Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:57:26.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of season and mesh size on the selection of narrow-barred Spanish mackerel, Scomberomorus commerson in the Persian Gulf artisanal gillnet fishery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2021

Mojtaba Pouladi Open the ORCID record for Mojtaba Pouladi [Opens in a new window] ,
Seyed Yousef Paighambari ,
Matt K. Broadhurst ,
Russell B. Millar  and
Morteza Eighani Open the ORCID record for Morteza Eighani [Opens in a new window]
Mojtaba Pouladi*
Affiliation:
Department of Fisheries, Faculty of Fisheries and Environment Sciences, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Golestan, Iran
Seyed Yousef Paighambari
Affiliation:
Department of Fisheries, Faculty of Fisheries and Environment Sciences, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Golestan, Iran
Matt K. Broadhurst
Affiliation:
NSW Department of Primary Industries, Fisheries Conservation Technology Unit, National Marine Science Centre, Southern Cross University, 2 Bay Drive, Coffs Harbour, NSW, 2450, Australia Marine and Estuarine Ecology Unit, School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD4072, Australia
Russell B. Millar
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand
Morteza Eighani
Affiliation:
Department of Fisheries, Faculty of Fisheries and Environment Sciences, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Golestan, Iran
*
Author for correspondence: Mojtaba Pouladi, E-mail: mojtabafishery1987@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In response to perceived, but unknown variation among the size selection of narrow-barred Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus commerson) by artisanal gillnetters off Iran, and the need for such data to control exploitation as a precursor to balanced harvesting, the effects of two common mesh sizes (130 and 140 mm stretched mesh opening made from multifilament twine) on catches were investigated over one fishing year (nine months encompassing autumn to spring). Both mesh sizes mostly caught S. commerson at fork lengths (FL) larger than mean sizes at maturity (>67 cm), with the mean size selection incrementally increasing in the 130-mm mesh gillnet from autumn, and especially during spring. The greater selection occurred concurrent with an increasing condition factor (CF) among S. commerson, which typically spawn in late spring/early summer. Conversely, the relative size-selection of the 140-mm mesh gillnet decreased in spring, attributed to increasing CF precluding the capture of larger fish. Such seasonal variation in size selection might be countered by increasing mesh size to ~145 or 150 mm in spring. However, the existing 140-mm mesh might positively affect stock biomass by allowing larger, more fecund fish to avoid capture during spawning. The data support the strong influence of biological and environmental factors on gillnet size selection, which might also extend to other migratory, pelagic species.

Keywords

GillnetPersian GulfScomberomorus commersonScombridaeselectivity
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 100 , Issue 8 , December 2020 , pp. 1321 - 1325
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Acosta, AR (1994) Soak time and net length effects on catch rate of entangling nets in coral reef areas. Fisheries Research 19, 105–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayaz, A, Altinağaç, U, Öztekink, A and Özekinci, U (2019) The effect of seasons on gill net selectivity. Aquatic Science Engineering 34, 116–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beldade, R, Holbrook, SJ, Schmitt, RJ, Planes, S, Malone, D and Bernardi, G (2012) Larger female fish contribute disproportionately more to self-replenishment. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279, 2116–2121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Claereboudt, MR, McIlwain, JL, Al-Oufi, HS and Ambu-Ali, AA (2005) Patterns of reproduction and spawning of the kingfish (Scomberomorus commerson, Lacepede) in the coastal waters of the Sultanate of Oman. Fisheries Research 73, 273–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duman, E and Pala, M (2007) Effect of water temperature on the selectivity of monofilament gill nets (PA). Pakistan Journal of Biological Science 10, 1914–1917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eighani, M, Paighambari, SY, Bayse, SM and Broadhurst, MK (2020) Mono- vs multifilament gillnets: effects on selectivity of the narrow-barred Spanish mackerel Scomberomorus commerson in the Persian Gulf. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 100, 285–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO (2020) Species fact sheet. Available at http://www.fao.org/fishery/species/3280/en.Google Scholar
Froese, R and Pauly, D (2000) FishBase 2000: Concepts, Design and Data Sources. Los Baños, Laguna: ICLARM.Google Scholar
Gray, CA, Broadhurst, MK, Johnson, D and Young, DJ (2005) Influences of hanging ratio, fishing height, twine diameter and material of bottom-set gillnets on catches of dusky flathead Platycephalus fuscus and non-target species in New South Wales, Australia. Fisheries Science 71, 1217–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamley, JM (1975) Review of gillnet selectivity. Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32, 1943–1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, S and Rudstam, LG (1995) Gillnet catches as an estimate of fish abundance: a comparison between vertical gillnet catches and hydroacoustic abundances of Baltic Sea herring (Clupea harengus) and sprat (Sprattus sprattus). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 52, 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, DE, Cooke, KD and Gissing, CV (1986) Experimental studies of Pacific herring gillnets. Fisheries Research 4, 191–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosseini, SA, Kaymarm, F, Behzady, S, Kamaly, E and Darvishi, M (2017) Drift gillnet selectivity for Indo-Pacific king mackerel, Scomberomorus guttatus, using girth measurements in the north of Persian Gulf. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 17, 1145–1156.Google Scholar
Hovgård, H (1996) Effect of twine diameter on fishing power of experimental gill nets used in Greenland waters. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 53, 1014–1017.Google Scholar
Le Cren, ED (1951) The length-weight relationship and seasonal cycle in gonad weight and condition in the perch (Perca fluviatilis). Journal of Animal Ecology 20, 2–19.Google Scholar
Lee, B and Mann, BQ (2017) Age and growth of narrow-barred Spanish mackerel Scomberomorus commerson in the coastal waters of southern Mozambique and KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. African Journal of Marine Science 39, 397–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIlwain, JL, Claereboudt, MR, Al-Oufi, HS, Zaki, S and Goddard, JS (2005) Spatial variation in age and growth of the kingfish (Scomberomorus commerson) in the coastal waters of the Sultanate of Oman. Fisheries Research 73, 283–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherson, GR (1992) Age and growth of the narrow-barred Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus commerson Lacepede, 1800) in North-Eastern Queensland waters. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 43, 1269–1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minns, CK and Hurley, DA (1988) Effects of net length and set time on fish catches in gill nets. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 8, 216–223.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moth-Poulsen, T (2003) Seasonal variations in selectivity of plaice trammel nets. Fisheries Research 61, 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niamaimandi, N, Kaymaram, F, Hoolihan, JP, Mohammadi, Gh and Fatemi, MR (2015) Population dynamics parameters of narrow-barred Spanish mackerel, Scomberomorus commerson (Lacèpéde, 1800), from commercial catch in the northern Persian Gulf. Global Ecology and Conservation 4, 666–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Özbilgin, H, Tosunoğlu, Z, Tokaç, A and Metin, G (2005) Seasonal variation in trawl codend selectivity for annular sea bream (Diplodus annularis L., 1758). Turkish Journal of Veterinary Animal Science 29, 959–965.Google Scholar
Özbilgin, H, Metin, G, Tosunoğlu, Z, Tokaç, A, Kaykaç, H and Aydin, C (2012) Seasonal variation in the trawl codend selectivity of common pandora (Pagellus erythrinus). Journal of Applied Ichthyology 28, 194–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulsen, S, Nielsen, JR, Holst, R and Stæhr, K (2000) An Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) size selection model for experimental gill nets used in the Sound (ICES Subdivision 23). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 57, 1551–1561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Queirolo, D and Flores, A (2017) Seasonal variability of gillnet selectivity in Chilean hake Merluccius gayi gayi (Guichenot, 1848). Journal of Applied Ichthyology 33, 699–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roa-Ureta, RH, Lin, YJ, Rabaoui, L, Al-Abdulkader, K and Qurban, MA (2019) Life history traits of the narrow-barred Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus commerson) across jurisdictions of the southeast Arabian Peninsula: implications for regional management policies. Regional Studies Marine Science 31, art. 100797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudstam, LG, Magnuson, JJ and Tonn, WM (1984) Size selectivity of passive fishing gear: a correction for encounter probability applied to gill nets. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 41, 1252–1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samaranayka, A, Engås, A and Jørgensen, T (1997) Effects of hanging ratio and fishing depth on the catch rates of drifting tuna gillnets in Sri Lankan waters. Fisheries Research 29, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vašek, M, Kubečka, J, Čech, M, Draštik, V, Matĕna, J, Mrkvička, T, Peterka, J and Prchalová, M (2009) Diel variation in gillnet catches and vertical distribution of pelagic fishes in a stratified European reservoir. Fisheries Research 96, 64–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar