SemOpenAlex |

SemOpenAlex

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1537307805> ?p ?o ?g. }

Showing items 1 to 100 of ±110 with 100 items per page.

W1537307805 endingPage "342" @default.
W1537307805 startingPage "327" @default.
W1537307805 abstract "The American Fisheries Society (AFS) has routinely assessed the contributions of hatcheries to natural resource management and issued recommendations to guide natural resource managers in the best uses of hatchery-origin fish. For the past several decades, AFS has explored these issues in a formalized process at approximately 10-year intervals. In response to changes in fisheries management policy, new information on supplementation and rehabilitation, and fisheries issues that had arisen since the previous cycle, AFS undertook the latest cycle of this iterative process in 2012. Dubbed Hatcheries and Management of Aquatic Resources (HaMAR), the process brought together representatives from many fisheries disciplines to generate the present guidance document. Distilled from information gathered from a scoping survey, symposia, and other sources, this AFS-approved document is intended to provide aquatic resource managers with timely and comprehensive guidance regarding hatcheries and their products. The American Fisheries Society (AFS) is the oldest, largest, and most influential professional organization devoted to fisheries conservation. In this capacity, AFS has routinely assessed the contributions of hatcheries to natural resource management and issued recommendations to guide natural resource managers in the best uses of hatchery-origin fish. AFS has explored these issues in a formalized process at approximately 10-year intervals. Representatives of the Fish Culture and Fisheries Management sections came together at Lake of the Ozarks, Missouri, in 1985 to address the question “Fish culture—fish management's ally?” in a symposium entitled “The Role of Fish Culture in Fisheries Management” (Stroud 1986). In 1994, AFS reexamined the issues of fisheries enhancement in the context of emerging ecosystem-based approaches to resource management in a symposium and workshop entitled “Uses and Effects of Cultured Fishes in Aquatic Ecosystems” (Schramm and Piper 1995). A similar process was undertaken in 2003–2004 to again review the uses of hatchery-origin fish and new scientific findings by means of a symposium, a Web-based survey of fisheries professionals, and a facilitated workshop. These efforts were collectively referred to as “Propagated Fishes in Resource Management” (PFIRM). In 2012, AFS initiated the next cycle in this iterative process, dubbed “Hatcheries and Management of Aquatic Resources” (HaMAR). Each of the previous cycles yielded proceedings publications: Fish Culture in Fisheries Management (Stroud 1986), Uses and Effects of Cultured Fishes in Aquatic Ecosystems (Schramm and Piper 1995), and Propagated Fishes in Resource Management (Nickum et al. 2004), and most recently a guidance document, Considerations for the Use of Propagated Fishes in Resource Management (Mudrak and Carmichael 2005; see Supplement A in the online version of this paper, hereafter referred to as “PFIRM Considerations”). The PFIRM Considerations guide provided resource managers with general recommendations for decision making and successful implementation of fisheries supplementation, rehabilitation, and restoration programs. The present guidance document represents an update and expansion of the PFIRM Considerations publication. It is intended to provide aquatic resource managers with timely and comprehensive guidance regarding hatcheries and their products, including finfish, crustaceans, mollusks, reptiles, and other aquatic biota. In response to changes in fisheries management policy, new information on supplementation and rehabilitation, and fisheries issues that have arisen since the previous cycle, AFS President William Fisher established the HaMAR steering committee in 2012. The steering committee was charged with reengaging AFS in addressing issues related to hatchery operation and the role of hatchery-origin fish in aquatic resource management. The steering committee represented the perspectives of interested AFS sections as well as state, provincial, and federal agencies, Native Americans and First Nations, and the Science Consortium for Replenishment of the Oceans. Collectively, this group worked to develop, organize, and implement the HaMAR process. Following completion of a scoping survey and a fact-finding symposia (see below), the authors prepared the present guidance document. Demographics of the respondents to the HaMAR scoping survey conducted in 2012. The results are summarized by geographic region, employer type, major fisheries discipline, and affiliation with AFS sections. A total of 431 responses were received by the deadline. Fisheries professionals working in Mexican states were targeted during the survey process, but no responses were received. A scoping survey was conducted to help develop fact-finding sessions to elucidate current and emerging issues related to the use of hatchery products in aquatic resource management. In consultation with their “constituencies,” the HaMAR steering