Performance of Bycatch Reduction Devices in the Small-Scale Shrimp Trawl Fishery of the Persian Gulf

  • Morteza EighaniEmail author
  • Seyed Yousef Paighambari


High rates of discards have been noted for shrimp fisheries worldwide and especially for the small-scale shrimp trawl fisheries of the Persian Gulf. Bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) can significantly decrease discards in shrimp trawl fisheries. We tested the performance of a square mesh panel BRD (SMP) and a juvenile and trash fish excluder device (JTED) in the small-scale shrimp trawl fishery of the Persian Gulf. Efficiency of the BRDs was determined in terms of shrimp loss, by-product loss, the reduction in discards by weight and differences in size selectivity of commercial fishes. Where a JTED was used, reductions in catch, by weight, were (mean ± 95% CI) 12% ± 2.35 for shrimp, 31.9% ± 5.22 for by-product fish and 49% ± 7.52 for discards. Similar reductions were observed when a SMP was used: 16% ± 4.19, 38.3% ± 6.41 and 45% ± 6.15 for shrimp, by-product and discards, respectively. There was no significant difference in the exclusion rate of discards between the JTED and SMP. Significant difference was found for loss of shrimp between JTED and SMP. The mean escapement rate for by-product species in trawl net with JTED and SMP were 35% and 40%, respectively. Selectivity curves of both BRDs indicated, that for each species, the length of 50% retention probability (L50) were smaller than the length at maturity (LM) and an increase in bar spacing in JTED and mesh opening in SMP would be required to delay capture until fish had reached Lm. The results indicated that SMP allows a higher proportion of sub-legal by-product species to escape the trawl, compared to the JTED used in the study. Implementing BRD requirements for the Persian Gulf small-scale shrimp fisheries would contribute to meeting strict sustainability criteria, a good outcome for this small-scale fishery.


