Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMangel, JC
dc.contributor.authorBartholomew, DC
dc.contributor.authorAlfaro-Shigueto, J
dc.contributor.authorPingo, S
dc.contributor.authorJimenez, A
dc.contributor.authorGodley, BJ
dc.date.accessioned2018-01-15T10:23:44Z
dc.date.issued2018-01-09
dc.description.abstractSmall-scale fisheries can greatly impact threatened marine fauna. Peru's small-scale elasmobranch gillnet fishery captures thousands of sharks and rays each year, and incidentally captures sea turtles, marine mammals and seabirds. We assessed the ability of a dedicated fisheries remote electronic monitoring (REM) camera to identify and quantify captures in this fishery by comparing its performance to on-board observer reports. Cameras were installed across five boats with a total of 228 fishing sets monitored. Of these, 169 sets also had on-board fisheries observers present. The cameras were shown to be an effective tool for identifying catch, with > 90% detection rates for 9 of 12 species of elasmobranchs caught. Detection rates of incidental catch were more variable (sea turtle = 50%; cetacean = 80%; pinniped = 100%). The ability to quantify target catch from camera imagery degraded for fish quantities exceeding 15 individuals. Cameras were more effective at quantifying rays than sharks for small catch quantities (x ≤ 15 fish), whereas size affected camera performance for large catches (x > 15 fish). Our study showed REM to be effective in detecting and quantifying elasmobranch target catch and pinniped bycatch in Peru's small-scale fishery, but not, without modification, in detecting and quantifying sea turtle and cetacean bycatch. We showed REM can provide a time- and cost-effective method to monitor target catch in small-scale fisheries and can be used to overcome some deficiencies in observer reports. With modifications to the camera specifications, we expect performance to improve for all target catch and bycatch species.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipThis work was supported by the Darwin Initiative Project EIDP0046 and the Whitley Fund for Nature Grant 150626 CF15. David C. Bartholomew is supported by a NERC studentship NE/L002434/1.en_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 219, pp. 35 - 45en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.biocon.2018.01.003
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/30973
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherElsevieren_GB
dc.rights© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open Access Under a Creative Commons license.en_GB
dc.subjectVessel monitoring systemsen_GB
dc.subjectSharken_GB
dc.subjectTurtleen_GB
dc.subjectDolphinen_GB
dc.subjectBycatchen_GB
dc.subjectCameraen_GB
dc.titleRemote electronic monitoring as a potential alternative to on-board observers in small-scale fisheriesen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2018-01-15T10:23:44Z
dc.identifier.issn0006-3207
dc.descriptionThis is the final version of the article. Available from Elsevier via the DOI in this record.en_GB
dc.identifier.journalBiological Conservationen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record