Search

Bycatch in pelagic longline fisheries is one of the most serious threats to some sea turtle populations. Hook shape, hook minimum width and bait type have been the focus of research and management measures to mitigate problematic bycatch of vulnerable taxa. To assess the current state of knowledge and progress over the past decade, we reviewed findings on the effects of hook and bait type on pelagic longline sea turtle catch rates, anatomical hooking position and at-vessel mortality. Fish versus squid for bait lowered catch rates of leatherback sea turtles ( Dermochelys coriacea) and individual species of hard shelled turtles. Fish bait also reduced hard-shelled turtle deep hooking. Wider circle hooks reduced both leatherback and hard-shelled turtle catch rates relative to narrower J and tuna hooks, and reduced the proportion of caught hard-shelled turtles that were deeply hooked. Wider circle hooks with fish bait reduced leatherback and hard-shelled turtle catch rates relative to narrower J and tuna hooks with squid bait. Wider versus narrower circle hooks reduced hard-shelled sea turtle catch rates and deep hooking. The mechanisms for hook and bait type effects on turtle interactions are reviewed. Research designed to assess single factor effects is needed, in particular for hook shape and minimum width, and for hook and bait effects on anatomical hooking position and survival rates. Fishery-specific and holistic assessments are needed to account for variability between fisheries in a bycatch mitigation method's commercial viability, relative risks to affected populations and possible conflicting effects on vulnerable taxa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The reduction of sea turtle mortality in fisheries may contribute to recovering populations. To reduce turtle interactions, regulations for the Hawaii-based longline swordfish fishery required vessels to switch from using a J-shaped hook with squid bait to a wider circle-shaped hook with fish bait. Analyses of observer data showed that, following the introduction of the regulations, significant and large reductions in sea turtle and shark capture rates occurred without compromising target species catches. Capture rates of leatherback and loggerhead turtles significantly declined by 83% and 90%, respectively. The swordfish catch rate significantly increased by 16%. However, combined tuna species and combined mahimahi, opah, and wahoo catch rates significantly declined by 50% and 34%, respectively. The shark catch rate significantly declined by 36%, highlighting the potential for the use of fish instead of squid for bait to contribute to addressing concerns over the sustainability of current levels of shark exploitation. There was also a highly significant reduction in the proportion of turtles that swallowed hooks (versus being hooked in the mouth or body or entangled) and a highly significant increase in the proportion of caught turtles that were released after removal of all terminal tackle, which may increase the likelihood of turtles surviving the interaction. A quarter of turtle captures were in clusters (>1 turtle caught per set and consecutive sets with turtle captures), which is substantially higher than predicted by chance if the events were independent. This suggests that turtles aggregate at foraging grounds and that instituting methods to avoid real-time turtle bycatch hotspots may further reduce turtle interactions. There was no significant correlation between turtle and swordfish catch rates (vessels with high swordfish CPUE do not necessarily have high turtle CPUE), indicating that there may be a fishing practice or gear design causing some vessels to have low turtle catch rates without compromising swordfish catch rates. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Reducing by-catch of sea turtles in pelagic longline fisheries, in concert with activities to reduce other anthropogenic sources of mortality, may contribute to the recovery of marine turtle populations. Here, we review research on strategies to reduce sea turtle by-catch. Due to the state of management regimes in most longline fisheries, strategies to reduce turtle interactions must not only be effective but also must be commercially viable. Because most research has been initiated only recently, many results are not yet peer-reviewed, published or readily accessible. Moreover, most experiments have small sample sizes and have been conducted over only a few seasons in a small number of fisheries; many study designs preclude drawing conclusions about the independent effect of single factors on turtle by-catch and target catch rates; and few studies consider effects on other by-catch species. In the US North Atlantic longline swordfish fishery, 4.9-cm wide circle hooks with fish bait significantly reduced sea turtle by-catch rates and the proportion of hard-shell turtles that swallowed hooks vs. being hooked in the mouth compared to 4.0-cm wide J hooks with squid bait without compromising commercial viability for some target species. But these large circle hooks might not be effective or economically viable in other longline fisheries. The effectiveness and commercial viability of a turtle avoidance strategy may be fishery-specific, depending on the size and species of turtles and target fish and other differences between fleets. Testing of turtle avoidance methods in individual fleets may therefore be necessary. It is a priority to conduct trials in longline fleets that set gear shallow, those overlapping the most threatened turtle populations and fleets overlapping high densities of turtles such as those fishing near breeding colonies. In addition to trials using large 4.9-cm wide circle hooks in place of smaller J and Japan tuna hooks, other fishing strategies are under assessment. These include: (i) using small circle hooks (≤ 4.6-cm narrowest width) in place of smaller J and Japan tuna hooks; (ii) setting gear below turtle-abundant depths; (iii) single hooking fish bait vs. multiple hook threading; (iv) reducing gear soak time and retrieval during daytime; and (v) avoiding by-catch hotspots through fleet communication programmes and area and seasonal closures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]