Journals / Journal of Agricultural Sciences / 2012 / Cilt: 18 Sayı: 4

Determination of Bycatch and Discard Catch Rates on Shrimp Net Fishing in Adana Yumurtalık

Pages
299–307
Publication Date
2012-12-04
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)

It was founded that as a weight share of target species from the total catch 19.94%, share of bycatch 40.17%. share of discard 39.89%.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study which was carried on by Yumurtalık district of Adana province, by catching with the shrimp net, marketable and discarded part of the catch, such as shrimp and other species were investigated.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the area, samples of catch were taken in April, May, June, July, August and September 2004 by fortnight periods.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It was founded that as a weight share of target species from the total catch 19.94%, share of bycatch 40.17%. share of discard 39.89%.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2004 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Bycatch · Discard · Shrimp net

Abstract

In this study which was carried on by Yumurtalık district of Adana province, by catching with the shrimp net, marketable and discarded part of the catch, such as shrimp and other species were investigated. In the area, samples of catch were taken in April, May, June, July, August and September 2004 by fortnight periods. Investigated 3513 species in April- September 2004 was consisted of 1017 shrimps, 1307 bycatch species and 1189 discard species. It was founded that as a weight share of target species from the total catch 19.94%, share of bycatch 40.17%. share of discard 39.89%. In total catch quantitative percentage of target species 28.94%. as a share of bycatch 37.20% and as a share of discard catch 33.86% were calculated. Considering catch per unit (100 m) effort; target species, shrimps as 105.61±16.29 g, bycatch species as 207.26±76.34 g, discard catch as 219.88±176.74 g were determined. Relations as weight between bycatch and discard, target species and bycatch, target species and discard were found significant (P<0.05). When evaluated by quantitative, the relations between target species and discard catch, target species and bycatch, bycatch and discard catch were determined significant (P<0.05).

🔖

Cite This Article

ATAR, H. H., TUÇDAN, K. (2012). Determination of Bycatch and Discard Catch Rates on Shrimp Net Fishing in Adana Yumurtalık. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Cilt: 18 Sayı: 4, 299–307. https://ajindex.com/articles/933409

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Alverson D.L., Freeberg M.H., Murawski S.A. & Pope J.G. (1994). A global assesment of fisheries by-catch and discard. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, Rome, pp. 339: 233 Atar H., Ölmez M., Bekcan S. & Seçer S. (2001). Mavi Yengecin (Callinectes sapidus L.,1758) Et Verimi ve Besin Madde İçeriği Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Gıda Dergisi 3: 195-201
  2. Avşar D., Çiçek E. & Akamca E. (1999).Yumurtalık Koyu (Adana) kıyısal zonunun yaz dönemi yavru kemikli balık faunası. X. Su Ürünleri Sempozyumu Kitabı, Adana, pp. 420- 429 Balguerias E. G. (1997). Discards in fisheries from the eastern Central Atlantic(CECAF Region). FAO Fisheries Report 547: pp. 183-214
  3. Çıra E. (2001). Hedeflenmeden avlanan türlerin balıkçılık yönetimi açısından incelenmesi. Balıkçılıkta Teknolojik Gelişmeler Çalıştayı, pp. 125-132
  4. Düzgüneş O., Kesici T. & Gürbüz F. (1983). İstatistik Metotları I. A.Ü.Ziraat Fakültesi Yayın No: 861, Ankara Fisher R.B. (1992). Introduction to bycatch. In: Proceedings of the National lndustry Bycatch Workshop. February 4-6. 1992. Newport. Oregon. Schoning. R.W. R.W. Jacobson. D.L. Alverson. T.G. Gentle and Jan Auyong. eds. Natural Resources Consultants. Inc. Seattle. Washington, pp. 5-10.
  5. Kaiser M. J., Austen M.C.V.& Ojaveer H. (2004). European biodiversity action plan for fisheries: issues for non-target species. Fisheries research 69: 1-6
  6. Kınacıgil. H.T., Çıra E. & İlkyaz A.T. (1999). Balıkçılıkta hedeflenmeden avlanan türler sorunu. Su Ürünleri Dergisi 16 (3-4); 437-444
  7. King M. (1995). Fisheries biology, assessment and management. Blackwell Publishing, UK Machias A., Vassilopoubu V., Vatsos D., Bekas P., Kallianiotis A., Papaconstantinou C.&Tsimenides N. (2001). Bottom trawl discards in the N.E. Mediterranean Sea. Fisheries Research 53: 181-195
  8. Matsuoka T. (1999). Sampling estimation of discards in multi-species fisheries. In: The international conference on integrated fisheries monitoring, 1-5
  9. February, Australia, pp. 197-209
  10. Perez J. A. A., Pezzuto P. R., Rodngues Z. F., Valentini H. & Vooren C. M. (2001). Reunioes de ordenamento da pesca demersal no sudeste e sul do Brazil. Notas tecnicas da FACIMAR 5:1-34
  11. Saila S. (1983). Importance and assessment of discards in commercial fisheries. UN/FAO Circular, 765, Rome Sparre. P. & Venema S.C. (1998) Introduction to tropical fish stock assessment Part 1: Manual. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, Rome Smirniotis E. (1998). Statistical regart on lending auction sites. Fish. News (athens) 208: 85-88
  12. Stobutzki I. C., Miller M. J.,