The Effects of Derelict Blue Crab Traps on Marine Organisms in the Lower York River, Virginia

Havens, Kirk J.; Bilkovic, Donna Marie; Stanhope, Dave; Angstadt, Kory; Hershner, Carl

doi:10.1577/m07-014.1

Cited by 41 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 8 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although many studies have quantifi ed the effects of ghost fi shing, most estimate the number of animals killed per unit of time (e.g., Breen, 1987;Hebert et al, 2001), the number killed per pot per unit of time (e.g., Bullimore et al, 2001;Al-Masroori et al, 2004;Campbell and Sumpton, 2009), or simply the number of crabs caught per pot (e.g., Stevens et al, 2000;Havens et al, 2008). These studies focus on following or recovering lost gear and examining catches and mortality over time on a local population.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even after they are lost, nets can continue to entangle and kill organisms (Kaiser et al, 1996;Santos et al, 2003;Baeta et al, 2009), and fi sh traps and crustacean pots can continue to attract, trap, and kill target and nontarget species (Stevens et al, 2000;Hebert et al, 2001;Erzini et al, 2008;Ramirez-Rodriguez and Arreguin-Sanchez, 2008), such as reptiles, birds, and mammals (Havens et al, 2008;Good et al, 2009;2010). Dead animals in crab pots and fi sh nets can then act as bait to attract even more organisms (Havens et al, 2008). Although in some cases these effects are negligible, in many cases, depending on the type of gear and the environment (Gerrodette et al, 1990;Santos et al, 2003), ghost fi shing represents a substantial economic loss to the fi shery (e.g., Breen, 1987).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of ghost fishing on the population of red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) in Womens Bay, Kodiak Island, Alaska

Long¹,

Cummiskey²,

Munk³

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Ghost fishing, the capture and killing of marine organisms by lost or abandoned fishing gear, is a serious ecological and economic problem confronting fisheries. In this study, we quantify the rate of ghost fishing on the population of red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) in Womens Bay, Kodiak Island, Alaska. From 1991 to 2008, crabs with carapace lengths (CLs) from 42 to 162 mm were tagged with acoustic tags and tracked both from a boat at the surface and by divers. Diver observations were used to determine whether a crab molted or died and, in many cases, to determine the cause of death. Of 192 crabs tracked during this study in association with other projects, 13 were killed in ghostfishing gear (12 in ghost crab pots and 1 in a ghost gill net) and 20 were captured in ghost pots and released alive by divers. An additional 13 died of other causes, including predation by sea otters and an octopus and poaching by humans. We estimate that between 16% and 37% of the population of red king crab with CLs >60 mm in Womens Bay were killed by ghost fishing per year during the period of this study, making ghost fishing a substantial source of mortality. These results indicate that steps to reduce ghost fishing in Womens Bay are warranted.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of ghost fishing on the population of red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) in Womens Bay, Kodiak Island, Alaska

Long¹,

Cummiskey²,

Munk³

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, when hardshell crab pots placed in deeper water break free from their moorings or are abandoned, they may be carried by storms or tidal currents into shallow-water habitat. Though they are never baited, these ghost or derelict pots are potential, chronic causes of bycatch mortality (Roosenburg 1991;Guillory and Prejean 1998;Havens et al 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Test of Bycatch Reduction Devices on Commercial Crab Pots in a Tidal Marsh Creek in Virginia

Morris

Wilson

Dever

et al. 2010

Estuaries and Coasts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effectiveness of bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) on commercial pots designed to capture blue crabs Callinectes sapidus was tested in the York River on Felgates Creek (37.2667 N, −76.5850 W) over the period 4 June through 31 July 2009. For each of 10 pairs of pots, one had BRDs affixed to all four entrance gapes and the other had none. Pots were baited approximately once each week but were sampled for blue crabs and bycatch 6 of 7 days each week for the duration of the study. More than one fourth of 1,643 total crabs were caught on the first day after baiting, and for these 7 days, no statistical difference was detected between either the number or size of legal-size crabs caught in BRD versus non-BRD pots. Of 51 Malaclemys terrapin and 44 fish caught as bycatch throughout the study, all but three fish were captured in non-BRD pots. BRDs exclude bycatch and may reduce incidental mortality of crabs in pots that are not tended regularly.

