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 631 - 640 of 767
Location Gear Catch Technique Bycatch species Type Results

Aegean coast, Türkiye

Hooks and Lines
Multi-species
Circle hooks
Sea Turtles, Caretta caretta (Loggerhead turtle), Chelonia mydas (Green sea turtle) Field study in the wild
Summary:

Paired trials were conducted to compare standard gillnet, trammel nets, and set longlines in Türkiye with several different types of modifications: LED (LP Electralume, 520–530 nm; 18,000–20,000 mcd) and UV-LED devices (LP Electralume, 395–400 nm; 12,000 mcd) and C-type fishing hooks. 

Compared to control nets, LED and UV-illuminated gillnets and trammel nets reduced the biomass of commercial species catch  by 54-75%, and there was no significant reduction in the catch of vulnerable species, including elasmobranchs and sea turtles.  Circle hooks reduced commercial catch by 77% compared to standard J-hooks and similarly had a higher proportion of vulnerable species (noting no sea turtles were captured in the control or treatment longline sets). 

These somewhat unexpected findings may have been influenced by study design limitations (small sample size) or other variables, including high turbidity and larger gear mesh sizes. Additional research is planned. 

Effect on Bycatch: No reduction in catch of vulnerable species; sea turtles were not encountered in either control or treatment sets
Reference:
Kaska, Y., Sozbilen, D., Vezard, M.A., Casale, P., Kaykal, M.H., Tosunoglu, Z., Possardt, E. , 2026 , Preliminary Study Finds LEDs, UV Lights, and C-Type Hooks May Reduce Sustainability in Aegean Small-Scale Fisheries

Conception Bay, Canada

Pots
Snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio)
Excluder devices
Invertebrates, Crustaceans, Chionoecetes opilio (Snow crab) Field study in the wild
Summary:

Four experimental snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) conical pots with non-selective, small mesh jackets  and collars of 180 mm, 240 mm, 300 mm, and 180 mm with a 51 mm lip, were compared with small mesh pots with no collar and traditional pots with traditional mesh in Conception Bay, Canada. Smaller collars did not improve catch efficiency (but did not significantly reduce target catch), and caught large amounts of sub-legal and female crabs.  Additionally, larger collars substantially reduced catch of target-sized crabs (although sub-legal catch was also reduced). Future work will integrate escape gaps to assist escapement. 

Effect on Bycatch: External plastic collars did not meaningfully improve size selectivity
Reference:
Brown, P., Araya-Schmidt, T., Bayse, S.M., Winger, P.D., 2026 , Exploring the effect of installing collars on snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) pots in Newfoundland and Labrador: Do collars improve size selectivity?

Biddeford, Maine, United States

N/A
Electromagnetic deterrents
Elasmobranchs, Sharks, Squalus acanthias (Spiny dogfish) Study in the lab
Summary:

This study examined the effectiveness of three electronic bycatch reduction devices with different signal frequencies and duty cycles (100% duty cycle fixed signal, 50% duty cycle fixed signal, 100% duty cycle quasi-random signal) in a laboratory experiment on Atlantic dogfish (Squalus acanthias). The results suggest that time-varying electrical signals can deter spiny dogfish from baited hooks. The researchers observed a reduction in bait consumption, mean bite rate, and probability of bait consumption from all three prototypes . The lowest bait consumption occurred with the 100% duty cycle, fixed-signal BRD, while the largest treatment differences resulted from the BRD with 100% duty cycle emitting a quasi-random frequency. 

