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 621 - 628 of 628
Location Gear Catch Technique Bycatch species Type Results

Northern Australia

Trawls
Prawns
Excluder devices
Sea Snakes, Hydrophis elegans (Elegant sea snake), Hydrophis hardwickii (Spine-bellied sea snake), Hydrophis major (Olive-headed sea snake) Field study in the wild
Summary:

The catches from five experimental trawls (TED + fisheye BRD, upward facing TED, downward facing TED, bigeye BRD and square-mesh panel BRD) were compared to those of the standard twin Florida Flyer prawn trawl. Nets with a combination of a TED and BRD reduced sea turtle catches by 100%, large sponges by 85.3%, sharks by 36.3% and rays by 17.7% and reduced the proportion of soft and damaged prawns by 41.6% and catches of tiger prawns by 6.5%. Upward and downward facing TEDs reduced sea turtle bycatch by 99% and 100% respectively and large sponges by 81.6% and 95.9% respectively. Catches of tiger prawns (P. semisulcatus and P. esculentus) were reduced by 6.3% with the use of TEDs. The BRDs had little impact on the catch of either target or bycatch species.

Effect on Bycatch: ~5% fewer in nets with TED+BRD compared w/ control; TED only or BRD only did not differ from control
Reference:
Brewer, D., Heales, D., Milton, D., Dell, Q., Fry, G., Venables, B., Jones, P., 2006 , The impact of turtle excluder devices and bycatch reduction devices on diverse tropical marine communities in Australia's northern prawn trawl fishery

Northern Australia

Trawls
Prawns
Excluder devices
Elasmobranchs, Sharks, Carcharhinus dussumieri (Whitecheek shark), Carcharhinus tilstoni (Australian blacktip shark), Skates/Rays, Anoxypristis cuspidata (Narrow sawfish), Gymnura australis (Australian butterfly ray), Himantura toshi (Brown whipray), Rhynchobatus djiddensis (Giant guitarfish) Field study in the wild
Summary:

The catches from five experimental trawls (TED + fisheye BRD, upward facing TED, downward facing TED, bigeye BRD and square-mesh panel BRD) were compared to those of the standard twin Florida Flyer prawn trawl. Nets with a combination of a TED and BRD reduced sea turtle catches by 100%, large sponges by 85.3%, sharks by 36.3% and rays by 17.7% and reduced the proportion of soft and damaged prawns by 41.6% and catches of tiger prawns by 6.5%. Upward and downward facing TEDs reduced sea turtle bycatch by 99% and 100% respectively and large sponges by 81.6% and 95.9% respectively. Catches of tiger prawns (P. semisulcatus and P. esculentus) were reduced by 6.3% with the use of TEDs. The BRDs had little impact on the catch of either target or bycatch species.

Effect on Bycatch: Significantly fewer sharks caught using TED+BRD, TED, BRD only; significant reduction in rays in TED+BRD and TED only compared with control; significant reduction in sawfish catch in nets with a TED. Less reduction in bycatch for small sharks and rays.
Reference:
Brewer, D., Heales, D., Milton, D., Dell, Q., Fry, G., Venables, B., Jones, P., 2006 , The impact of turtle excluder devices and bycatch reduction devices on diverse tropical marine communities in Australia's northern prawn trawl fishery

Northern Australia

Trawls
Prawns
Excluder devices
Corals, sponges, other benthic invertebrates (not specified to species level) Field study in the wild
Summary:

The catches from five experimental trawls (TED + fisheye BRD, upward facing TED, downward facing TED, bigeye BRD and square-mesh panel BRD) were compared to those of the standard twin Florida Flyer prawn trawl. Nets with a combination of a TED and BRD reduced sea turtle catches by 100%, large sponges by 85.3%, sharks by 36.3% and rays by 17.7% and reduced the proportion of soft and damaged prawns by 41.6% and catches of tiger prawns by 6.5%. Upward and downward facing TEDs reduced sea turtle bycatch by 99% and 100% respectively and large sponges by 81.6% and 95.9% respectively. Catches of tiger prawns (P. semisulcatus and P. esculentus) were reduced by 6.3% with the use of TEDs. The BRDs had little impact on the catch of either target or bycatch species.

