Advertisement

Avian Research

, 9:26 | Cite as

The use of demersal trawling discards as a food source for two scavenging seabird species: a case study of an eastern Mediterranean oligotrophic marine ecosystem

  • Georgios Karris
  • Vlasis Ketsilis-Rinis
  • Anastasia Kalogeropoulou
  • Stavros Xirouchakis
  • Athanasios Machias
  • Irida Maina
  • Stefanos Kavadas
Open Access
Research

Abstract

Background

The banning of fisheries discards by imposing an obligation to land unwanted catch constitutes a key point of the Common Fishery Policy reform proposed by the European Commission. The effect of such a ban on discards on top marine predators such as seabirds is largely unknown, especially in oligotrophic systems of the Mediterranean. The current study investigates the presence of scavenging seabirds around fishing trawlers as well as the exploitation of discards produced by bottom trawlers in the eastern Ionian Sea.

Methods

On-board observations were randomly conducted in May and December 2014, in order to record the presence and use of fishery discards by two common seabird species, namely, Scopoli’s Shearwater (Calonectris diomedea) and the Yellow-legged Gull (Larus michahellis).

Results

A total of 3400 seabirds were counted during May of which 2190 individuals were Scopoli’s Shearwaters and 1210 were Yellow-legged Gulls. The latter species was the only scavenger observed during winter and in total, 768 individuals were counted. Differences in species abundance in the study area are related to breeding phenology and migratory movements. The number of seabirds attending bottom trawler operations during morning and afternoon hours showed no significant differences for both seabird species. Both scavenging seabirds extensively exploited fishery discards, which were mainly demersal fish, and consumed 70–80% of the total fishery discards biomass; however, they appeared to avoid poisonous species and/or large-sized fish. Yellow-legged Gulls displayed kleptoparasitic behaviour on Scopoli’s Shearwater during feeding experiments. The number of such incidents depended on the number of gulls around the fishing vessel, with more than 90% success rates.

Conclusions

Considering the average annual biomass of discards estimations and the consumption rate found in this work, 106.1–117.9 t may be offered as a food subsidy to scavenging seabirds in the study area and should support a substantial part of local populations. Our results constitute baseline information on the annual amount of fishery discards and their exploitation rate by seabirds in the Ionian Sea, and suggest further work for a complete understanding of the potential impacts of the discards reform bill on seabirds.

Keywords

Discards Fisheries Scopoli’s Shearwater Yellow-legged Gull 

Background

The fishing industry and seabirds are generally characterised as competitors for marine food resources. To be more specific, interactions between fishing and marine birds may have both negative consequences, such as the reduction of prey for the latter due to overfishing, and positive ones, e.g., via the global annual supply of 7.3 × 106 t discarded unsaleable bycatch (Kelleher 2005) as food for marine avifauna populations (Montevecchi 2002; Louzao et al. 2011; Tremblay et al. 2014). Consequently, fisheries have considerable influence, at several scales, on the distribution of seabirds at sea due to the availability of discards (Furness 2000) but they also have an indirect impact on the ecology and population dynamics of seabirds, which are linked to prey abundance at both local and regional levels (Fauchald 2009).

The European Commission (EC) has already adopted an Action Plan to enhance fisheries sustainability in the Mediterranean by implementing specific management measures. More specifically, the EC is currently proposing the banning of discards by imposing an obligation to land the unwanted catch as a key point of the proposed reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (EU 2013). Quantification of fishery waste has been identified as crucial for upgrading stock assessments and exploring potential impacts of the fishing industry on marine ecosystems (Rochet and Trenkel 2005).

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (2016), the total annual biomass of fishery discards in the Mediterranean Sea is of the order of 230,000 t, corresponding to 18% of total catches. Bottom trawls are reported to be responsible for the bulk of discards (> 40%); discard rates for pelagic fisheries, such as pelagic trawls and purse seiners, are generally lower ranging between 10–50 and 2–15% respectively, while relevant information on discards for small-scale fisheries is relatively scarce; nevertheless, available data estimate the discard ratio at less than 10% for trammel and gillnets (FAO 2016).

Discards constitute a food source for several groups of species (e.g., seabirds and benthic scavengers) and cause alteration of trophic interactions, which affect ecosystem function and structure. For example, Bicknell et al. (2013) have shown that a decline of discards could influence different aspects of seabird biology including foraging behaviour, breeding success, body condition, and survival rates for different age classes. Nevertheless, the impact of the forthcoming ban on discarding within the marine environment is largely unknown even if relevant studies have been conducted recently (Bellido et al. 2011; Louzao et al. 2011; Oro et al. 2013; Depestele et al. 2016). Moreover, the ecological effects on the marine environment may be of considerable importance for ecosystems in the extremely oligotrophic eastern Mediterranean, which is characterised by a significant knowledge gap regarding the interactions between fisheries and seabirds, e.g., discard consumption by scavenging seabirds. These features and the consequences of eliminating the energy input of fishery discards into the ecosystem may have been undervalued and should be examined within the framework of an Ecosystem Approach that, in Europe, is implemented through the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

Fishery operations in the Ionian Sea (western Greece, eastern Mediterranean) have a severe impact on marine birds, either negative via bycatch incidental mortality caused by various fishery gear such as bottom longline, surface longline, and gillnet (Karris et al. 2013) or positive, since trawlers provide a significant amount of discards that constitute an important food resource in this oligotrophic marine ecosystem, as highlighted in a previous study (Machias et al. 2001). Trawl discards in the Ionian Sea are estimated at approximately 38% of the total catch (Tsagarakis et al. 2008), representing the bulk of Greek fisheries discards. The current study investigates the occurrence of different scavenging seabird species around fishing trawlers as well as the exploitation of discards produced by bottom trawlers in the eastern Ionian Sea. Establishing baseline information on the annual amount of fishery discards and their exploitation rate by seabirds in the Ionian Sea will contribute to predicting the consequences on these scavenging top marine predators in case of a ban on discarding at sea.

Methods

Study area

The study was carried out in the eastern Ionian Sea (37°50ʹ–38°20ʹΝ, 20°50ʹ–21°20ʹΕ) (Fig. 1). This marine area is known to host a significant network of breeding and foraging sites for seabirds such as Strofades Islands (Fric et al. 2012; Issaris et al. 2012; Karris et al. 2017), while intensive fishing is one of the main human activities in the area (see for example Karris et al. 2013). More than 35 small and large fishing ports are distributed along the coastline extending west towards the coasts of the islands of Zakynthos and Kefalonia and east towards the coasts of the Peloponnese and Sterea Ellada. Nearly 700 fishing vessels are registered in the area and the majority are small boats that use trammel nets, gillnets, and longlines as fishing gear (Kavadas et al. 2013). The bottom trawler fishing fleet registered at the port of Patras and operating in the study area in 2014 consisted of 25 vessels.
Fig. 1

Study area where on-board experiments for the exploitation of discards by seabirds took place. Locations of hauling operations per sampling period as well as Special Protection Areas and Kyllini port are also shown

