4.2 Article

Lobster Trap Debris in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary: Distribution, Abundance, Density, and Patterns of Accumulation

Journal

MARINE AND COASTAL FISHERIES
Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages 20-32

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1080/19425120.2013.852638

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NOAA Marine Debris Program
  2. NOAA's National Center for Coastal Ocean Science, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
  3. NOAA's National Center for Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The fishery for spiny lobster Panulirus argus in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary is well chronicled, but little information is available on the prevalence of lost or abandoned lobster traps. In 2007, towed-diver surveys were used to identify and count pieces of trap debris and any other marine debris encountered. Trap debris density (debris incidences/ha) in historic trap-use zones and in representative benthic habitats was estimated. Trap debris was not proportionally distributed with fishing effort. Coral habitats had the greatest density of trap debris despite trap fishers' reported avoidance of coral reefs while fishing. The accumulation of trap debris on coral emphasizes the role of wind in redistributing traps and trap debris in the sanctuary. We estimated that 85,548 +/- 23,387 (mean +/- SD) ghost traps and 1,056,127 +/- 124,919 nonfishing traps or remnants of traps were present in the study area. Given the large numbers of traps in the fishery and the lack of effective measures for managing and controlling the loss of gear, the generation of trap debris will likely continue in proportion to the number of traps deployed in the fishery. Focused removal of submerged trap debris from especially vulnerable habitats such as reefs and hardbottom, where trap debris density is high, would mitigate key habitat issues but would not address ghost fishing or the cost of lost gear.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available