Effect on Bycatch: Reduction of interactions with bait; Higher duty cycle had a higher sustained deterrent effect
Reference:
Nyiri, C.J., Nguyen, M., Mirabilo, S.E., Davis, B., Levine, I., Mohan, J.A., 2026 , Testing the effectiveness of an electrosensory deterrent on spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) through laboratory experiments

Yawuru Nagulagun Marine Park (Roebuck Bay), Broome, Western Australia

Gillnets and Entangling Nets
Barramundi (Lates calcarifer) and other teleosts
Electromagnetic deterrents

Visual deterrents
Elasmobranchs, Skates/Rays, Anoxypristis cuspidata (Narrow sawfish), Pristis clavata (Dwarf sawfish), Pristis zijsron (Longcomb sawfish) Field study in the wild
Summary:

The study evaluated if green LED lights and pulsed electrical deterrents (SharkGuard) could reduce bycatch of threatened elasmobranchs in Northern Australia gillnet fisheries. 23 paired deployments of LED lights (Fishtek Marine) and 7 electric deterrent trials were analyzed. Nets with green LED lights caught 35% fewer elasmobranchs, while also resulting in a significant increase (76%) of bony fish catch (however, commercially-targeted species of bony fish were not caught significantly more in the LED nets). Electric deterrents did not significantly reduce bycatch or fish catch, however, the small sample size limits the ability to detect meaningful effects. Both green LEDs and electric deterrents showed moderate effects related to reduced sawfish (Pristis clavata, P. zijsron, Anoxypristis cuspidata) catch per unit effort (CPUE), particularly for the electrical deterrents, which could be explored in a larger study. 

Effect on Bycatch: Nets with green LED lights caught 35% fewer elasmobranchs; electric deterrent had not significant effect
Reference:
Pini-Fitzsimmons, J., Amini, S.R., Ayton, S., Braccini, M., Harry, A.V., and Yawuru Country Managers, 2026 , Preliminary assessment of sensory deterrents for reducing threatened elasmobranch bycatch in northern Australian gillnet fisheries

Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean

Hooks and Lines
Swordfish (Xiphias gladius)
Alternative leader design

Artificial bait
Elasmobranchs, Seabirds, Sea Turtles Summary study
Summary:

Studies in the Mediterranean and Atlantic swordfish (Xiphias gladius) fisheries have reported that looplines/traplines or Meka-rings are increasingly being used. Loop lines consist of concentric monofilament loops attached to the branch line, replacing conventional hook and bait. Available evidence suggests that this device may enhance swordfish catch rates while exhibiting high selectivity and reduced bycatch of non-target species (less bait in the water attracts fewer predators and scavengers). However, looplines may also have drawbacks, including more stress on the captured organism and increased drag during retrieval. In addition, loop lines are not yet formally recognized as a separate gear type, which may impact fisheries management. 

Effect on Bycatch: Reported reduction
Reference:
Carlos Báez, José, Domingo Andrés , 2026 , Loop Lines (Traplines): A New Emerging Terminal Device in Pelagic Longline Swordfish Fisheries

Western Pacific Ocean, American Samoa

Surrounding nets and seine nets
Tuna (species not specified) Elasmobranchs, Sharks, Carcharhinus falciformis (Silky shark), Carcharhinus longimanus (Oceanic whitetip shark) Field study in the wild
Summary:

This study evaluated the effectiveness of updated best handling and release practices, as well as a custom-designed shark release ramp, in improving the post-release survival of sharks onboard a U.S. purse seine vessel. 98.5% of sharks were released using the ramp system, with release times averaging under two minutes. 47% of captured sharks exhibited poor or moribund condition at haul-back. Tagging data from three released sharks indicated survival or likely survival post-release. While the ramp system with a hopper improved operational efficiency and enhanced crew safety, wider tagging efforts is needed to validate improved survivability of sharks post-release. 

Effect on Bycatch: 47% of captured sharks exhibited poor or moribund condition at haul-back. Tagging data from three released sharks indicated survival or likely survival post-release.
Reference:
Murua, H., Moreno, G., Murua, M., Grande, M., and V. Restrepo, 2025 , Trialing shark bycatch release devices on board purse seiners in the Pacific Ocean to enhance shark survival

Global

N/A Seabirds Summary study
Summary:

This paper is a global review of seabird bycatch in gillnets. The authors identified 148 seabird species as susceptible to bycatch in gillnets, of which 81 have been recorded incidentally caught. A review of reported bycatch estimates suggests that at least 400,000 birds die in gillnets each year. The highest levels of bycatch are reported in the Northwest Pacific, Iceland, and the Baltic Sea.  

