Next Article in Journal
Effects of Dietary ARA/EPA Ratio on Growth Performance, Antioxidant Capacity and Lipid Metabolism-Related Genes of Juvenile Fat Greenling (Hexagrammos otakii)
Previous Article in Journal
Mercury and Selenium Trophic Transfer in the Mexican California Current Ecosystem Using a Top Predator as a Model
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Catch Losses and Reduction of Bycatch for Jellyfish Using Marine Mammal Bycatch Reduction Devices in Midwater Trawl Gear

Division of Fisheries Engineering, National Institute of Fisheries Science, Busan 46083, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Fishes 2025, 10(6), 276; https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10060276
Submission received: 28 April 2025 / Revised: 1 June 2025 / Accepted: 4 June 2025 / Published: 6 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Fisheries Dynamics)

Abstract

The National Institute of Fisheries Science in Korea is developing marine mammal bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) for midwater trawl gear. In this study, we tested two BRD-type guide nets (inclined net panel) with 30° and 45° tilt angles to prevent marine mammals from reaching the codend and facilitating their escape from the net. Fishing operations were conducted along the east and south coasts of South Korea, and cameras were installed in front of the BRDs to monitor their performance. The catch loss of herring with the 30° guide net was 13% and 11% in number and weight. The catch loss of hairtail was 53% and 51% in number and weight with the 30° guide net. Mackerel showed a 97% catch loss in number and weight with the 45° guide net. The 30° guide net resulted in lower catch loss for rudderfish and jack mackerel compared to the 45° guide net. The jellyfish discard rate of the BRD was 5% and 7% in number and weight with the 30° guide net and 12% and 11% with the 45° guide net, indicating that the 30° guide net was more effective at discarding jellyfish. Mesh selectivity was not strongly related to target species body length.
Key Contribution: The study of catch loss according to the marine mammal bycatch reduction device was conducted along the East and South Coasts of South Korea during September 2024 in the fisheries research. The catch loss was estimated for the most abundant fish species in the catches. Although it was conducted in the surface or middle water, benthic fish species from the seabed were caught due to their feeding behavior. On the other hand, jellyfish which harm fishes and fishermen were successfully reduced by BRD.

1. Introduction

Cetaceans, which are among the most well-known marine mammals, have historically been considered as competitors to fisheries owing to their perceived role in declining fish stocks [1]. However, subsequent studies have reported a limited impact on fisheries [2]. In the past, cetaceans were perceived as competitor for fisheries resources [3], but now, cetaceans are increasingly recognized as an important resource for carbon problems, since carbon emissions have been designated as a major cause of climate change [4]. These findings underscore the importance of protecting cetaceans and other marine mammals to maintain ecological balance and support fisheries.
The United States implemented the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), with numerous studies conducted to reduce marine mammal bycatch across various fisheries [5]. In Korea, the National Institute of Fisheries Science (NIFS) is developing bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) for trawls that comply with the equivalency assessment standards of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the MMPA. Additionally, a BRD for trawl gear was recently developed and tested [6].
The development of BRDs using acoustic technologies, such as pingers, in gillnets, traps, and trawls has been actively investigated [7,8,9,10,11,12]. However, marine mammals may initially avoid pingers, they may eventually become habituated, which could result in a resurgence in bycatch [10,12,13]. Moreover, the continuous use of pingers could deter marine mammals from accessing coastal waters, thereby leading to substantial disruptions to marine ecosystems. Marine mammals, including whales and dolphins, contribute to the vertical mixing of ocean waters through foraging [14,15], supplying essential mechanical energy to the ocean [16]. Cetaceans support primary production by transporting nutrients to the surface via respiration, digestion, and fecal release, and facilitate carbon sequestration by transporting carbon to deeper ocean layers [17,18,19]. Furthermore, the migration of humpback whales across oceans is considered to contribute to both primary production and carbon sequestration [20]. We designed BRDs that enable marine mammals to escape from fishing gear without the use of pingers, considering coexistence with them in the sea.
In 2024, trawl gears equipped with marine mammal BRDs at 30° and 45° tilt angles were operated off the Korean East Coast in June to assess catch losses for three fish species: common squid, sandfish, and pearlside. For species exhibiting high catch losses, the causes were inferred based on their body and behavioral characteristics [6]. However, the East Sea has seasonal inflows of warm and cold currents, and various fish species are distributed by seasonal change in Korea [21,22]. Additionally, an influx of jellyfish populations from July to late August in Korean coastal areas means that these highly toxic organisms has damaged catch [23]. The jellyfish BRD was developed in the same shape as the BRD marine mammals in a previous study [6,23,24]. It is the same in terms of reducing the bycatch marine mammals and jellyfish, and the ability to escape jellyfish suggests that marine mammals can also be escaped from BRD. Therefore, further studies are necessary to verify the estimated catch loss rates for different fish species in the East Sea and evaluate the effectiveness of BRDs with different tilt angles in reducing jellyfish bycatch.
Previous studies on BRDs in the East Sea have reported a catch loss rate of over 10% for trawl gear equipped with marine mammal BRDs in June [6]. In contrast, stow nets equipped with finless porpoise excluder devices in the West Sea exhibited a low catch loss rate of 4%, resulting in relatively wider adoption by fishers. Therefore, this study aimed to estimate the mesh selectivity and catch loss of gear with marine mammal BRDs with understanding the escaping process and assess the effectiveness of BRDs in reducing jellyfish bycatch, particularly during the summer.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Test Fishing Gear with Bycatch Reduction Device

