FIELD EXPERIMENTS SHOW THAT ACOUSTIC PINGERS REDUCE MARINE MAMMAL BYCATCH IN THE CALIFORNIA DRIFT GILL NET FISHERY

By Jay Barlow, Grant A. Cameron. 2003

243 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Global and Planetary Change, Oceanography

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/35adf010fd7c935f6f9da9066126d586165b87cd

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

In Global and Planetary Change

In Oceanography

Citations in the corpus

The looming crisis: interactions between marine mammals and fisheries (2008, background): “At the present time, only 2 viable alternatives exist to reducing bycatches of marine mammals in gill-net fisheries: acoustic alarms (Barlow and Cameron 2003; Kraus et al. 1997) and area closures (Murray et al. 2000).”
Responses of harbour porpoises to pile driving at the Horns Rev II offshore wind farm in the Danish North Sea (2011, background): “Pingers have been found to deter harbour porpoises to distances of only 100 to 200 m (Kraus 1999, Barlow & Cameron 2003, Kastelein et al. 2006).”
Marine megafauna interactions with small-scale fisheries in the southwestern Indian Ocean: a review of status and challenges for research and management (2018, background): “…mammals and several species of elasmobranchs are of primary concern in this regard and catch mitigation methods (e.g. turtle excluding devices, weak links for nets and acoustic alarms) are already available for some of them (e.g. Barlow and Cameron 2003; Gilman et al. 2006; Ward et al. 2008).”
Responses of cetaceans to anthropogenic noise (2007, background): “Dukane Netmark 1000 ADDs have also been deployed experimentally in drift gillnet fisheries off the west coast of the USA and successfully reduced total by-catch of all cetacean and pinniped species that interact with this fishery (Barlow & Cameron, 2003).”
To ping or not to ping: the use of active acoustic devices in mitigating interactions between small cetaceans and gillnet fisheries (2013, methodology): “La Jolla, California, USA”
Why study bycatch? An introduction to the Theme Section on fisheries bycatch (2008, background): “Sharks and rays are another group of concern, with many species and populations declining as a result of unintentional capture in fishing gear (Baum et al. 2003).”
Spatial distribution and environmental correlates of Australian snubfin and Indo‐Pacific humpback dolphins (2006, background): “The efficacy of acoustic alarms to reduce incidental captures in gillnets (Barlow and Cameron 2003) remains undemonstrated for humpback and snubfin dolphins, and enforcing regulations regarding their use in this remote region is impractical.”
Behavioral biology of marine mammal deterrents: A review and prospectus (2013, background): “Controlled field experiments have demonstrated that pingers significantly reduce harbour porpoise and common dolphin bycatch (Barlow and Cameron, 2003; Kraus et al., 1997: Carretta and Barlow, 2011) and effectively eliminated beaked whale bycatch in gillnets (Carretta et al., 2008).”
Behavioral responses of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, to gillnets and acoustic alarms (2004, background): “…conducted, pingers have been shown to be effective in reducing by-catches of harbour porpoises in other gillnet fisheries (Gearin et al., 2000; Trippel et al., 1999) and in reducing by-catches of common dolphins, Delphinus delphis, in the California drift gillnet fishery (Barlow and Cameron, 2003).”
Small cetacean captures in Peruvian artisanal fisheries: High despite protective legislation (2010, background): “…of acoustic alarms has been shown to have potential in reducing gillnet bycatch in some cetacean populations (Kraus et al., 1997; Kastelein et al., 2001; Barlow and Cameron, 2003; Cox et al., 2003; Koschinski et al., 2006; Leeney et al., 2007) and should be trialed in the Peruvian gillnet fishery.”