Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:18:02.013Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A contribution to reducing bycatch in a high priority area for seabird conservation in Portugal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2020

NUNO OLIVEIRA Open the ORCID record for NUNO OLIVEIRA [Opens in a new window] ,
ANA ALMEIDA ,
HANY ALONSO ,
EMANUEL CONSTANTINO ,
ANDRÉ FERREIRA ,
IVÁN GUTIÉRREZ ,
ANA SANTOS ,
ELISABETE SILVA  and
JOANA ANDRADE
NUNO OLIVEIRA*
Affiliation:
Sociedade Portuguesa para o Estudo das Aves – SPEA, Marine Conservation Department, Lisboa, Porugal.
ANA ALMEIDA
Affiliation:
Sociedade Portuguesa para o Estudo das Aves – SPEA, Marine Conservation Department, Lisboa, Porugal.
HANY ALONSO
Affiliation:
Sociedade Portuguesa para o Estudo das Aves – SPEA, Marine Conservation Department, Lisboa, Porugal.
EMANUEL CONSTANTINO
Affiliation:
Sociedade Portuguesa para o Estudo das Aves – SPEA, Marine Conservation Department, Lisboa, Porugal.
ANDRÉ FERREIRA
Affiliation:
Sociedade Portuguesa para o Estudo das Aves – SPEA, Marine Conservation Department, Lisboa, Porugal.
IVÁN GUTIÉRREZ
Affiliation:
Sociedade Portuguesa para o Estudo das Aves – SPEA, Marine Conservation Department, Lisboa, Porugal.
ANA SANTOS
Affiliation:
Sociedade Portuguesa para o Estudo das Aves – SPEA, Marine Conservation Department, Lisboa, Porugal.
ELISABETE SILVA
Affiliation:
Sociedade Portuguesa para o Estudo das Aves – SPEA, Marine Conservation Department, Lisboa, Porugal.
JOANA ANDRADE
Affiliation:
Sociedade Portuguesa para o Estudo das Aves – SPEA, Marine Conservation Department, Lisboa, Porugal.
*
*Author for correspondence; email: nuno.oliveira@spea.pt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Bycatch is one of the main threats to marine biodiversity, affecting ocean ecosystems at a worldwide scale. The main focus of bycatch studies has been on the impact of larger vessels, with few studies assessing the impact of artisanal fisheries. Moreover, bycatch studies are often limited to a small number of marine regions, and significant gaps still exist in our knowledge of the spatial and temporal patterns of seabird bycatch. Here we present a multi-approach method to accurately quantify seabird bycatch driven by small- and medium-sized fishing fleets operating in a high priority area for seabird conservation on the Portuguese mainland. Results of three mitigation measures to reduce seabird bycatch on fishing gear where seabird bycatch is most likely to occur were also tested: high contrast panels in bottom gillnets, black hooks in demersal longlines and a bird scaring device in purse seines. The efficacy, acceptance, and economic viability were tested for each mitigation measure. Sixty-seven individuals of seven seabird species were bycaught during 295 monitored fishing trips between 2015 and 2018. Bycatch occurred mainly in demersal longlines (0.07 birds fishing event-1), followed by purse seines (0.02 birds fishing event-1) and bottom gillnets (0.01 birds fishing event-1). Nevertheless, the bird scaring device caused birds to interact less with the vessel (the presence of gulls was reduced by 11%), thus decreasing the likelihood of bycatch. This device has proved to be low-cost (representing less than 5% income of a single day’s landings) and easy to implement, being also well accepted by purse seine fishermen. It was not possible to evaluate the efficacy of high contrast panels and black hooks, as no bycatch events were recorded during trials.

