Search

Odontocete bycatch on and depredation from tropical pelagic longlines is globally widespread, having negative impacts on the economic viability of affected fisheries and on the conservation of affected odontocete populations. Reports by fishers that depredating odontocetes avoid gear tangles has underpinned the development of simulated structures to physically deter depredating odontocetes. This study assessed the efficacy of two such devices developed to mitigate odontocete depredation and associated bycatch. Of particular interest was their impact on (i) soak depth and (ii) sink rate using truncated trials, before determining their impact under full operational conditions on rates of (iii) catch of the five most economically important fish, and (iv) odontocete depredation and bycatch, on changes in (v) fish survival and size, and (vi) setting and hauling speed. The results indicated that the inclusion of devices on longlines had negligible impact on soak depth, thus were unlikely to impact on the suite of fish specifically targeted and caught. The sink rate was slowed, perhaps by drag, trapped air, or propeller wash, although the addition of weight might remedy this if the devices were to be used in areas where seabird bycatch could occur. Most importantly, trials conducted in Australian and in Fijian waters indicated that pooled fish catch rates (i.e. albacore, yellowfin, bigeye, mahi mahi, and wahoo) increased in the presence of the devices, possibly because more fish were attracted by them or because more depredators were deterred. Catch rates on control gear next to gear with devices attached were higher than more distant control gear, suggesting the influences of the devices may have extended to adjacent branchlines. The size of caught fish was mostly unaffected, although the survival of yellowfin and bigeye increased significantly in the presence of the devices. Hauling was slowed by the use of the devices and the need for an extra crewmember during setting and hauling, which could be cost prohibitive in some fisheries, especially if economic benefits from their use are not obvious. Despite the small sample size, odontocete bycatch only occurred on unprotected fishing gear and all individuals were released alive, although their fate was uncertain; there was evidence of injuries sustained from the event. The outcomes are positive and should motivate stakeholders to view such devices as a potentially effective tool for mitigating odontocete bycatch and depredation in this and similar longline fisheries. Future efforts should focus on improving operational integration and reducing implementation costs to encourage voluntary uptake and thus avoid non-compliance and the need for costly monitoring. The use of this technology could bring about marked improvements to the conservation situation for affected odontocete populations and to the economic situation for affected longline fisheries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Operational interactions between odontocetes ( i.e., toothed whales) and longline gear are a global phenomenon that may threaten the conservation of odontocete populations and the economic viability of longline fisheries. This review attempts to define the issue, summarize the trends and geographical extent of its occurrence over the last half century, explore the potential impact on odontocetes and on fisheries, and describe potential acoustic and physical mitigation solutions. Reports of odontocete bycatch rates are highly variable (between 0.002 and 0.231 individuals killed per set) and at least 20 species may be involved. Information about marine mammal population size, migration patterns and life history characteristics are scarce, although at least one population may be in decline due to losses attributable to longline bycatch. Information about the financial impact of depredation on pelagic longline fisheries is also scarce, although estimates of daily fleet-wide losses range between US$1,034 and US$8,495 (overall fleet income was not reported). Such biological and financial losses may be unsustainable. Recent developments in acoustic and physical mitigation technologies have yielded mixed results. Acoustic mitigation technologies have no moving parts, although require complex electronics. To date, they are insufficiently developed and their efficacy has been difficult to assess. Physical mitigation technologies generally require complex moving parts, although they are relatively simple to develop and assess. Further development and testing remains necessary before widespread implementation would be possible. Development of these approaches should be prioritized and a 'toolbox' of various strategies and solutions should be compiled, because a single panacea to the problem is unlikely to emerge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The potential for seismic airgun 'shots' to cause acoustic trauma in marine mammals is poorly understood. There are just two empirical measurements of temporary threshold shift (TTS) onset levels from airgun-like sounds in odontocetes. Considering these limited data, a model was developed examining the impact of individual variability and uncertainty on risk assessment of baleen whale TTS from seismic surveys. In each of 100 simulations: 10000 'whales' are assigned TTS onset levels accounting for: inter-individual variation; uncertainty over the population's mean; and uncertainty over weighting of odontocete data to obtain baleen whale onset levels. Randomly distributed whales are exposed to one seismic survey passage with cumulative exposure level calculated. In the base scenario, 29% of whales (5th/95th percentiles of 10%/62%) approached to 1-1.2 km range were exposed to levels sufficient for TTS onset. By comparison, no whales are at risk outside 0.6 km when uncertainty and variability are not considered. Potentially 'exposure altering' parameters (movement, avoidance, surfacing, and effective quiet) were also simulated. Until more research refines model inputs, the results suggest a reasonable likelihood that whales at a kilometer or more from seismic surveys could potentially be susceptible to TTS and demonstrate that the large impact uncertainty and variability can have on risk assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]