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 641 - 646 of 646
Location Gear Catch Technique Bycatch species Type Results

western North Pacific Ocean (Japan)

Hooks and Lines
Not specified
Circle hooks
Elasmobranchs, Sharks, Prionace glauca (Blue shark) Field study in the wild
Summary:

The use of circle hooks (4.3 sun and 5.2 sun) instead of standard Japanese tuna hooks (3.8 sun) in the pelagic longline fishery in the western North Pacific, had little impact on catch rates, mortality or size composition of blue sharks (Prionace glauca).

Effect on Bycatch: Circle hooks did not impact the catch rates, mortality or size composition of blue sharks
Reference:
Yokota, K., Kiyota, M., Minami, H., 2006 , Shark catch in pelagic longline fishery: Comparison of circle and tuna hooks

western Pacific Ocean

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

Four parts of the tori-pole were tested for their effectiveness in reducing the incidental catch of albatross in the Japanese southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) longline fishery.  Observer data were used to test: 1. bird line material, 2. streamer material, 3. bird line length and 4. pole height above sea surface.  The effectiveness of tori-poles in reducing albatross interactions increased with a longer bird line, but there was no difference in the effectiveness between the different bird line materials, type of streamer material or pole height above the sea surface.  

Effect on Bycatch: The effectiveness of tori-poles in reducing albatross interactions increased with a longer bird line, but there was no difference in the effectiveness between the different bird line materials, type of streamer material or pole height above the sea surfac
Reference:
Yokata, K., Minami, H. and Kiyota, M., 2007 , Effective factors of tori-poles in reducing incidental catch of seabirds in the Japanese longline fishery

Cape May, New Jersey, United States

Traps
Blue crab (Callinectes sapidus)
Excluder devices
Terrapins, Malaclemys terrapin (Diamondback terrapin) Field study in the wild
Summary:

Several versions of a terrapin excluder design were tested on crab traps to determine how effective they were in reducing northern diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin)  bycatch, as well as the effect on catch rates of targeted blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus). All tests consisted of modified and unmodified traps being set in an alternate fashion. A wire bar placed across the opening of the traps was unsuccessful in reducing terrapin bycatch. A second design, which was a rectangular frame (5x10 cm) was successful. Standard traps caught 13 out of 15 terrapins during 1992 and 46 out of 51 during 1995, with the remainder of terrapins being caught by traps modified with the frame. Additional testing of the rectangular frame size, determined the 4.5x10 cm frame reduced terrapin bycatch the most (22 terrapins caught in unmodified vs. none in modified traps). Additionally, crab catch rates were 9% higher in the modified traps (4.5x10 cm) compared to the unmodified traps and crabs were of similar sizes in the two traps. In comparison, crab catch rates were 11% higher than in the unmodified traps when the 5x10 cm excluder design was used in 1994 (multiple sites) and 49% higher in 1995 (single site).

Effect on Bycatch: Standard traps caught 13 out of 15 terrapins during 1992 and 46 out of 51 during 1995, with the remainder of terrapins being caught by traps modified with the frame. Additional testing of the rectangular frame size, determined the 4.5x10 cm frame reduced
Reference:
Wood, R.C., 1997 , The impact of commercial crab traps on northern diamondback terrapins, Malaclemys terrapin terrapin

N/A

N/A Seabirds, Diomedea antipodensis (Antipodean albatross) Summary study
Summary:

Interaction risk between the endangered Antipodean albatross (Diomedea antipodensis antipodensis) and fisheries was assessed by combining satellite-tracking data of individuals with data from AIS vessel tracking, as well as oceanographic data to determine how physical ocean features shape high-risk interaction zones. Hotspots for interactions ranged from 25°S to 40° S, varied seasonally, and were significantly higher in May-August and among juveniles. Interaction risk was also greatest where thermal fronts occur. Regional Fisheries Management Organizations could extend current bycatch mitigation measures to include fishing groups between 25 and 30°S to cover seasonal hotspots for juvenile and females. 

Effect on Bycatch: N/A
Reference:
Wong, H.F., Schoeman, D., Miller, P.I., Bentley, L., Halpin. L, Fischer, J.H., Debski, I., Bose, S., Elliott, G., Walker, K., and K.L. Scales, 2025 , Mesoscale ocean dynamics structure fisheries interaction risk for an endangered seabird

British Columbia, Canada

Gillnets and Entangling Nets
Salmon Small Cetaceans (maximum length < 7.5 meters), Lagenorhynchus obliquidens (Pacific white-sided dolphin), Phocoenoides dalli (Dall's porpoise), Phocoena phocoena (Harbor porpoise) Field study in the wild
Summary:

Small cetaceans are by-caught in salmon gillnet fisheries in British Columbia (BC) waters. In Canada, there is currently no generic calculation to identify when management action is necessary to reduce cetacean bycatch below sustainable limits. The researchers estimated potential anthropogenic mortality limits for harbour (Phocoena phocoena) and Dall’s (Phocoenoides dalli) porpoises and Pacific white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) using quantitative objectives from two well-established frameworks for conservation and management (the United States’ Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas), which are similar to some management objectives developed for marine mammal stocks elsewhere in Canada. Limits were calculated as functions of (i) a minimum abundance estimate (2004–2005); (ii) maximum rate of population increase; and (iii) uncertainty factors to account for bias in abundance estimates and uncertainty in mortality estimates. Best estimates of bycatch mortality in 2004 and 2005 exceeded only the most precautionary limits and only for porpoise species. Future research priority should be given to determining small cetacean stock structure in BC and refining species-specific entanglement rates in these and other fisheries. The approach offers a quantitative framework for Canada to meet its stated objectives to maintain favorable conservation status of cetacean populations.

Effect on Bycatch: N/A
Reference:
Williams, R., Hall, A., Winship, A., 2008 , Potential limits to anthropogenic mortality of small cetaceans in coastal waters of British Columbia

Field study in the wild
Summary:

Mobulid rays are distributed worldwide in tropical and warm temperate waters, and are landed as bycatch in many different fisheries. Five mobulid species (Mobula birostris, M. japanica, M.munkiana, M. tarapacana and M.thurstoni) are currently listed as vulnerable by the IUCN Red List for Threatened Animals for at least part of their geographic distribution. There is a lack of information on mobulid populations, and consequently it is very difficult to determine how the level of exploitation of mobulids in Indonesia may affected their stocks. Data in this study were derived from 409 mobulids that were taken as bycatch in drift gillnet fisheries targeting skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis), and subsequently examined at fish landing sites in Indonesia. Results identified M. japanica and M. tarapacana as the most abundant species represented. The disc width at maturity (DW50) of males, derived from the proportion of males at each size class with fully calcified claspers, ranged from 1538 mm for M. thurstoni to 3752 mm for M. birostris. The very low fecundity of the large and probably long-lived mobulid rays make the stocks of their species particularly susceptible to further increases in fishing.

Pagination

  • First page « First
  • Previous page ‹ Previous
  • …
  • Page 57
  • Page 58
  • Page 59
  • Page 60
  • Page 61
  • Page 62
  • Page 63
  • Page 64
  • Current page 65

©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