Skip to main content
Home

 

Register/Add a study

Menu

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Search The Database

Search The Database

Search Database Menu

  • View All Articles
  • Techniques Glossary
  • Fishing Gear Types
  • Add a Study
Displaying 131 - 140 of 568
Location Gear Catch Technique Bycatch species Type Results

Strait of Sicily

Hooks-and-Lines
Swordfish
Circle hooks
Caretta caretta (Loggerhead turtle) Field study in the wild
Summary: The use of circle hooks (16/0) instead of J hooks (size 2) on pelagic longline gear, reduced the incidental capture of immature loggerhead sea turtles and did not affect the catch rates or fish size of the target species. There was also a significant difference in hook location between the two hooks, with more J hooks being swallowed.
Effect on Bycatch: Circle hooks reduced the incidental capture of immature sea turtles
Reference:
Piovano, S., Swimmer, Y., Giacoma, C., 2009 , Are circle hooks effective in reducing incidental captures of loggerhead sea turtles in a Mediterranean longline fishery?

Northeastern Australia

Hooks-and-Lines
Bigeye and yellowfin tuna
Alternative leader design
Sharks Field study in the wild
Summary: Catch rates of blue marlin, snake mackerel and sharks were lower when nylon monofilament leaders, instead of wire leaders, were used on pelagic longline gear but bigeye tuna and black marlin catch rates increased. (No effect on yellowfin). Nylon leaders also had higher bite-off rates than the wire leaders.
Effect on Bycatch: Wire leaders had higher catch rates of sharks when compared to nylon monofilament leaders
Reference:
Ward, P., Lawrence, E., Darbyshire, R. and Hindmarsh, S., 2008 , Large-scale experiment shows that nylon leaders reduce shark bycatch and benefit pelagic longline fisheries

Australia

Trawls
Tiger prawn
Excluder devices
Sea Snakes Field study in the wild
Summary: The yarrow fisheye bycatch reduction device reduced the weight of small bycatch by an average of 22.7% and the number of seasnakes caught by an average of 43.3%, with no loss of tiger prawn.
Effect on Bycatch: reduced mean weight of small bycatch and mean number of seasnakes caught
Reference:
Heales, D.S., Gregor, R., Wakeford, J., Wang, Y.G., Yarrow, J. , Milton, D.A., 2008 , Tropical prawn trawl bycatch of fish and seasnakes reduced by yarrow fisheye bycatch reduction device

Florida

Traps
Blue crabs
Trap guards (T-bars, otter guards)
Terrapins Field study in the wild
Summary:

This study determined that 73.2% of diamondback terrapins could have been prevented from entering crab pots if bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) had been used. Additionally, there was no significant difference in the sex, size or number of crabs in pots fitted with BRDs.

Effect on Bycatch: The use of bycatch reduction devices would reduce incidental capture of diamondback terrapins
Reference:
Butler, J.A., Heinrich, G.L., 2007 , The effectiveness of bycatch reduction devices on crab pots at reducing capture and mortality of diamondback terrapins (Malaclemys terrapin) in Florida

Western Australia

Trawls
red emperor, scarlet perch, spangled emperor, Rankin cod, blue spot emperor, rosy threadfin brea, flagfish, frypan snapper, red snapper and goldband snapper
Excluder devices
Small Cetaceans (maximum length < 7.5 meters) Field study in the wild
Summary: A semi-flexible exclusion grid with a bar spacing of 15.5 cm reduced dolphin bycatch in the Pilbara trawl fishery by close to 50% and reduced the bycatch of sea turtles, large sharks and rays. However, the fate of the dolphins that encountered the grid and escaped is unknown.
Effect on Bycatch: Reduced dolphin bycatch by almost 50% and reduced bycatch of sea turtles, large sharks and large rays
Reference:
Stephenson, P.C., Wells, S., King, J.A., 2008 , Evaluation of exclusion grids to reduce the bycatch of dolphins, turtles, sharks and rays in the Pilbara trawl fishery

