Environmentally friendly fishing technologies: An adaptation tactic to climate change to the inland fisheries of developing countries

Abstract

Due to lack of environmentally friendly technologies in the inland fisheries of developing countries, there has been an existence of ecosystem damage due to the use of destructive fishing gears, especially when they come into contact with the seabed or marine creatures during fishing. For example, the bottom trawls cause so much deterioration to the seabed when it is operational, while, the bycatch and discards challenges within the mixed fisheries occur as a result of fishing with the mid-water trawl gears. A handful of other gears such as castnets, longlines, and gillnets also causes significant damages to the ecosystem by creating undue stresses. These stresses reduce the resilience of the ecosystem to climate change and amplify the impacts of change with negative effects on the fisheries. Development of technologies that are environmentally friendly can play a key role to proffer solutions to eliminate or reduce the destruction of the ecosystem through redesigning and modification of the fishing gears so that the ecosystem can retain its resilience and will also be able to adapt to the climate change scenarios.

Full text

Available at www.aujst.com 143
Environmentally friendly shing technologies: An adaptation
tactic to climate change to the inland sheries of developing
countries
F. O. Megwalu, O. E. Asare, A. Tchoundi and M. Aminur Rahman*
World Fisheries University Pilot Programme, Pukyong National University, 45 Yongso-ro, Nam-gu, Busan 48513, Korea
ABSTRACT
Due to lack of environmentally friendly technologies in the inland sheries of developing countries, there has been an existence of ecosystem
damage due to the use of destructive shing gears, especially when they come into contact with the seabed or marine creatures during shing.
For example, the bottom trawls cause so much deterioration to the seabed when it is operational, while, the bycatch and discards challenges
within the mixed sheries occur as a result of shing with the mid-water trawl gears. A handful of other gears such as castnets, longlines, and
gillnets also causes signicant damages to the ecosystem by creating undue stresses. These stresses reduce the resilience of the ecosystem to
climate change and amplify the impacts of change with negative effects on the sheries. Development of technologies that are environmentally
friendly can play a key role to proffer solutions to eliminate or reduce the destruction of the ecosystem through redesigning and modication
of the shing gears so that the ecosystem can retain its resilience and will also be able to adapt to the climate change scenarios.
Keywords: Adaptation, Anthropogenic Stressors, Developing Countries, Environment, Fishing, Gears, Mitigation Technology.
Submitted: 07-09-2018, Accepted: 14-09-2018, Published: 28-09-2018
INTRODUCTION
Climate change is the variation in the normal weather condition
of a place as a result of natural changes in the Earth’s orbit
around the Sun, solar variation, volcanic eruption, etc., and
also changes induced by anthropogenic activities of humans
that releases the heat-trapping greenhouse gases, such as
carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide into the
atmosphere.[1] The above-mentioned factors lead to global
warming with a catastrophic effect of ice melting and thermal
expansion, leading to sea level rise, ocean acidication, and a
general disturbance to the aquatic ecosystem and sheries.[2]
Fisheries play important roles in global food security by
providing more than 15% cheap animal protein, and other
important micronutrients such as Vitamin A, iron, zinc, and
calcium. Furthermore, its global trade is estimated to be >100
billion US Dollars per year, with over 500 million people
worldwide depending on the sector for their livelihoods.[3]
In developing countries, sheries provide a cheap source of
protein mainly to the coastal communities, create employment
and generate revenue to the shers and Government.[4] As from
the1970s to 2001, for example, there was a shrinking in area,
size, and depth of Lake Chad shery that forced a downward
production output of the fishery with a drop in revenue
generation on the part of the shers due to the impact of climate
change.[5] Despite the importance of sheries to global food
security and in Africa, the sector is still facing challenges from
climate change. Sogbesan and Kwaji[5] reported that the climate
change impact on sheries is been magnied as a result of the
existing stressors such as habitat damage caused by the use of
unfriendly shing gears, pollution, bycatch issues, and some
shing operations, which reduces adaptability and increases
the susceptibility of the aquatic ecosystem to change.