Effect on Bycatch: N/A
Reference:
Žydelis, R., Small, C., French, G., 2013 , The incidental catch of seabirds in gillnet fisheries: A global review

Mauritania, Northwest Africa

Trawls
Sardinella (Sardinella aurita, Sardinella maderensis), sardine, horse mackerel
Excluder devices
Elasmobranchs, Sharks, Sphyrna lewini (Scalloped hammerhead), Sphyrna mokarran (Great hammerhead), Sphyrna zygaena (Smooth hammerhead), Skates/Rays, Manta birostris (Manta ray), Mammals, Small Cetaceans (maximum length < 7.5 meters), Sea Turtles, Bony Fishes, Mola mola (Ocean sunfish) Field study in the wild
Summary:

The addition of a prototype "tunnel excluder" consisting of a filter grid (inclined at ca. 20 degrees) that leads to an escape tunnel in the Mauritanian industrial trawl fishery nets achieved a 40-100% reduction in bycatch of vulnerable species, including allowing 100% of rays and turtles to escape, 75% of manta rays, 40% of billfish and between 20-75% of sharks to escape. Cetaceans were less likely to use the tunnel to escape due to the narrowness of the design. 

Effect on Bycatch: Prototype allowed 100% of rays and turtles to escape, 75% of manta rays, 40% of billfish and between 20-75% of sharks to escape
Reference:
Zeeberg, J., Corten, A., Graff, E., 2006 , Bycatch and release of pelagic megafauna in industrial trawler fisheries off Northwest Africa

Western North Pacific Ocean

Hooks and Lines
N/A
Visual deterrents
Seabirds, Phoebastria immutabilis (Laysan albatross) Field study in the wild
Summary:

Two types of tori-lines (tori-line and tori-line light streamer) were tested aboard commercial and research longline vessels in the western North Pacific to determine their effectiveness for seabird avoidance.  The tori-line light streamer reduced bait-taking behavior (in primarily Laysan albatross, Phoebastria immutabilis) and bycatch of seabirds (primarily Laysan albatross) compared to the tori-line.  Therefore, the tori-line light streamer is a good option for avoiding seabird bycatch in this longline fishery.

Effect on Bycatch: The tori-line light streamer reduced bait-taking behavior (in primarily Laysan albatross, Phoebastria immutabilis) and bycatch of seabirds (primarily Laysan albatross) compared to the tori-line.
Reference:
Yokota, K., Minami, H. and Kiyota, M., 2008 , Direct comparison of seabird avoidance effect between two types of tori lines in longline fishing experiments

Western Pacific Ocean

Hooks and Lines
Southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii)
Visual deterrents
Seabirds Field study in the wild
Summary:

Fishery observer data from Japanese longline vessels targeting southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) was used to determine if there were differences in seabird avoidance between two types ("WCPFC type" and "Light type") of tori-lines.  There was no significant difference between the two tori-lines for either the nominal catch rates of albatross or the per-capita catch rates.  Therefore both types of tori-line have similar seabird avoidance effects and the "Light type" may be more practical in areas with difficult weather and oceanic conditions.

Effect on Bycatch: No significant differences in seabird avoidance between two types ("WCPFC type" and "Light type") of tori-lines
Reference:
Yokota, K., Minami, H. and Kiyota, M., 2007 , Seabirds avoidance effect of tori-lines in the Japanese longline fishery: comparison of tori-line streamers

Pagination

  • First page « First
  • Previous page ‹ Previous
  • …
  • Page 60
  • Page 61
  • Page 62
  • Page 63
  • Current page 64
  • Page 65
  • Page 66
  • Page 67
  • Page 68
  • …
  • Next page Next ›
  • Last page Last »

©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