Ege Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
Research Article
PDF BibTex RIS Cite

Yunuslar ile kıyı balıkçılığı arasındaki etkileşim ve azaltılmasında akustik caydırıcı cihaz kullanımı

Year 2021, Volume: 38 Issue: 1, 43 - 52, 15.03.2021

Emre NAMLITÜRK İsmet BALIK

https://doi.org/10.12714/egejfas.38.1.05

Abstract


Bu araştırma, yunusların uzatma ağları ile etkileşim sıklığını, ağlara ve yakalanan balıklara verdiği zararların (depredesyon) azaltılmasında yunus kovucu (akustik cihaz) kullanmanın rolünü araştırmak için Mayıs 2015 - Şubat 2017 tarihleri arasında Güney Doğu Karadeniz’in Ünye-Ordu kıyılarında yürütülmüştür. Bu amaçla, teknik ve donam özellikleri aynı olan iki dip uzatma ağı seti oluşturulmuştur. Gruplardan birincisi yunus kovucuların takıldığı aktif grup, ikincisi yunus kovucu bulunmayan kontrol grubudur. Araştırmada, Future Oceans (70 kHz) marka yunus kovucular kullanılmıştır. Araştırma süresince, toplam 65 avcılık denemesinin sadece 3’ünde yunusların uzatma ağlarıyla etkileşime girdiği tespit edilmiştir. Ağlarla etkileşime giren yunusların sebep olduğu uzatma ağlarındaki delik sayısının, yunus kovucu takılan ağlarda kontrol ağlarına göre %36,3 daha az olduğu belirlenmiştir. Diğer taraftan, mezgit balığı CPUE değeri, yunus kovucu bulunan ağlarda 2,01±0,23 kg km-1 s-1, kontrol ağlarında ise 1,97±0,24 kg km-1 s-1olarak hesaplanmıştır. Bu sonuçlar, uzatma ağlarında yakalanan mezgit balığı miktarı üzerine yunus kovucu kullanımının olumsuz bir etkisinin olmadığını göstermektedir. 



Keywords

Yunuslar, uzatma ağları, yunus kovucu, mezgit, Merlangius merlangus

Supporting Institution

Ordu Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Koordinatörlüğü

Thanks

Bu çalışma, Ordu Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Balıkçılık Tenolojisi Mühendisliği Anabilim Dalı’nda Prof. Dr. İsmet BALIK danışmanlığında Emre NAMLITÜRK tarafından yürütülen Yüksek Lisans Tezi’nden alınmıştır. Çalışma, Ordu Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Koordinatörlüğünün TF-1461 numaralı projesi ile desteklenmiştir. Desteklerinden dolayı Ordu Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Koordinatörlüğü’ne teşekkür ediyoruz.

References

  • Anonim (2017). Future Oceans. Alıntılanma adresi: https://futureoceans.com/product/future-oceans-70-khz-dolphin-pinger/- (30.06.2016).
  • Ayadi, A., Mohamed, G. & Bradai, M.N. (2013). Do pingers reduce interactions between bottlenose dolphins and trammel nets around the Kerkennah Islands Central Mediterranean Sea? Cahiers de Biologie Marine, 543, 375-383. doi:10.21411/CBM.A.66F21CC1
  • Ballance, L.T. (2018). Cetacean Ecology. In B. Würsig, J.G.M. Thewissen & K. M. Kovacs (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (pp. 172-180). London: Academic press.
  • Barlow, J. & Cameron, G.A. (2003). Field experiments show that acoustic pingers reduce Marine mammal bycatch in the California drfit gill net fishery. Marine Mammal Science, 192, 265-283.
  • Bayar, H. (2014). Marmara Denizi’nde Karaya Vuran Cetacea Türlerinin Belirlenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İÜ, Fen Bil. Enst., Su Ürünleri Temel Bilimler Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul, 97 s.
  • Birkun, A.Jr. (2002). Interactions between cetaceans and fisheries in the Black Sea. In G. Notarbartolo di Sciara (Ed.). Cetaceans of the Mediterranean and Black Seas: state of knowledge and conservation strategies (pp 98-107). Monaco: A report to the ACCOBAMS Secretariat.
  • Bjørge, A., Brownell, Jr, R.L., Donovan, G.P. & Perrin, W.F. (1994). Significant direct and incidental catches of small cetaceans. In W.F. Perrin, G.P. Donovan, J. Barlow (Eds.). Gillnets and Cetaceans (pp 73-130). A report by the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission to the United Nations on Environment and Development (UNCED).
  • Bordino, P., Kraus, S., Albareda, D., Fazio, A., Palmerio, A., Mendez, M. & Botta, S. (2002). Reducing incidental mortality of Franciscana dolphin Pontoporia blainvillei with acoustic warning devices attached to fishing nets. Marine Mammal Science, 184, 833-842.
  • Brotons, J. M., Munilla, Z., Grau, A. M. & Rendell, L. (2008). Do pingers reduce interactions between bottlenose dolphins and nets around the Balearic Islands. Endangered Species Research, 5, 301-308. doi:10.3354/esr00104
  • Burke, E.K. (2004). The effect of acoustic deterrent devices on bottlenose dolphin depredation in the Spanish mackerel gillnet fishery. Msc Dissertation. Duke University, Nicholas, USA, 39 s.
  • Buscaino, G., Buffa, G., Sarà, G., Bellante, A., Tonello, A.J.J., Hardt, F.A.S., Cremer, M. J., Bonanno, A., Cuttitta A. & Mazzola, S. (2009). Pinger affects fish catch efficiency and damage to bottom gill nets related to bottlenose dolphins. The Japanese Society of Fisheries Science, 75, 537-544. doi:10.1007/s12562-009-0059-3
  • Carlström, J., Berggren, P. & Tregenza N.J.C. (2009). Spatial and temporal impact of pingers on porpoises. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 66, 72-82. doi:10.1139/F08-186
  • Carretta, J.V. & Barlow, J. (2011). Long-term effectiveness, failure rates, and ‘dinner bell’ properties of acoustic pingers in a gillnet fishery. Marine Technology Society Journal, 45, 7-19. doi:10.4031/MTSJ.45.5.3
  • Cox, T.M., Read A.J., Swanner, D., Urian, K. & Waples, D. (2003). Behavioral responses of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, to gillnets and acoustic alarms. Biological Conservation, 115, 203-212.
  • Cruz, M. J., Jorda˜o, V. L., Pereira, J. G., Santos, R. S. & Silva, M. A. (2014). Risso’s dolphin depredation in the Azorean hand-jig squid fishery: assessing the impacts and evaluating effectiveness of acoustic deterrents. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Journal of Marine Science, 719, 2608-2620. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsu073
  • Culik, B.M., Koscinski, S., Tregenza, N. & Ellis, G.M. (2001). Reactions of harbor porpoises Phocoena phocoena and herring Clupea harengus to acoustic alarms. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 211, 255-260.
  • Enül, E. (2009). Deniz Memelileri Bilimi ve Yönetiminin Türkiye’deki Durumu ve Deniz Memelilerinin Ege’deki Trol Balıkçılığı ile Etkileşimi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, DEÜ, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Deniz Bilimleri ve Teknolojisi Anabilim Dalı, İzmir, 67 s.
  • Franse, R. (2005). Effectiveness of Acoustic Deterrent Devices (Ppingers). Leiden: Universiteit Leiden, Centrum voor Milieuwetenschappen.
  • Gazo, M., Gonzalvo, J. & Aguilar, A. (2008). Pingers as deterrents of bottolenose dolphins interacting with trammel nets. Fisheries Research, 92, 70-75. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2007.12.016
  • Gearin, P.J., Gosho, M.E., Laake, 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. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 21, 1-9.
  • Geijer, C.K.A. & Read, A.J. (2013). Mitigation of marine mammal bycatch in U.S. fisheries since 1994. Biological Conservation, 159, 54-60. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2012.11.009
  • Goetz, S., Begona Santos, M., Vingada, J., Costas Costas, D., Gonzalez Villanueva, A. & Pierce, G. J. (2015). Do pingers cause stress in fish? An experimental tank study with European sardine, Sardina pilchardus (Walbaum, 1792) Actinopterygii, (Clupeidae), exposed to a 70 Khz dolphin pinger. Hydrobiologia, 749, 83-96. doi:10.1007/s10750-014-2147-3
  • Gordon, J.C.D. & Northridge, S.P. (2002). Potential impacts of Acoustic Deterrent Devices on Scottish Marine Wildlife. Report, F01AA404, Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report, 63 p.
  • Gönener, S. & Bilgin, S. (2007). Sinop Yarımadası Civarında Karadeniz, Türkiye) Dip Uzatma Galsama Ağlarında Yunusların Balıkları Çalmaları Üzerine Yunus Kovucuların Etkisi. Fırat Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilim Dergisi, 192, 121-127.
  • Gönener, S. & Bilgin, S. (2009). The Effect of Pingers on Harbour Porpoise, Phocoena phocoena Bycatch and Fishing Effort in the Turbot Gill Net Fishery in the Turkish Black Sea Coast. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 9, 151-157. doi:10.4194/trjfas.2009.0205
  • Gönener, S. & Özdemir, S. (2012). Investigation of the Interaction Between Bottom Gillnet Fishery Sinop, Black Sea) and Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Terms of Economy. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 12, 115-126. doi: 10.4194/1303-2712-v12_1_14
  • Gönener, S. & Özsandıkçı, U. (2019). Dip Solungaç Ağlarında Afalina (Tursiops truncatus) Yunuslar İçin Kullanılan Yunus Kovucu Cihazların İncelenmesi ve Ekonomik Performansı. Atatürk Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 50 (1), 84-91. doi:10.17097/ataunizfd.433660
  • Gönener, S. (2017). Sözlü görüşme. Sinop Üniv., Su Ürünleri Fakültesi, Sinop. (09.03.2017).
  • IUCN (2020). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. International Union for Conservation of Nature. Alıntılanma adresi: (http://www.iucnredlist.org/ (30.06.2017)
  • Kastelein, R.A., Jennings, N., Verboom, W. C., Haan D. D. & Schooneman, N. M. (2006). Differences in the response of a striped dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba) and a harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena) to an acoustic alarm. Marine Environmental Research, 61, 363-378. doi:10.1016 / j.marenvres.2005.11.005
  • Kastelein, R.A., van der Heul, S., van der Veen, J., Verboom, W.C., Jennings, N., Haan, D.D. & Reijnders, P.J.H. (2007). Effects of acoustic alarms, designed to reduce small cetacean bycatch in gillnet fisheries, on the behaviour of North Sea fish species in a large tank. Marine Environmental Research, 64, 160-180. doi:10.1016/j.marenvres.2006.12.012
  • Kraus, S.D., Read, A.J., Solow, A., Baldwin, K., Spradlin, T., Andersen, E. & Williamson, J. (1997). Acoustic alarms reduce porpoise mortality. Nature, 388, 525.
  • Larsen, F. & Eigaard, O.R. (2014). Acoustic alarms reduce bycatch of harbour porpoises in Danish NorthSea gillnet fisheries. Fisheries Research, 153, 108-112.
  • Larsen, F., Krog, C. & Eigaard, O.R. (2013). Determining optimal pinger spacing for harbour porpoise bycatch mitigation. Endangered Species Research, 20, 147-152. doi:10.3354/esr00494
  • Lauriano, G., Fortuna, C.M., Moltedo, G. & Notarbartolo di Sciara, G. (2004). Interactions between common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and the artisanal fishery in Asinara Island National Park (Sardinia): assessment of catch damage and economic loss. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 62, 165-173.
  • López, B.D. & Mariño, F. (2011). A trial of acoustic harassment device efficacy on free-ranging bottlenose dolphins in Sardinia, Italy. Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology, 44, 197-208. doi.org/10.1080/10236244.2011.618216
  • Mangel, J.C., Alfaro-Shigueto, J., Witt, M.J., Hodgson, D.J. & Godley, B.J. (2013). Using pingers to reduce bycatch of small cetaceans in Peru’s small-scale driftnet fishery. Oryx, 4704, 595-606. doi:10.1017/S0030605312000658
  • Monteiro-Neto, C., Avila, F.S.C, Alves, T.T.J., Araujo, D.S., Campos, A.A., Martıns, A. M.A. & Parente, C.L. (2004). Behavioral responses of Sotalia fluviatilis Cetacea, Delphinidae) to acoustic pingers, Fortaleza, Brazil. Marine Mammal Science, 20, 145-151.
  • Morizur, Y., Le Niliot, P., Buanic, M. & Pianalto, S. (2009). Expérimentations de répulsifs acoustiques commerciaux sur les filets fixes à baudroies en mer d’Iroise. Report, Résultats obtenus au cours de l’année 2008-2009 avec le projet « Pingiroise », Centre de Brest Sciences et Technologie Halieutiques, Le Conquet, 17 p.
  • Northridge, S., Vernicos, D. & Raitsos-Exarchopolous, D. (2003). Net depredation by bottlenose dolphins in the Aegean: First attempts to quantify and to minimise the problem. Reprot, Paper IWC SC/55/SM25, International Whaling Commission Scientific Commission. Cambridge: (Unpublished).
  • Olesiuk, P.F., Nichol, L.M., Sowden, M.J. & Ford, J.K.B. (2002). Effect of the sound generated by an acoustic harassment device on the relative abundance and distribution of harbor porpoises Phocoena phocoena) in retreat passage, British Columbia. Marine Mammal Science, 18, 843-862.
  • Radu, G., Nicolaev, S., Anton, E., Maximov, V. & Radu, E. (2003). Preliminary data about the impact of fishing gears on the dolphins from the Black Sea Romanian waters. Workshop on demersal Resources in the Black Sea and Azov Sea (pp 115-129), İstanbul.
  • Read, A., Swanner, D., Waples, D., Urian, K. & Williams, L. (2004). Interactions between bottlenose dolphins and the Spanish mackerel gillnet fishery in North. Final Report, Project 03-FEG-13, North Carolina Fishery Resource Grant Program, Raleigh: 40 p.
  • Resmi Gazete (2016). Deniz ve İçsularda Ticari Su Ürünleri Avcılığını Düzenleyen 1/4 Nolu Tebliğ. TGHB, Balıkçılık ve Su Ürünleri Genel Müdürlüğü, 1:112, Ankara.
  • Schakner, Z.A. & Blumstein, D.T. (2013). Behavioral biology of marine mammal deterrents: A review and prospectus. Biological Conservation, 167, 380-389. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.08.024
  • Stone, G., Kraus, S., Hutt, A., Martin, S., Yoshinaga, A. & Joy, L. (1997). Reducing bycatch: Can acoustic pingers keep Hector’s dolphins out of fishing nets?. Marine Technology Society Journal, 31, 3-7.
  • Tonay, A.M. (2003). Batı Karadeniz’de uzatma ağlarına takılan yunus türleri, Phocoena phocoena L., Tursiops truncatus Montagu ve Delphinus Delphis L.’in sayısal olarak incelenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İÜ, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Temel Bilimler Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul, 29 s.
  • Tonay, A.M. (2010). Batı Karadeniz’de Karaya Vuran Cetacea Türlerinin Kalkan Balığı Avcılığı ile Etkileşimi. Doktora Tezi, İÜ, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Temel Bilimler Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul, 131 s.
  • Trippel, E.A., Strong, M.B., Terhune, J.M. & Conway, J.D. (1999). Mitigation of harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena) bycatch in the gillnet fishery in the lower Bay of Fundy. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 561, 113-123.
  • Turan, E. (2017). Sözlü görüşme. Ünye Su Ürünleri Kooperatifi, Ünye-Ordu. (10.01.2017).
  • Waples, D.M., Thorne, L.H., Hodge, L.E.W., Burke, E.K., Urian, K.W. &, Read, A.J. (2013). A field test of acoustic deterrent devices used to reduce interactions between bottlenose dolphins and a coastal gillnet fishery. Biological Conservation, 157, 165-171. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.012