This study used a midwater trawl, as classified by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), with same fishing gear as that used in a previous study [6]. Schematic diagrams of the midwater trawl and BRD installation without pinger are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. The net had a total length of 140 m (excluding the towing warp), including a head rope and ground rope measuring 59.3 m, with the codend (hereinafter COD) measuring as 11.2 m. As shown in Figure 1, the COD comprised three layers of netting with varying mesh sizes: 120 (Codend A), 62 (Codend B), and 28 mm (Codend C), from the outermost to the innermost layer. For the marine mammal bycatch, a guide net equipped with a net panel as a BRD was installed directly in front of the COD of the midwater trawl gear (Figure 2). The net panel was made using square mesh polyethylene (PE) netting with a mesh size of 200 mm (mesh perimeter 800 mm), and two guide nets with tilt angles of 30° and 45° were prepared for use. Both nets had the same width (2.0 m), but their length differed depending on the tilt angle: 2.23 m for 30° and 1.4 m for 45°. The position where the body net was attached varied accordingly. The escape opening measured 2 × 1.5 m (vertical × horizontal), and a covernet with a mesh size of PE 46 ± 1.4 (D) mm was attached to the escape opening to capture fish species that escaped into the BRD via the guide net.

2.2. Fishing Area and Sea Trial

As shown in Figure 3, this study conducted fishing operations in the southern [24] and eastern [25,26] coastal regions of Korea, where marine mammals such as whales, dolphins, and finless porpoises are frequently sighted.
Fishing operations were conducted for 12 days, from 2 to 13 September 2024, using the NIFS research vessel Tamgu-20 (comprising 885 tons and 2600 horsepower). All operations were conducted during the daytime, with each trawl lasting 1 h at a trawling speed of 4.5–5 knots. Seventeen trawls were conducted at 200–300 m depth, targeting the surface (20–50 m) and midwater (100–150 m) layers by changing towing depth from living different depth in fish finder and sonar. After hauling, the catch was sorted to species levels and classified into BRD and COD based on capture location. A complete survey of all captured fish was conducted, measuring body length, as fork length (FL), total length (TL), mantle length (ML), anal length (AL), maximum girth (G) to the nearest millimeter, and weight (W) in grams. From these data, we calculated the relationship between body length and maximum girth for comparing with their body size and mesh size of BRDs’ guide net.

2.3. Camera Observation

In a previous study, we discussed the possibility of escape because of long times of hauling on net or species behavior characteristics [6]. Thus, we need to record to how target species move in the net. A camera (GoPro Hero 6) was installed facing the front of the guide net (Figure 4) to monitor conditions inside the fishing gear during operation. The camera was positioned 1.5 m in front of the starting point of the net leading to the COD. The angle was calibrated to shoot a photo of both the catch entering the COD through the guide net and escaping through the escape opening. Camera shots were taken every second. The recorded photo was analyzed and compared with catch data to determine the pathways that fish used to pass through the guide net or escape via the escape opening (Table 1).

2.4. Data Analysis

Mesh selectivity can vary across different fishing operations, even for the same species [27]. For example, factors such as water temperature, which affects swimming ability, and increased girth during spawning seasons have notably influenced the mesh selectivity of COD in Mediterranean trawl fisheries [28,29]. Consequently, the method of averaging mesh selectivity for each haul has become widely adopted [30,31,32]. In this study, we analyzed the results separately for BRDs with tilt angles of 30° and 45°, as well as for the combined case. The probability of a species with length class l passing through the BRD and being caught in the COD ( r c ( l ) ) is expressed as follows:
r c l = n l 2 n l 1 + n l 2
where n l 1 and n l 2 represent the number of length class l fish caught in the BRD and COD, respectively. A representative r c ( l ) value, r ( l ) , is expressed as a function of length class l and is approximated using a logistic equation according to the analytical method described below:
r l = exp ( a + b l ) 1 + exp ( a + b l )
where a and b are parameters of the logistic equation. The mesh selectivity of species for the BRD with a 400 mm mesh guide net described earlier was estimated using the R package selfisher (selectivity of fisheries gear, version 4.3.3) [33]. Selfisher is a statistical package that uses the SELECT model based on maximum likelihood estimation [34,35,36,37] to estimate the selectivity of fishing gear using generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs). It supports the fixed effects model, which aggregates data across all hauls by length class to estimate mesh selectivity for each length class, and the random effects model, which assumes that each haul is influenced by random effects such as fishing conditions or environmental factors. Bootstrapping can produce multiple selectivity curves from haul data, which can be used to calculate a mean curve. For this study, we estimated mesh selectivity for the 30° and 45° guide nets, overall hauls, and the COD. Catch loss for each species, classified into BRD and COD, was calculated using the method shown in [6]:
C a t c h   l o s s e s   ( p e r   s p e c i e s ) = T h e   n u m b e r   o f   s p e c i m e n s   c a u g h t   i n   B R D T h e   t o t a l   n u m b e r   o f   c a u g h t   s p e c i m e n s   ( i n   B R D   +   C O D )
Catch losses were calculated for each haul and averaged for each species.

