4.2 Article

Developing visual deterrents to reduce sea turtle bycatch in gill net fisheries

期刊

MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES
卷 408, 期 -, 页码 241-250

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/meps08577

关键词

Bycatch; Sea turtles; Gill net; Longlines

资金

  1. NMFS-PIFSC
  2. NMFS-SWFRO
  3. NOAA-BREP
  4. Hawaii FDRP
  5. Ocean Discovery Institute: CONACYT, International Community Foundation
  6. JiJi Foundation
  7. J. W. Sefton Foundation
  8. Marisla Foundation
  9. Orange County Community Foundation
  10. PADI Foundation
  11. Mexican government through the Comision Nacional de Areas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP)
  12. NOAA [N-A17RJ1230]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Visual cues play important roles in sea turtle foraging behavior and likely influence their interactions with fishing gear. Altering these cues may be a useful strategy to reduce the incidental catch of sea turtles in various fisheries. We examined the potential effectiveness of 3 visual cues-shark shapes placed along the length of the gill net, illumination of nets by LED lights, and nets illuminated with chemical lightsticks-in reducing bycatch of green sea turtles Chelonia mydas in gill nets. We then adapted these potential deterrents into commercial bottom gill net fishery to quantify their effects on target fish catch rates and the catch value. Our results indicate that the presence of shark shapes significantly reduced the mean catch rates of green turtles by 54% but also reduced target catch by 45% and, correspondingly, catch value by 47%. In contrast, nets illuminated by LED lights significantly reduced mean sea turtle catch rates by 40% while having negligible impacts on target catch and catch value. Similarly, nets illuminated by chemical lightsticks also significantly reduced mean sea turtle catch rates by 60% while having no significant impact on target catch and catch value. These results illustrate the potential for modifying fishing gear with visual deterrents to effectively reduce sea turtle catch rates.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据