Interaction between dolphins and coastal fisheries and using acoustic deterrent in reducing of interaction

Year 2021, Volume: 38 Issue: 1, 43 - 52, 15.03.2021

Emre NAMLITÜRK İsmet BALIK

https://doi.org/10.12714/egejfas.38.1.05

Abstract


This study was conducted at the Unye-Ordu coasts of the South-eastern Black Sea, from May 2015 and February 2017, to investigate the frequency of dolphins-bottom gillnet fisheries interactions, the role of using acoustic deterrent in reducing the damage inflicted by the dolphins to the gillnets and to the fish caught in the gillnets. For this purpose, two gillnet sets with similar technical and equipment characteristics were prepared. While one of the groups had acoustic deterrent (active group), the other did not have acoustic deterrent (control group). In the study were used Future Oceans (70 kHz) deterrent. During the study, in only 3 of the 65 fishing trials have determined the interaction of dolphins with gillnets. It was determined that the number of holes in the gillnets caused by the dolphins was 36.3% less in the nets with acoustic deterrent than the control nets. On the other hand, the CPUE value of the whiting was estimated as 2.01 ± 0.23 kg km-1 s-1 in the gillnets with acoustic deterrent and 1.97 ± 0.24 kg km-1 s-1 in the control nets. These results showed that the use of acoustic deterrent does not have a negative effect on the catch of whiting caught in the gillnets.