3. Results

3.1. Body Length Composition

Table 2 shows the results of 17 fishing operations conducted over 12 days. A total of 1659 fish were caught, comprising 264 herring Clupea pallasii, 597 hairtail Trichiurus lepturus, 417 mackerel Scomber japonicus, 55 rudderfish Psenopsis anomala, 61 jack mackerel Trachurus japonicus, and 265 firefly squid Watasenia scintillans. Additionally, 47 jellyfish, including Nomura’s jellyfish Nemopilema nomurai, were caught. But marine mammals were not caught in this study. The total weight of the fish catch was 107.8 kg, comprising herring (8.5 kg), hairtail (30.8 kg), mackerel (60.1 kg), rudderfish (4.1 kg), jack mackerel (1.5 kg), and firefly squid (2.8 kg). The jellyfish weighed 807.5 kg. These six fish species, excluding jellyfish, accounted for 97% of the catch by number and 12% by weight. Figure 5 shows the size distribution of the six species, excluding jellyfish. Herring captured in the COD had FLs of 12–18 cm, whereas those in the BRD had FLs of 15–18 cm. Hairtails were captured with ALs of 11–20 cm in both the COD and BRD. Mackerel in both sections had FLs of 20–25 cm. Rudderfish in the COD had FLs of 9–14 cm, whereas those in the BRD had FLs of 10–14 cm. Jack mackerel had FLs of 9–16 cm in the COD and 9 cm or 12–16 cm in the BRD, with no fish in the 10–11 cm range.

3.2. Relationship Between Body Length and Maximum Girth (And Weight)

Based on a complete survey of the catch, relationships between body length (FL for herring and mackerel, AL for hairtail) and G were estimated for hairtail, herring, and mackerel, with each species having a sample size from the number caught greater than 200.
The relationships between the body length (AL, FL) and the maximum girth (G) of hairtail, herring and mackerel were expressed as follows:
  • Hairtail: G = 0.4716 × AL + 0.7431 (3) ( r = 0.899, p < 0.05, n = 597, Figure 6)
  • Herring: G = 0.3671 × FL + 1.5031 (4) ( r = 0.611, p < 0.05, n = 264, Figure 6)
  • Mackerel: G = 0.4909 × FL + 0.0813 (5) ( r = 0.771, p < 0.05, n = 417, Figure 6)
The results indicated a significant positive linear relationship between body length (AL or FL) and both G and W for all three species ( p < 0.05).

3.3. Bycatch Reduction and Catch Loss Inside the Gear

Table 3 presents the monitoring results inside the fishing gear. During two hauls using a 45° BRD, the camera recorded 18 jack mackerel, 2 hairtails, 1 common squid, and 22 Nomura’s jellyfish. Three jack mackerel and one common squid entered the COD, whereas fifteen jack mackerel escaped through the BRD. However, only 2 Nomura’s jellyfish entered the COD, with 20 escaping through the BRD.
During seven hauls using a 30° BRD, the camera recorded 1 common squid, 4 firefly squid, 2 rudderfish, 87 hairtails, 1 jack mackerel, 3 blue crabs, and 15 Nomura’s jellyfish. Of these, 1 common squid, 3 firefly squids, 32 hairtails, and 3 blue crabs were caught in the COD, whereas 1 firefly squid, 2 rudderfish, 55 hairtails, and 1 jack mackerel escaped through the BRD. One Nomura’s jellyfish entered the COD, whereas fourteen escaped through the BRD. Additionally, a significant number of pearlside and mackerel were filmed inside the fishing gear. Most pearlside were caught in the COD; however, most mackerel, presumably caught while hunting pearlside, escaped through the BRD.
Camera observation analysis revealed that fish entering the gear from below typically passed through the BRD and were captured in the COD, whereas those entering from above bypassed the BRD and escaped. In contrast to the fish, Nomura’s jellyfish frequently collided with the BRD and were deflected upward, escaping through the opening even when they entered from below. Jellyfish that were eventually found in the COD did not pass through the BRD but were trapped in the narrow spaces between the guide and body nets. Many of these jellyfish adhered to the sides of the BRD during towing and subsequently entered the COD during hauling or were torn apart by the guide net and strong currents, with the resulting fragments entering the COD.

3.4. Mesh Selectivity of BRD

The mesh selectivity of BRDs was analyzed by fish species and guide net tilt angle. Mesh selectivity for the 30° and 45° BRDs, as well as for the combined data, is summarized in Figure 7 and Table 4.
In species of hairtail, no significant mesh selectivity was found in all cases (p > 0.05). For the 30° BRD, the selectivity rate remained below 0.5 for all body lengths. For the 45° BRD, the selectivity rate for most measured body lengths was estimated to be between 0.4 and 0.5. When data from both angles were combined, the selectivity rate was approximately 0.5 in the sum of the haul, while the selectivity rate rose with larger body length in the average of each haul. The L50 (body length at 50% retention probability) was estimated as follows:
  • 30° BRD: 28.7 cm (sum of haul) and 20.8 cm (average of each haul)
  • 45° BRD: 9.2 cm (sum of haul) and 52.3 cm (average of each haul)
  • Combined data: 299.0 cm (sum of haul) and 21.4 cm (average of each haul).
The estimated selective range (SR) varied in all cases. The 95% confidence interval (95% CI) could also not be estimated for the L50 and SR in all cases.
In rudderfish mesh selectivity for the 30° and 45° BRDs, as well as for the combined data, no significant mesh selectivity was observed in all cases (p > 0.05). For the 30° BRD, the selectivity rate rose with larger body length, but remained below 0.5 for all body lengths. For the 45° BRD, the selectivity rate for most measured body lengths was estimated between 0.1 and 0.3. When data from both angles were combined, the selectivity rate rose with larger body length, but remained below 0.3 for all body lengths. The L50 (body length at 50% retention probability) was estimated as follows:
  • 30° BRD: 16.5 cm (sum of haul) and 16.6 cm (average of each haul)
  • 45° BRD: 20.4 cm (sum of haul) and 22.8 cm (average of each haul)
  • Combined data: 18.6 cm (sum of haul) and 18.7 cm (average of each haul).
The estimated SR was different between the 30° and 45° BRDs. The 95% CI could not be estimated for the L50 and SR in all models except for the 30° BRD, for which the 95% CI for L50 was 15.2–17.9 cm.
In jack mackerel mesh selectivity for the 30° and 45° BRDs, as well as for the combined data, no significant mesh selectivity was observed in all cases (p > 0.05) except for the 30° BRD and combined data with fixed effects model (sum of haul, p < 0.05). The selectivity rate was rising with larger body length in all cases. The L50 was estimated as follows:
  • 30° BRD: 16.7 cm (sum of haul) and 15.6 cm (average of each haul)
  • 45° BRD: 16.8 cm (sum of haul) and 16.6 cm (average of each haul)
  • Combined data: 16.4 cm (sum of haul) and 16.1 cm (average of each haul).
The estimated SR was different between the 30° and 45° BRDs. The 95% CI could not be estimated for the L50 and SR in all models except for the 30° BRD, for which the 95% CI for L50 was 15.0–16.2 cm, and 95% CI for SR was 0.1–4.8 cm.
In mesh selectivity for mackerel (30° BRD) and herring (45° BRD), significant mesh selectivity was observed in either model for both species (p < 0.05). The selectivity curve for mackerel with the 30° BRD showed a 1.0 selectivity rate in larger body length, while the selectivity curve for herring with the 45° BRD was not reached. The selectivity curve was sharper for mackerel with the 30° BRD than for herring with the 45° BRD. The L50 was estimated as follows:
  • Mackerel (30° BRD): 20.0 cm (sum of haul) and 19.9 cm (average of each haul)
  • Herring (45° BRD): 17.1 cm (sum of haul) and 17.1 cm (average of each haul).
The estimated SR was 2.2–2.3 cm for mackerel and 2.1 cm for herring. The 95% CI estimated for the L50 and SR was 19.8–20.0 cm and 2.0–2.4 cm for mackerel and 17.0–17.2 cm and 2.0–2.2 cm for herring.