Keywords

artisanal fisheriesbycatch mitigationbird scaring devicehigh contrast panelsblack hooksdemersal longlinegillnetpurse seine
Type
Research Article
Information
Bird Conservation International , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , December 2021 , pp. 553 - 572
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of BirdLife International

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abreu, S., Leotte, F. and Arthur, R. (2010) Assessment of the status, development and diversification of fisheries-dependent communities: Peniche, Case Study Report . Peniche.Google Scholar
Anderson, O. R. J., Small, C. J., Croxall, J. P., Dunn, E. K., Sullivan, B. J., Yates, O. and Black, A. (2011) Global seabird bycatch in longline fisheries. Endanger. Species Res. 14: 91-106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avalos, M. R., Ramos, J. A., Soares, M., Ceia, F. R., Fagundes, A. I., Gouveia, C., Menezes, D. and Paiva, V. H. (2017) Comparing the foraging strategies of a seabird predator when recovering from a drastic climatic event. Mar. Biol. 164: 1-14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belant, J. L., Woronecki, P. P., Dolbeer, R. A., Thomas, W., Belarttn, J. L., Wororzeckin, P. P., Dolbeern, R. A. and Seamarls, T. W. (2016) Ineffectiveness of five commercial deterrents for nesting starlings. 26: 264-268.Google Scholar
Belda, E. J. and Sánchez, A. (2001) Seabird mortality on longline fisheries in the western Mediterranean: factors afecting bycatch and proposed mitigating measures. Biol. Conserv. 98: 357-363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bugoni, L., Neves, T. S., Leite, N. O., Carvalho, D., Sales, G., Furness, R. W., Stein, C. E., Peppes, F. V., Giffoni, B. B. and Monteiro, D. S. (2008) Potential bycatch of seabirds and turtles in hook-and-line fisheries of the Itaipava Fleet, Brazil. Fish. Res. 90: 217–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calado, J. H., Ramos, J. A., Almeida, A., Oliveira, N. and Paiva, V. H. (in press) Seabird-fishery interactions and bycatch at multiple gears in the Atlantic Iberian coast. Ocean Coast. Manag. Google Scholar
Camphuysen, K. C. J. and Garthe, S. (2004) Recording foraging seabirds at sea standardised recording and coding of foraging behaviour and multi-species foraging associations. Atlantic Seabirds 6: 1-32.Google Scholar
Catry, P., Dias, M. P., Phillips, R. A. and Granadeiro, J. P. (2011) Different means to the same end: Long-distance migrant seabirds from two colonies differ in behaviour, despite common wintering grounds. PLoS One 6: e26079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conover, M. R. (1979) Response of birds to raptor models. Proc. Bird Control Semin. 4: 16-24.Google Scholar
Cook, A., Rushton, S., Allan, J. and Baxter, A. (2008) An evaluation of techniques to control problem bird species on landfill sites. Environ. Manage. 41: 834-843.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, J., Baccetti, N., Belda, E. J., Borg, J. J., Oro, D., Papaconstantinou, C. and Sánchez, A. (2003) Seabird mortality from longline fishing in the Mediterranean Sea and Macaronesian waters: A review and a way forward. Sci. Mar. 67: 57-64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortés, V., Arcos, J. M. and González-Solís, J. (2017) Seabirds and demersal longliners in the northwestern Mediterranean: Factors driving their interactions and bycatch rates. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 565: 1-16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortés, V. and González-Solís, J. (2018) Seabird bycatch mitigation tests in artisanal demersal longliners of the western Mediterranean. PLoS One 13: e0196731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, R. A., Pereira, A. T., Henriques, A. C., Miodonski, M., Vingada, J. V and Eira, C. (2019) Razorbill Alca torda mortality in the Portuguese west coast. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 65: 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croxall, J. P., Butchart, S. H. M., Lascelles, B., Stattersfield, A. J., Sullivan, B., Symes, A. and Taylor, P. (2012) Seabird conservation status, threats and priority actions: a global assessment. Bird Conserv. Internatn. 22: 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dias, M. P., Martin, R., Pearmain, E. J., Bur, I. J., Small, C., Phillips, R. A., Yates, O., Lascelles, B., Garcia, P. and Croxall, J. P. (2019) Threats to seabirds : A global assessment. Biol. Conserv. 237: 525–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, R., Crawford, R., Enever, R., Linkowski, T., Martin, G., Mork, J. and Oppel, S. (2019) High contrast panels and lights do not reduce bird bycatch in Baltic Sea gillnet fisheries. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 18: e006027.Google Scholar