Recently, there have been new studies and developments in
the sheries sector that encourage the modication of shing
gears to eliminate or reduce their contact with the seabed.[6]
Address for correspondence: M. Aminur Rahman, World Fisheries University Pilot Programme, Pukyong National University,
45 Yongso-ro, Nam-gu, Busan 48513, Korea. Phone: +821039736504. E-mail: aminur1963@gmail.com
Australian Journal of Science and Technology
ISSN Number (2208-6404)
Volume 2; Issue 3; September 2018
Review Article

Megwalu et al.: Environmentally adapted shing technologies for developing countries
Available at www.aujst.com 144
Some of the examples of these modications are found in the
turtle excluding devices, technological modication to reduce
bycatch of seabirds in longline, construction, and operational
change of tuna purse seine, etc.[7] All these modications and
designs in shing gears have been put to use, operational
and have played important roles to mitigate the challenges of
habitat damage during shing activities. As a result, evaluations
of past research done on environmentally friendly shing
technologies are very important and are reviewed in this paper.
ANTHROPOGENIC STRESSORS
Stressors such as destructive shing gears, overshing, bycatch,
and some other shing operations have been identied to have
a negative impact on the ecosystem and cause vulnerability
effects on the working principles of the ecosystem by reducing
the ecological population of important species.[8] For instance,
the bycatch issues of the sea turtle and juvenile sh during
shrimp trawling alter the food web and biodiversity of the
habitat in the sense that they both have a key role to play in
the ecosystem sustainability in the time of climate change.[9]
The sea turtle is designated marine protected species and
could be a source of food to a bigger predator just as the same
way that juvenile sh could be a prey to the sea turtle within
the ecosystem, however, any form of bycatch mortality on
them will have a devastating effect on the biodiversity, as the
affected organisms on the food web will begin to look for other
alternative source of food.[10] The bottom trawling has been
reported to destroy the benthic community balance within the
ecosystem and causes damage to the primary food producers
such as the zooplankton, phytoplankton, and coral reef.[11]
Therefore, the overall effect of these anthropogenic stressors
is the reduction of the ecosystem resistance, resilience, and
biodiversity in the face of climate change.[12]
ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE
Perry (2003)[13] stated that the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change dened adaptation as the system ability to
anticipate, absorb, accommodate, or recover after a hazardous
event. Adaptation can also be said to be an adjustment to
climate change effects to reduce the negative impacts and takes
advantage of the positive impacts.[14] Adaptive capacity, on
the other hand, is the ability or potential of a system, region,
community or a country to cope with climate change impacts or
effects.[15] It is a known fact that people respond to worsening
climate condition through migration usually from threatened
coastal areas to a safer region.[16,17] However, migration can
be said to be one of the adaptation tools to adjust to climate
effects, it is seen as the last option.[18] With the known benet
of adaptation, there is a situation of poor adaptive capacity
particularly in developing countries classied as low-income
countries or low-income groups to effectively cope with climate
effects.[14,15] This situation is described as adaptation decit,
often characterized by the fragile response and insufcient
ability to face anthropogenic climate change.[19] In developing
countries, the artisanal sheries are mostly affected by climate
change because they lack adaptive capacity tools such as
technology, infrastructure, economic resources, institutions,
equity and information, and skills to adapt to uncertainties
due to climate change.[20] In this regard, developing countries
will have to set out an adaptive and mitigation actions to
cushion the effect of climate change on the sector.[21] These
adaptive tactics should be basically centered at maintaining
maximum sustainability of the ecosystem and sh production
through development in management and governance and
new technological development within the sector.[22] However,
the process to assess the calamity caused by climate change,
vulnerability and impact evaluation must consider the certainty
of self-adaptation as shown in Figure 1.
ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY
FISHING TECHNOLOGIES
Based on the mode of operation and impact on the ecosystem,
a shing operation could be destructive to the ecosystem
or friendly as the case may be in the sense that it does not
cause damage during operation.[23] As mentioned before,
the majority of the shing gears both passive and active
have a damaging effect to the environment. Moreover, this
development prompted researchers all over the world to
conduct studies on the modication of destructive shing
gears. These modification involves the introduction of
technological devices to the shing gears for accuracy during
operation and redesigning to reduce the contact with the aquatic
environment.[7] Some of the environmentally friendly shing
devices, which have been in use by the shers in recent years,
are briey described as follows:
Turtle Excluding Devices (TEDs)
This is a recent technological development in the shery
for the prevention of turtle bycatch incidence during shing
operation.[24] This helps the shers to effectively capture target
species and reduce the impact of bycatch to the food web and
the broader ecosystem.[7] The use of TEDs in the Nigerian
sheries was mandated in 1996 after the USA issued an
embargo to stop the importation of shrimp from countries that
harvest shrimp without using the TEDs gear.[25] In complying
with the use of TED in shrimp shery to reduce shing pressure
on the ecosystem, some modications are being done on the
trawl net to make it friendly with the environment.