3.5. Catch Loss Results by BRD and Bycatch Results for Jellyfish by BRD

Table 5 presents the catch loss rates for each fish species at different tilt angles of the BRD. Catch loss rates, both in number caught and weight, varied by species and tilt angle: hairtail: 30° BRD: 53.3% (number caught) and 51.8% (weight) and 45° BRD: 51.9% (number caught) 58.4% (weight); rudderfish: 30° BRD: 18.2% (number caught) and 19.1% (weight) and 45° BRD: 24.3% (number caught) and 25.9% (weight); jack mackerel: 30° BRD: 14.1% (number caught) and 15.9% (weight) and 45° BRD: 20.1% (number caught) and 19.4% (weight).
Hairtail showed slightly lower catch loss rates (number caught) with the 45° BRD compared to the 30° BRD, whereas rudderfish and jack mackerel showed the opposite trend. These differences in catch loss rates between the two tilt angles were statistically significant for both number caught and weight (p < 0.05).
For mackerel and herring, data were only available for the 30° and 45° BRDs, respectively. The observed catch loss rates were: 96.9% (number caught) and 96.9% (weight) for mackerel (30° BRD) and 20.1% (number caught) and 19.4% (weight) for herring (45° BRD).
The escape mechanism of jellyfish and their bycatch rates following BRD installation are presented in Figure 8 and Table 5. All jellyfish which remained at COD were cut off. Jellyfish catch loss rates were 93.4% (number caught) and 92.6% (weight) with the 30° BRD and 87.9% and 89.1%, respectively, with the 45° BRD. It means that jellyfish bycatch rate is approximately 7% in 30° BRD and 11~12% in 40° BRD. Statistical analysis revealed a significant effect of BRD tilt angle on bycatch rates for number caught and weight (p < 0.05), with the 30° BRD demonstrating superior performance in reducing jellyfish bycatch.

4. Discussion

The fishing gear used in this study was designed for resource survey to support the total allowable catch (TAC) system [38,39]. The small COD mesh size enabled accurate resource estimation and increased the potential for capturing a wide range of fish species and sizes. Installing a developing marine mammal BRD potentially reduced bycatch, but also presented a risk of target species catch loss. Therefore, we investigated methods to minimize marine mammal bycatch while reducing target species catch loss by adjusting BRD and COD selectivity.

4.1. Importance of Caught Fish Species

The fish species caught in this study included hairtail, rudderfish, jack mackerel, mackerel, and herring. Notably, hairtail, jack mackerel, and mackerel are key commercial species that are widely consumed in Korea and managed under the TAC system. In particular, hairtail is an important target species in trawl fisheries. The rudderfish, which is primarily harvested and consumed in Taiwan [40], is anticipated to be a valuable resource for Korea in the future as climate change alters their habitats. These species commonly prey on pearlside, as evidenced by our catch data and the presence of pearlside in their mouths. Our previous study on marine mammal BRDs in the East Sea also identified pearlside as a key prey species [6], further underscoring the need to develop fishing gear that reduces pearlside bycatch.

4.2. Efficiency of the Bycatch Reduction Device

Species-specific BRD selectivity was analyzed in relation to BRD tilt angle, mesh selectivity, fish school behavior, and biological characteristics. A marine mammal BRD with a 400 mm mesh size was installed directly in front of the COD, and two tilt angles (30° and 40°) were evaluated. For this study, catch loss due to the BRD was defined as the capture of fish within the BRD, as it prevented them from entering the COD.

