Industry-led fishing gear development: Can it facilitate the process?

Veiga-Malta, Tiago; Feekings, Jordan P.; Herrmann, Bent; Krag, Ludvig Ahm

doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.05.009

Cited by 25 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To investigate whether and how a combination of BRDs was significantly better with respect to the single BRDs or other BRD combinations, we quantified changes in (a) absolute selectivity, by using the delta selectivity (Larsen, Herrmann, Sistiaga, Brčić, et al, ); (b) catch profile, by estimating the cumulative catch curve (Veiga‐Malta et al, ); and (c) potential consequences for the fishery, using performance indicators (Sala et al, ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The cumulative catch curve expresses what would be the catch profile under a specific scenario of population encountered by the gear (Veiga‐Malta et al, ). To estimate cumulative catch curves for the BRD combinations, we applied the predicted combined selectivity to realistic, species‐specific population scenarios.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The meta‐analytical approach presented here combines data available on BRDs that have been individually tested within a specific fishery to predict the selectivity of the potential BRD combinations. The theoretical performance and potential applicability of BRD combinations for the fishery are then investigated in terms of differences in size selectivity, catch profile and potential consequences on fishermen's incomes (Larsen, Herrmann, Sistiaga, Brinkhof, et al, ; Sala, Lucchetti, Perdichizzi, Herrmann, & Rinelli, ; Veiga‐Malta et al, ) to identify the most promising options.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Predicting optimal combinations of by‐catch reduction devices in trawl gears: A meta‐analytical approach

Melli¹,

Herrmann

Karlsen³

et al. 2019

Fish and Fisheries

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global efforts to reduce unwanted catches have led to the development of a vast array of by‐catch reduction devices (BRDs), in particular for mixed trawl fisheries. Some of these BRDs could likely benefit from being combined. However, the number of possible combinations would be prohibitive to be tested experimentally. Therefore, in this study we propose a meta‐analytical approach that combines the data available on BRDs tested independently in a fishery and predict the theoretical selectivity of all possible combinations of those devices. This allows to identify promising BRD combinations, worth experimental investigation and flexible trawl configurations, where the selectivity can be substantially modified by adding or removing one BRD, thus aiding fishermen in adapting to high variability in catch composition and quota availability. To illustrate the approach, we used BRDs developed for the well‐studied Nephrops (Nephrops norvegicus, Nephropidae) directed mixed trawl fishery in the Skagerrak and Kattegat seas. We predicted the selectivity of 100 BRD combinations for Nephrops, cod (Gadus morhua, Gadidae) and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus, Gadidae), compared them in terms of absolute selectivity and performance under realistic catch scenarios, from both single‐ and multispecies perspectives, and identified 15 BRD combinations that could be worth future experimental investigation. The meta‐analytical approach makes best use of existing knowledge and leads to new insights about the potential for improvement and flexibility in trawl selectivity. This could benefit a variety of mixed trawl fisheries and help developing a new generation of more flexible gears, with multiple BRDs integrated in their structure.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Predicting optimal combinations of by‐catch reduction devices in trawl gears: A meta‐analytical approach

Melli¹,

Herrmann

Karlsen³

et al. 2019

Fish and Fisheries

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This was performed by calculating the ratio between the catch ratio curves obtained from the two catch ratio curves against the nylon net using the following equation: The 95% confidence intervals for CR(l,v) 0.60/0.55 were obtained based on the two bootstrap populations of results (1000 bootstrap repetitions in each) from each CR curve estimated for the 0.55 and 0.60 mm biodegradable gillnets against the nylon net. Since both bootstrap populations were obtained independently and the sampling to obtain those populations of results was performed randomly and independently, a new population of results with 1000 bootstrap iterations was created for CR(l,v) 0.60/0.55 following [36,37] Assessment of mechanical properties. Tensile testing were carried out on all the biodegradable and nylon PA gillnets used in the fishing experiments using a H10KT universal tensile testing machine (Tinius Olsen TMC, PA, USA) equipped with a load cell with 5000 Newton (N) rated force.…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of mechanical properties of monofilament twines on the catch efficiency of biodegradable gillnets

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gillnets made of the biodegradable resin polybutylene succinate co-adipate-co-terephthalate were tested under commercial fishing conditions to compare their fishing performance with that of conventional nylon polyamide (PA) gillnets. Both types of gillnets were made of 0.55 mm Ø monofilaments. However, since the biodegradable nets are weaker than nylon PA nets when using the same monofilament diameter, we also used biodegradable nets made of 0.60 mm Ø monofilament that had a similar tensile strength to the 0.55 mm Ø nylon PA nets. The relative catch efficiency of the different gillnet types was evaluated over the 2018 autumn fishing season for saithe and cod in northern Norway. For cod, both biodegradable gillnets (0.55 and 0.60 mm) had a significantly lower catch efficiency compared to the traditional nylon PA net (0.55 mm) with estimated catch efficiencies of 62.38% (CI: 50.55-74.04) and 54.96% (CI: 35.42-73.52) compared with the nylon PA net, respectively. Similarly for saithe, both biodegradable gillnets (0.55 and 0.60 mm) had a lower estimated catch efficiency compared to the traditional nylon PA net (0.55 mm) with estimated catch efficiencies of 83.40% (71.34-94.86) and 83.87% (66.36-104.92), compared with the nylon PA net, respectively. Tensile strength does not explain the differences in catch efficiency between the two gillnet types, since increasing the twine diameter of the biodegradable gillnets (to match the strength of nylon PA gillnets) did not yield similar catch efficiencies. However, the elasticity and stiffness of the materials may be responsible for the differences in catch efficiency between the nylon PA and biodegradable gillnets.

show abstract

“…The 95% confidence intervals for were obtained based on the two the two bootstrap ( , ) 0.60/0.55 populations of results (1000 bootstrap repetitions in each) from each CR curve estimated for the 0.55 and 0.60 mm biodegradable gillnets against the nylon net. Since both bootstrap populations were obtained independently and the sampling to obtain those populations of results was performed randomly and independently, a new population of results with bootstrap iterations was created for following [33,34]…”

Section: Assessing the Catch Ratio Of The Two Biodegradable Gillnet Dmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of mechanical properties of monofilament twines on the catch efficiency of biodegradable gillnets

Grimaldo

Herrmann

Jacques³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

26Gillnets made of the biodegradable resin polybutylene succinate co-adipate-co-terephthalate 27 (PBSAT) were tested under commercial fishing conditions to compare their fishing performance 28 with that of conventional nylon polyamide (PA) gillnets. Both types of gillnets were made of 0.55 29 mm Ø monofilaments. However, since the biodegradable nets are weaker than nylon PA nets when 30 using the same monofilament diameter, we also used biodegradable nets made of 0.60 mm Ø 31 monofilament that had a similar tensile strength to the 0.55 mm Ø nylon PA nets. The relative catch 32 efficiency of the different gillnet types was evaluated over the 2018 autumn fishing season for saithe 33 and cod in northern Norway. For cod, both biodegradable gillnets (0.55 and 0.60 mm) had a 34 significantly lower catch efficiency compared to the traditional nylon PA net (0.55 mm) with 35 estimated catch efficiencies of 62.38% (CI: 50.55-74.04) and 54.96% (CI: 35.42-73.52) compared 36 with the nylon PA net, respectively. Similarly for saithe, both biodegradable gillnets (0.55 and 0.60 37 mm) had a lower estimated catch efficiency compared to the traditional nylon PA net (0.55 mm) 38 with estimated catch efficiencies of 83.40% (71.34-94.86) and 83.87% (66.36-104.92), compared 39 with the nylon PA net, respectively. Tensile strength does not explain the differences in catch 40 efficiency between the two gillnet types, since increasing the twine diameter of the biodegradable 41 gillnets (to match the strength of nylon PA gillnets) did not yield similar catch efficiencies. 42 However, the elasticity and stiffness of the materials may be responsible for the differences in catch 43 efficiency between the nylon PA and biodegradable gillnets. 44 45 Saithe. 47 50 Globally, gillnets are among the most commonly used fishing gears in developing and industrialized 51 countries [1]. In Norway, 26% and 16% of the total national allowable quota for Northeast Atlantic 52 cod (Gadus morhua) and saithe (Pollachius virens), which in 2019 was 385.000 and 203.368 tonnes 53 respectively, were caught with gillnets [2]. The Norwegian coastal fleet (with vessels shorter than 54 28 m) is responsible for approximately 99% of the gillnet landing of Northeast Atlantic cod. In 2019, 55 the coastal fleet consisted of 5978 vessels, with 81% of them being smaller than 14.9 m [3]. Despite56 the importance of the gillnet fishery, large numbers of gillnets are lost every year, causing 57 environmental problems such as ghost fishing and marine litter. Deshpande et al. [4] provided 58 annual loss rates of the six types of fishing gears used in Norwegian waters upon deployment, and 59 gillnets were the primary source of derelict gear. Although fisheries authorities lack a complete 60 overview of the amount of lost or derelict gillnets, estimates from the Norwegian Environment 61 Agency [5] suggest that 13,941 gillnets are lost each year. 62 63The impacts of derelict gillnets include continued catching of target and non-target species 64 (commonly known as ghost fishing),...

show abstract

Industry-led fishing gear development: Can it facilitate the process?

Cited by 25 publications

References 30 publications

Predicting optimal combinations of by‐catch reduction devices in trawl gears: A meta‐analytical approach

Predicting optimal combinations of by‐catch reduction devices in trawl gears: A meta‐analytical approach

Effect of mechanical properties of monofilament twines on the catch efficiency of biodegradable gillnets

Effect of mechanical properties of monofilament twines on the catch efficiency of biodegradable gillnets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About