Keywords

Dolphins, gillnets, acoustic deterrent, whiting, Merlangius merlangus

References

  • Anonim (2017). Future Oceans. Alıntılanma adresi: https://futureoceans.com/product/future-oceans-70-khz-dolphin-pinger/- (30.06.2016).
  • Ayadi, A., Mohamed, G. & Bradai, M.N. (2013). Do pingers reduce interactions between bottlenose dolphins and trammel nets around the Kerkennah Islands Central Mediterranean Sea? Cahiers de Biologie Marine, 543, 375-383. doi:10.21411/CBM.A.66F21CC1
  • Ballance, L.T. (2018). Cetacean Ecology. In B. Würsig, J.G.M. Thewissen & K. M. Kovacs (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (pp. 172-180). London: Academic press.
  • Barlow, J. & Cameron, G.A. (2003). Field experiments show that acoustic pingers reduce Marine mammal bycatch in the California drfit gill net fishery. Marine Mammal Science, 192, 265-283.
  • Bayar, H. (2014). Marmara Denizi’nde Karaya Vuran Cetacea Türlerinin Belirlenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İÜ, Fen Bil. Enst., Su Ürünleri Temel Bilimler Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul, 97 s.
  • Birkun, A.Jr. (2002). Interactions between cetaceans and fisheries in the Black Sea. In G. Notarbartolo di Sciara (Ed.). Cetaceans of the Mediterranean and Black Seas: state of knowledge and conservation strategies (pp 98-107). Monaco: A report to the ACCOBAMS Secretariat.
  • Bjørge, A., Brownell, Jr, R.L., Donovan, G.P. & Perrin, W.F. (1994). Significant direct and incidental catches of small cetaceans. In W.F. Perrin, G.P. Donovan, J. Barlow (Eds.). Gillnets and Cetaceans (pp 73-130). A report by the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission to the United Nations on Environment and Development (UNCED).
  • Bordino, P., Kraus, S., Albareda, D., Fazio, A., Palmerio, A., Mendez, M. & Botta, S. (2002). Reducing incidental mortality of Franciscana dolphin Pontoporia blainvillei with acoustic warning devices attached to fishing nets. Marine Mammal Science, 184, 833-842.
  • Brotons, J. M., Munilla, Z., Grau, A. M. & Rendell, L. (2008). Do pingers reduce interactions between bottlenose dolphins and nets around the Balearic Islands. Endangered Species Research, 5, 301-308. doi:10.3354/esr00104
  • Burke, E.K. (2004). The effect of acoustic deterrent devices on bottlenose dolphin depredation in the Spanish mackerel gillnet fishery. Msc Dissertation. Duke University, Nicholas, USA, 39 s.
  • Buscaino, G., Buffa, G., Sarà, G., Bellante, A., Tonello, A.J.J., Hardt, F.A.S., Cremer, M. J., Bonanno, A., Cuttitta A. & Mazzola, S. (2009). Pinger affects fish catch efficiency and damage to bottom gill nets related to bottlenose dolphins. The Japanese Society of Fisheries Science, 75, 537-544. doi:10.1007/s12562-009-0059-3
  • Carlström, J., Berggren, P. & Tregenza N.J.C. (2009). Spatial and temporal impact of pingers on porpoises. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 66, 72-82. doi:10.1139/F08-186
  • Carretta, J.V. & Barlow, J. (2011). Long-term effectiveness, failure rates, and ‘dinner bell’ properties of acoustic pingers in a gillnet fishery. Marine Technology Society Journal, 45, 7-19. doi:10.4031/MTSJ.45.5.3
  • Cox, T.M., Read A.J., Swanner, D., Urian, K. & Waples, D. (2003). Behavioral responses of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, to gillnets and acoustic alarms. Biological Conservation, 115, 203-212.
  • Cruz, M. J., Jorda˜o, V. L., Pereira, J. G., Santos, R. S. & Silva, M. A. (2014). Risso’s dolphin depredation in the Azorean hand-jig squid fishery: assessing the impacts and evaluating effectiveness of acoustic deterrents. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Journal of Marine Science, 719, 2608-2620. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsu073
  • Culik, B.M., Koscinski, S., Tregenza, N. & Ellis, G.M. (2001). Reactions of harbor porpoises Phocoena phocoena and herring Clupea harengus to acoustic alarms. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 211, 255-260.
  • Enül, E. (2009). Deniz Memelileri Bilimi ve Yönetiminin Türkiye’deki Durumu ve Deniz Memelilerinin Ege’deki Trol Balıkçılığı ile Etkileşimi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, DEÜ, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Deniz Bilimleri ve Teknolojisi Anabilim Dalı, İzmir, 67 s.
  • Franse, R. (2005). Effectiveness of Acoustic Deterrent Devices (Ppingers). Leiden: Universiteit Leiden, Centrum voor Milieuwetenschappen.
  • Gazo, M., Gonzalvo, J. & Aguilar, A. (2008). Pingers as deterrents of bottolenose dolphins interacting with trammel nets. Fisheries Research, 92, 70-75. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2007.12.016
  • Gearin, P.J., Gosho, M.E., Laake, 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. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 21, 1-9.
  • Geijer, C.K.A. & Read, A.J. (2013). Mitigation of marine mammal bycatch in U.S. fisheries since 1994. Biological Conservation, 159, 54-60. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2012.11.009
  • Goetz, S., Begona Santos, M., Vingada, J., Costas Costas, D., Gonzalez Villanueva, A. & Pierce, G. J. (2015). Do pingers cause stress in fish? An experimental tank study with European sardine, Sardina pilchardus (Walbaum, 1792) Actinopterygii, (Clupeidae), exposed to a 70 Khz dolphin pinger. Hydrobiologia, 749, 83-96. doi:10.1007/s10750-014-2147-3
  • Gordon, J.C.D. & Northridge, S.P. (2002). Potential impacts of Acoustic Deterrent Devices on Scottish Marine Wildlife. Report, F01AA404, Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report, 63 p.
  • Gönener, S. & Bilgin, S. (2007). Sinop Yarımadası Civarında Karadeniz, Türkiye) Dip Uzatma Galsama Ağlarında Yunusların Balıkları Çalmaları Üzerine Yunus Kovucuların Etkisi. Fırat Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilim Dergisi, 192, 121-127.
  • Gönener, S. & Bilgin, S. (2009). The Effect of Pingers on Harbour Porpoise, Phocoena phocoena Bycatch and Fishing Effort in the Turbot Gill Net Fishery in the Turkish Black Sea Coast. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 9, 151-157. doi:10.4194/trjfas.2009.0205
  • Gönener, S. & Özdemir, S. (2012). Investigation of the Interaction Between Bottom Gillnet Fishery Sinop, Black Sea) and Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Terms of Economy. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 12, 115-126. doi: 10.4194/1303-2712-v12_1_14
  • Gönener, S. & Özsandıkçı, U. (2019). Dip Solungaç Ağlarında Afalina (Tursiops truncatus) Yunuslar İçin Kullanılan Yunus Kovucu Cihazların İncelenmesi ve Ekonomik Performansı. Atatürk Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 50 (1), 84-91. doi:10.17097/ataunizfd.433660
  • Gönener, S. (2017). Sözlü görüşme. Sinop Üniv., Su Ürünleri Fakültesi, Sinop. (09.03.2017).
  • IUCN (2020). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. International Union for Conservation of Nature. Alıntılanma adresi: (http://www.iucnredlist.org/ (30.06.2017)
  • Kastelein, R.A., Jennings, N., Verboom, W. C., Haan D. D. & Schooneman, N. M. (2006). Differences in the response of a striped dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba) and a harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena) to an acoustic alarm. Marine Environmental Research, 61, 363-378. doi:10.1016 / j.marenvres.2005.11.005
  • Kastelein, R.A., van der Heul, S., van der Veen, J., Verboom, W.C., Jennings, N., Haan, D.D. & Reijnders, P.J.H. (2007). Effects of acoustic alarms, designed to reduce small cetacean bycatch in gillnet fisheries, on the behaviour of North Sea fish species in a large tank. Marine Environmental Research, 64, 160-180. doi:10.1016/j.marenvres.2006.12.012
  • Kraus, S.D., Read, A.J., Solow, A., Baldwin, K., Spradlin, T., Andersen, E. & Williamson, J. (1997). Acoustic alarms reduce porpoise mortality. Nature, 388, 525.
  • Larsen, F. & Eigaard, O.R. (2014). Acoustic alarms reduce bycatch of harbour porpoises in Danish NorthSea gillnet fisheries. Fisheries Research, 153, 108-112.
  • Larsen, F., Krog, C. & Eigaard, O.R. (2013). Determining optimal pinger spacing for harbour porpoise bycatch mitigation. Endangered Species Research, 20, 147-152. doi:10.3354/esr00494
  • Lauriano, G., Fortuna, C.M., Moltedo, G. & Notarbartolo di Sciara, G. (2004). Interactions between common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and the artisanal fishery in Asinara Island National Park (Sardinia): assessment of catch damage and economic loss. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 62, 165-173.
  • López, B.D. & Mariño, F. (2011). A trial of acoustic harassment device efficacy on free-ranging bottlenose dolphins in Sardinia, Italy. Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology, 44, 197-208. doi.org/10.1080/10236244.2011.618216
  • Mangel, J.C., Alfaro-Shigueto, J., Witt, M.J., Hodgson, D.J. & Godley, B.J. (2013). Using pingers to reduce bycatch of small cetaceans in Peru’s small-scale driftnet fishery. Oryx, 4704, 595-606. doi:10.1017/S0030605312000658
  • Monteiro-Neto, C., Avila, F.S.C, Alves, T.T.J., Araujo, D.S., Campos, A.A., Martıns, A. M.A. & Parente, C.L. (2004). Behavioral responses of Sotalia fluviatilis Cetacea, Delphinidae) to acoustic pingers, Fortaleza, Brazil. Marine Mammal Science, 20, 145-151.
  • Morizur, Y., Le Niliot, P., Buanic, M. & Pianalto, S. (2009). Expérimentations de répulsifs acoustiques commerciaux sur les filets fixes à baudroies en mer d’Iroise. Report, Résultats obtenus au cours de l’année 2008-2009 avec le projet « Pingiroise », Centre de Brest Sciences et Technologie Halieutiques, Le Conquet, 17 p.
  • Northridge, S., Vernicos, D. & Raitsos-Exarchopolous, D. (2003). Net depredation by bottlenose dolphins in the Aegean: First attempts to quantify and to minimise the problem. Reprot, Paper IWC SC/55/SM25, International Whaling Commission Scientific Commission. Cambridge: (Unpublished).
  • Olesiuk, P.F., Nichol, L.M., Sowden, M.J. & Ford, J.K.B. (2002). Effect of the sound generated by an acoustic harassment device on the relative abundance and distribution of harbor porpoises Phocoena phocoena) in retreat passage, British Columbia. Marine Mammal Science, 18, 843-862.
  • Radu, G., Nicolaev, S., Anton, E., Maximov, V. & Radu, E. (2003). Preliminary data about the impact of fishing gears on the dolphins from the Black Sea Romanian waters. Workshop on demersal Resources in the Black Sea and Azov Sea (pp 115-129), İstanbul.
  • Read, A., Swanner, D., Waples, D., Urian, K. & Williams, L. (2004). Interactions between bottlenose dolphins and the Spanish mackerel gillnet fishery in North. Final Report, Project 03-FEG-13, North Carolina Fishery Resource Grant Program, Raleigh: 40 p.
  • Resmi Gazete (2016). Deniz ve İçsularda Ticari Su Ürünleri Avcılığını Düzenleyen 1/4 Nolu Tebliğ. TGHB, Balıkçılık ve Su Ürünleri Genel Müdürlüğü, 1:112, Ankara.
  • Schakner, Z.A. & Blumstein, D.T. (2013). Behavioral biology of marine mammal deterrents: A review and prospectus. Biological Conservation, 167, 380-389. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.08.024
  • Stone, G., Kraus, S., Hutt, A., Martin, S., Yoshinaga, A. & Joy, L. (1997). Reducing bycatch: Can acoustic pingers keep Hector’s dolphins out of fishing nets?. Marine Technology Society Journal, 31, 3-7.
  • Tonay, A.M. (2003). Batı Karadeniz’de uzatma ağlarına takılan yunus türleri, Phocoena phocoena L., Tursiops truncatus Montagu ve Delphinus Delphis L.’in sayısal olarak incelenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İÜ, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Temel Bilimler Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul, 29 s.
  • Tonay, A.M. (2010). Batı Karadeniz’de Karaya Vuran Cetacea Türlerinin Kalkan Balığı Avcılığı ile Etkileşimi. Doktora Tezi, İÜ, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Temel Bilimler Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul, 131 s.
  • Trippel, E.A., Strong, M.B., Terhune, J.M. & Conway, J.D. (1999). Mitigation of harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena) bycatch in the gillnet fishery in the lower Bay of Fundy. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 561, 113-123.
  • Turan, E. (2017). Sözlü görüşme. Ünye Su Ürünleri Kooperatifi, Ünye-Ordu. (10.01.2017).
  • Waples, D.M., Thorne, L.H., Hodge, L.E.W., Burke, E.K., Urian, K.W. &, Read, A.J. (2013). A field test of acoustic deterrent devices used to reduce interactions between bottlenose dolphins and a coastal gillnet fishery. Biological Conservation, 157, 165-171. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.012

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Fisheries Management
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Emre NAMLITÜRK
ORDU ÜNİVERSİTESİ, FATSA DENİZ BİLİMLERİ FAKÜLTESİ
0000-0002-3683-9495
Türkiye

İsmet BALIK
Akdeniz University, Kemer Maritime Faculty
0000-0003-2168-8572
Türkiye

Project Number TF-1461
Publication Date March 15, 2021
Submission Date March 28, 2020
Published in Issue Year 2021Volume: 38 Issue: 1

Cite

APA
NAMLITÜRK, E., & BALIK, İ. (2021). Yunuslar ile kıyı balıkçılığı arasındaki etkileşim ve azaltılmasında akustik caydırıcı cihaz kullanımı. Ege Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 38(1), 43-52. https://doi.org/10.12714/egejfas.38.1.05