A TED has an opening positioned at the opposite side of the
trawl net such that small aquatic animals such as turtles and
sharks that were captured during trawling can escape through
the opening while the shrimps are pushed into the codend of

Megwalu et al.: Environmentally adapted shing technologies for developing countries
Available at www.aujst.com 145
the device [Figure 2]. A non-return device called apper that
prevents captured sh from escaping as they enter the net
through the funnel-like opening [Figure 2]. Modifying trawl
net with a apper was inspired by their use in other gears such
as fyke nets and hoop nets.[26]
Before the design of the TEDs, turtle’s mortality as a result of
bycatch was very high and alarming, and accounted for about
27% of all global discards, forcing the creature to go extinct.[9]
The need to protect the species arose through this design and
modication of the trawl net gear.
Bycatch Reduction Devices (BRDs)
BRDs are a design modication that has made its way into the
tropical shrimp sheries where the target prawns are larger in size
than the small bycatch sh.[27] For instance, a high prole bycatch
case was experienced in the New South Wales Australia, where
an observer program reported large bycatch of juvenile sh in
the Clarence River between 1991 and 1992. According to the
report, 123 tons of bycatch of commercially valued yellow bream
and 0.8 million other species was discarded in catching 270 tons
of shrimp.[28,29] However, this situation demands technological
solutions to successfully address the challenges. Kennelly and
Broadhurdt[29] presented a framework that involves ve major
steps toward solving the bycatch problem: (1) Identifying
the major bycatch, (2) quantifying the bycatch, (3) designing
modifications to reduce mortality of the bycatch species,
(4) testing the experiment, and (5) acceptance of the technology
in the shery and also extended to the interested groups.
The BRDs are a grid selector designed to allow fish to be
selected by size at the codend [Figure 3]. Depending on the
management decision on the size of sh to catch, a square mesh
with a corresponding size as shown in Figure 3, as approved
by the management will be used as a grid selector.[26] When
the management target is a large sh, then a grid selector with
large size will be used so that small size sh can swim through
the selector and back to the sea. On the other hand, where the
management wants to catch small sh, a grid selector with a
corresponding smaller mesh size is used as this will allow the small
sh to swim into the codend and thus prevent and divert the large
sh back to the sea.[26] In most cases, the BRDs are positioned
behind the TEDs in the trawl net gear for effective elimination of
all the bycatch that get caught during shing.[30] Figure 4 shows
the different types of design modication carried out to improve
the selectivity of active gears such as seines and trawls.
Figure 1: Schematic diagram of adaptation in the climate change issues.[16]
Figure 2: The turtle excluding device. (Source: https://www.cbd.