4.2.1. Selectivity Regarding the Bycatch Reduction Device Tilt Angle

To evaluate the selectivity of BRDs with different tilt angles, this study compared the catch loss rates of hairtail, rudderfish, and jack mackerel by fish number and weight. Hairtail exhibited a lower catch loss rate with the 45° BRD than with the 30° BRD, suggesting the 45° BRD is better suited for this species. However, both BRDs showed catch loss rates exceeding 50%, indicating a need for further refinement. In contrast, rudderfish and jack mackerel had lower catch loss rates with the 30° BRD, indicating that it is more appropriate for these species. This is consistent with our previous finding [6] that a 30° tilt angle was more effective than a 45° angle for common squid and sailfin sandfish, although catch loss rates for rudderfish and jack mackerel still exceeded 10%, indicating a need for further improvement. Only a single tilt angle was used during this study for mackerel and herring, making direct comparisons impossible. Further research is needed to determine the optimal BRD tilt angle for these species.
Regarding jellyfish bycatch reduction, the catch rate was lower with the 30° BRD than with the 45° BRD. This indicates that marine mammal BRDs can effectively reduce jellyfish bycatch during periods of jellyfish influx. The selectivity of BRDs in reducing jellyfish bycatch depends on their tilt angle [41,42,43]. Notably, as the tilt angle increased from 10° to 15° and 20°, jellyfish discard rates decreased by 66%, 41%, and 44%, respectively [44]. However, our findings indicated that bycatch rates were lower at 30° than at 45°, suggesting that the bycatch reduction was not linear with increasing tilt angles, but decreased beyond a specific threshold.
Camera observation analysis showed that the net panel of 30° BRD unfolded more effectively compared to the one in 45° BRD, which was less stable. The net unfolded loosely for the 30° BRD, creating ample internal space. Target fish from below entered the COD, whereas those entering from above either reached the COD or were redirected into the BRD. However, for the 45° BRD, the net failed to unfold properly owing to resistance, causing distortion. This led to the front section of the COD remaining partially collapsed, disrupting water flow and resulting in fish being discarded through the BRD. These findings indicate that a tilt angle of 30° is more suitable for the net panel than a 45° tilt angle. Although BRDs with net panels are commonly used in turtle excluder devices [45,46,47], few studies have examined how the unfolding of guide nets affects net performance. The further study of this will establish the groundwork for future research.

4.2.2. Selectivity Regarding the Bycatch Reduction Device Mesh Size

To evaluate the effect of mesh size on BRD selectivity, we analyzed the ratio of the G of hairtail, rudderfish, jack mackerel, mackerel, and herring to the mesh perimeter (800 mm) of the BRD. The selectivity principles state that fish are retained when their girth exceeds the mesh size [48,49]. The G range of each species across all body lengths was as follows: hairtail: 2.3–8.9 cm, rudderfish: 11.1–16.6 cm, jack mackerel: 6.5–8.8 cm, mackerel: 9.8–12.6 cm, and herring: 6.1–8.4 cm, with a ratio to the mesh perimeter of 0.03–0.21. Despite having a G much smaller than the mesh perimeter, some were selected by the BRD, which resulted in catch loss. This suggests that factors such as the hanging ratio and projected area of the mesh, rather than mesh size alone, influence selectivity. Similar findings have been reported in the Baltic Sea, where selectivity was affected by mesh shape and hanging ratio in addition to mesh size [50,51]. These results indicate that the low ratio of G to the mesh perimeter had a minimal impact on selectivity, while other factors, such as the tilt angle of the net panel or fish school behavior, were more influential. Consistent with our earlier findings [6], this study supports the conclusion that mesh size has a relatively smaller effect on selectivity compared to tilt angle.

4.2.3. Selectivity Regarding Fish School Behavior and Biological Characteristics

Although all fish had a G much smaller than the mesh perimeter, catch losses were still observed. This indicates that fish school behavior and biological characteristics considerably influence selectivity compared to mesh selectivity alone. To explore this comprehensively, we examined hairtail behavior. Studies using longlines and gillnets have reported that hairtail schools exhibit diel vertical migration [52]. Additionally, fish finder studies have revealed that the daytime swimming layer of hairtail schools is deeper than their nighttime swimming layer [53]. These findings indicate that the substantial catch loss in hairtail may be attributed to their vertical migration patterns and deeper daytime distribution. Camera observation confirmed that most hairtail entering the net were positioned near the upper section of the gear, making it easier for them to escape through the BRD located at the top. Rudderfish, classified as demersal fish [46], remained attached to the bottom of the gear, resulting in a lower catch loss compared to hairtail. In contrast, jack mackerel and herring, classified as pelagic migratory fish, are characterized by high swimming speeds [53]. Camera observation revealed that these species swam continuously in front of the guide net before eventually passing through the BRD and entering the COD after fatigue. As larger jack mackerel and herring were smaller than the mesh size, they could be guided into the COD through the guide net in the upper section, even when schooling near the top of the gear, resulting in relatively lower catch loss. In contrast, mackerel, another pelagic migratory species with high swimming speeds [54,55,56], exhibited a catch loss rate of 97%, as most escaped through the BRD. Mackerel have larger school sizes, faster swimming speeds, and greater body size than jack mackerel and herring [55,56]. Camera observations captured an event where numerous mackerel collided with the guide net and escaped through the BRD. Unlike jack mackerel and herring, mackerel flipped over when exhausted; however, owing to their larger size, they could not pass through the mesh and ultimately escaped through the BRD. These findings indicate that the current mesh size of the guide net is too small. To address this, the mesh size should be increased, and a covernet should be designed to prevent escape through the escape opening, thereby guiding fish toward the lower section and into the COD.

4.3. Catch Losses and Mitigation Measures

This study examined the catch loss of target species owing to marine mammal BRDs. In our previous study, the catch loss rate exceeded 10% [6]. Similarly, this study also demonstrated a catch loss rate exceeding 10% for the species investigated, with hairtail exceeding 50% and mackerel reaching 97%. To address these high rates, we propose four mitigation measures.
First, the three-layer COD design should be redesigned. The current COD net, intended for resource surveys, has a small mesh size, resulting in significantly slower water flow and higher internal pressure than that of the commercial trawl nets with a single-layer COD. Previous studies on trawl nets have indicated that the selectivity of the COD mesh can change when a kite cover is installed, as it further reduces water flow [57]. These findings suggest that fish may be unable to enter the COD via the guide net owing to the three-layer netting. In future research, we intend to use a single-layer net similar to those used in commercial trawling and conduct further investigations.
Second, the mesh size of the guide net should be adjusted. Our findings showed that herring and jack mackerel could pass through the net panel owing to their smaller size, even when flipping over from exhaustion, whereas larger mackerel could not. To address this, we should focus on redesigning the guide net by increasing its mesh size to an appropriate size that prevents marine mammals from passing through while improving fish retention.
Third, an additional guide device is needed to redirect escaping fish back into the net. To ensure that this device does not obstruct marine mammal escape, we propose designing a covernet with a suitable mesh size that selectively retains target species while allowing marine mammals to escape. This approach is similar to the seal exclusion device (SED) used in Australian fisheries [58,59], which effectively reduces sea lion bycatch without causing mortalities and is an effective solution for mitigating dolphin bycatch [58]. We aim to evaluate the potential application of this method in Korean fisheries.
Fourth, a funnel net can effectively capture target species while allowing marine mammals to escape. This method has been successfully implemented in midwater trawls internationally [60] and in Korean stow nets [4,5], notably reducing the catch loss of target species while enabling finless porpoises to escape. However, its application in trawl gear presents challenges owing to maintenance and repair difficulties. Future research should focus on developing improved maintenance and repair methods to facilitate the use of funnel nets in trawl gear.

5. Conclusions

In this study, no marine mammal was caught in fishing gear. But this study demonstrated that the marine mammal BRD can be thought to be highly effective, achieving near-complete exclusion of marine mammals by excluding jellyfish in experiment. However, its use may result in considerable target species catch losses, increasing concerns among fishers. To adapt this device for commercial midwater trawls, the guide net’s mesh size tested in this study should be increased, and additional covernets, similar to those used in SED systems [57,58], should be installed to mitigate catch losses. Furthermore, enhancing the maintenance and repair methods of funnel nets is necessary, considering their potential in reducing catch losses. Although this study focused on minimizing marine mammal bycatch in midwater trawls, future studies should focus on improving target species retention and exploring the potential of the improved marine mammal BRD to reduce jellyfish bycatch, which is particularly high from August to September.

Author Contributions

B.-J.C., H.-Y.K. and K.-S.C. designed and conceived this study; J.-M.J., K.-S.C., S.-J.K., T.-S.K., G.-C.H. and H.-Y.K. collected data; J.-M.J. analyzed and interpreted the results and drafted the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Fisheries Research Project from National Institute of Fisheries Science, Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, Republic of Korea (grant number R2025008).

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study used marine mammal bycatch reduction device but did not catch marine mammals, and the fishing survey included information regarding ethics.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

This study was carried out with support from the Fisheries Research Project (R2025008) of the National Institute of Fisheries Science, Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, Republic of Korea. The authors would like to thank the captain and the crew of the Tamgu-20 research vessel for their help and assistance onboard the vessel.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Lavigne, D.M. Marine mammals and fisheries: The role of science in the culling debate. In Fisheries, Tourism, and Management Issues; Mammals, M., Gales, N., Hindell, M., Kirkwood, R., Eds.; CSIRO: Melbourne, Australia, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  2. Roman, J.; Estes, J.A.; Morissette, L.; Smith, C.; Costa, D.; McCarthy, J.; Nation, J.B.; Nicol, S.; Pershing, A.; Smetacek, V. Whales as marine ecosystem engineers. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2014, 12, 377–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Morissette, L.; Christensen, V.; Pauly, D. Marine mammal impacts in exploited ecosystems: Would large scale culling benefit fisheries? PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e43966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Martin, A.H.; Pearson, H.C.; Saba, G.K.; Olsen, E.M. Integral functions of marine vetebrates in the ocean carbon cycle and climate change mitigation. One Earth 2021, 4, 680–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bering, J.; Gargan, H.; Kuesel, J.; Morrison, M.; Mullaney, C.; Read, A.J.; Roady, S.E.; Rowe, A. Will unilateral action improve the global conservation status of marine mammals? A first analysis of the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act’s Import Provisions Rule. Mar. Policy 2022, 135, 104832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Jung, J.M.; Park, M.S.; Choi, K.S. A study of the catch losses and mesh selectivity related to the attachment of marine mammal bycatch reduction devices on Midwater trawl gear. Fishes 2024, 9, 391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Leeney, R.H.; Berrow, S.; McGrath, D.; O’Brien, J.; Cosgrove, R.; Godley, B.J. Effects of pingers on the behaviour of bottlenose dolphins. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 2007, 87, 129–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Brotons, J.M.; Munilla, Z.; Grau, A.M.; Rendell, L. Do pingers reduce interactions between bottlenose dolphins and nets around the Balearic Islands? Endang. Species Res. 2008, 5, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gazo, M.; Gonzalvo, J.; Aguilar, A. Pingers as deterrents of bottlenose dolphins interacting with trammel nets. Fish. Res. 2008, 92, 70–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Buscaino, G.; Buffa, G.; Sarà, G.; Bellante, A.; Tonello, A.J.; Hardt, F.A.S.; Cremer, M.J.; Bonanno, A.; Cuttitta, A.; Mazzola, S. Pinger affects fish catch efficiency and damage to bottom gill nets related to bottlenose dolphins. Fish. Sci. 2009, 75, 537–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gönener, S.; Özsandikçi, U. Technical measures in order to decrease interactions between dolphins and fishermen: Pingers. J. Aquacult. Eng. Fish. Res. 2017, 3, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Buscaino, G.; Ceraulo, M.; Alonge, G.; Pace, D.S.; Grammauta, R.; Maccarrone, V.; Bonanno, A.; Mazzola, S.; Papale, E. Artisanal fishing, dolphins, and interactive pinger: A study from a passive acoustic perspective. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2021, 31, 2241–2256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Schakner, Z.A.; Blumstein, D.T. Behavioral biology of marine mammal deterrents: A review and prospectus. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 167, 380–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Spitz, J.; Richard, E.; Meynier, L.; Pusineri, C.; Ridoux, V. Dietary plasticity of the oceanic striped dolphin, Stenella coeruleoalba, in the neritic waters of the Bay of Biscay. J. Sea Res. 2006, 55, 309–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Jensen, F.H.; Perez, J.M.; Johnson, M.; Soto, N.A.; Madsen, P.T. Calling under pressure: Short-finned pilot whales make social calls during deep foraging dives. Proc. Biol. Sci. 2011, 278, 3017–3025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Dewar, W.K.; Bingham, R.J.; Iverson, R.L.; Nowacek, D.P.; Laurent, L.C.; Wiebe, P.H. Does the marine biosphere mix the ocean? J. Mar. Res. 2006, 64, 541–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lavery, T.J.; Roudnew, B.; Gill, P.; Seymour, J.; Seuront, L.; Johnson, G.; Mitchell, J.G.; Smetacek, V. Iron defecation by sperm whales stimulates carbon export in the Southern Ocean. Proc. Biol. Sci. 2010, 277, 3527–3531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Roman, J.; McCarthy, J.J. The whale pump: Marine mammals enhance primary productivity in a coastal basin. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e13255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Smith, L.V.; McMinn, A.; Martin, A.; Nicol, S.; Bowie, A.R.; Lannuzel, D.; van der Merwe, P. Preliminary investigation into the stimulation of phytoplankton photophysiology and growth by whale faeces. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2013, 446, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Reilly, S.B.; Bannister, J.L.; Best, P.B.; Brown, M.; Brownell, R.L., Jr.; Rudderworth, D.S.; Clapham, P.J.; Cooke, J.; Donovan, G.P.; Urbàn, J.; et al. Megaptera novaeangliae. IUCN red list threat. Species 2008, Version 2013.1. Available online: http://www.iucnredlist.org (accessed on 3 June 2025).
  21. Yoon, Y.Y.; Jung, S.J.; Yoon, S.C. Characteristics and long-term variation trend of water mass in the coastal part of East Sea, Korea. J. Korean Soc. Mar. Environ. Eng. 2007, 10, 59–65. [Google Scholar]
  22. Song, H.; Song, Y.S.; Hwang, K.; Sohn, D. Characteristics of changes in species composition with water temperature in set net fishing on the Southern Coast of East Sea. Korean. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2022, 55, 625–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kang, Y.S. Unusual population explosion of the jellyfish and damage status. J. Korean Prof. Eng. Assoc. 2010, 43, 46–49. [Google Scholar]
  24. Lee, J.H.; Kim, E.H.; Lee, K.; Park, K.J.; An, Y.R.; Kim, H.W.; Sohn, H.; Choi, S.G. Occurrence and spatial distribution of marine mammals by sighting surveys in Korean waters during 2011–2020. Korean. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2022, 55, 938–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Park, K.J.; An, Y.R.; Kim, Z.G.; Choi, S.G.; Moon, D.Y.; Park, J.E. Abundance estimates of the Minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata, in the East Sea, Korea. Korean. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2009, 42, 642–649. [Google Scholar]
