Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T22:45:47.862Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mono- vs multifilament gillnets: effects on selectivity of narrow-barred Spanish mackerel Scomberomorus commerson in the Persian Gulf

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2020

Morteza Eighani Open the ORCID record for Morteza Eighani [Opens in a new window] ,
Shannon M. Bayse ,
Seyed Yousef Paighambari  and
Matt K. Broadhurst
Morteza Eighani
Affiliation:
Fisheries Department, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran
Shannon M. Bayse
Affiliation:
Fisheries and Marine Institute, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 155 Ridge Road, St. John's, NLA1C 5R3, Canada
Seyed Yousef Paighambari*
Affiliation:
Fisheries Department, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran
Matt K. Broadhurst
Affiliation:
NSW Department of Primary Industries, Fisheries Conservation Technology Unit, National Marine Science Centre, PO Box 4321, Coffs Harbour, NSW, 2450, Australia Marine and Estuarine Ecology Unit, School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia
*
Author for correspondence: Seyed Yousef Paighambari, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Iranian coastal fishers targeting narrow-barred Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus commerson) recently replaced their historical multifilament gillnets with those made from monofilament, evoking management concerns over potential increases in catch-per-unit-of-effort. During 20 fishing days, we compared catches from replicate surface-set gillnets that were identical in terms of mesh size (140 mm stretched opening), length (180 m), depth (30 m), hanging ratio (0.56) and spatio-temporal deployment, but had different materials: multifilament (1.8-mm diameter twisted twine) vs monofilament (0.8-mm diameter twine). Compared with the multifilament gillnet, there was a trend of greater catches (up to 1.3×) of S. commerson and another retained species, mackerel tuna (Euthnus affinis), along with one discarded species, giant catfish (Netuma thalassina) by the monofilament gillnet. However, statistical significance was restricted to E. affinis catches and a bias towards smaller S. commerson. These differences were attributed to species-specific catching mechanisms within gillnet material, with larger S. commerson retained by their teeth in the multifilament and all E. affinis more securely retained by their deeper bodies in the monofilament. Gillnet materials require regulation to preclude excessive effort on fully exploited stocks of species such as S. commerson.

Keywords

GillnetPersian GulfScomberomorus commersonselectivity
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 100 , Issue 2 , March 2020 , pp. 285 - 290
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Balik, I and Çubuk, H (2000) Efficiency of capture of tench, Tinca tinca L. by trammel nets of monofilament and multifilament net twine combinations. Fisheries Management and Ecology 7, 515–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balik, I and Çubuk, H (2004) Effect of net twine on efficiency of trammel nets for catching carp (Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus, 1758) in Lake Beyşehir and silver crucian carp (Carassius gibelo Bloch, 1782) in Lake Eğirdir. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 4, 39–44.Google Scholar
Bates, D, Mächler, M, Bolker, B and Walker, S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67, 48 P. doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolker, B (2017) Package bbmle. Available at http://CRAN.R-project.org (Accessed June 2019).Google Scholar
Broadhurst, MK and Millar, RB (2019) Effects of twine material on the marine debris and relative ghost fishing of portunid hoop (tangle) nets. Aquaculture and Fisheries. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaf.2019.07.003.Google Scholar
Butler, DG, Cullis, BR, Gilmour, AR and Gogel, BJ (2009) Mixed Models for S Language Environments: ASReml R Reference Manual (Version 3). Brisbane: Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, p. 128. Available at https://asreml.kb.vsni.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2018/02/ASReml-R-2-Reference-Manual.pdf.Google Scholar
Clarke, KR (1993) Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Australian Journal of Ecology 18, 117–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, J (1979) Relative efficiency of multifilament and monofilament nylon gillnet towards lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) in Lake Huron. Journal of the Fisheries Board of Canada 36, 1180–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darvishi, M, Kaymaram, F, Salarpouri, A, Behzadi, S and Daghooghi, B (2011) Population dynamic and biological aspects of Scomberomorus commerson in the Persian Gulf and Oman Sea (Iranian coastal). Report No. IOTC-2011-WPNT01-23.Google Scholar
Eighani, M, Paighambari, SY, Herrmann, B and Feekings, J (2018) Effect of bait type and size on catch efficiency of narrow-barred Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus commerson) in the Persian Gulf handline fisheries. Fisheries Research 199, 32–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eighani, M, Paighambari, SY and Bayse, SM (2019) Comparing handline and trolling fishing methods in the recreational pelagic fishery in the Gulf of Oman. Scientia Marina 83, 215–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faife, JR (2003) Effect of mesh size and twine type on gillnet selectivity of cod (Gadus morhua) in Icelandic coastal waters. The United Nation University (IDPPE), Final Project 2003, Iceland.Google Scholar
FAO (1990) Fisherman's Workbook. Oxford: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
Froese, R and Pauly, D (2019) FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org, version (04/2019).Google Scholar
Grandcourt, EM, Al-Abdessalaam, TZ, Francis, F and Al-Shamsi, AT (2005) Preliminary assessment of the biology and fishery for the narrow-barred Spanish mackerel, Scomberomorus commerson (Lacèpéde, 1800). Fisheries Research 76, 277–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grati, F, Bolognini, L, Domenichetti, F, Fabi, G, Polidori, P, Santelli, A, Scarcella, G and Spagnolo, A (2015) The effect of monofilament thickness on the catches of gillnets for common sole in the Mediterranean small-scale fishery. Fisheries Research 164, 170–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamley, JM (1975) Review of gillnet selectivity. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32, 1943–1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, RG (1974) Effect of different filament diameters on the selectivity action of monofilament gill nets. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 2, 386–387.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, BA and Nepszy, SJ (1992) Comparison of catches in mono- and multifilament gill nets in Lake Erie. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12, 618–624.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holst, R, Wileman, D and Madsen, N (2002) The effect of twine thickness on the size selectivity and fishing power of Baltic cod gill nets. Fisheries Research 56, 303–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosseini, SA, Kaymarm, F, Behzady, S, Kamaly, E and Darvishi, M (2017) Drift gillnet selectivity for Indo-Pacific king mackerel, Scomberomorus guttatus, using girth measurements in the north of Persian Gulf. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 17, 1145–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hovgård, H (1996) Effect of twine diameter on fishing power of experimental gill nets used in Greenland waters. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53, 1014–1017.Google Scholar
IUCN (2016) Red List of Threatened Species, Version-2. IUCN. Available at www.iucnredlist.org.Google Scholar
Jensen, JW (1995) A direct estimate of gillnet selectivity for brown trout. Journal of Fish Biology 46, 857–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaymaram, F, Ghasemi, S, Vahabneshad, A and Darvishi, M (2013) Growth, mortality and exploitation rate of narrow-barred Spanish mackerel, Scomberomorus commerson in the Persian Gulf and Oman Sea, Iran, Hormozgan's Waters. Third Working Party on Neritic Tuna in Bali Indonesia, IOTC-2013–WPNT03-29 Rev. 1, 1–7.Google Scholar
Kim, I, Park, C, Cho, S, Kim, H and Cha, B (2011) Relative efficiency of monofilament and multifilament nylon gill net for marbled sole (Pleuronectes yokohamae) in the western sea of Korea. Journal of the Korean Society of Fisheries and Ocean Technology 47, 290–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, S, Lim, J, Lee, K and Park, S (2016) Effect of twine thickness on size-selectivity of driftnet for the yellow croaker Larimichthys polyactis in southwestern Sea of Korea. Chinese Journal of Oceanology and Limnology 34, 1199–1208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motlagh, SY and Shojaei, M (2009) Population dynamics of narrow-barred Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus commerson) in the Persian Gulf, Bushehr Province, Iran. Indian Journal of Fisheries 56, 7–11.Google Scholar
Niamaimandi, N, Kaymaram, F, Hoolihan, JP, Mohammadi, GH and Fatemi, MR (2015) Population dynamics parameters of narrow-barred Spanish mackerel, Scomberomorus commerson (Lacèpéde, 1800), from commercial catch in the northern Persian Gulf. Global Ecology and Conservation 4, 666–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richard Winston, B, Phiri, TB and Singini, W (2019) Assessment of catch composition and economic analysis of monofilament and multifilament under-meshed gears (Ngongongo) at Likoma Island, Lake Malawi. Journal of Fisheries Research 3, 7–17.Google Scholar
Simasiku, EK, Mafwila, SK and Sitengu, GS (2017) Comparison of the efficiency of monofilament and multifilament gillnets in Lake Liambezi, Namibia. International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies 5, 350–355.Google Scholar
Svedang, H and Hornborg, S (2014) Selective fishing induces density-dependent growth. Nature Communications 5, 4152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, SN, Edwin, L and George, VC (2003) Catching efficiency of gill nets and trammel nets for penaeid prawns. Fisheries Research 60, 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turunen, T (1996) The effect of twine thickness on the catchability of gillnets for pikeperch (Stizostedion lucioperca (L.)). Annales Zoologici Fennici 33, 621–625.Google Scholar
Turunen, T, Kukilahti, M and Suuronen, P (1998) Gill net catchability and selectivity of whitefish (Coregonus lavaratus L.): seasonal effect of mesh size and twine diameter. Archives of Hydrobiology, Species Issues Advance Limnology 50, 429–437.Google Scholar
Vandergoot, CS, Kocovsky, PM, Brenden, TO and Liu, W (2011) Selectivity evaluation for two experimental gill-net configurations used to sample Lake Erie walleyes. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 31, 832–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Washington, P (1973) Comparison of salmon catches in mono- and multifilament gillnets. Marine Fisheries Review 35, 13–17.Google Scholar