Search The Database

Displaying 131 - 140 of 538

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.

Fishing Gear

Bycatch Species

Reduction technique

Include Non-Field Studies