García-Barcelona, S., Macías, D., Ortiz de Urbina, J. M., Estrada, A., Real, R. and Báez, J. C. (2010) Modelling abundance and distribution of seabird by-catch in the Spanish Mediterranean longline fishery. Ardeola 57: 65-78.Google Scholar
Gaspar, M. B., Pereira, F., Martins, R., Carneiro, M., Pereira, J., Moreno, A., Constantino, R., Felício, M., Gonçalves, M., Viegas, M. do C., Resende, A., Pereira, B., Siborro, S. and Cerqueira, M. (2014) Pequena pesca na costa continental portuguesa: caracterização sócio-económica, descrição da actividade e identificação de problemas, Gaspar, M. B. and Pereira, F., eds. Intituto Português do Mar e da Atmosfera, Projecto PRESPO.Google Scholar
Gilman, E. L. (2011) Bycatch governance and best practice mitigation technology in global tuna fisheries. Mar. Policy 35: 590-609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grecian, W. J., Williams, H. J., Votier, S. C., Bearhop, S., Cleasby, I. R., Grémillet, D., Hamer, K. C., Nuz, M. Le, Lescroël, A., Newton, J., Patrick, S. C., Phillips, R. A., Wakefield, E. D. and Bodey, T. W. (2019) Individual spatial consistency and dietary flexibility in the migratory behavior of northern gannets wintering in the Noth-east Atlantic. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7: 214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ICES (2009) Report of the Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE), 23-27 March 2009. Bruges, Belgium.Google Scholar
ICES (2017) Report of the Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC), 12–15 June 2017. Woods Hole, Massachusetts, USA.Google Scholar
Jaramillo-Legorreta, A., Rojas-Bracho, L., Brownell, R. L., Read, A. J., Reeves, R. R., Ralls, K. and Taylor, B. L. (2007) Saving the vaquita: Immediate action, not more data. Conserv. Biol. 21: 1653-1655.Google Scholar
Kubetzki, U., Garthe, S., Fifield, D., Mendel, B. and Furness, R. W. (2009) Individual migratory schedules and wintering areas of northern gannets. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 391: 257-265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laneri, K., Louzao, M., Martínez-Abraín, a, Arcos, J., Belda, E., Guallart, J., Sánchez, a, Giménez, M., Maestre, R. and Oro, D. (2010) Trawling regime influences longline seabird bycatch in the Mediterranean: new insights from a small-scale fishery. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 420: 241-252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewison, R. L. (2013) Finding the missing pieces: working to solve the fisheries bycatch puzzle. Anim. Conserv. 16: 153-154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewison, R. L., Crowder, L. B., Read, A. J. and Freeman, S. A. (2004) Understanding impacts of fisheries bycatch on marine megafauna. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19: 598-604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Løkkeborg, 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. Fish. Res. 60: 11-16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mangel, J. C., Wang, J., Alfaro-, J., Pingo, S., Jimenez, A., Swimmer, Y. and Godley, B. J. (2018) Illuminating gillnets to save seabirds and the potential for multi-taxa bycatch mitigation. R. Soc. Open Sci. 5: 180254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, G. R. and Crawford, R. (2015) Reducing bycatch in gillnets: A sensory ecology perspective. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 3: 28-50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meirinho, A., Barros, N., Oliveira, N., Catry, P., Lecoq, M., Paiva, V., Geraldes, P., Granadeiro, J. P., Ramírez, I. and Andrade, J. (2014) Atlas das aves marinhas de Portugal. Lisboa: Sociedade Portuguesa para o Estudo das Aves.Google Scholar
Melly, P., Shigueto, J. A., Mangel, J., Pajuelo, M., Cáceres, C. M., Corrales, L. S., Iturrizaga, D. M. and Baella, K. (2006) Assessment of seabird bycatch in Peruvian artisanal fisheries. Final Report to the British Petroleum Conservation Programme, Lima.Google Scholar
