SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Fırat Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi / 2007 / Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 2

The effeccts of acoustic pingers on dolphins depredation around Sinop peninsula (Black Sea, Turkey) in bottom-set gillnets

Sinop Yarımadası civarında (Karadeniz, Türkiye) dip uzatma galsama ağlarında yunusların balıkları çalmaları üzerine akustik pingerlerin etkisi

Sabri BİLGİN
Sedat GÖNENER
Pages
121–127
Publication Date
2022-10-17
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)

A total of 76kg and 1115 fish and 25kg and 292 fish were caught by active of 34mm mesh size and control, respectively, while 90.5kg and 749 fish and 18.5kg and 230 fish were caught by active of 44mm mesh size and control, respectively. 3.0-4.9 and 3.3-3.8 folds more products as weight and numerical, respectively, were obtained by active of 34 and 44mm mesh size (with acoustic device) than by control net (without acoustic device) (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study was carried out to determine the effects of acoustic pingers on dolphins depredation in the monofilament bottom gillnets of 34 and 44mm mesh sizes around the Sinop Peninsula between 18 December 2005 and 21 January 2006.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The monofilament bottom gillnet of 34 and 44mm mesh sizes and 4 acoustic device (AQUAmark 200) were used.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:A total of 76kg and 1115 fish and 25kg and 292 fish were caught by active of 34mm mesh size and control, respectively, while 90.5kg and 749 fish and 18.5kg and 230 fish were caught by active of 44mm mesh size and control, respectively. 3.0-4.9 and 3.3-3.8 folds more products as weight and numerical, respectively, were obtained by active of 34 and 44mm mesh size (with acoustic device) than by control net (without acoustic device) (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2005 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study was carried out to determine the effects of acoustic pingers on dolphins depredation in the monofilament bottom gillnets of 34 and 44mm mesh sizes around the Sinop Peninsula between 18 December 2005 and 21 January 2006. The monofilament bottom gillnet of 34 and 44mm mesh sizes and 4 acoustic device (AQUAmark 200) were used. Acoustic devices were placed on the edge of float line with 50 fathom interval (active) then left to the sea . A total of 76kg and 1115 fish and 25kg and 292 fish were caught by active of 34mm mesh size and control, respectively, while 90.5kg and 749 fish and 18.5kg and 230 fish were caught by active of 44mm mesh size and control, respectively. 3.0-4.9 and 3.3-3.8 folds more products as weight and numerical, respectively, were obtained by active of 34 and 44mm mesh size (with acoustic device) than by control net (without acoustic device) (p

Özet

Bu çalışma, Sinop yarımadası civarında 18 Aralık 2005 ve 21 Ocak 2006 tarihleri arasında 34mm ve 44mm dip uzatma solungaç ağlarında yunusların balıkları çalmaları üzerine akustik pingerlerin etkisini belirlemek amacıyla yürütülmüştür. Araştırmada, ağ göz açıklığı 34mm ve 44mm olan monofılament tora sahip sade dip uzatma ağları ve 4 adet AQUAmark 200, akustik cihaz kullanılmıştır. Akustik cihazlar 34mm ve 44mm ağ göz açıklığındaki ağların mantar yakasının uç kısımlarından, 50 kulaçlık mesafeye bağlanarak (cihazlı ağlar) denize bırakılmıştır. 34mm ağ gözü açıklığına sahip aktif ve kontrol ağlarla sırasıyla, toplam 76kg, 1115 adet ve 25,0kg, 292 adet, 44mm ağ gözü açıklığına sahip aktif ve kontrol ağlarıyla ise sırasıyla, toplam 90,5kg, 749 adet ve 18,5kg, 230 adet balık yakalanmıştır. Yine, 34mm ağ gözü açıklığına sahip aktif ağlarla kontrol ağlara göre ağırlık ve sayı olarak sırasıyla, 3,0 kat ve 3,8 kat, 44mm ağ gözü açıklığına sahip aktif ağlarla ise ağırlık ve sayı olarak sırasıyla, 4,9 kat ve 3,3 kat daha fazla balık yakalandığı belirlenmiştir (p

🔖

Cite This Article

BİLGİN, S., GÖNENER, S. (2022). The effeccts of acoustic pingers on dolphins depredation around Sinop peninsula (Black Sea, Turkey) in bottom-set gillnets. Fırat Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 2, 121–127. https://ajindex.com/articles/513489

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Öztürk, B., 2004: Marine life of Turkey, in the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas. Turkish Marin Research Foundation (TÜDAV), Uniprint Basım San. ve Tic. A.Ş., Istanbul, 200 p
  2. Husson, AM. ve Holthuis, L.B. (1974).Physeter macrocephalus Linneaus, 1758, The valid name for the sperm whale. Zoologiche Mededelingen, 48, (19): 2005-217+3 plates
  3. Öztürk, B. (1999). Black Sea Biological Diversity: Turkey. GEF Black Sea Environmental Programme, United National Pablications, Newyork, 144 p
  4. Birkun, A.Jr. (2002). Interactions between Cetaceans and Fisheries in the Black Sea. State of Knowledge and Conservation Strategies. A report to the ACCOBAMS Secretariat, Monaco, February 2002. Section 10, 11 p
  5. Notarbartolo di Sciara, G. (2002). Cetaceans Species Occuring in the Mediterranean and Black Seas: State of Knowledge and Conservation Strategies. A report to the ACCOBAMS interim Secretariat, Monaco, February, 2002, Sec. 3, 10 P
  6. Kastelein, R.A., Au, W.W.L., De Haan, D. (2000). Detection distances of bottom-set gillnets by harbour porpoises {Phocoena phocoena) and bottlenose dolphins {Tursiops trunctatus). Mar. Env. Res. 49: 359-375
  7. Anonim,(2002).http://ya2002.yeniasir.com.tr/12/ 25/index.php3?kat=:ana&sayfa=dikili l&bolum=dizi
  8. Anonim.(2004).http://www.millivet.com/2004/05 /13/pazar/axpazO2html. Milliyet İnternet Pazar.htm
  9. Gearin, P.J., Gosho, M.E., Leake, J.L., Cooke, L., DeLong, R.L., Hughes, K.M. (2000). Experimental testing of acoustic alarms (pingers) to reduce bycatch of harbour porpoise, Phocoena phocoena, in the state of Washington. J. Cetacean Res. andManag. 2 (1): 1-9
  10. Kastelein, RA, Au, W.W., De Haan, D. (2000). Detection distances of bottom-set gillnets by harbour porpoises {Phocoena phocoena) and bottlenose dolphins {Tursiops truncatus). Mar. Env. Res. 49 (4): 359-75
  11. Culik, B.M., Koschinski, S., Tregenza, N., Ellis, G.M. (2001). Reactions of harbar porpoises Phocoena phocoena and herring Clupea harengus to acoustic alarms. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., Ill: 255-260
  12. Kastelein, R.A., De Haan, D., Vaughan, N., Staal, C, Schooneman, N.M. (2001). The influence of three acoustic alarms on the behavior of harbour porpoises {Phocoena phocoena) in a floating pen. Mar. Env. Res. 52 (4):351-371. 13 Goodson, A.D., Datta, S., Dremiere, P.Y., Di Natale, A. (2001). EC contract DGXIV 98/019 -Project ADEPTs, Final Report to the European Commission
  13. Carlström, J., Berggren, P., Dinnetz, F., Börjesson, P. (2002). A field experiments using