturity and berry state data (Table 6).

Sampling frequencies from 2010 to 2021 can be seen in Table 6.


Table 6. Sampling statistics from the Deep-sea red crab commercial fleet within the SEAFO CA (2010-2021). No fishing was recorded during 2016 and 2019.
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2017 2018 2020 2021
Total number of sets 181 133 129 103 107 73 145 177 38 27
Total number of crabs sampled per set 30 30 30 30 100 136 100 100 100 100
Total number of crabs sampled 5430 3990 3600 3077 10654 32500 13500 17700 3800 2700


Assess Models
Length data and frequency distribution

Available length-frequency data for crabs caught in the SEAFO CA over the period 2010-2021 are presented in Figure 14. Length-frequency data from all areas sampled in Division B1 were pooled as no significant differences were detected between areas.


Figure 14. Carapace width frequencies (in percentages) of crabs sampled from commercial catches [2010-2015, 2017-2018 and 2020-2021]. Notes: “n” = sample size; “u” = mean carapace width.



For the period 2010-2018 there have been no significant changes in the female crab size distribution (Fig. 14). The male crab size distribution changed from a wider size distribution in 2010 and 2011, where larger male crabs were recorded, to a slightly narrowed size distribution in 2012-2014 of smaller crabs. During 2015 a lot more female crabs larger than 110 mm were recorded than any preceding years since 2010 (Fig. 14).

The male to female sex ratio of the crab commercial samples ranged from a maximum of 4:1 to around 2:1 in favour of male crabs – a well-known selectivity effect of the commercial traps used in this fishery.

Since the 2018 season, continuing into the 2020 and 2021 seasons, the biological dataset has revealed a peculiar trend in relation to the sex ratios of crabs sampled from the SEAFO commercial fleet (Fig. 14). Under normal circumstances male crabs generally dominate the commercial catch sex ratio (in terms of numbers) as a result of the well-known sexual dimorphism of crabs, and the retention bias of the fishing gear. Male crabs generally grow faster than female crabs and as a result attain greater sizes than similarly aged female crabs. Considering that the commercial traps have fixed mesh sizes, the traps generally retain more male than female crabs (as females, being smaller, easily fall out of the traps during the fishing process when traps are hauled from the seabed to the sea surface). For this reason commercial catches generally contain greater numbers of male crabs than females – which is clearly evident from the sex ratios of biological data recorded during former years, 2010-2017 (Fig. 14). This, however, changed in 2018 when the male to female sex ratios started to balance out and even reversed so that female crabs started to dominate the samples taken from commercial catches during the 2020 and 2021 fishing seasons (Fig. 14). This is a peculiar change in the commercial sex ratio as it was recorded by two vessels, i.e. FV Crab Queen 1 and the Seiryo Maru No. 1, with the most pronounced sex ratio change recorded by the Seiryo Maru No. 1 during January 2021 (Fig. 14). Further investigation into the latest sex ratio change is required to fully understand what the underlying cause for this anomaly could be.

Length-weight relationship derived from catches on Valdivia Bank reveal the gender-specific growth disparity (Fig. 15). Male crabs grow at a faster rate than females and thus attain much larger sizes than female crabs. This species attribute, however, is not unique to Chaceon erytheiae and has been recorded for other crab species in the Chaceon genus (Le Roux, 1997). Data from the 2008 survey show a much more coherent length-weight relation for both male and female crabs (Fig. 16).


Figure 15. Length-at-weight data for Chaceon erytheiae as recorded from catches on Valdivia Bank (2008-2015). Red text show female length-weight relationship, blue text show male length-weight relationship.


Figure 16. Length-at-weight data for Chaceonerytheiae as recorded from the 2008 Spain-Namibia survey (López-Abellán et al. 2008).


Results
Ref Point
 

At this point in time it should be noted that no biological reference points exist for this stock in the SEAFO CA.

However, it is worthwhile to note that the C. erytheiae stock, based on the grounds of it being a long-lived and relatively stable stock, is a good candidate for an empirical Harvest Control Rule (HCR) similar to that applied to the Greenland halibut stock by the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO). This is a simple HCR that merely considers that slope of an abundance index such as the CPUE and applies a catch limit to future years based in the current year’s TAC. The concept is as follows:



Slope: average slope of the Biomass Indicator (CPUE, Survey) in recent 5 years.

  • λu :TAC control coefficient if slope > 0 (Stock seems to be growing): λu=1
  • λd :TAC control coefficient if slope < 0 (Stock seems to be decreasing): λd=2
  • TAC generated by the HCR is constrained to ±5% of the TAC in the preceding year.