Moreno, C. A., Arata, J. A., Rubilar, P., Hucke-Geete, R. and Robertson, G. (2006) Artisanal longline fisheries in Southern Chile : Lessons to be learned to avoid incidental seabird mortality. Biol. Conserv. 127: 27-36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munilla, I., Díez, C. and Velando, A. (2007) Are edge bird populations doomed to extinction? A retrospective analysis of the common guillemot collapse in Iberia. Biol. Conserv. 137: 359-371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, N., Abreu, P., Bores, J., Fagundes, A. I., Alonso, H. and Andrade, J. (2020) Evaluating the potential of artificial nests as a conservation measure for Cory’s Shearwaters Calonectris borealis breeding in Berlengas Archipelago, Portugal. Airo 27: 3-19.Google Scholar
Oliveira, N., Henriques, A., Miodonski, J., Pereira, J., Marujo, D., Almeida, A., Barros, N., Andrade, J., Araújo, H., Monteiro, S., Vingada, J. and Ramírez, I. (2015) Seabird bycatch in Portuguese mainland coastal fisheries: An assessment through on-board observations and fishermen interviews. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 3: 51-61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paiva, V. H., Geraldes, P. L., Ramírez, I., Meirinho, A., Garthe, S. and Ramos, J. A. (2010) Oceanographic characteristics of areas used by Cory’s shearwaters during short and long foraging trips in the North Atlantic. Mar. Biol. 157: 1385-1399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pauly, D., Watson, R. and Alder, J. (2005) Global trends in world fisheries: Impacts on marine ecosystems and food security. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 360: 5-12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pott, C. and Wiedenfeld, D. A. (2017) Information gaps limit our understanding of seabird bycatch in global fisheries. Biol. Conserv. 210: 192-204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Team, R Core (2019) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Reyes-González, J. M., Zajková, Z., Morera-Pujol, V., De Felipe, F., Militão, T., Dell’Ariccia, G., Ramos, R., Igual, J. M., Arcos, J. M. and González-Solis, J. (2017) Migración y ecología espacial de las poblaciones españolas de pardela cenicienta. Monografía. Madrid: SEO/BirdLife.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shester, G. G. and Micheli, F. (2011) Conservation challenges for small-scale fisheries: Bycatch and habitat impacts of traps and gillnets. Biol. Conserv. 144: 1673-1681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, E., Luís, A. and Oliveira, N. (2017) Contribution to the study of the breeding biology of the European shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis in Berlengas archipelago, Portugal. Airo 24: 3-16.Google Scholar
Steensma, K., Lindell, C., Leigh, D., Burrows, C., Wieferich, S. and Zwamborn, E. (2016) Bird damage to fruit crops : A comparison of several deterrent techniques. Proc. Vertebr. Pest Conf. 27: 196-203.Google Scholar
Tuck, G. N., Phillips, R. A., Small, C., Thomson, R. B., Klaer, N. L., Taylor, F., Wanless, R. M. and Arrizabalaga, H. (2011) An assessment of seabird – fishery interactions in the Atlantic Ocean. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 68: 1628-1637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velando, A. and Freire, J. (2002) Population modelling of European shags (Phalacrocorax aristotelis) at their southern limit : conservation implications. 107: 59-69.Google Scholar
Weimerskirch, H., Brothers, N. and Jouventin, P. (1997) Population dynamics of wandering albatross Diomedea exulans and Amsterdam albatross D. amsterdamensis in the Indian Ocean and their relationships with long-line fisheries: Conservation implications. Biol. Conserv. 79: 257-270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, D., Pople, R. G., Showler, D. A., Dicks, L. V, Child, M. F., Ermgassen, E. K. H. J. zu and Sutherland, W. J. (2012) Bird conservation - global evidence for the effects of interventions. Exeter, UK: Pelagic Publishing.Google Scholar
Žydelis, R., Bellebaum, J., Österblom, H., Vetemaa, M., Schirmeister, B., Stipniece, A., Dagys, M., van Eerden, M. and Garthe, S. (2009) Bycatch in gillnet fisheries – An overlooked threat to waterbird populations. Biol. Conserv. 142: 1269-1281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Žydelis, R., Small, C. and French, G. (2013) The incidental catch of seabirds in gillnet fisheries: A global review. Biol. Conserv. 162: 76–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar