Standardization of CPUE of loggerhead sea turtle (<i>Caretta caretta</i>) caught by pelagic longliners in the Southwestern Atlantic Ocean

Pons, Maite; Domingo, Andrés; Sales, Gilberto; Fiedler, Fernando Niemeyer; Miller, Philip; Giffoni, Bruno; Ortiz, Mauricio

doi:10.1051/alr/2010001

Cited by 25 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 35 publications

(39 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, the driftnet fishing effort is higher during the austral spring and summer (September to March) as a result of the higher fishing yield (Kotas 2004;Kotas et al 2007;Kotas et al 2008), and thus, more turtles are caught during these seasons. Moreover, captures on pelagic longline gear increase in the SW Atlantic during the summer and autumn (Pons et al 2010 and references therein), while longline fishing effort increases in the winter over the shelf break (see Bugoni et al 2008 for year-round fishing effort), where capture rates of leatherback and loggerhead turtles are high.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Driftnet fishery threats sea turtles in the Atlantic Ocean

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fisheries are recognised as a major threat to sea turtles worldwide. Oceanic driftnets are considered the main cause of the steep decline in Pacific Ocean populations of the leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea. The world's largest leatherback population nests in West Africa and migrates across the Atlantic Ocean to feed off the South American coast. There, the turtles encounter a range of fisheries, including the Brazilian driftnet fishery targeting hammerhead sharks. From 2002 to 2008, 351 sea turtles were F. N. Fiedler (&) Fundação Pró-TAMAR,incidentally caught in 41 fishing trips and 371 sets. Leatherbacks accounted for 77.3% of the take (n = 252 turtles, capture rate = 0.1405 turtles/km of net), followed by loggerheads Caretta caretta (47 individuals, capture rate = 0.0262 turtles/km of net), green turtles Chelonia mydas (27 individuals, capture rate = 0.0151 turtles/km of net) and unidentified hard-shelled turtles (25 individual, capture rate = 0.0139 turtles/km of net) that fell off the net during hauling. Immediate mortality (i.e., turtles that were dead upon reaching the vessel, excluding post-release mortality) was similar among the species and accounted for 22.2 to 29.4% of turtles hauled onboard. The annual catch by this fishery ranged from 1,212 to 6,160 leatherback turtles, as estimated based on bootstrap procedures under different fishing effort scenarios in the 1990s. The present inertia in law and enforcement regarding gillnet regulations in Brazil could result in the reestablishment of the driftnet fishery, driving rates of leatherback mortality to levels similar to those observed in previous decades. This development could potentially lead to the collapse of the South Atlantic leatherback population, mirroring the decline of the species in the Pacific. In light of these potential impacts and similar threats to other pelagic mega fauna, we recommend banning this type of fishery in the region.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Driftnet fishery threats sea turtles in the Atlantic Ocean

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To include more than adult females in trend analysis, in-water indices (e.g. Bresette et al 2010, Pons et al 2010, Casale et al 2012, Redfoot & Ehrhart 2013, Lagueux et al 2014, 2016, Williams et al 2015, especially for the juvenile life-stages, are necessary to complement nesting indices and detect population changes before they are observed at nesting beaches (see Q7 and Q8). Unfortunately, abundance estimates at foraging areas are challenging to obtain and unavailable for many populations .…”

Section: Q11 What Constitutes a Healthy Turtle?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Are we working towards global research priorities for management and conservation of sea turtles?

Rees¹,

Alfaro‐Shigueto²,

Barata³

et al. 2016

Endang. Species. Res.

242

161

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2010, an international group of 35 sea turtle researchers refined an initial list of more than 200 research questions into 20 metaquestions that were considered key for management and conservation of sea turtles. These were classified under 5 categories: reproductive biology, biogeography, population ecology, threats and conservation strategies. To obtain a picture of how research is being focused towards these key questions, we undertook a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature (2014 and 2015) attributing papers to the original 20 questions. In total, we reviewed 605 articles in full and from these 355 (59%) were judged to substantively address the 20 key questions, with others focusing on basic science and monitoring. Progress to answering the 20 questions was not uniform, and there were biases regarding focal turtle species, geographic scope and publication outlet. Whilst it offers some meaningful indications as to effort, quantifying peer-reviewed literature output is ob viously not the only, and possibly not the best, metric for understanding progress towards informing key conservation and management goals. Along with the literature review, an international group based on the original project consortium was assigned to critically summarise recent progress towards answering each of the 20 questions. We found that significant research is being expended towards global priorities for management and conservation of sea turtles. Although highly variable, there has been significant progress in all the key questions identified in 2010. Undertaking this critical review has highlighted that it may be timely to undertake one or more new prioritizing exercises. For this to have maximal benefit we make a range of recommendations for its execution. These include a far greater engagement with social sciences, widening the pool of contributors and focussing the questions, perhaps disaggregating ecology and conservation.

show abstract

“…In the published literature, fishing effort is expressed in the following ways: (1) number of vessels (Dunn et al, 2009;Rodríguez-Quiroz et al, 2009); (2) size (or tonnage) of vessels (Bordalo-Machado, 2006;FAO, 2009;World Bank, 2009); (3) spatial and temporal intensity of fishing such as 'days at sea', 'hauls, tows, or trips per unit of space or time', etc. (Mangel et al, 2010); (4) dimension and characteristics of fishing gears such as number of hooks, number of pots, or total length of nets (Pons et al, 2010;Waddington and Meeuwig, 2009); (5) engine power (horsepower or kilowatt) (Bordalo-Machado, 2006;Mu et al, 2007;Yu and Yu, 2008); and (6) the use of advanced technological aids such as fish finders (Karakulak, 2004;Melvin et al, 2002) (Appendix B.1-3). Increasing skills of skippers and fishing crews also contribute to the effectiveness of fishing effort and capacity (Pascoe and Coglan, 2002;Squires and Kirkley, 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%