Shrimp trawl Selectivity curve JTED Square-mesh panel Persian gulf 



  1. Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Control 19:716–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Branstetter S (1996) Status of research leading to the reduction of unwanted bycatch in the shrimp fishery of the Southeastern United States. In fisheries bycatch: consenquences and management. Alaska sea grant college program, Report No. 97-02. University of Alaska, pp 115-118Google Scholar
  3. Brčić J, Herrmann B, Sala A (2018) Can a square-mesh panel inserted in front of the cod end improve size and species selectivity in Mediterranean trawl fisheries? Can J Fish Aquat Sci 75:704–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brewer DT, Rawlinson N, Eayrs S, Burridge C (1998) An assessment of bycatch reduction devices in a tropical Australian prawn trawl fishery. Fish Res 36:195–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Broadhurst MK (2000) Modifications to reduce bycatch in prawn trawls: a review and framework for development. Rev Fish Biol Fish 10:27–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Broadhurst MK, Kennelly SJ (1996) Effects of the circumference of codends and a new design of square-mesh panel in reducing unwanted by-catch in the New South Wales oceanic prawn-trawl fishery, Australia. Fish Res 27:203–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Broadhurst M, Kangas M, Damiano C, Bickford S, Kennelly S (2002) Using composite square-mesh panels and the Nordm?? Re-grid to reduce bycatch in the Shark Bay prawn-trawl fishery, Western Australia. Fish Res 58:349–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Broadhurst MK, Brand CP, Kennelly SJ (2012) Evolving and devolving bycatch reduction devices in an Australian penaeid-trawl fishery. Fish Res 113:68–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bublitz CG (1996) Quantitative evaluation of fish behaviour during capture by trawl gear. Fish Res 25:293–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Catchpole T, Revill AS (2008) Gear technology in Nephrops trawl fisheries. Rev Fish Biol Fish 18(1):17–31Google Scholar
  11. Caudillo J, Mata M, Ramirez A (2000) Performance of a bycatch reduction device in the shrimp fishery of the Gulf of California, Mexico. Biol Conserv 92:199–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chokesanguan B, Ananpongsuk S, Siriraksophon S, Podapol L (2004) Study on juvenile and trash excluder devices in Thailand. SEAFDEC/ Training Department, 1–18 ppGoogle Scholar
  13. DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans) (1995) Shrimp size selectivity. St. John’s, Newfoundland: DFO, Canada/ Newfoundland Fishing Industry Development Program, Project Summary CAFID #10Google Scholar
  14. Dickson, J, Ramiscal R, Lamarca N, Hilario E, Romero R, Alb, E, Magno B, Ramos M (2004) Study on the juvenile and trash fish excluder devices (JTEDs) in San Miguel Bay, IBM/C/RVR/FAO-GEF Project/ Technical Reports/ San Miguel Bay/JTED Technical Paper-Daet Camarines, 36 ppGoogle Scholar
  15. Eayrs S (2007) A guide to bycatch reduction in tropical shrimp-trawl fisheries, food and agriculture organization (FAO) of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, Foot and Playsted pty. Ltd, 108 ppGoogle Scholar
  16. Eayrs S, Hai NP, Ley J (2007) Assessment of a juvenile and trash excluder device in a Vietnamese shrimp trawl fishery. ICES J Mar Sci 64:1598–1602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eighani M, Paighambari SY (2013) Shrimp, bycatch and discard composition of small-scale shrimp trawlers in the Hormuzgan coasts of Iran, in the Persian gulf. The Philipp Agric Scientist 96(3):314–319Google Scholar
  18. Eighani M, Paighambari SY, Eayrs S (2016) Comparison of a rigid grid to a square‐mesh panel in size selection for commercial fishing in the Persian Gulf shrimp trawl fishery. J Appl Ichthyol 32:1026–1031Google Scholar
  19. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) (2003) Report of the Twenty-fifth Session of the Committee on Fisheries Rome, 24–28 February 2003. FAO Fisheries Report No.702 Rome, 89 ppGoogle Scholar
  20. Fryer RJ (1991) A model of between-haul variation in selectivity. ICES J Mar Sci 48:281–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glass CW, Wardle CS (1995) A review of fish behavior in relation to species separation and bycatch reduction in mixed fisheries. In: Solving Bycatch: Considerations for Today, and Tomorrow. Alaska Sea Grant College Program Report No. 96 – 03, University of Alaska Fairbanks, pp 243–250Google Scholar
  22. Guillet R (2008) Global study of shrimp fisheries. Technical Paper, No. 475, Rome: FAO, 331 pGoogle Scholar
  23. He P, Balzano V (2012) Improving size selectivity of shrimp trawls in the Gulf of Maine with a modified dual-grid size-sorting system. N Am J Fish Manag 32(6):1113–1122. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Herrmann B, Wienbeck H, Karlsen JD, Stepputtis D, Dahm E, Moderhak W (2015) Understanding the release efficiency of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) from trawls with a square mesh panel: effects of panel area, panel position, and stimulation of escape response. ICES J Mar Sci 72:686–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krag LA, Herrmann B, Karlsen J (2012) Quantifying fish escape behaviour through large mesh panels in trawls based on catch comparison data – model development and a case study from Skagerrak In: ICES (2012) Report of the ICES-FAO Working Group on Fishing Gear Technology and Fish Behaivour (WGFTFB), 23–27 April 2012, Lorient, France. ICES CM 2012/SSGESST:07. Abstract from ICES-FAO Working Group on Fishing Gear Technology and Fish Behaivour (WGFTFB), Lorient, France, FranceGoogle Scholar
  26. Larsen RB, Herrmann B, Sistiaga M, Brčićc J, Brinkhof J, Tatone A (2018) Could green artificial light reduce bycatch during Barents Sea deep-water shrimp trawling? Fish Res 204:441–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lomeli MJM, Wakefield W (2016) Evaluation of a sorting grid bycatch reduction device for the selective flatfish bottom trawl in the U.S. west coast fishery. Fish Res 183:294–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Millar RB, Fryer RJ (1999) Estimating the size-selection curves of towed gears, traps, nets and hooks. Rev Fish Biol Fish 9:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Millar RB, Broadhurst M, William K, Macbeth G (2004) Modelling between-haul variability in the size selectivity of trawls. Fish Res 67:171–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mounsey RP, Baulch GA, Buckworth RC (1995) Development of a trawl efficiency device (TED) for Australian prawn fisheries. I. the AusTED design. Fish Res 22:99–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Neill FG, Kynoch RJ, Fryer RJ (2006) Square mesh panels in North Sea demersal trawls: separate estimates of panel and codend selectivity. Fish Res 78:333–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Paighambari SY, Daliri M (2012) The By-catch composition of shrimp trawl fisheries in Bushehr coastal waters, the northern Persian gulf. Journal of the Persian Gulf 3:27–36Google Scholar
  33. Paighambari SY, Taghavi SA, Ghadirnejad SH, Seyfabadi J, Faghihzade S (2002) Comparing the effect of several BRD on reducing commercial species fishing smaller than LM50 in shrimp trawls fishery in the Persian Gulf Iran. Iran J Fish Sci 12:13–33 (In Persian)Google Scholar
  34. Parsons GR, Foster DG (2015) Reducing bycatch in the United States Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl fishery with an emphasis on red snapper bycatch reduction. Fish Res 167:210–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rao GS (2010) Current status and prospects of fishery resources of the Indian continental shelf. In: Meenakumari B, Boopendranath MR, Edwin L, Sankar TV, Gopal N, Ninan G (eds) Coastal Fishery Resources of India: Conservation and Sustainable Utilisation. Society of Fisheries Technologists, Cochin, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  36. Rogers DR, Rogers BD, de Silva J, Wright VL (1997) Effectiveness of four industry-developed bycatch reduction devices in Louisiana’s inshore waters. Fish Bull 95:552–565Google Scholar
  37. Ryer CH (2004) Behavioural impairment after escape from trawl codends may not be limited to fragile fish species. Fish Res 66:261–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ryer CH (2008) A review of flatfish behaviour relative to trawls. Fish Res 90:138–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Silva CNS, Dias J, Cattani A, Spach H (2012) Relative efficiency of square-mesh codends in an artisanal fishery in southern Brazil. Lat Am J Aquat Res 40:124–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (1999) Overview on land-based sources and activities affecting the marine environment in the ROPME Sea area. UNEP/GPA Coordination Office & ROPME, 127 pGoogle Scholar
  41. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (2002) Global Environmental Outlook 3. London and New York, Earthscan, 58 pGoogle Scholar
  42. Valinassab T, Daryanabard R, Dehghani R, Pierceo GR (2006a) Abundance of demersal fish resources in the Persian Gulf and Oman Sea. Mar Bio Assess 86:1455–1462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Valinassab T, Gh Z, Fatemi M, Otobideh M (2006b) By-catch composition of small-scale shrimp trawlers in the Persian Gulf (Hormuzgan province), Iran. Iran J Fish Sci 15:129–138Google Scholar
  44. Veiga-Malta T, Feekings J, Herrmann B, Krag LA (2018) When is enough, enough? Quantifying trade-offs between information quality and sampling effort for fishing gear selectivity data. PLoS One 13(6):e0199655. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wileman D, Ferro RST, Fonteyne R, Millar RB (1996) Manual of methods of measuring the selectivity of towed fishing gear. ICES Cooperative Research Report no. 215, 126 ppGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fisheries DepartmentGorgan University of Agricultural Science and Natural ResourcesGorganIran

Personalised recommendations