int/doc/case-studies/tttc/tttc-00166-en.pdf)

Megwalu et al.: Environmentally adapted shing technologies for developing countries
Available at www.aujst.com 146
Longlines
Longlines are passive gears used around the world to catch
species of sh such as sharks, atsh, swordsh, and tunas by
attracting the sh to get closer to the lines using bait. Most times
after catching the sh, seabirds come to prey on the captured
sh and get stuck on the lines. This scenario prompted the need
for redesigning and modication of the longlines by attaching
streamers to the lines so it could scare away the seabirds and
thus prevent their bycatch[31] [Figure 5]. Another technological
advancement is attaching lightweight metals on the longlines
to pull the lines a little downward into the sea, so that it will
be out of sight, to make the gear less accessible to seabirds, to
reduce bycatch and loss of bait.[7]
Degradable Escape Mechanism
Fishing gears made from plastics have replaced the gears that
are produced by using natural bre-based materials. This is
because plastic made shing gears are superior in catchability,
durability and strength. A characteristics property that triggered
the worldwide use of plastics in making the shing gears.[32]
However, this kind of shing nets poses challenges to the
ecosystem in the event when it is lost during shing because
they are not degradable. They will continue to ghost sh and
cause harm to various marine animals.[32-34] As a result of this
side effect associated with plastics based nets, 18% polybutylene
Adipate-co-Terephthalate were mixed with 82% polybutylene
succinate to form a bioplastic that is biodegradable.[35] The
bio-plastics are then used to produce biodegradable shing
nets. Furthermore, this net is lesser in strength and expansion
than the conventional plastics nets.[36] When lost or abandoned
occurs during shing, the net is degraded by microorganisms
into oligomers, dimmers, and monomers and finally into
CO2 and H2O within 2 years if submerged in the sea.[35-37] As
shown in Figure 6 - the physical inspection carried out on the
gear material reveals that degradation actually started after
24 months of immersion in the sea.
This approach has also been used in pots and traps since 1977
in Alaska, USA. It involves the use of degradable materials
such as the cotton twine and incorporating it onto the trap
and pots aps which open after a certain period of time when
immersed into the water body to release the captured target
species and also prevent ghost-shing in the event of losing
the gear to the aquatic habitat.[38] This escape mechanism has
been proven to be 99% effective as compared to the 0% of
conventional traps and pots.[39]
This biodegradable escape mechanism plays an important
role in preventing ghost shing through the weakening of the
gear’s ability to continue shing after the loss, so that marine
animal can escape through the shing net lines when they get
entangled.[36,40]
Bottom Trawl
Bottom trawls cause the most ecosystem damage during shing
as its mode of operation is depended on direct contact with
the seabed when it is pulled along.[32] Carr and Millikan,[41]
Rose et al.,[42] and Valdemaresen and Suuronen[7] discussed
the design and modications on the bottom trawl such that
it reduced the contact with the seabed. This can be achieved
through the following ways: (1) by weight reduction, (2) by
reducing bottom door contact, and (3) by the introduction of
sweepless trawls with dropper chains or ballast elements that
are held very close while still maintaining catching efciency
Figure 3: Diamond bycatch reduction mesh[26]
Figure 4: Summary of the logic used for developing and testing
modications in shrimp-trawl sheries[29]

Megwalu et al.: Environmentally adapted shing technologies for developing countries
Available at www.aujst.com 147
of the gear[43] [Figure 7]. These modications reduce impacts
on the ecosystem during shing with the bottom trawl gears.
He and Foster[44] carried out a model testing to verify whether
the gear contact with the seabed could be reduced by reducing
the number of footgear bobbins. The bobbins foot gear
number was reduced from 31 to 24″ and 21″ diameter that
weighed 5,698 kg and 2,984 kg in air and water to 9 bobbins
footgear with weight 2,187 kg in air and 1,306 kg in water.
They calculated the total area of contact from the width and
the number of bobbins. The resulting analysis showed that
the area of gear contact with the seabed had been reduced by
70% by reducing the number of bobbins from 31 to 9, with no
measurable change in the geometry and stability of the trawl,
no clear difference in catch rates, and there was a ve-fold
(about 4%) reduction of seabed contact when compared with
31 bobbins footgear.
