Loading...
3 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
- A comparison of monofilament gillnet and small hook longline selectivity in a multispecies artisanal fishery in the Algarve, Southern PortugalPublication . Erzini, Karim; Santos, M. N.; Monteiro, C. C.; Gonçalves, J. M. S.; Bentes, L.; Lino, Pedro G.As part of ongoing studies concerned with the small-scale fisheries of the South of Portugal, experimental fishing was carried out with monofilament gillnets and small hook longlines within the same area. Sixty-two species were caught, of which 20 were common to both gears. Pronounced differences in terms of the relative importance of different species in the catches were observed. Size selection patterns also differed, with highly overlapped hook catch distributions and few species showing evidence for size selectivity. In contrast, strong selectivity was characteristic of species which tend to be "wedged" in gillnets. Whereas smaller stretched mesh sizes (particularly 40 and 50 mm) caught significant numbers of illegal sized fish, this was minimal in the longlines. Some implications for management are discussed.
- Semi-pelagic Longline and Trammel Net Elasmobranch Catches in Southern Portugal: Catch Composition, Catch Rates and DiscardsPublication . Coelho, Rui; Erzini, K; Bentes, Luis; Correia, Carla; Lino, Pedro; Monteiro, Pedro; Ribeiro, Joaquim; Gonçalves, J. M. S.In Portugal, elasmobranch landings have decreased substantially in recent years. In this work, elasmobranch catches in semi-pelagic longlines (1997 and 1998) were compared with those in trammel nets (2000) in the Algarve, southern Portugal areas. In the semi-pelagic longline fi shery, 7 elasmobranch species represented 33.4% (2 185 specimens) of the total fi sh catches. Among the elasmobranch species, the most abundant were Galeus melastomus (63.3%), Etmopterus pusillus (21.7%) and Scyliorhinus canicula (14.2%). Most of these elasmobranchs were discarded (68.3% in total). In the trammel net fi shery, 16 different elasmobranch species represented 4.3% (597 specimens) of total fi sh catches and the most important species were Raja undulata (43.6%) and S. canicula (10.2%). The majority of the elasmobranchs caught in trammel nets had commercial value, and only 5.4% were discarded. In both fi sheries, intra-specifi c catch rates varied with depth. Length-frequency distributions for the only species with relatively high catches in both fi sheries, S. canicula, showed that, in general, trammel nets catch larger specimens and in a narrower length range than do longlines.
- Local fishermen’s perceptions of the usefulness of artificial reef ecosystem services in PortugalPublication . Ramos, Jorge; Lino, Pedro; Himes-Cornell, Amber; Santos, Miguel N.Proponents of artificial reef (AR) deployment are often motivated by the usefulness of such structures. The usefulness of ARs is related to their capability of providing ecosystem services/additional functions. We present two distinct Portuguese AR case studies: (1) The Nazaré reef off the central coast of Portugal and (2) the Oura reef off the Algarve coast. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with local fishermen in the fishing towns of Nazaré and Quarteira pre-and post-AR deployment. The main focus of the interviews was to understand fishermen's perception of AR usefulness (or lack thereof) in terms of nine ecosystem services/additional functions potentially provided by the ARs. We tested the null hypothesis that ARs do not provide additional ecosystem services/additional functions. When queried pre-AR deployment, fishermen indicated that ARs are most likely to provide three ecosystem services: "habitat and refuge," "biodiversity preservation" and "food production." Fishermen had similar perceptions post-deployment. For the Nazaré reef, fishermen tended to have a positive or neutral perception of ecosystem services/additional functions being provided by ARs. For the Oura reef, fishermen tended to have a mostly neutral perception of AR ecosystem services; however, there were also some positive and other negative perceptions. It was difficult for stakeholders to conceptualize some of the ecosystem services/additional functions provided by ARs prior to actively using them. As a result, some stakeholders changed their perception of the ecosystem services/additional functions after using the structures. These results indicate that stakeholders likely need to perceive ARs as useful in order for them to provide their support for AR installation. Likewise, their support is often needed to justify the use of public funds to install ARs, therefore making it imperative for resource managers to undertake similar interviews with fishermen when considering the use of ARs in other areas.