SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences / 2008 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2

Multifilament gillnet selectivity for the red mullet (Mullus barbatus) in the eastern black sea coast of Turkey, Trabzon

A. Cemal DİNÇER
Mustafa BAHAR
Pages
355–359
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Considering the minimum allowable landing size (13 cm) 36 mm was found the most adequate mesh for exploiting the red mullet as it evidenced more conservative approach towards fishing management.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The mesh selectivity of multifilament gillnets for red mullet (Mullus barbatus) was investigated using four different stretched mesh sizes (32, 36, 40 and 44 mm).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Experimental fishing operations were carried out in Trabzon (Turkey) coasts of the Black Sea in springtime between 2002 and 2003.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Considering the minimum allowable landing size (13 cm) 36 mm was found the most adequate mesh for exploiting the red mullet as it evidenced more conservative approach towards fishing management.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2002 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Türkiye · Mullidae · balık avlama

Özet

The mesh selectivity of multifilament gillnets for red mullet (Mullus barbatus) was investigated using four different stretched mesh sizes (32, 36, 40 and 44 mm). Experimental fishing operations were carried out in Trabzon (Turkey) coasts of the Black Sea in springtime between 2002 and 2003. Selectivity on M. barbatus was assessed using the SELECT method, implemented in the PASGEAR software. Five different functional models; normal location, normal scale, gamma, lognormal and bi-model were used to fit the selectivity curve to the catch data. It was shown that the bi-model function was the best to fit the data. For the selectivity curves on the bi-model, the optimum lengths (100% retention probability for the 32, 36, 40 and 44 mm mesh sizes) were obtained as 14.24 cm, 16.02 cm, 17.8 cm, and 19.58 cm, respectively. Considering the minimum allowable landing size (13 cm) 36 mm was found the most adequate mesh for exploiting the red mullet as it evidenced more conservative approach towards fishing management.

🔖

Cite This Article

DİNÇER, A. C., BAHAR, M. (2008). Multifilament gillnet selectivity for the red mullet (Mullus barbatus) in the eastern black sea coast of Turkey, Trabzon. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2, 355–359. https://ajindex.com/articles/407956

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Anonymous. 2004. Fisheries regulation for marine and fresh waters for commercial fishery, 2004-2006 fishing period No.:361, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affair of Turkey, Protect and Control General Office, Ankara, 71 pp. (In Turkish) Carol, J. and García-Berthou, E. 2007. Gillnet selectivity and its relationship with body shape for eight freshwater fish species. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 23: 654–660.
  2. Dos Santos, M.N., Gaspar, M., Monteiro, C.C. and Erzini, K. 2003. Gillnet selectivity for European hake Merluccius merluccius from southern Portugal: implications for fishery management. Fish. Sci., 69: 873-882.
  3. Erzini, K., Gonçalves, J.M.S., Bentes, L., Lino, P.G., Ribeiro, J. and Stergiou, K.I. 2003. Quantifying the roles of competing static gears: comparative selectivity of longlines and monofilament gillnets in a multi-species fishery of the Algarve (southern Portugal). Sci. Mar., 67: 341–352.
  4. Fabi, G., Sbrana, M., Biagi, F., Grati, F., Leonor, I. and Sartor, P.S. 2002. Trammel net and gillnet for Lithognathus mormyrus (L. 1758), and Mullus barbatus (L. 1758) in the Adriatic and Lingurian Seas. Fish. Res., 54: 375-388. FAO, 2004.
  5. FishStat Plus, Universal software for fishery statistical time series, http://www.fao.org/fi/website/ FIRetrieveAction.do?dom=topic&fid=16073&lang=e n (April 20, 2007)
  6. Fujimori, Y. and Tokai, T. 2001. Estimation of gillnet selectivity curve by maximum likelihood method. Fish. Res., 67: 644–654.
  7. Hameed, M.S. and Boopendranath, M.R. 2000. Modern Fishing gear Technology. Daya Publishing House. Delhi, India, 186 pp. Hamley, J.M. 1975. Review of gillnet selectivity. Board Canada, J. Fish. Res., 32: 1943-1969.
  8. Kolding, J. 1999. PASGEAR. A data base package for experimental or artisanal fishery data from passive gears. An introductory manual. University of Bergen, Dept. of Fisheries and Marine Biology. Bergen, Norway, 56 pp. Kurkilahti, M., Appelberg, M., Bergstrand, E. and Enderlein, O. 1998. An indirect estimate of bimodal gillnet selectivity of smelt. J. Fish Biol., 52: 243–254.
  9. Millar, R.B. 1992. Estimating the size selectivity of fishing gear by conditioning on the total catch. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 87: 962-968.
  10. Millar, R.B. and Holst, R. 1997. Estimation of gillnet and hook selectivity using log-linear models. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 54: 471-477.
  11. Millar, R.B. and Fryer, R.J. 1999. Estimating the sizeselection curves of towed gears, traps, nets and hooks. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish., 9: 89-116. Özbilgin,