For the interim this is considered to be a fairly good starting point, given the current status of the C. erytheiae resource, until such time that additional data are available for more advance stock assessment approaches.


Results

The biological data series obtained from the SEAFO deep-sea red crab fishery, although short, is of relatively good quality. Nevertheless, important data such as growth parameter for the C. erytheiae stock, which will enhance the cohort analyses of the resource, was not available for the SEAFO CA and emphasis needs to be given in collecting this data for future assessments.


Management
Management unit: Yes

Advice

Fishing activities in 2021 providing required catch and effort data to update the CPUE series which form the basis for the application of the HCR as adopted by the Commission in 2015.The SC applying the HCR based on CPUE trend (Figure 17).


Figure 17. Comparison of the regression lines fitted to both the nominal and standardised CPUEs (2015-2021) for use in the Harvest Control Rule.





Considering that no catches were recorded outside Division B1 the 2024 & 2025 TAC recommendations are only applied to Division B1.

TAC2024 = TAC2021 * (1 + (2 * slope))

TAC2024 = 171 tonnes * (1 + (2 * -0.4238))

TAC2024 = 26 tonnes

The SC agreed to adopt the best estimate of the slope which is -0.4238. Under this scenario the HCR stipulates the use of “Rule 2” for setting the TAC.

The difference between the 2022-2023 and proposed 2024 TAC is greater than the 5% limit stipulated by the HCR. SC therefore recommends a TAC for 2024 and 2025 be set at 162 tonnes for Division B1, and 200 tonnes for the remainder of the SEAFO CA.


Sources
 
SC-SEAFO-2023. Report of the 19th Annual Meeting of the SEAFO Scientific Committee. 2023. Click to openhttp://www.seafo.org/media/d382742f-a9a8-4f54-ab94-209c2a88aa02/SEAFOweb/pdf/Meeting%20Files/2023/Reports/SC%20Report%202023_pdf
SC-SEAFO-2022. Report of the 18th Annual Meeting of the SEAFO Scientific Committee. 2022. Click to openhttp://www.seafo.org/media/5ff117f9-7401-426c-ab71-ce2e1188fd6c/SEAFOweb/pdf/Meeting%20Files/2022/Reports/SC%20Report%202022_pdf
SC-SEAFO-2020. Report of the 16th Annual Meeting of the SEAFO Scientific Committee. 2020. Click to openhttp://www.seafo.org/media/a1812c93-c85f-417b-82cc-a88889374b3a/SEAFOweb/pdf/Meeting%20Files/2020/SC/SC%20Report%202020_pdf
SC-SEAFO-2019. Report of the 15th Annual Meeting of the SEAFO Scientific Committee. 2019. Click to openhttp://www.seafo.org/media/578a3179-65a6-4778-ac48-c76ef891b4ed/SEAFOweb/pdf/SC/private/2019/eng/SC%20Report%202019%20-%20Final_pdf
SC-SEAFO-2017. Report of the 13th Annual Meeting of the SEAFO Scientific Committee. 2017. Click to openhttp://www.seafo.org/media/72e43665-5c43-4038-9f1f-96eebef05325/SEAFOweb/pdf/Meeting%20Files/2017/SC/SC%20Report%202017_pdf
SC-SEAFO-2016. Report of the 12th Annual Meeting of the SEAFO Scientific Committee. 2016. Click to openhttp://www.seafo.org/media/4ca98f5f-c111-4bcf-875b-36ac3213b8b7/SEAFOweb/pdf/SC/open/eng/SC%20Report%202016_pdf
Bibliography
 
Le Roux, L. “Stock assessment and population dynamics of the Deep-sea red crab Chaceon maritae (Brachyura, Geryonidae) off the Namibian Coast. M.Sc. thesis, University of Iceland, Department of Biology. 88 pp.” 1997.
López-Abellán, L.J., J.A. Holtzhausen, L.M. Agudo, P. Jiménez, J.L. Sanz, M. González-Porto, S. Jiménez, P. Pascual, J.F. González, C. Presas, E. Fraile and M. Ferrer “Preliminary report of the multidisciplinary research cruise on the Walvis Ridge seamounts (Atlantic Southeast-SEAFO). Part I-II: 191 pp.” 2008 Click to openhttp://www.repositorio.ieo.es/e-ieo/handle/10508/370?locale-attribute=en
powered by FIGIS  © FAO, 2024
Powered by FIGIS
crawl