committee members prepared a list of topics regarding hatchery operation and the use of hatchery-origin fish. These topics formed the basis of a scoping survey that asked respondents to rank them with respect to their importance. The respondents were also asked to comment on the current relevance of the PFIRM Considerations guide and provide any additional insights that they had regarding the status of hatcheries and the use of hatchery-origin fish. Requests to complete the survey were distributed by various means, including AFS and AFS unit listserv lists, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies listserv, and other mechanisms. Nearly 450 responses were received from employees of state, provincial, and federal agencies; academics; tribal–First Nation authorities; and representatives from the private sector, nonprofit groups, and nongovernmental organizations as well as a wide range of AFS unit affiliations (Figure 1). Responses were received from 48 states and 3 Canadian provinces. Respondents identified habitat restoration and management efforts as critical companions to fish stocking programs. The most important contemporary issues related to hatcheries and hatchery-origin fish included monitoring and the adaptive management of stocking programs; the development of propagation techniques that result in genetically appropriate and healthy hatchery-origin fish; fish health and access to disease management tools; and understanding the limitations of hatchery-origin fish and stocking programs (Figure 2). These and the other highest-ranking topical areas became the central foci of the planned fact-finding symposia. Respondents indicated that the core considerations identified in the PFIRM process were still relevant but that the relative importance of each had changed, with greater priority being given to the creation of comprehensive fishery management plans, consideration of biological and environmental feasibility, and risk–benefit analysis (Figure 3). The new structure and focus of the present guidance document was chosen, in part, to reflect these apparent shifts in fisheries professionals' priorities. Top 10 topics identified by the scoping survey. Approximately 40 topics were ranked by the respondents on a scale ranging from 0 (not important) to 5 (extremely important). The values shown are the average ranks. Elements of the decision-making process described in Considerations for the Use of Propagated Fish in Resource Management ranked according to the priorities identified by the respondents to the scoping survey. The values are the percentages of the respondents who indicated that those elements were among the three most important considerations in determining whether or not to initiate a stocking program. Based on the priority topics identified by the scoping survey, presentations were solicited for the AQUACULTURE 2013 conference (Nashville, Tennessee, February 21–25, 2013). Ten papers were presented on topics such as hatchery reform in Washington, Idaho, and South Carolina; emerging disease issues and how these affect hatchery operation; and the effectiveness of nontraditional restoration partnerships. Many participants also made presentations in related sessions organized by others involved in hatchery operation and the use of hatchery-origin fish. A larger symposium was developed for the AFS annual meeting in 2013 (Little Rock, Arkansas, September 8–12, 2013). Underwritten by the AFS Fish Culture, Introduced Fishes, and Fisheries Management sections and organized with help from the Fish Habitat, Fish Health, Fisheries Administration, Genetics, Marine Fisheries, Physiology, and Water Quality sections, the symposium featured topics related to each of these disciplines and others such as tribal–First Nations trust responsibilities and human dimensions. Information gathered from the scoping survey, symposia, and other sources was distilled by the authors into the present guidance document. It is intended to provide timely information regarding hatcheries and their products to aquatic resource managers and decision makers. It is further intended to provide a set of guiding principles for resource management efforts that may call for the use of hatchery-origin fish, including the conservation of commercial and recreational fisheries, the creation of new fishing opportunities, imperiled species restoration, and others. Herein we present a summary of the PFIRM Considerations and then discuss the wide range of considerations for the use of hatcheries and hatchery-reared fish. These considerations involve such topics as habitat restoration and management; the uses, expectations, and limitations of hatcheries and hatchery-reared fish; and monitoring and adaptive management. We then discuss hatchery operations and techniques, the use of conservation hatcheries, fish health and disease issues, biosecurity, the genetic integrity of stocks, interactions between hatchery and wild fish, and risk assessment. Finally, we conclude with a summary of concerns yet to be resolved. Concurrent with the development of the present guidance document, some of the HaMAR-related symposium presentations were appropriately peer-reviewed and are published here in this special section of the journal. Comprehensive fishery management plans: these plans should guide resource managers through their choices with respect to stocking fish, evaluating stocking programs, and managing fisheries in an adaptive, responsive fashion. The comprehensive management planning process should recognize and consider alternatives to stocking and include inputs from various resource partners. When stocking is recommended, specific goals and objectives should be considered. The objectives should be specific, measurable, accountable, realistic, and time-fixed (Meffe et al. 2002). Biological and environmental feasibility: decisions to stock propagated fish should be predicated on science-based evaluations that indicate that the environment can support the stocked fish and that stocking will achieve the identified management objectives. Risk and benefit analysis: scientific evaluations should be conducted to determine the effects that stocked fish may have on the environment and on native and naturalized biota (including humans), along with the benefits and risks of the various approaches. Of particular importance are the potential beneficial or harmful effects of increased and directed public use of aquatic environments; particular caution should be exercised when introducing fish to an area where they did not occur previously. Economic evaluation: benefits and costs should be comprehensively evaluated and quantified as well as possible. Public involvement: Decision makers should try to keep the public informed about pending changes in fisheries management, encouraging dialogue and providing a forum for public input. Moreover, when appropriate, they should educate the public on legal and interjurisdictional issues, including tribal and First Nations treaty rights and responsibilities. Interagency cooperation: Managers should share technical, science-based fisheries information to strengthen interagency coordination and interjurisdictional fisheries monitoring programs. They should also recognize the regulatory and legal differences pertaining to the different jurisdictions involved (the United States, Canada, Mexico, tribes, provinces, states, territories, and special federal lands such as national parks and military reservations). The PFIRM Considerations provide a good summary of the issues that fisheries managers considered important at the time for their comprehensive planning process and subsequent decisions involving the use of stocked fish. We believe that the PFIRM Considerations are still a primary resource for managers in developing fisheries management plans that include stocking propagated fish. However, much scientific progress has been made in the decade since publication of the PFIRM Considerations on the issues of hatcheries and hatchery fish. The HaMAR process was initiated to attempt to capture the current information on the stocking of propagated fish and to examine how the related issues and priorities have changed. The HaMAR scoping survey respondents were asked to assess the current relevance of the major elements identified in the PFIRM Considerations. More specifically, they were asked to identify which three of the seven elements they considered to be the most important in terms of contemporary stocking programs. Whereas all seven elements remain relevant, the creation of comprehensive fishery management plans, consideration of biological and environmental feasibility, and risk–benefit analysis were emphasized as the highest priorities (Figures 2, 3). For example, establishing appropriate uses for hatchery-origin fish, defining expectations for stocking programs, and understanding the limitations of both are integral to the creation of a comprehensive fishery management plan, as is consideration of complementary habitat rehabilitation and other management efforts. Similarly, developing propagation methods that ensure the genetic integrity and health of hatchery-origin fish is essential to success. The importance of risk–benefit analysis was directly reaffirmed in the context of risk assessment and decision making. From these results, it is clear that the PFIRM Considerations remain relevant, but there is now even more emphasis on integrated management and a need for greater specificity in considering the use of hatcheries and hatchery-origin fish. In the following sections, each of the priority topics identified during the HaMAR process is addressed in detail. Whereas the focus of the present guidance document is the use of hatcheries and hatchery-origin fish, it is imperative to note that stocking is just one leg of the “three-legged stool” of fisheries management. Stocking is unlikely to be successful in the absence of complementary habitat rehabilitation and harvest management strategies. Increasingly, management approaches must also be inclusive of strategies to control or eradicate competing invasive species. Walters and Martel (2004) noted a few instances when stocking went wrong, and these were primarily related to disconnects between stocking, habitat, and harvest control. In these cases, the lack of an integrated approach resulted in the replacement of wild fish with hatchery recruits with no net increase in stock size; excessive pressure following stocking, resulting in overfishing of wild fish; overexploitation of the available forage by the stocked species (because the number of stocked fish exceeded the carry capacity of the system); and genetic effects on the long-term viability of the wild stock. Walters and Martel (2004) stressed the importance of identifying relevant metrics and benchmarks, closely monitoring the effects of stocking, and collecting targeted data on stocking effectiveness or ineffectiveness. This information is essential to adaptive management and engaging regulatory authorities and stakeholders in scientifically justifiable decision making (see Leber and Leber et al. abstracts in Supplement B). Stage I: initial appraisal and goal setting. In this stage, decision makers and stakeholders establish a decision-making process, evaluate the potential for enhancement to further fisheries management goals, prioritize species for enhancement based on biological criteria, and assess the potential economic and social costs and benefits of enhancement. Stage II: research and technology development, including pilot studies. In this stage, the “nuts and bolts” of hatchery operation and fish production are established, including identification of proper rearing systems, husbandry methods, and release protocols. During this phase, genetic resource management and fish health management plans are developed and implemented to ensure the genetic and physiological integrity of the cultured fish. Stage III: operational implementation and effectiveness analysis. In this stage, management plans are defined and implemented so that the effects of stocking are monitored and decision points and metrics are established and used to best meet program objectives. These steps reflect the recommendations identified in the PFIRM Considerations document in many ways, but the full document (Mudrak and Carmichael 2005; Supplement A) provides a greater level of detail and specific guidance to decision makers and resource managers (see Lorenzen et al. 2010 for further information; see also the Leber and Leber et al. abstracts in Supplement B). Hatcheries and hatchery-origin fish are an essential component of many fishery management plans. However, there are limitations to stocking, and failure to recognize and address these limitations may lead to unintended consequences. In the 19th century, hatcheries were viewed as technological marvels that could turn degraded waters, newly formed reservoirs and impoundments, and underused waterways into bountiful sources of food and recreation (often in the form of nonnative species) as well as address declining catches in established fisheries (see the Moffitt abstract in Supplement B). It is still tempting to view hatchery-origin fish as a “quick fix,” but like other quick fixes, they are unlikely to resolve systemic issues unless applied as part of a comprehensive solution. If not implemented responsibly, enhancement may lull regulatory authorities into false confidence or dissuade them from addressing the root cause of the identified problem (Leber 2013). Lack of a clear fishery-management perspective; Lack of fishery stock assessments and modeling to explore the potential positive and negative effects of stocking; Ignoring the need to establish a structured decision-making process; Lack of stakeholder involvement in the planning and execution of the stocking program from the beginning; and Failure to thoroughly integrate flexible and adaptive management into the stocking plan. Leber (2013) underscored these issues, emphasizing the need for better integration between hatcheries and the fisheries management programs they are intended to support, and suggested that greater stakeholder awareness of the issues, pitfalls, progress, and opportunities related to a stocking program will lead to more realistic expectations and better fisheries for all. Principle 1. Every hatchery stock must have well-defined goals in terms of desired benefits and purpose. Goals and objectives should be well defined and explicit and include (1) the number of fish intended to be harvested, (2) the number of fish returning to a hatchery or spawning naturally in a watershed (i.e., escapement), and (3) the expected results of any associated scientific research. Goals must reflect the purpose and desired benefits of the program (e.g., harvest, conservation, research, and education), and monitoring plans need to be in place to track progress. Principle 2. The goals of hatchery programs and the day-to-day operations of hatcheries must be scientifically defensible. Once the goals for a program are established, the scientific rationale for the design and operation of the program must be explicitly described so that it can be understood by all personnel and, ideally, the general public. The approach must represent a logical progression to achieve the management goals and should be based on knowledge of the target ecosystem and the best scientific information available. Scientific oversight and peer review should be integral components of every hatchery program. Principle 3. Hatchery programs must be flexible and respond adaptively to new information. Scientific monitoring is necessary for all stocking programs and, ideally, programs should be evaluated annually to allow timely adjustments. Hatcheries should be managed flexibly and adaptively to respond to new goals, new scientific information, and changes in the status of natural stocks and habitat. If possible, evaluations should include assessments of survival, the contributions of hatchery-origin adults to harvest and natural reproduction, and genetic (e.g., inbreeding and outbreeding depression) and ecological (e.g., competition, predation, and disease transmission) interactions between hatchery- and natural-origin fish. The HSRG also emphasized that maintaining healthy habitat is critical not only to maintaining viable, self-sustaining, natural populations but also to adequately controlling the risks of hatchery programs and realizing their benefits. As noted above, it is absolutely essential that fishery management plans include preestablished timelines and criteria for evaluating enhancement and deciding whether to continue, modify, or terminate the stocking program. Such recurrent decisions require the adoption of a formal adaptive management framework (Williams et al. 2007). The specific objectives and benchmarks of effectiveness will vary from one situation to another depending on the nature of the stocking program and the stakeholders involved and their values. Stocking may be conducted in perpetuity to support a put-and-take fishery, but such an approach would not be an appropriate benchmark for enhancement efforts intended to establish or reestablish a self-sustaining population. Decision points and triggers must be developed and accepted by regulatory authorities and stakeholders before they are needed. The decision to continue or discontinue a long-standing stocking program can be fraught with political discord without agreed-upon criteria and quantitative measures to reference, leading to the decision-making process's being easily delayed or derailed and resulting in lost time and resources as well as low cost–benefit ratios (see the Johnson et al. abstract in Supplement B). Mark all, or at least a known proportion, of the fish released from hatcheries; Mark as many as possible wild fish of the same size and at the same location as the hatchery fish being released; Experimentally vary hatchery releases over a wide range from year to year and from area to area, rotating stocking annually to break up the confounding effects of competition and predation with shared environmental effects; Monitor changes in total recruitment, production, and fishing effort in targeted fish populations, not just the percentage contribution of hatchery fish to production; Monitor changes in the fishing mortality rates of both wild and hatchery fish directly, through carefully conducted tagging and recovery programs that measure short-term probabilities of capture; and Monitor the reproductive performance of hatchery-origin fish and hatchery–wild hybrid crosses in the wild using genetic information from both hatchery and wild fish (see Leber, Leber et al. and Hesse et al. abstracts in Supplement B). These requirements emphasize marking hatchery-origin fish. Marking or tagging all hatchery releases so that they can be easily distinguished from conspecific wild fish is an especially valuable tool for broodstock management, selective fisheries, and evaluation of the ecological and genetic implications of stocking. However, identifying hatchery-origin fish with physical tags or external marks may be costly, affect poststocking fitness and survival, or be inconsistent with stakeholder values, particularly those of some native peoples. Minimizing the intrusive marking and handling of fish supports cultural and spiritual beliefs, shows respect for the fish, and maximizes their survival. Alternative means of identifying hatchery-origin fish, such as genetic “fingerprinting” (parentage-based tagging), thermal otolith marking, and otolith microchemistry are becoming increasingly popular as generating and managing the associated data becomes increasingly feasible and cost effective. Such marking techniques can also be valuable in assessing the fate of hatchery-origin fish with large home ranges or complex life histories (i.e., anadromous stocks; ISRP/ISAB 2009). Hatchery programs with multiple releases should consider tagging a portion of each group released (the constant fractional marking strategy), recognizing that the number of tagged fish influences the rigor and statistical power of the analysis. Not all fish tolerate the same environmental conditions, and husbandry methods vary substantially among the hundreds of finfish species that are reared throughout the world. Just as propagation techniques vary from fish to fish, what constitutes best management practices for a hatchery depends on the operation's requirements. Examples of such requirements include the taxa to be raised, the size required by managers, and whether the fish are expected to recruit to the fishery following release or simply satisfy angler demand for catchable-sized fish. The answers to these and related questions will determine what propagation methods, fish quality and genetic requirements, and operational standards are appropriate for the hatchery. Harvest augmentation: fish stocking with little to no expectations beyond return to the creel (also referred to as put-and-take and put-grow-take fisheries and sea ranching); Supplementation: recurrent releases of juvenile fish to compensate for poor recruitment caused by limitations related to habitat quantity or quality, environmental quality, or intense harvest pressure (also referred to as restocking or stock enhancement and related to terms including conservation and captive broodstock; note that harvest augmentation and supplementation may be conducted to address ecosystem balance as well as population-level concerns); Reintroduction: short-term releases to reestablish a locally extinct or extirpated population; Integrated hatchery program: a program that produces fish genetically similar to the wild population and has as a long-term goal the creation of a self-sustaining, naturally spawning population capable of providing adult fish for broodstock each year; Segregated hatchery program: a program that produces a distinct, hatchery-supported population that is reproductively isolated from wild populations (such a program creates a new, hatchery-adapted population intended to meet goals for harvest or other purposes, e.g., research, education); and Experimental: fish stocking to conduct or facilitate research projects or hypothesis testing. Harvest augmentation or production hatcheries use industrialized rearing techniques and focus on the efficient, low-cost production of large numbers of fish to increase the number in a receiving system. These operations do not necessarily focus on genetic management or on mimicking natural rearing conditions. Fish originating from such facilities can be genetically or behaviorally distinct from wild fish and may not exhibit local adaptations or maximum fitness after they are stocked. As a result, these types of hatcheries are best suited to supplying fish for put-and-take or put-grow-take management plans. Supplementation hatcheries often use the same rearing systems as production hatcheries but differ in that the fish they produce are generally intended to become naturally spawning individuals after stocking. These types of hatcheries generally use gametes from wild-origin broodstock and follow strict breeding and release protocols to minimize the loss of genetic diversity and artificial selection in the hatchery environment. Fish originating from supplementation hatcheries are raised to be similar to wild fish, and are best suited to management plans intended to increase the number of naturally spawning individuals or recruitment. Conservation hatcheries are an extreme form of supplementation hatcheries and follow protocols to intensively manage the genetic integrity of the broodstock as well as the overall fitness of the progeny. Culture methods are typically modified to mimic natural conditions to the extent feasible. Fish originating from conservation hatcheries have been raised to be as genetically and behaviorally similar to wild fish as possible and are best suited to management plans focused on the restoration of imperiled populations. Conservation hatcheries also serve increasingly important roles as refugia for rare species or genetic profiles. Many hatcheries are functional “hybrids,” operating as harvest augmentation, supplementation, or conservation hatcheries by turns or simultaneously to produce various fish in a manner consistent with their intended uses. Clear and well-documented objectives are essential for all hatchery programs, especially for facilities rearing fish for different uses. (See the Flagg abstract in Supplement B). During the development and operation of hatchery programs, managers are often faced with having to address competing and often conflicting objectives or mandates. For instance, in the Pacific Northwest almost two dozen stocks of Pacific salmon Oncorhynchus spp. are now listed as threatened or endangered unde" @default.
W1537307805 created "2016-06-24" @default.
W1537307805 creator A5010454225 @default.
W1537307805 creator A5016659064 @default.
W1537307805 creator A5017004042 @default.
W1537307805 creator A5018866771 @default.
W1537307805 creator A5020115815 @default.
W1537307805 creator A5029243846 @default.
W1537307805 creator A5031980304 @default.
W1537307805 creator A5038545047 @default.
W1537307805 creator A5046075053 @default.
W1537307805 creator A5052062776 @default.
W1537307805 creator A5053637722 @default.
W1537307805 creator A5057252114 @default.
W1537307805 creator A5060823673 @default.
W1537307805 creator A5080448739 @default.
W1537307805 creator A5087527749 @default.
W1537307805 date "2015-06-19" @default.
W1537307805 modified "2023-09-30" @default.
W1537307805 title "Introduction to a Special Section: Hatcheries and Management of Aquatic Resources (HaMAR)—Considerations for Use of Hatcheries and Hatchery-Origin Fish" @default.
W1537307805 cites W1568752427 @default.
W1537307805 cites W1972511812 @default.
W1537307805 cites W2006699374 @default.
W1537307805 cites W2036095174 @default.
W1537307805 cites W2083030713 @default.
W1537307805 cites W2111579658 @default.
W1537307805 cites W2115571644 @default.
W1537307805 cites W2132931112 @default.
W1537307805 cites W2136808700 @default.
W1537307805 cites W2158898020 @default.
W1537307805 cites W2169004799 @default.
W1537307805 cites W4247803849 @default.
W1537307805 cites W4302432883 @default.
W1537307805 doi "https://doi.org/10.1080/15222055.2015.1017130" @default.
W1537307805 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
W1537307805 type Work @default.
W1537307805 sameAs 1537307805 @default.
W1537307805 citedByCount "12" @default.
W1537307805 countsByYear W15373078052015 @default.
W1537307805 countsByYear W15373078052018 @default.
W1537307805 countsByYear W15373078052019 @default.
W1537307805 countsByYear W15373078052020 @default.
W1537307805 countsByYear W15373078052021 @default.
W1537307805 countsByYear W15373078052022 @default.
W1537307805 countsByYear W15373078052023 @default.
W1537307805 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
W1537307805 hasAuthorship W1537307805A5010454225 @default.
W1537307805 hasAuthorship W1537307805A5016659064 @default.
W1537307805 hasAuthorship W1537307805A5017004042 @default.
W1537307805 hasAuthorship W1537307805A5018866771 @default.
W1537307805 hasAuthorship W1537307805A5020115815 @default.
W1537307805 hasAuthorship W1537307805A5029243846 @default.
W1537307805 hasAuthorship W1537307805A5031980304 @default.
W1537307805 hasAuthorship W1537307805A5038545047 @default.
W1537307805 hasAuthorship W1537307805A5046075053 @default.
W1537307805 hasAuthorship W1537307805A5052062776 @default.
W1537307805 hasAuthorship W1537307805A5053637722 @default.
W1537307805 hasAuthorship W1537307805A5057252114 @default.
W1537307805 hasAuthorship W1537307805A5060823673 @default.
W1537307805 hasAuthorship W1537307805A5080448739 @default.
W1537307805 hasAuthorship W1537307805A5087527749 @default.
W1537307805 hasBestOaLocation W15373078051 @default.
W1537307805 hasConcept C112698675 @default.
W1537307805 hasConcept C113516966 @default.
W1537307805 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
W1537307805 hasConcept C141896089 @default.
W1537307805 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
W1537307805 hasConcept C2779958227 @default.
W1537307805 hasConcept C2780129039 @default.
W1537307805 hasConcept C2909208804 @default.
W1537307805 hasConcept C2993458768 @default.
W1537307805 hasConcept C505870484 @default.
W1537307805 hasConcept C61696701 @default.
W1537307805 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
W1537307805 hasConcept C86909935 @default.
W1537307805 hasConceptScore W1537307805C112698675 @default.
W1537307805 hasConceptScore W1537307805C113516966 @default.
W1537307805 hasConceptScore W1537307805C127413603 @default.
W1537307805 hasConceptScore W1537307805C141896089 @default.
W1537307805 hasConceptScore W1537307805C144133560 @default.
W1537307805 hasConceptScore W1537307805C2779958227 @default.
W1537307805 hasConceptScore W1537307805C2780129039 @default.
W1537307805 hasConceptScore W1537307805C2909208804 @default.
W1537307805 hasConceptScore W1537307805C2993458768 @default.
W1537307805 hasConceptScore W1537307805C505870484 @default.
W1537307805 hasConceptScore W1537307805C61696701 @default.
W1537307805 hasConceptScore W1537307805C86803240 @default.
W1537307805 hasConceptScore W1537307805C86909935 @default.
W1537307805 hasIssue "3" @default.
W1537307805 hasLocation W15373078051 @default.
W1537307805 hasLocation W15373078052 @default.
W1537307805 hasOpenAccess W1537307805 @default.
W1537307805 hasPrimaryLocation W15373078051 @default.
W1537307805 hasRelatedWork W1998611604 @default.
W1537307805 hasRelatedWork W2013513150 @default.
W1537307805 hasRelatedWork W2056138133 @default.
W1537307805 hasRelatedWork W2188006762 @default.
W1537307805 hasRelatedWork W2188242430 @default.