Effect on Bycatch: Nets with TED+BRDs and only TEDs reduced large-sized sponge catch by ~85%. No change using BRDs only.
Reference:
Brewer, D., Heales, D., Milton, D., Dell, Q., Fry, G., Venables, B., Jones, P., 2006 , The impact of turtle excluder devices and bycatch reduction devices on diverse tropical marine communities in Australia's northern prawn trawl fishery

Northern Australia

Trawls
Prawns
Excluder devices
Bony Fishes, Juvenile/Non-target fishes (not specified to species level) Field study in the wild
Summary:

The catches from five experimental trawls (TED + fisheye BRD, upward facing TED, downward facing TED, bigeye BRD and square-mesh panel BRD) were compared to those of the standard twin Florida Flyer prawn trawl. Nets with a combination of a TED and BRD reduced sea turtle catches by 100%, large sponges by 85.3%, sharks by 36.3% and rays by 17.7% and reduced the proportion of soft and damaged prawns by 41.6% and catches of tiger prawns by 6.5%. Upward and downward facing TEDs reduced sea turtle bycatch by 99% and 100% respectively and large sponges by 81.6% and 95.9% respectively. Catches of tiger prawns (P. semisulcatus and P. esculentus) were reduced by 6.3% with the use of TEDs. The BRDs had little impact on the catch of either target or bycatch species.

Effect on Bycatch: The combination of TEDs and BRDs reduced the weight of small bycatch by 8% This appears to be almost entirely due to TEDs, which produced a similar result on their own
Reference:
Brewer, D., Heales, D., Milton, D., Dell, Q., Fry, G., Venables, B., Jones, P., 2006 , The impact of turtle excluder devices and bycatch reduction devices on diverse tropical marine communities in Australia's northern prawn trawl fishery

Florida, United States

Pots
Blue crab (Callinectes sapidus)
Excluder devices
Terrapins, Malaclemys terrapin (Diamondback terrapin) Field study in the wild
Summary:

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

Effect on Bycatch: 73.2% of terrapins captured in the study could have been prevented from entering crab pots with functional BRDs
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

Northeast Atlantic

N/A Mammals, Large Cetaceans (maximum length > 7.5 meters), Small Cetaceans (maximum length < 7.5 meters) Summary study
Summary:

Potential risk of fisheries to cetaceans was assessed using a screening procedure based on a Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) using gears found in Ireland. Gillnets targeting demersal species was assessed as the fishery posing the greatest risk to cetaceans. Pelagic trawls targeting small pelagic species was found to pose a moderate risk to cetaceans. Specific gear-species interactions were also identified, such as humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) and pots/traps.  

Effect on Bycatch: N/A
Reference:
Brown, S.L., Reid, D., Rogan, E., 2013 , A risk-based approach to rapidly screen vulnerability of cetaceans to impacts from fisheries bycatch

Florida, United States

Hooks and Lines
Red grouper (Epinephelus morio), Red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus), other reef fish
Hook size
Elasmobranchs, Sharks, Rhizoprionodon terraenovae (Atlantic sharpnose shark), Squalus acanthias (Spiny dogfish) Field study in the wild
Summary:

This study evaluated the impacts of hook size on catch of discards of reef in the bottom longline fishery in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Larger 15/0 hooks successfully reduced primary target species (red grouper, Epinephelus morio) discards by 38% in comparison to 13/0 hooks, but decreased catch of other important species, including red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus). 15/0 hooks also significantly reduced catch rates of Atlantic sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae) and spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias). 

Effect on Bycatch: 15/0 hooks significantly reduced catch rates of Atlantic sharpnose shark and spiny dogfish
Reference:
Lee, M., Neidig, C.L., Schloesser, R., 2026 , Impacts of hook size on catch and bycatch in the eastern Gulf of Mexico reef fishery using electronic monitoring

western Baltic Sea (Denmark/Germany)

Trawls
Common sole (Solea solea)
Excluder devices
Bony Fishes, Pleuronectes platessa (Plaice), Limanda limanda (Dab) Field study in the wild
Summary:

Two trials were conducted with commercial vessels in the western Baltic sole (Solea solea) fishery under a regulatory flexibility program allowing deviations from the legally mandated 90 mm codend. In both trials, fishers aimed to increase retention of marketable sole by testing a 80 mm codend. The 80 mm codend resulted in a significant 15.8% increase (in numbers) of marketable sole in one trial and a similar tendency (non-significant) in the second trial. Trade-offs included a small, but significant increase in catch of small plaice (Pleuronectes platessa), as well as an increase in undersized dab (Limanda limanda) in one trial. Analysis of overall species composition found that both gear sizes retained high proportions of juvenile fish, largely undersized plaice and dab. While regulatory flexibility may improve catch efficiency, outcomes may vary, and a targeted and iterative approach, rather than a one-step solution may be necessary.

Effect on Bycatch: Smaller codend resulted in an increase in catch of undersized plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) and dab (Limanda limanda)
Reference:
Bertelsen, S.K., Feekings, J.P., Herrmann, B., Storr-Paulsen, M., 2026 , Addressing rigid gear rules under changing stock dynamics: A first empirical step towards flexible gear choice

Pagination

  • First page « First
  • Previous page ‹ Previous
  • …
  • Page 55
  • Page 56
  • Page 57
  • Page 58
  • Page 59
  • Page 60
  • Page 61
  • Page 62
  • Current page 63

©2026 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