Sweepless bottom trawl gear was designed and modied
from raised footrope trawl for use in the Gulf of Maine. It is a
modication done to avoid seabed dwelling animals and atsh
as it is raised 0.5 m above the bottom of the sea.[45] However,
the raised footrope trawl has success; the sweepless trawl is
a better version over the footrope because of its improved
modications such as easy to rig and enforce, less likely to get
entangled with a ghost gear or other marine debris, and much
less impact on the sea bottom.[45]
Electronic Devices
Most of the electronic shing devices came from marine
electronics that was developed for use in the military to aid
communications, navigation, and reconnaissance purposes
during the World War II era.[46]
Devices such as sonar also known as a sh nder, roxan
acoustics device system, electronic thermometer, and GPS
system have played a key role in minimizing the environmental
impact of shing gears. For instance, sonar is an electronic
device used by shers to discover and locate the current position
of a sh school before deploying their gears to accurately and
effectively capture sh without causing greater damage to the
habitat. The roxan system is an acoustic instrument that uses the
echo system technology to get the accurate information about
the seabed distance which aids the shermen to avoid gear
contact with the benthic communities.[47]
On the other hand,
the electronic thermometer records effectively the seawater
temperature at any given time. It has been established that
seawater temperature has a direct impact on sh feeding and
depth. It also indicates a degree of change in temperature and
the upwelling boundaries where sh may likely cluster for easy
capture by the sher.[46] The GPS systems give the area map of
the shery and are greatly used by the management to set aside
area restriction of shing activities to protect important areas
such as spawning, juvenile, and important benthic communities
to conserve the ecosystem.[48]
Electronic devices make use of radio frequencies to function
properly.[49] He, further outlined the application of the
electronic technology and satellite communication to prevent
and reduce abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded shing
Figure 5: Reduction of incidental catch of seabirds in longline
gear[7]
Figure 6: The degradation process of biodegradable monolament observed with an electronic microscope[36]

Megwalu et al.: Environmentally adapted shing technologies for developing countries
Available at www.aujst.com 148
gears (ALDFG). This technology, in accordance, is approved
by the technical consultation on the Marking of Fishing
Gear within the FAO member states, also to combat Illegal,
Unreported, and Unregulated shing.[50] Macfadyen et al.[51]
reported that ALDFG causes marine litters, continues to capture
sh and leads to ghost shing especially in gillnet and pot gears
and causes damage to the ecosystem if not checked. However,
the need for electronically modied shing gear as outlined by
He and Suuronen,[49] becomes very important in gear marking
for origin identication, marking for monitoring and capacity
management, marking for tracking and surveillance, and
marking for lost gear recovery.
CONCLUSION
There is urgent need for the use of environmentally friendly
fishing technologies in the inland waters of developing
countries as the adaptive tactics to mitigate climate impacts
on the ecosystem. Government of developing countries should
encourage relevant research on shing gear modications
to suit the ecosystem. However, there is no international
standard on which the existing gears should be further
developed. It is solely depended on the target species, benthic
communities, and the shery management decisions. Although
the technological advancement within the sheries has so far
signicantly reduced the negative impacts of shing gears on
the ecosystem in developed countries, these have yet to be
implemented fully in disadvantaged countries. Furthermore,
this impact if not mitigated properly, becomes a climate change
stressors and magnies the effects of change in such a manner
that it cannot, or become too difcult for reversal.
REFERENCES
1. UNESCO. An Issues Guide for Education Planners and
Practitioners. Paris: UNESCO; 2011.
2. Wendler G, Chen L, More B. Recent sea ice increase and
temperature decrease in the Berring sea area, Alaska. Theor Appl
Climatol 2013;117:393-8.
3. Fisher B, Naidoo R, Guernier J, Johnson KB, Mullins D,
Robinson D, et al. Integrating sheries and agricultural programs
for food security. Agric Food Secur 2017;6:45-53.
4. Nwabeze GO, Erie AP. Artisanal shers use of sustainable
sheries management practices in the Jebba Lake Basin, Nigeria.
J Agric Ext 2013;17:123-34.
5. Sogbesan OA, Kwaji BP. Sustainable artisanal sheries practices
in Nigeria. Oceanogr Fish 2018;9:123-34.
6. Umeda N. Research progress towards shing vessel technology
for sustainable use of sheries resources. Fish Sci 2002;68:1801-6.
7. Valdemarsen JW, Suuronen P. Modifying shing gear to achieve
ecosystem objectives. In: Sinclair M, Valdimarsson G, editors.
Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem. Iceland: FAO
and CABI International Publishing; 2003. p. 321-41.
8. Folke C, Carpenter S, Walker B, Sheffer M, Elmqvist T,
Gunderson L, et al. Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity
in ecosystem management. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 2004;35:557-81.
9. Crowder LB, Hazen EL, Avissar N, Bjorkland R, Latanich C,
Mathew BO. The impacts of sheries on marine ecosystems and
the transition to ecosystem based management. Annu Rev Ecol
Syst 2008;39:259-78.
10. Mangel M, Levin PS. Regime, phase and paradigm shifts: Making
community ecology the basic science for sheries. Philos Trans
R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2005;360:95-105.
11. Watling L, Norse E. Disturbance of the seabed by mobile
shing gear: A comparison to forest clearcutting. Conserv Biol
2008;12:1180-97.
12. Greene CH, Pershing AJ. Oceans. Climate drives sea change.
Science 2007;315:1084-5.
13. Perry A. Book review: Climate change 2001: Synthesis
report. Third assessment report of the intergovernmental
panel on climate change (IPCC); Climate change 2001: The
scientic basis; Climate change 2001: Impacts, adaptation, and
vulnerability. Holocene 2003;13:794.
14. Fankhauser S. Adaptation to climate change. Annu Rev Resour
Econ 2017;9:209-30.
15. Smit B, Pilifosova O. Adaptation to climate change in the
context of sustainable development and equity. In: McCarthy JJ,
Canziani O, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS, editors. Climate
Change: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press; 2001. p. 877-912.
16. Smith VK, Carbone JC, Pope JC, Hallstrom DG, Darden ME.
Adjusting to natural disasters. J Risk Uncertainty 2006;33:37-54.
17. Boustan LP, Kahn ME, Rhode PW. Coping with economic and
environmental shocks: Institutions and outcomes: Moving to
higher ground: Migration response to natural disasters in the
early twentieth century. Am Econ Rev 2012;102:238-44.
18. Penning-Rowsell EC, Sultana P, Thompson PM. The last resort?
Population movement in response to climate-related hazards in
Bangladesh. Environ Sci Policy 2013;27:S44-59.
19. Decron S. Income risk, coping srategies, and safety nets. World
Bank Res Obs 2002;17:141-66.
20. Mirza MM. Climate change and extreme weather events: Can
developing countries adapt? Clim Policy 2003;3:233-48.
21. Hussein Z, Hertel T, Golub A. Climate change mitigation
policies and poverty in developing countries. Environ Res Lett
Figure 7: The use of dropper chains or ballest suspended from the
footrope.[7]

Megwalu et al.: Environmentally adapted shing technologies for developing countries
Available at www.aujst.com 149
2013;8:1-10.
22. Ritzau EO, Paul M, Gislason H, Rijnsdorp AD. Technological
development and sheries management. Rev Fish Sci Aquac
2014;22:156-74.
23. Glass CW, Walsh SJ, Marlen BV. Fishing technology in the
21st century: Integrating shing and ecosystem conservation.
ICES J Mar Sci 2007;64:1499-502.
24. Willems T, Depestele J, De Backer A, Hostens K. Ray bycatch
in a tropical shrimp shery: Do bycatch reduction devices
and turtle excluder devices effectively exclude rays? Fish Res
2016;175:35-42.
25. Solarin BB, Udolisa RE, Omotoyo N, Opurum SC, Ambrose TE,
Aniebona F. Design characteristics and the specications for the
construction of turtle excluder devices in shrimp trawlnets in
Nigeria. Afr J App Zool Environ Biol 2005;7:32-7.
26. Pramitasari SD, Okamoto J, Yoshimura M, Kimura N. Trailing
the effectiveness of a modied trawl net in the Nothern Java Sea,
Indonesia. Bull Fish Sci Hokkaido Univ 2016;66:115-20.
27. Foster SJ. Using distribution patterns of small sh by-catch in
tropical shrimp trawl sheries. Anim Conserv 2013;17:217-24.
28. Kennelly SJ, Liggins GW, Broadhurst MK. Retained and
discarded by-catch from oceanic prawn trawling in New South
Wales, Australia. Fish Res 1998;36:217-36.
29. Kennelly SJ, Broadhurst MK. By-catch begone: Changes in the
philosophy of shing technology. Fish Fish 2002;3:340-55.
30. Cochrane KL, Garda SM. A Fishery’s Manager’s Guidebook.
Rome, Italy: FAO; 2009.
31. Yokota K, Minami H, Kiyota M. Effectiveness of tori-lines
for further reduction of incidental catch of seabirds in pelagic
longline sheries. Fish Sci 2011;77:479-85.
32. Ahlstedt RL. Research on the Use of Degradable Fishing Gear
and Packaging Materials. Washington, DC: NOAA; 1986.