Sampling methods

Experimental discard consumption by seabirds was conducted in May and December 2014 on-board a trawler (horsepower: 700 hp and length: 28 m) operating from the port of Kyllini (western Peloponnese). No samples were taken in the summer when, according to Greek legislation, it is prohibited for the fleet of bottom trawlers to operate, with the exception of a small number of Italian and Greek trawlers operating in the international waters of the area. Three observers, one ornithologist and two ichthyologists, were on-board the vessel and samples were taken during randomly selected hauling operations. Data collection was carried out between dawn and late afternoon so as to count the total number of seabirds assembling close to the trawler. Individuals of each species were identified using binoculars (10 × 50 magnification). Seabirds attending trawler fishing were counted during hauling operations conducted at a speed of 2–4 knots and with a mean duration of 30–45 min, until the end of the discarding process, following relevant standard methodological approaches (Abelló et al. 2003; Valeiras 2003; González-Zevallos and Yorio 2011). Information on seabirds associated with fishery operations included spatial distribution within a radius of 200 m (divided into three zones of 0–50, 50–100 and 100–200 m) around the fishing vessel, as well as behaviour such as kleptoparasitism, diving, resting, etc. Data on total catch and discards per haul, faunistic composition of discards listed as fish, cephalopods, and crustaceans, as well as weather conditions, date, time, location, duration, and depth of hauling operations were also collected.

On-board experiments of discard exploitation by seabirds were performed during calm to fresh breeze conditions (< 6 Beaufort) so as to be able to check whether a discarded item was consumed or not. After preliminary screening, a representative proportion of discards per hauling operation was identified to species level using standard reference guides and then all discard items were measured and weighed on deck. The weight estimates provided an opportunity to extrapolate the discard rates per item to each hauling operation. Samples of different single discarded items were thrown overboard from the stern of the vessel, one at a time, in order to a) assess the scavenging behaviour of each seabird species, and b) quantify the extent of feeding (or non-feeding) specialisation in relation to the most abundant discarded species for which quantification of scavenging process by seabirds was possible. More specifically, each sample was randomly thrown at 5-min intervals to eliminate overestimation in discard utilisation (Garthe and Hüppop 1998). Single discarded samples contained a mean number of 10–15 individuals per discard item except for the rarest and/or largest, and consequently allowed quantification of the scavenging process by focusing on the proportions obtained by all bird species (and not by each species) so as to avoid relevant bias as indicated by Garthe and Hüppop (1998). We also included individuals of different sizes per experiment so as to use a more representative sample per discarded species and quantify their fate in a more reliable way (Garthe and Hüppop 1998). Consumption of the rarest and/or largest discard items, such as the dorso-ventrally flattened Raja species, was tested by throwing one individual over-board per experiment.

All data (e.g., bird counts, depths, etc.) are presented as mean ± standard error. Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Levene’s tests were applied to the bird counts performed during different daily intervals and seasons in order to test distribution of data and homogeneity of variance, respectively. According to the values of Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (p > 0.05), we had no reason to suppose that the distribution of the bird counts for all species was significantly different from a normal distribution. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) or the Mann–Whitney U test were applied to determine differences in the mean number of seabirds attending bottom trawler operations between morning (05:00–12:00) and afternoon hours (13:00–19:30) as well as between seasons. More specifically, when Levene’s test showed that there was no homogeneity of variance (p < 0.05), the non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test was used. Pearson’s r correlation coefficient (two-tailed test) was used to measure the strength of the linear association between ‘at sea co-occurrence’ of different seabird species during hauling operations as well as between kleptoparasitic incidents and numbers of Yellow-legged Gulls attending hauling operations. Possible correlations were tested between the distance to the nearest coast and the abundance of seabirds but also between counts of seabirds attendance during hauling operations conducted within the same day. Minimum distances from the coastline were estimated using the ‘near’ proximity tool, which forms part of ESRI’s ArcGIS toolboxes (ESRI 2007). Statistical analysis was performed using the IBM SPSS statistics 20 software package and level of significance was set at p < 0.05. Mapping was implemented using ESRI’s integrated GIS system ArcGIS v 10.1.

Results

Location and amount of discards

A total of 19 bottom trawler-hauling operations were monitored during the current study, conducted in 2014 (Table 1, Fig. 1). Some of the data appear to be generated around a same point of the Port of Kyllini, a fact potentially biasing our results. Fishery operations occurred at 107.6 ± 24.98 m depth with a range of 50–546 m. Total biomass of landings was 1718.0 kg (90.4 ± 6.73 kg per hauling operation), while the total respective biomass of discards was 1261.3 kg (66.4 ± 18.73 kg per hauling operation), representing 42% of the total fishery catch with discard rates ranging from 10 to 83%.
Table 1

Details of bottom trawler operations where on-board observations of seabirds attending and scavenging on discards took place

No.

Year

Date

Time of setting

Time of hauling

Coordinates (WGS 84) of hauling operations (longitude, latitude)

Depth (m)

Minimum distance from the coastline (km)

Beaufort scale

Wind direction

1

2014

3 May

05:45

11:30

21.1195, 38.2567

76.4

3.05

3

SW

2

2014

3 May

12:47

18:00

21.0778, 38.2328

82.8

5.45

4

SE

3

2014

4 May

00:00

06:30

21.0778, 38.2328

85.7

5.45

3

S

4

2014

4 May

06:30

13:30

21.2590, 38.0687

70.3

6.10

4

SW

5

2014

5 May

05:30

11:30

21.1195, 38.2567

76.5

3.05

3

W

6

2014

5 May

11:30

17:00

21.1190, 38.2457

80.0

4.04

3

NW

7

2014

17 May

06:00

11:50

21.0477, 37.9578

132.0

7.36

4

S

8

2014

17 May

11:50

18:50

20.9490, 38.1117

122.9

13.36

4

SW

9

2014

17 May

18:00

20:45

20.8623, 38.0107

145.6

8.56

3

SW

10

2014

18 May

06:00

11:00

21.0803, 37.8052

546.0

4.79

2

W

11

2014

9 Dec

03:35

09:07

21.1358, 37.9768

61.7

3.33

3

N

12

2014

9 Dec

09:35

14:59

21.1950, 38.0637

74.0

10.38

2

NW

13

2014

9-10 Dec

22:16

06:14

21.1503, 38.2372

65.0

6.30

3

E

14

2014

10 Dec

06:35

10:48

21.1392, 37.9952

50.0

5.15

3

NE

15

2014

10 Dec

11:10

16:29

21.1773, 38.2217

78.0

7.72

5

NE

16

2014

11 Dec

04:55

11:05

21.1573, 37.9953

74.0

5.46

3

NE

17

2014

11 Dec

11:30

17:37

21.1285, 37.9872

74.0

4.46

4

N

18

2014

12 Dec

00:30

06:42

21.1458, 37.9850

77.7

4.19

5

N

19

2014

12 Dec

07:10

12:40

21.1688, 37.9853

71.3

4.97

5

N

In the study area, total bottom trawler discards as estimated using on-board observers and VMS data (Kavadas et al. 2013) were approximately 164.0 and 131.9 t in 2014 and 2016 respectively. Taking into account the average of annual biomass of discards estimations derived from data collected in the framework of Data Collection Framework (Council Regulation (EC) no 199/2008) and the consumption rate found here as it is described below, 106.1–117.9 t may be offered as a food subsidy to scavenging seabirds.