show abstract

“…Debris can directly damage vessels involved in leisure, transport or fishing (Takehama 1989). In addition to the direct damages to vessels sustained as a result of encounters with marine debris, ghost nets and other discarded fishing gear can have ramifications for fisheries industries, by decreasing target stock levels and their prey items, and damaging sensitive habitat (Matsuoka et al 2005;Havens et al 2008). Debris can also be detrimental to the tourism industry through reduced or altered visitation to beaches, as well as to potential losses in private sector investment in dirty or polluted areas (Ballance et al 2000;Ofiara 2001).…”

Section: Figure 11 Debris On An Indonesian Beach Photo By Diana Klementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Debris also has aesthetic and economic consequences, and may result in decreased tourism (Ballance et al 2000), reduced economic benefits from fisheries (Havens et al 2008), and damage to vessels (Jones 1995). Furthermore, debris destroys habitats and aids in the transport of invasive species (Sheavly & Register 2007).…”

Section: Debris Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ingestion of Marine Debris by Sea Turtles

Schuyler¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ingestion of marine debris is an increasingly significant problem for marine wildlife, and is known to affect more than 170 marine species worldwide. Debris ingestion can have lethal outcomes either through the impaction or perforation of the alimentary system, but it can also have sublethal impacts. The world's seven species of sea turtles, six of which are listed as threatened or endangered on the IUCN Red list, are all known to be affected by debris ingestion. Their long distance migrations coupled with a life history that incorporates both an oceanic and pelagic lifestyle, make them an ideal subject for studying the mechanisms of and threats from debris ingestion on a global scale.The aim of my doctoral research was to identify and characterise the risk factors affecting the ingestion of debris by sea turtles, including geographic distribution of debris, species and life history stage of turtles and visual and physical characteristics of debris ingested by turtles. Since sea turtles are primarily visual predators, the visual characteristics of the debris they ingest can help us to gain further insight into why they eat such harmful items.The impact of debris on sea turtles was first brought to attention by Balazs in 1985, in a paper summarising all known instances of both entanglement and ingestion. Subsequently a number of studies much smaller in scope were published. My analysis of all studies published since Balazs' review revealed that the likelihood of debris ingestion has increased for both green and leatherback sea turtles, and shows an increasing trend for loggerhead turtles. Additionally, turtles that are omnivores, herbivores and gelatinovores (hawksbill, green and leatherback turtles) are more at risk than carnivorous species (loggerhead and Kemp's ridley turtles). Plastics are by far the most commonly cited items of marine debris ingested by turtles.Understanding why turtles ingest debris first requires an understanding of what types of debris they ingest and their selectivity towards different items. A comparison of debris ingested by stranded sea turtles to debris found in the environment shows that benthic-feeding sea turtles select for soft, clear, plastics, while pelagic-feeding sea turtles prefer hard, white plastics, and are much less selective in their ingestion. To further investigate selectivity from the point of view of the turtle, I developed a visual model for the way turtles see the debris they ingest and compared it to environmental debris. Turtles preferentially select non-blue coloured items, and strongly prefer ii highly transparent and flexible items. This lends support for the hypothesis that they eat plastic because it resembles one of their natural prey items, jellyfish, and also suggests they may detect items that contrast against a blue ocean background more efficiently. My doctoral research concluded that sea turtles, particularly green, loggerhead, and leatherback turtles, are at high and increasing risks from plastic ingestion. Importantly, comparative studies s...

show abstract

The Effects of Derelict Blue Crab Traps on Marine Organisms in the Lower York River, Virginia

Cited by 41 publications

References 8 publications

Effects of ghost fishing on the population of red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) in Womens Bay, Kodiak Island, Alaska

Effects of ghost fishing on the population of red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) in Womens Bay, Kodiak Island, Alaska

A Test of Bycatch Reduction Devices on Commercial Crab Pots in a Tidal Marsh Creek in Virginia

Ingestion of Marine Debris by Sea Turtles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About