Norway

Hooks-and-Lines
Torsk (Brosme brosme), ling (Molva molva) and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus)
Bird-scaring devices
Seabirds Field study in the wild
Summary: Bird-scaring lines, underwater setting and line shooters all reduced the incidental capture of seabirds, with bird-scaring lines being the most effective. These mitigation measures also reduced bait loss and increased the catch rates of target species.
Effect on Bycatch: Reduced incidental capture of seabirds, mostly fulmars
Reference:
Lokkeborg, S., 2003 , Review and evaluation of three mitigation measures-bird-scaring line, underwater setting and line shooter-to reduce seabird bycatch in the north Atlantic longline fishery

Norway

Hooks-and-Lines
Torsk (Brosme brosme), ling (Molva molva) and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus)
Sub-surface sets (gillnets)
Seabirds Field study in the wild
Summary: Bird-scaring lines, underwater setting and line shooters all reduced the incidental capture of seabirds, with bird-scaring lines being the most effective. These mitigation measures also reduced bait loss and increased the catch rates of target species.
Effect on Bycatch: Reduced incidental capture of seabirds, mostly fulmars
Reference:
Lokkeborg, S., 2003 , Review and evaluation of three mitigation measures-bird-scaring line, underwater setting and line shooter-to reduce seabird bycatch in the north Atlantic longline fishery

Norway

Hooks-and-Lines
Torsk (Brosme brosme), ling (Molva molva) and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus)
Sub-surface bait setting
Seabirds Field study in the wild
Summary: Bird-scaring lines, underwater setting and line shooters all reduced the incidental capture of seabirds, with bird-scaring lines being the most effective. These mitigation measures also reduced bait loss and increased the catch rates of target species.
Effect on Bycatch: Reduced incidental capture of seabirds, mostly fulmars
Reference:
Lokkeborg, S., 2003 , Review and evaluation of three mitigation measures-bird-scaring line, underwater setting and line shooter-to reduce seabird bycatch in the north Atlantic longline fishery

Pamlico Sound, North Carolina

Gillnets
flounder
Low profile gillnet
Sea Turtles Field study in the wild
Summary: Low profile gillnets with a panel height of six feet and no tie downs or additional floats had significantly fewer interactions with sea turtles and caught significantly less bycatch than standard gillnets. Catches of the target species (flounder) were also reduced in the low profile gillnets.
Effect on Bycatch: Reduced incidental capture of sea turtles and bycatch species
Reference:
Price, B., Van Salisbury, C., 2007 , Low-profile gillnet testing in the deep water region of Pamlico Sound, NC.

Pamlico Sound, North Carolina

Gillnets
flounder
Sub-surface sets (gillnets)
Sea Turtles Field study in the wild
Summary: Low profile gillnets with a panel height of six feet and no tie downs or additional floats had significantly fewer interactions with sea turtles and caught significantly less bycatch than standard gillnets. Catches of the target species (flounder) were also reduced in the low profile gillnets.
Effect on Bycatch: Reduced incidental capture of sea turtles and bycatch species
Reference:
Price, B., Van Salisbury, C., 2007 , Low-profile gillnet testing in the deep water region of Pamlico Sound, NC.

Pagination

  • First page « First
  • Previous page ‹ Previous
  • …
  • Page 10
  • Page 11
  • Page 12
  • Page 13
  • Current page 14
  • Page 15
  • Page 16
  • Page 17
  • Page 18
  • …
  • Next page Next ›
  • Last page Last »

©2022 Consortium for Wildlife Bycatch Reduction  |  All rights reserved

  • Home
  • About Us
  • What's Bycatch?
    • Species List
  • Database of Publications
    • Bycatch Reduction Techniques Fact Sheets
  • Research Programs
    • Consortium Publications
  • Our Donors and Partners
  • Funding Opportunities
  • Join the Exchange
  • News
  • Events
  • Log in