May sampling operations

A total of ten hauling operations were monitored where only two seabird species were found to attend all operations with their main purpose being to consume discards. Scopoli’s Shearwater (Calonectris diomedea) was the most abundant scavenger (2190 individuals, 64%), followed by the Yellow-legged Gull (Larus michahellis) (1210 individuals, 36%) (Table 2; Fig. 2). Moreover, the sampling operations revealed a distinct behaviour between the two scavenging species, with 80% of attending shearwaters being closer to the vessel (radius of 0–50 m) than gulls; 70 and 30% of the gulls were observed in a radius of 100–200 and 50–100 m, respectively. Although the shearwaters were on average more numerous than the gulls attending hauling operations, this difference was not significant according to ANOVA analysis (F = 3.49, df = 1.18, p = 0.078). No significant correlation was also revealed between the number of observed individuals per species attending each trawling operation (r = 0.054, n = 10, p = 0.883). Shearwaters were more abundant during late afternoon while gulls were present during early morning to mid-day (Fig. 3). Nevertheless, no significant differences in attendance at fishing operations were found for either Scopoli’s Shearwater (ANOVA: F = 2.79, df = 1.8, p = 0.133) or the Yellow-legged Gull (ANOVA: F = 0.001, df = 1.8, p = 0.97) during morning and afternoon hours. No significant correlation was also revealed between counts of seabird attendance during hauling operations conducted within the same day (r = − 0.187, n = 4, p = 0.813). In addition, no effect of the minimum distance from the coastline on seabirds abundance was detected, neither for shearwaters (r = 0.270, n = 10, p = 0.270) nor for gulls (r = − 0.227, n = 10, p = 0.529).
Table 2

Percentage of presence, total, mean, maximum, and minimum number of scavenging seabirds attending bottom trawlers during May and December 2014 along eastern Ionian Sea (n: number of fishing operations)

Species (date)

N

Total number (individuals)

Mean ± SE (birds/haul)

Max.

Min.

Scopoli’s Shearwater (May 2014)

10

2190

219 ± 32.38

375

45

Yellow-legged Gull (May 2014)

10

1210

121 ± 41.19

395

8

Yellow-legged Gull (December 2014)

9

768

85 ± 23.86

250

18

Fig. 2

Box plot showing median, interquartile range, and range referring to attendance rate of scavenging seabird species around fishing trawlers along the eastern Ionian Sea in May and December 2014. Outliers are plotted as individual points

Fig. 3

Box plot showing median, interquartile range, and range referring to the attendance rate of scavenging seabird species around fishing trawlers operating during morning and afternoon hours along the eastern Ionian Sea. Plots were grouped by using different colour according to species and sampling period. Outliers are plotted as individual points

The depth of samplings was 141.8 ± 45.70 m with a range of 70 to 546 m. Total biomass of landings was 897.3 kg (89.7 ± 10.90 kg per hauling operation) while the total respective biomass of discards was 799.2 kg (79.9 ± 34.41 kg per hauling operation), representing 47% of the total fishery catch with discard rates ranging from 10 to 83%. Forty-six species including 40 species of fish, four species of crustaceans, and two species of cephalopods were identified as discards (Table 3). Most of the catch discarded by bottom trawlers consisted of undersized commercial and non-commercial species. The five most abundant discard species caught were Annular Seabream (Diplodus annularis) (299.9 kg), Picarel (Spicara flexuosa) (85.9 kg), Bogue (Boops boops) (63.8 kg), Axillary Seabream (Pagellus acarne) (45.0 kg), and Large-scaled Gurnard (Lepidotrigla cavillone) (38.2 kg).
Table 3

Demersal trawling discard composition and quantity. On-board sampling (n = 10, number of hauls) took place in the eastern Ionian Sea during May 2014

Species of fishery discards

Seabird species

Exploitation of discards

Species

Discard type

Description

Body shape type

Fishbase1, FAO2

Biomass (g)

Length (mm)

Calonectris diomedea

Larus michahellis

% consumption by scavengers

Total

Mean ± SD

Mean ± SD

Aristeus antennatus* (1)

Crustacean

Benthic

Cylindrical2

2720

272.0 ± 860.14

20.3 ± 2.62

+

+

50

Liocarcinus depurator

Crustacean

Benthic

Dorsoventrally flattened2

400

40.0 ± 126.49

+

+

 

Parapenaeus longirostris* (5)

Crustacean

Benthic

Cylindrical2

16,820

1682.0 ± 2137.88

18.8 ± 3.94

+

+

76

Squilla mantis* (2)

Crustacean

Benthic

Cylindrical2

4920

492.0 ± 528.66

20.2 ± 5.00

 

+

80

Loligo vulgaris* (2)

Cephalopod

Pelagic

Cylindrical2

5580

558.0 ± 663.76

+

+

95

Sepia officinalis

Cephalopod

Benthopelagic

Cylindrical2

3080

308.0 ± 379.96

+

+

 

Arnoglossus laterna* (3)

Fish

Benthic

Ventrally flattened1

8880

888.0 ± 1223.45

85.5 ± 14.49

+

+

70

Blennius ocellaris

Fish

Benthopelagic

Elongated1

160

16.0 ± 7.91

80

+

+

 

Boops boops* (10)

Fish

Benthopelagic

Torpediform 1

63,790

6379.0  ±  5700.25

137.8  ±  13.54

+

+

88

Chlorophthalmus agassizii* (1)

Fish

Benthopelagic

Elongated1

1520

152.0 ± 480.67

141.6 ± 13.90

+

+

80

Citharus linguatula* (2)

Fish

Benthic

Ventrally flattened1

6280

628.0 ± 767.98

133.7 ± 17.69

+

+

80

Conger conger* (3)

Fish

Benthopelagic

Eel-like1

19,360

1936.0 ± 2750.37

491.7 ± 91.70

  

0

Diplodus annularis* (10)

Fish

Benthopelagic

Laterally flattened 1

299,960

29,996.0  ±  93,816.53

118.7  ±  13.43

+

+

82

Echelus myrus

Fish

Benthopelagic

Eel-like1

4000

400.0 ± 1264.91

480

   

Engraulis encrasicolus* (3)

Fish

Pelagic

Elongated1

10,840

1084.0 ± 1822.94

130.4 ± 7.89

+

+

73

Eutrigla gurnardus

Fish

Benthopelagic

Elongated1

1040

104.0 ± 226.43

 

+

 

Galeus melastomus

Fish

Benthopelagic

Elongated1

3760

376.0 ± 1189.02

301.3 ± 134.55

   

Gobius spp.

Fish

Benthopelagic

Elongated1

1000

100.0 ± 216.02

109.5 ± 0.71

+

+

 

Hoplostethus mediterraneus

Fish

Benthopelagic

Laterally flattened1

1000

100.0 ± 316.23

133.3 ± 4.1

+

+

 

Hymenocephalus italicus

Fish

Benthopelagic

Ribbon-like1

320

32.0 ± 101.19

139.3 ± 8.87

+

+

 

Lepidopus caudatus

Fish

Benthopelagic

Ribbon-like1

5800

580.0 ± 1441.63

532 ± 33.42

+

+

 

Lepidotrigla cavillone* (10)

Fish

Benthopelagic

Elongated 1

38,200

3820.5  ±  3964.43

105.3  ±  1.60

 

+

72

Merluccius merluccius* (1)

Fish

Benthopelagic

Elongated1

2400

240.0 ± 345.64

136.2 ± 33.77

+

+

80

Mullus barbatus

Fish

Benthopelagic

Laterally flattened1

1500

150.0 ± 474.34

153

+

+

 

Ophisurus serpens

Fish

Benthopelagic

Eel-like1

320

32.0 ± 101.19

   

Pagellus acarne* (10)

Fish

Benthopelagic

Laterally flattened 1

45,000

4500.0  ±  14,230.25

+

+

79

Pagellus erythrinus* (8)

Fish

Benthopelagic

Laterally flattened1

26,600

2660 ± 4463.91

86.1 ± 13.64

+

+

80

Raja clavata

Fish

Benthopelagic

Ventrally flattened1

7200

720.0 ± 2276.84

295

   

Raja miraletus

Fish

Benthopelagic

Ventrally flattened1

960

96.0 ± 303.58

243

   

Sardina pilchardus* (1)

Fish

Pelagic

Laterally flattened1

1580

158.0 ± 281.02

134.3 ± 4.93

+

+

90

Scorpaena elongata

Fish

Benthopelagic

Spheroid1

200

20.0 ± 63.25

144

 

+

 

Scorpaena notata* (1)

Fish

Benthopelagic

Spheroid1

1280

128.0 ± 280.19

110.5 ± 27.58

 

+

70

Scorpaena scrofa

Fish

Benthopelagic

Spheroid1

240

24.0 ± 75.89

85

 

+

 

Serranus hepatus* (1)

Fish

Benthopleagic

Laterally flattened1

11,490

1149.0 ± 1415.80

84.8 ± 8.6

+

+

80

Spicara flexuosa* (10)

Fish

Benthopelagic

Laterally flattened 1

85,880

8588.0  ±  7363.67

127  ±  18.42

+

+

82

Spicara smaris* (1)

Fish

Benthopelagic

Torpediform1

2460

246.0 ± 534.00

109.5 ± 13.23

+

+

80

Synodus saurus* (6)

Fish

Benthopelagic

Elongated1

21,300

2130.0 ± 5269.63

300

+

+

70

Torpedo marmorata

Fish

Benthopelagic

Ventrally flattened1

8450

845.0 ± 2517.99

112

   

Torpedo nobiliana

Fish

Benthopelagic

Ventrally flattened1

16,000

1600.0 ± 5059.64

   

Torpedo torpedo

Fish

Benthopelagic

Ventrally flattened1

6000

600.0 ± 1897.37

230

   

Trachinus draco* (3)

Fish

Benthopelagic

Elongated1

9400

940.0 ± 1605.24

197.5 ± 24.75

 

+

63

Trachinus radiatus

Fish

Benthopelagic

Elongated1

320

32.0 ± 101.19

 

+

 

Trachurus mediterraneus* (5)

Fish

Pelagic

Laterally flattened1

16,120

1612.0 ± 2440.55

76.6 ± 13.19

+

+

74

Trachurus trachurus* (10)

Fish

Pelagic

Laterally flattened1

32,780

3278.0 ± 5377.11

84.8 ± 19.4

+

+

82

Trisopterus minutus

Fish

Benthopelagic

Laterally flattened1

480

48.0 ± 151.79

105 ± 6.81

+

+

 

Uranoscopus scaber

Fish

Benthopelagic

Elongated1

1760

176.0 ± 455.37

176

 

+

 

Seabird species scavenging on fishery discards in the Ionian Sea are also shown. (+) shows discard use per seabird species whereas () shows non consumption respectively. Species in bolditalics indicate the most abundant fishery discard items as potential food source for seabirds. Asterisk * (number of experiments) indicates experimentally discarded species for which quantification of scavenging process by seabirds was possible

Another aspect of the composition of trawler discard items was their classification into main categories according to their ecology. Benthopelagic species (35 species, 76%) were the most common, followed by benthic species (6 species, 13.0%) and pelagic species (5 species, 11%). In terms of biomass, benthopelagic species constituted the most important type of discarded items (692.2 kg, 87%), followed by pelagic species (66.9 kg, 8%) and benthic species (40.0 kg, 5%) (see Table 3).

Feeding experiments (n = 109) using 24 different discard items revealed that both scavenging seabird species extensively exploited almost all types of discard by consuming 76 ± 2% of the total offered fishery discarded biomass (Table 3). Specifically, Scopoli’s Shearwater exploited 28 out of 46 discarded species (61%), while they seemed to avoid poisonous species and/or dorso-ventrally flattened as well as eel-like fish (Table 3). The Yellow-legged Gull showed a wider preference by exploiting 37 out of 46 discarded species (80%) and avoiding mainly large-sized (range of mean length: 112–491 mm) eel-like and dorso-ventrally flattened species (Table 3). Adult Yellow-legged Gulls displayed kleptoparasitic behaviour on Scopoli’s Shearwater during feeding experiments by forcing shearwaters to release captured discard items, mainly medium-sized, and this behaviour was generally very effective. The number of such incidents ranged from two to four per experimental discarding event, and depended significantly on the number of gulls around the fishing vessel (r = 0.842, n = 10, p < 0.05), while more than 90% of them were successful.

December sampling operations

A total of nine hauling operations were monitored where only Yellow-legged Gulls attended as scavengers. Specifically, 768 gulls attended all hauling operations, while the mean number of observed individuals was 85 ± 23.86 (Table 2; Fig. 2). There were on average fewer gulls during winter compared to spring although attendance-level densities during hauling operations did not differ significantly between the two periods (ANOVA: F = 0.529, df = 1.17, p = 0.477). The majority of attending gulls (60%) were observed within a radius of 100–200 m around the vessel while only 30 and 10% were observed within a radius of 50–100 and 0–50 m, respectively. Contrary to spring observations, gulls were on average more abundant in the afternoon (13:00–19:00 h) than in early morning (05:00–12:00 h) but no significant differences in attendance during trawling operations were found during different daily intervals (Mann–Whitney U test: p = 0.624) (Fig. 3). No significant correlation was also revealed between counts of seabird attendance during hauling operations conducted within the same day (r = − 0.285, n = 4, p = 0.715). Additionally, no effect of the minimum distance from the coastline on gulls abundance was detected (r = − 0.238, n = 9, p = 0.538).

Sampling was conducted at a depth of 69.5 ± 3.04 m and a range of 50–78 m. Total biomass of landings was 820.8 kg (91.2 ± 8.15 kg per hauling operation) while total respective biomass of discards was 462.1 kg (51.3 ± 11.55 kg per hauling operation), representing 36% of the total fishery catch with discard rates ranging from 12 to 58%. Thirty-seven species including 29 species of fish, four species of cephalopods, and four species of crustaceans were identified as discards (Table 4). As for the spring sampling, the catch discarded consisted of undersized commercial and non-commercial species (Table 4). The five most abundant discard species caught were: Atlantic Horse Mackerel (Trachurus trachurus) (234.9 kg), Boops boops (87.3 kg), Spicara flexuosa (19.5 kg), Deepwater Rose Shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris) (16.5 kg) and European Conger (Conger conger) (13.1 kg) (Table 4).
Table 4

Demersal trawling discard composition and quantity. On-board sampling (n = 9, number of hauls) took place in the eastern Ionian Sea during December 2014

Species of fishery discards

Seabird species

Exploitation of discards

Species

Discard type

Description

Body shape type

Fishbase1, FAO2

Biomass (g)

Length (mm)

Larus michahellis

% consumption by scavengers

Total

Mean ± SD

Mean ± SD

Liocarcinus depurator

Crustacean

Benthic

Dorsoventrally flattened2

300

33.3 ± 100.00

24

+

 

Pagurus sp.

Crustacean

Benthic

Cylindrical2

500

55.6 ± 166.67

  

Parapenaeus longirostris* (5)

Crustacean

Benthic

Cylindrical 2

16,470

1830.0  ±  2536.80

19.8  ±  3.46

+

74

Squilla mantis

Crustacean

Benthic

Cylindrical2

5980

664.4 ± 1296.29

22.9 ± 2.59

+

 

Alloteuthis media

Cephalopod

Pelagic

Cylindrical2

5655

628.3 ± 666.50

+

 

Loligo vulgaris

Cephalopod

Pelagic

Cylindrical2

600

66.7 ± 200.00

+

 

Sepia officinalis

Cephalopod

Benthopelagic

Cylindrical2

3200

355.6 ± 640.53

+

 

Sepiolidae sp.

Cephalopod

Benthopelagic

Cylindrical2

180

20.0 ± 40.00

+

 

Arnoglossus laterna

Fish

Benthic

Ventrally flattened1

7950

883.3 ± 701.78

92 ± 16.32

+

 

Aspitrigla cuculus

Fish

Benthopelagic

Elongated1

1000

111.1 ± 333.33

173

+

 

Blennius ocellaris

Fish

Benthopelagic

Elongated1

910

101.1 ± 249.02

110

+

 

Boops boops* (10)

Fish

Benthopelagic

Torpediform 1

87,250

9694.4  ±  10,071.45

135.6  ±  13.20

+

78

Cepola macrophthalma

Fish

Benthopelagic

Ribbon-like1

100

11.1 ± 33.33

148

+

 

Citharus linguatula

Fish

Benthic

Ventrally flattened1

7800

866.7 ± 986.47

124.8 ± 16.88

+

 

Conger conger* (2)

Fish

Benthopelagic

Eel - like 1

13,100

1456.6  ±  2206.02

448.9  ±  71.83

 

0

Dentex maroccanus

Fish

Benthopelagic

Laterally flattened1

6040

671.1 ± 1282.77

91.9 ± 38.30

+

 

Echelus myrus

Fish

Benthopelagic

Eel-like1

220

24.4 ± 73.33

562 ± 50.91

  

Engraulis encrasicolus

Fish

Pelagic

Elongated1

3450

383.3 ± 463.68

99.5 ± 16.51

+

 

Gobius spp.

Fish

Benthopelagic

Elongated1

2945

327.2 ± 530.02

72.5 ± 34.47

+

 

Lepidotrigla cavillone

Fish

Benthopelagic

Elongated1

6850

761.1 ± 681.81

98 ± 15.58

+

 

Merluccius merluccius

Fish

Benthopelagic

Elongated1

6660

740.0 ± 903.83

145.2 ± 18.87

+

 

Mullus barbatus

Fish

Benthopelagic

Laterally flattened1

2340

260.0 ± 361.11

106.7 ± 13.16

+

 

Ophidion barbatum

Fish

Benthopelagic

Eel-like1

2000

222.2 ± 666.67

207.5 ± 23.33

  

Pagellus acarne

Fish

Benthopelagic

Laterally flattened1

1200

133.3 ± 400.00

152

+

 

Pagellus erythrinus

Fish

Benthopelagic

Laterally flattened1

1600

177.8 ± 268.22

78.8 ± 12.48

+

 

Sardina pilchardus

Fish

Pelagic

Laterally flattened1

400

44.4 ± 133.33

138

+

 

Serranus hepatus

Fish

Benthopelagic

Laterally flattened1

8600

955.6 ± 911.20

88.4 ± 8.53

+

 

Spicara flexuosa* (6)

Fish

Benthopelagic

Laterally flattened 1

19,500

2166.7  ±  1593.74

125  ±  19.86

+

70

Spicara smaris

Fish

Benthopelagic

Torpediform1

1300

144.4 ± 335.82

131.3 ± 8.91

+

 

Synodus saurus

Fish

Benthopelagic

Elongated1

2000

222.2 ± 666.67

249

+

 

Torpedo marmorata

Fish

Benthopelagic

Ventrally flattened1

3850

427.8 ± 788.63

171.5 ± 63.62

  

Torpedo nobiliana

Fish

Benthopelagic

Ventrally flattened1

2080

231.1 ± 480.32

104.7 ± 2.52

 

Trachinus draco

Fish

Benthopelagic

Elongated1

500

55.6 ± 166.67

145

+

 

Trachurus trachurus* (10)

Fish

Pelagic

Laterally flattened 1

234,900

26,100  ±  23,937.31

115.8  ±  7.76

+

78

Trisopterus minutus

Fish

Benthopelagic

Laterally flattened1

4200

466.7 ± 700.00

138.8 ± 8.54

+

 

Uranoscopus scaber

Fish

Benthopelagic

Elongated1

400

44.4 ± 133.33

93

+

 

Zeus faber

Fish

Benthopelagic

Laterally flattened1

100

11.1 ± 33.33

58

 

Seabird species scavenging on fishery discards in the Ionian Sea are also shown. (+) shows discard use per seabird species whereas () shows non consumption respectively. Species in bolditalics indicate the most abundant fishery discard items as potential food source for seabirds. Asterisk * (number of experiments) indicates experimentally discarded species for which quantification of scavenging process by seabirds was possible

The composition of trawler discard items showed that benthopelagic species (26 species, 70%) were the most common, followed by benthic species (six species, 16%) and pelagic species (five species, 14%). The largest proportion of discarded biomass belonged to pelagic species (245.0 kg, 53%), followed by benthopelagic species (178.1 kg, 39%) and benthic species (39.0 kg, 8%) (see data in Table 4).

Feeding experiments (n = 33) using five different discard items revealed that Yellow-legged Gulls extensively exploited almost all types of discard by consuming 71 ± 4% of the total offered fishery discarded biomass (Table 4). Gulls exploited the majority of discard items (30 species, 81%), while mainly large-sized eel-like and dorso-ventrally flattened species were avoided (Table 4).

Discussion

According to this study, the total biomass of discards was found to represent 42% of the total fishery catch, which is close to 45% of the catches reported discarded in the north-eastern Mediterranean Sea (Machias et al. 2001) and can be characterised as high compared to relevant weighted average discard rates for the main types of fisheries worldwide (Kelleher 2005; Bellido et al. 2011).

On-board observation data revealed differences in discard composition and patterns between the two sampling months as described by Bellido et al. (2011). The number of observed discarded species (46) and the total biomass of discards (800 kg) were found to be higher in spring than in winter sampling operations (46 vs 37 species and 800 vs 460 kg respectively). An obvious explanation is the breeding season of fish, given that reproduction of Mediterranean ichthyofauna takes place mainly from spring to midsummer (Tsikliras et al. 2010). However, the significant difference in the quantity of discards between the two periods can be attributed mainly to the catch of two species, namely the Annular Seabream and Atlantic Horse Mackerel. The biomass of Annular Seabream alone (300 kg) caught during the spring season is sufficient to explain the difference. The catch of so many juveniles of Annular Seabream is due to the fact that breeding takes place from April to August, with a peak during the first half of May (Matic-Skoko et al. 2007), forcing local fishermen to systematically avoid fishing areas with a high abundance of that species. This is evidenced by on-board data; total biomass of Annular Seabream is attributed primarily to a single haul performed on 5 May 2014. In contrast, Atlantic Horse Mackerel appeared systematically in almost every haul in winter, because the breeding season of this species coincides with this sampling period (Alegria-Hernandez 1984, 1994; Jardas et al. 2004). Consequently, the total discarded biomass (235 kg) of this species was 600% higher compared to the respective biomass of the spring sampling period.

Regarding the large seasonal variations of other abundant discarded items such as Picarel, Axillary Seabream, and Large-scaled Gurnard, these are due to the fact that their breeding seasons coincide with spring. On the other hand, the abundance of species such as Bogue, European Conger, and Deepwater Rose Shrimp was consistently high during both sampling seasons. Bogue is a common catch throughout the year with a large proportion of discards. European Conger is not a commercial species and, therefore, every captured individual, at any stage of maturity, is rejected as discard. Additionally, the abundance of Deepwater Rose Shrimp, at least locally, is relatively high throughout the year, while that species seems to breed twice a year, in January and August.

The most abundant seabirds in the Ionian Sea are Scopoli’s Shearwater, Yellow-legged Gull, Yelkouan Shearwater (Puffinus yelkouan), and the Mediterranean Shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii), and they are all known to scavenge regularly or infrequently (Bicknell et al. 2013). The Northern Gannet (Morus bassanus) and the Great Skua (Catharacta skua) as well as the Mediterranean Gull (Larus melanocephalus), during autumn and winter, are also rare scavengers in the Ionian Sea (pers. obs.). Yet here, it was observed that only Scopoli’s Shearwater and the Yellow-legged Gull follow fishing vessels and extensively consume fishery discards.

Scopoli’s Shearwater is a long-lived migratory pelagic Procellariiform species, exploiting persistently productive marine areas. It is a surface feeder, consuming mainly pelagic fish, whereas the importance of benthic fish is minimal, at least during incubation and the chick-rearing period (Afán et al. 2014). Recent findings have shown that this seabird adopts a dual foraging strategy, feeding on epipelagic shelf prey in shallow waters during short trips and on oceanic prey items, normally associated with different water masses, during long trips (Cecere et al. 2013). Foraging behaviour is also influenced by a number of environmental variables such as the moonlight phase as well as by the different stages of the breeding period (Cecere et al. 2013; Rubolini et al. 2015). This top marine predator is attracted to fishing vessels providing food via fishery discards and is accustomed to forage near the sea surface (Cecere et al. 2015). Moreover, during on-board observations for the evaluation of by-catch seabird mortality in the study area, Scopoli’s Shearwater was found to be the most abundant species attending fishing vessels, followed by the Yellow-legged Gull (Karris 2014).

Shearwaters feed on a range of different fish but also on specific cephalopods such as European Squids (Alonso et al. 2012; Neves et al. 2012). According to our results, bottom trawler fishery operations in the study area provide significant amounts of benthopelagic prey species to shearwaters during their pre-laying period in spring (Karris 2014). This alternative food supply can be characterised as normally unavailable due to the foraging ecology of Scopoli’s Shearwater and, as a consequence, may affect the population dynamics of local colonies and specifically of the Strofades population. The fact that this pelagic seabird is a generalist piscivore was also observed in the Ionian Sea where it displays scavenging behaviour. Such wide-ranging feeding habits may enable this species switch to alternative food resources in the event of a ban on discarding. Conversely, this could lead to a more energy-demanding foraging strategy by undertaking long trips so as to feed on oceanic prey items. Additionally, trawling inactivity during specific breeding stages such as pre-breeding and chick-rearing periods may increase the by-catch rates of shearwaters in longline fisheries in their effort to steal bait from hooks (Laneri et al. 2010).

Scopoli’s Shearwater was not observed attending trawler operations during early December, which can be explained by the following migration pattern: according to geolocation data retrieved from the Strofades colony, shearwaters begin to migrate to the wintering coastal areas of western Africa in late October (Karris 2014).

On the other hand, Yellow-legged Gull showed a wider use of discard items in both seasons and not only during the spring sampling period, which coincides with the chick-rearing period and recognised as a crucial phase of its life cycle (Alonso et al. 2015; Telailia et al. 2015). Previous diet analysis studies (Ramos et al. 2009; Arizaga et al. 2010; Talmat-Chaouchi et al. 2014) suggest that Yellow-legged Gull is a generalist carnivore at population level, feeding extensively on discards; this was also revealed by this study. Its high rates of ecological and demographic success pose real problems of interaction with humans (i.e., food competition, economic damages, disturbance) with negative impacts on the ecosystem (interspecific competition for breeding sites and food, direct predation, changes in vegetation cover) (Bicknell et al. 2013). The expansion of this opportunistic species in the Mediterranean shows that this phenomenon is partly due to food provision via fishery discards and the relevant scavenging capacity of Yellow-legged Gull (Bosch et al. 1994; Ramos et al. 2009). The lack of adequate data on the diet of the Ionian population of Yellow-legged Gull and predation on other sympatric seabird species, as well as the even less-known impact of the local fishery on the oligotrophic Ionian ecosystem, should be taken into account when evaluating the impact of a discards ban on the conservation of seabird populations. For example, body mass, egg volume, and clutch size of the Yellow-legged Gull in the Balearic Archipelago of Spain declined significantly after an experimental decrease of another food source of anthropogenic origin, namely an open-air landfill site (Steigerwald et al. 2015). In this context, the potential response of the scavenger population must be taken into account.

According to the data recorded by on-board observers, exploitation rates of trawler discards by the two common scavenging seabirds in the Ionian Sea are high, namely, 93% of total discarded biomass. The mean percentage of all experimentally discarded items consumed by seabirds was 75 ± 4%, which is comparable to the outcome of a relevant study conducted in the Baltic Sea (Garthe and Scherp 2003). We assume that this proportion of discard utilisation based on single item experiments is not an underestimate as Garthe and Hüppop (1998) suggested for the North Sea, since the spatial context of the current study was focused on a known hotspot for seabirds in the Ionian Sea, and the relevant time context was also restricted, since we calculated averages over each single sampling season.

Considering that the populations of Scopoli’s Shearwater and Yellow-legged Gull in the Ionian Sea are estimated at approximately 17,240–18,400 individuals and 2368–2598 individuals respectively (Fric et al. 2012; Karris et al. 2017), it appears that discards may support a substantial part of both populations. We can assume that the use of the roughly estimated annual fishery waste in this study can contribute to maintaining the current population numbers of the local scavenging seabirds, especially for a generalist piscivore like Scopoli’s Shearwater and to a lesser extent for an opportunistic species like Yellow-legged Gull. Additionally, the importance and suitability of the discards used as prey by seabirds in general must be further investigated since Grémillet et al. (2008) argue that these are of lower energetic quality than their natural prey, and thus have a deleterious effect on the reproductive success of scavenging seabirds.

Conclusions

The baseline information obtained by the current study confirms that Scopoli’s Shearwater and Yellow-legged Gull constitute the main scavenging seabirds in the eastern Ionian Sea. Both scavengers extensively exploited trawl fishery discards and consumed 70–80% of the total discards biomass. They also appeared to avoid poisonous species and/or large-sized fish.

Notes

Authors’ contributions

All authors made substantial contributions to conception and design, analysis and interpretation of collected data. More specifically, GK, VR-K, and AK participated in sampling and data collection operations. GK, SX, AM, SK, IM, and VR-K contributed to data analysis for seabirds and discards and have been involved in drafting the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to the skipper and crew of Panagia Faneromeni II for their fruitful collaboration during on-board experiments. We also thank Athina Kokkali for preparation of the map.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

All datasets collected and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All experiments were performed by following international and national regulations for the care and use of wild animals. The current research does not include studies involving human participants, human data, or human tissue.

Funding

The study performed within the framework of the ECODISC project, entitled “ECOsystem effect of fisheries DISCards”, partially funded by the NSRF 2007-2013 Operational Programme “Education and Lifelong Learning”, which is co-financed by Greece and the European Union. Fisheries data were collected within the framework of the 2014 Greek National Fisheries Data Collection Programme (EPSAD) funded by the Greek Government and the European Union under Regulation 199/2008/EU.

References

  1. Abelló P, Arcos JM, Gil-de-Sola L. Geographical patterns of seabird attendance to a research trawler along the Iberian Mediterranean coast. Sci Mar. 2003;67:69–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Afán I, Navarro J, Cardador L, Ramírez F, Kato A, Rodríguez B, Ropert-Coudert Y, Forero MG. Foraging movements and habitat niche of two closely related seabirds breeding in sympatry. Mar Biol. 2014;161:657–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alegria-Hernandez V. Some aspects of horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus L.) biology in the middle Adriatic. FAO Fisheries (Technical Paper No. 290); 1984.Google Scholar
  4. Alegria-Hernandez V. Reproductive cycle and changes in conditions of the horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus L.) from the Adriatic Sea. Acta Adriat. 1994;35:59–67.Google Scholar
  5. Alonso H, Granadeiro JP, Paiva VH, Dias AS, Ramos JA, Catry P. Parent-offspring dietary segregation of Cory’s shearwaters breeding in contrasting environments. Mar Biol. 2012;159:1197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alonso H, Almeida A, Granadeiro JP, Catry P. Temporal and age-related dietary variations in a large population of yellow-legged gulls Larus michahellis: implications for management and conservation. Eur J Wildl Res. 2015;61:819–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arizaga J, Aldalur A, Herrero A, Cuadrado JF, Mendiburu A, Sanpera C. High importance of fish prey in the diet of yellow-legged gull Larus michahellis chicks from the southeast Bay of Biscay. Seabird. 2010;23:1–6.Google Scholar
  8. Bellido JM, Santos MB, Pennino MG, Valeiras X, Pierce GJ. Fishery discards and bycatch: solutions for an ecosystem approach to fisheries management? Hydrobiologia. 2011;670:317–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bicknell AWJ, Oro D, Camphuysen KCJ, Votier SC. Potentional consequences of discard reform for seabird communities. J Appl Ecol. 2013;50:649–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bosch M, Oro D, Ruiz X. Dependence of yellow-legged gulls (Larus cachinnans) on food from human activity in two Western Mediterranean colonies. Avocetta. 1994;18:135–9.Google Scholar
  11. Cecere JG, Catoni C, Gaibani G, Geraldes P, Celada C, Imperio S. Commercial fisheries, inter-colony competition and sea depth affect foraging location of breeding Scopoli’s shearwaters Calonectris diomedea. Ibis. 2015;157:284–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cecere JG, Catoni C, Maggini I, Imperio S, Gaibani G. Movement patterns and habitat use during incubation and chick-rearing of Cory’s shearwaters (Calonectris diomedea diomedea) (Aves: Vertebrata) from Central Mediterranean: influence of seascape and breeding stage. Ital J Zool. 2013;80:82–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Depestele J, Rochet M-J, Dorémus G, Laffargue P, Stienen EWM. Favorites and leftovers on the menu of scavenging seabirds: modelling spatiotemporal variation in discard consumption. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2016;73:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ESRI. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 9.2. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute; 2007.Google Scholar
  15. EU. European Regulation No. 1380/2013 of the European parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC. Offic J Eur Union. 2013;L354:22.Google Scholar
  16. FAO. The state of Mediterranean and Black Sea fisheries. Rome: General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean; 2016.Google Scholar
  17. Fauchald P. Spatial interaction between seabirds and prey: review and synthesis. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2009;391:139–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fric J, Portolou D, Manolopoulos A, Kastritis T. Important areas for seabirds in Greece. LIFE07 NAT/GR/000285. Athens: Hellenic Ornithological Society (HOS/BirdLife Greece); 2012.Google Scholar
  19. Furness RW. Impacts of fisheries on seabird community stability. ICES CM. 2000;Q:03.Google Scholar
  20. Garthe S, Hüppop O. Possible biases in experiments evaluating the consumption of discards by seabirds in the North Sea. Mar Biol. 1998;131:735–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garthe S, Scherp B. Utilization of discards and offal from commercial fisheries by seabirds in the Baltic Sea. ICES J Mar Sci. 2003;60:980–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. González-Zevallos D, Yorio P. Consumption of discards and interactions between Black-browed Albatrosses (Thalassarche melanophrys) and Kelp Gulls (Larus dominicanus) at trawl fisheries in Golfo San Jorge, Argentina. J Ornithol. 2011;152:827–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grémillet D, Pichegru L, Kuntz G, Woakes AG, Wilkinson S, Crawford RJM, Ryan PG. A junk-food hypothesis for gannets feeding on fishery waste. Proc R Soc B. 2008;275:1149–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Issaris Y, Katsanevakis S, Pantazi M, Vassilopoulou V, Panayotidis P, Kavadas S, Kokkali A, Salomidi M, Frantzis A, Panou A, Damalas D, Klaoudatos DS, Sakellariou D, Drakopoulou P, Kyriakidou C, Maina I, Fric J, Smith C, Giakoumi S, Karris G. Greek Ionian Sea and the adjacent gulfs: ecological mapping considering uncertainty for the needs of ecosystem-based marine spatial management. Mediterr Mar Sci. 2012;13:297–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jardas I, Santic M, Pallaoro A. Diet composition and feeding intensity of horse mackerel. Trachurus trachurus (Osteichthyes: Carangidae) in the eastern Adriatic. Mar Biol. 2004;144:1051–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Karris G. The breeding ecology of Scopoli’s shearwater (Calonectris diomedea) on Strofades Islands. Ph.D. Thesis. Patras: University of Patras; 2014.Google Scholar
  27. Karris G, Fric J, Kitsou Z, Kalfopoulou J, Giokas S, Sfenthourakis S, Poirazidis K. Does by-catch pose a threat for the conservation of seabird populations in the southern Ionian Sea (eastern Mediterranean)? A questionnaire-based survey of local fisheries. Mediterr Mar Sci. 2013;14:19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Karris G, Xirouchakis S, Grivas C, Voulgaris MD, Sfenthourakis S, Giokas S. Estimating the population size of Scopoli’s shearwaters (Calonectris diomedea) frequenting the Strofades islands (Ionian Sea, western Greece) by raft counts and surveys of breeding pairs. North-West J Zool. 2017;13:101–8.Google Scholar
  29. Kavadas S, Damalas D, Georgakarakos S, Maravelias C, Tserpes G, Papaconstantinou C, Bazigos G. IMAS-Fish: Integrated Management System to support the sustainability of Greek Fisheries resources. A multidisciplinary web-based database management system: implementation, capabilities, utilization & future prospects for fisheries stakeholder. Mediterr Mar Sci. 2013;14:109–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kelleher K. Discards in the world’s marine fisheries. An update. FAO Fisheries (Technical Paper No. 470); 2005.Google Scholar
  31. Laneri K, Louzao M, Martínez-Abrain A, Arcos JM, Belda EJ, Guallart J, Sánchez A, Giménez M, Maestre R, Oro D. Trawling regime influences longline seabird bycatch in the Mediterranean: new insights from a small-scale fishery. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2010;420:241–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Louzao M, Arcos JM, Guijarro B, Valls M, Oro D. Seabird-trawling interactions: factors affecting species-specific to regional community utilization of fisheries waste. Fish Oceanogr. 2011;20:263–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Machias A, Vassilopoulou V, Vatsos D, Bekas P, Kallianiotis A, Papaconstantinou C, Tsimenides N. Bottom trawl discards in the N.E. Mediterranean Sea. Fish Res. 2001;53:181–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Matic-Skoko S, Kraljevic M, Dulcic J, Jardas I. Age, growth, maturity, mortality and yield-per-recruit for annular sea bream (Diplodus annularis L.) from the eastern middle Adriatic Sea. J Appl Ichthyol. 2007;23:152–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Montevecchi WA. Interactions between fisheries and seabirds. In: Schreiber EA, Burger J, editors. Biology of marine birds. Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC; 2002. p. 527–58.Google Scholar
  36. Neves V, Nolf D, Clarke M. Spatio-temporal variation in the diet of Cory’s shearwater Calonectris diomedea in the Azores archipelago, northeast Atlantic. Deep-Sea Res I. 2012;70:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Oro D, Genovart M, Tavecchia G, Fowler MS, Martínez-Abrain A. Ecological and evolutionary implications of food subsidies from humans. Ecol Lett. 2013;16:1501–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Ramos R, Ramírez F, Sanpera C, Jover L, Ruiz X. Diet of yellow-legged Gull (Larus michahellis) chicks along the Spanish Western Mediterranean coast: the relevance of refuse dumps. J Ornithol. 2009;150:265–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rochet MJ, Trenkel VM. Factors for the variability of discards: assumptions and field evidence. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2005;62:224–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rubolini D, Maggini I, Ambrosini R, Imperio S, Paiva VH, Gaibani G, Saino N, Cecere JG. The effect of moonlight on Scopoli’s shearwater Calonectris diomedea colony attendance patterns and nocturnal foraging: a test of the foraging efficiency hypothesis. Ethology. 2015;121:284–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Steigerwald EC, Igual JM, Payo-Payo A, Tavecchia G. Effects of decreased anthropogenic food availability on an opportunistic gull: evidence for a size-mediated response in breeding females. Ibis. 2015;157:439–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Talmat-Chaouchi N, Boukhemza M, Moulai R. Comparative analysis of the yellow-legged gull’s (Larus michahellis (Naumann, 1840)) trophic ecology in two colonies of the Central Coast of Algeria. Zool Ecol. 2014;24:324–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Telailia S, Boutabia L, Bensaci E, Boucheker A, Samar MF, Maazi MC, Saheb M, Bensouilah MA, Houhamdi M. Demographic development of breeding populations of yellow-legged gull Larus michahellis Naumann, 1840 on the small islands and along the coastline of Numidia (North-Eastern Algeria). J Anim Plant Sci. 2015;25:1160–7.Google Scholar
  44. Tremblay Y, Thiebault A, Mullers R, Pistorius P. Bird-borne video-cameras show that seabird movement patterns relate to previously unrevealed proximate environment, not prey. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e88424.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Tsagarakis K, Machias A, Giannoulaki M, Somarakis S, Karakassis I. Seasonal and temporal trends in metrics of fish community for otter-trawl discards in a Mediterranean ecosystem. ICES J Mar Sci. 2008;65:539–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tsikliras AC, Antonopoulou E, Stergiou KI. Spawning period of Mediterranean marine fishes. Rev Fish Biol Fish. 2010;20:499–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Valeiras J. Attendance of scavenging seabirds at trawler discards off Galicia, Spain. Sci Mar. 2003;67:77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental TechnologyTechnological Educational Institute (TEI) of Ionian IslandsPanagoula, ZakynthosGreece
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of PatrasPatraGreece
  3. 3.Natural History Museum of CreteCreteGreece
  4. 4.Institute of Marine Biological Resources and Inland Waters, Hellenic Centre for Marine ResearchAnavyssos, AttikiGreece

Personalised recommendations