33. Kaiser M, Bullimore B, Newman P, Luck K, Gibbert S. Catches
in ghost shing set nets. Marin Ecol Progr Ser 1996;145:11-6.
34. Ayaz A, Acarli D, Ozekinci U, Kara A, Ozen O. Ghost shing by
monolament and multilament gillnets in Izmir Bay, Turkey.
Fish Res 2006;79:267-71.
35. Tokiwa Y, Calabia BP, Ugwu US, Aiba S. Biodegradability of
plastics. Int J Mol Sci 2009;10:3722-42.
36. Kim S, Kim P, Lim J, An H, Suuronen P. Use of biodegradable
drifnets to prevent ghost shing: Physical properties and shing
performance for Yellow Croaker. Anim Conserv 2016;19:309-19.
37. Ishii N, Inoue Y, Tagaya T, Mitomo H, Nagai D, Kasuya K. Isolation
and characterization of poly (butylene succinate) - Degrading
fungi. Polym Degrad Stab 2008;93:883-8.
38. Laist DW. Marine debris entanglement and ghost fishing:
A cryptic and signicant type of bycatch. In: Solving Bycatch:
Consideration for Today and Tomorrow. Alaska Sea: Grant
College Program; 1996. p. 33-9.
39. Matsuoka T, Nakashima T, Nagasawa N. A review of ghost
shing: Scientic approaches to evaluation and solutions. Fish
Sci 2005;7:691-702.
40. Wilcox C, Hardesty BD. Biodegradable nets are not panacea,
but can contribute to addressing the ghost shing problem. Anim
Conserv 2016;19:322-3.
41. Carr H, Millikan H. Conservation engineering: Options to minimize
shing impacts to the seaoor. In: Dorsey EM, Pederson J, editors.
Effects of Fishing Gears on the Floor of New England. Boston
USA: Conservation Law Foundation; 1998. p. 100-3.
42. Rose C, Carr A, Ferro D, Fonteyne R, MacMullen P. In: Rose C,
Hammond C, An HC, Stoner A, McEntire S, editors. Using Gear
Technology to Understand and Reduce Unintended Effects of
Fishing on the Seabed and Associated Communities: Background
and Potential Directions. ICES FTFB Report; 2000. p. 106-22.
43. He P, Goethel D, Smith T. Design and test of a topless shrimp
trawl to reduce pelagic sh bycatch in the golf of maine pink
shrimp shing. J Northw Atl Fish Sci 2007;38:13-21.
44. He P, Foster D. Reducing Seabed Contact of Shrimp Trawls.
Harlem, Netherland: ICES Working Group on Fishing
Technology and Fish Behaviuor; 2000. p. 6.
45. He P. Technical measures to reduce seabed impact of mobile
shing gears. In: Kennelly SJ, editor). By-Catch Reduction in
the World’s Fisheries, Reiew: Methods and Technologies in Fish
Biology and Fisheries. Dordrecht: Springer; 2007. p. 141-79.
46. Siansbury JC, Adey WH, Drew SC. Fisheries Technologies for
Developing Countries. Washington, DC: National Academy
press; 1988. p. 168.
47. Huang YS, Young MS. An accurate ultrasonic distance
measurement system with self temperature compensation.
Instrum Sci Technol 2009;37:124-33.
48. De Juan S, Demestre M, Sanchez P. Exploring the degree of
trawling disturbance by the analysis of benthic communities
ranging from a heavily exploited shing ground to an undisturbed
area in the NW mediterranean. Sci Marin 2011;75:507-16.
49. He P, Suuronen P. Technologies for the marking of shing gear
to identify gear components entangled on marine animals and
to reduce abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded shing gear.
Mar Pollut Bull 2018;129:253-61.
50. FAO. Report of the Expert Consultation on the Marking of
Fishing Gear. Rome: FAO; 2016.
51. Macfadyen G, Huntington T, Cappell R. Abandoned, Lost or
Otherwise Discarded Fishing Gear. UNEP Regional Seas Report
and Studies No. 185; FAO. Fish and Aquaculture Technology
Paper 523. Rome: UNEP/FAO; 2009. p. 115.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0
International License.