  26. Lee, D.; An, Y.R.; Park, K.J.; Kim, H.W.; Lee, D.; Joo, H.T.; Oh, Y.G.; Kim, S.M.; Kang, C.K.; Lee, S.H. Spatial distribution of common Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) as an indication of a biological hotspot in the East Sea. Deep Sea Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 2017, 143, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Fryer, R.J. A model of between-haul variation in selectivity. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 1991, 48, 281–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kinacigil, H.T.; Ìlkyaz, A.T.; Akyol, O.; Metin, G.; Çira, E.; Ayaz, A. Growth parameters of red mullet (Mullus barbatus L., 1758) and seasonal cod-end selectivity of traditional bottom trawl nets in Izmir Bay (Aegean Sea). Acta Adriat. 2001, 42, 113–123. [Google Scholar]
  29. Özbilgin, H.; Tosunoglu, Z.; Tokac, A.; Metin, G. Seasonal variation in the trawl coded selectivity of red mullet (Mullus barbatus). Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2011, 11, 191–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bahamon, N.; Sardà, F.; Suuronen, P. Improvement of trawl selectivity in the NW Mediterranean demersal fishery by using a 40 mm square mesh codend. Fish. Res. 2006, 81, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jørgensen, T.; Ingólfsson, Ó.A.; Graham, N.; Isaksen, B. Size selection of cod by rigid grids—Is anything gained compared to diamond mesh codends only? Fish. Res. 2006, 79, 337–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bak-Jensen, Z.; Herrmann, B.; Santos, J.; Melli, V.; Feekings, J.P.; Stepputtis, D. Fixed mesh constructions are required to reduce variability in codend size selectivity. In Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Methods for the Development and Evaluation of Maritime Technologies, Rostock, Germany, 13 September 2022; Menzel-Verlag: Kühlungsborn, Germany, 2023; pp. 61–70. [Google Scholar]
  33. Brooks, M.E.; Melli, V.; Savina, E.; Santos, J.; Millar, R.; O’Neill, F.G.; Veiga-Malta, T.; Krag, L.A.; Feekings, J.P. Introducing selfisher: Open source software for statistical analyses of fishing gear selectivity. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2022, 79, 1189–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Millar, R.B.; Walsh, S.J. Analysis of trawl selectivity studies with an application to trouser trawls. Fish. Res. 1992, 13, 205–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wileman, D.A.; Ferro, R.S.T.; Fonteyne, R.; Millar, R.B. Manual of Methods of Measuring the Selectivity of Towed Fishing Gears; ICES Cooperative Research Reports: Toronto, ON, Canada, 1996; Volume 215, pp. 1–216. [Google Scholar]
  36. Millar, R.B.; Fryer, R.J. Estimating the size-selection curves of towed gears, traps, nets and hooks. Rev. Fish. Biol. Fish. 1999, 9, 89–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Erzini, K.; Gonçalves, J.M.S.; Bentes, L.; Moutopoulos, D.K.; Casal, J.A.H.; Soriguer, M.C.; Puente, E.; Errazkin, L.A.; Stergiou, K.I. Size selectivity of trammel nets in southern European small-scale fisheries. Fish. Res. 2006, 79, 183–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. National Institute of Fisheries Science (NIFS). Catch, Fishing Effort, and Length Distribution Data by Year, Sea Block Number, Fishery, and Species; NIFS: Busan, Republic of Korea, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  39. National Institute of Fisheries Science (NIFS). In Fishing Trends and Sock Status Assessments for Korean Coast Major Fisheries; NIFS: Busan, Republic of Korea, 2020.
  40. Nazir, A.; Lin, T.H.; Kuo, T.H.; Shirai, K.; Wang, P.L.; Shiao, J.C. Seasonal distribution and population genetic structure of Psenopsis anomala (Japanese butterfish) inferred from otolith oxygen isotope ratios and mitochondrial DNA. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2024, 309, 108974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Cho, S.K.; An, H.C.; Shin, J.K.; Yang, Y.S.; Park, C.D.; Lee, J.H. Study on the survival rate of fishes escaped from trawl net. J. Korean Soc. Fish. Ocean Technol. 2006, 42, 69–77. [Google Scholar]
  42. Park, C.D.; Kim, I.O.; Lee, K.H.; Lee, G.H.; Park, S.W. The performance of a wedge type jellyfish excluder device inserted in a trawl net. J. Korean Soc. Fish. Ocean Technol. 2010, 46, 302–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Cha, B.J.; Roth, R.; Cho, S.K. Model test to understand shape change of BRD (bycatch reduction device) for demersal trawl of Argentina. J. Korean Soc. Fish. Technol. 2015, 51, 312–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kim, I.O.; An, H.C.; Shin, J.K.; Cha, B.J. The development of basic structure of jellyfish separator system for a trawl net. J. Korean Soc. Fish. Ocean Technol. 2008, 44, 99–111, (in Korean with English abstract). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Boopendranath, M.R.; Pravin, P. Technologies for responsible fishing-BRDs and TEDs. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Marine Ecosystems—Challenges and Strategies, Kochi, India, 9–12 February 2009; pp. 9–12. [Google Scholar]
  46. Lucchetti, A.; Punzo, E.; Virgili, M. Flexible Turtle Excluder Device (TED): An effective tool for Mediterranean coastal multispecies bottom trawl fisheries. Aquat. Living Resour. 2016, 29, 201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Vasapollo, C.; Virgili, M.; Petetta, A.; Bargione, G.; Sala, A.; Lucchetti, A. Bottom trawl catch comparison in the Mediterranean Sea: Flexible Turtle Excluder Device (TED) vs traditional gear. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0216023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Matsushita, Y.; Inoue, Y. Variation of square mesh codend selectivity for walleye pollock Theragra chalcogramma with respect to difference in body shape. Nippon. Suisan Gakkaishi 1997, 63, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Liang, Z.; Horikawa, H.; Tokimura, M.; Tokai, T. Effect of cross-sectional shape of fish body on mesh selectivity of trawl codend. Nippon. Suisan Gakkaishi 1999, 65, 441–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Petrakis, G.; Stergiou, K.I. Size selectivity of diamond and square mesh codends for four commercial Mediterranean fish species. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 1997, 54, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bak-Jensen, Z.; Herrmann, B.; Santos, J.; Jacques, N.; Melli, V.; Feekings, J.P. Fixed mesh shape reduces variability in codend size selection. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2022, 79, 1820–1829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Mashiro, M. Fishery Biology of Ribbon Fish, Trichiurus lepturus; Bay, W.W., Ed.; Kyoto Institute of Oceanic and Fishery Science Special Report: Kyoto, Japan, 1991; Volume 3, pp. 1–74. [Google Scholar]
  53. Kenji, K. Study on the improvement of the productivity of trawl fishery. J. Tokyo Univ. Fish. 1960, 4, 1–158. [Google Scholar]
  54. Lee, D.J.; Kang, S.; Choi, K.H.; Jung, K.M. Species composition and seasonal variations of fishes collected by set net in coastal waters of Gijang. Korean J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2014, 47, 983–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Park, J.S.; Kim, S.J.; Kim, S.G. A study on the behaviour of fish schools in the process of catch of the purse seine fishing method. J. Korean Soc. Fish. Ocean Technol. 1997, 33, 173–182. [Google Scholar]
  56. Koo, M.S.; Kim, S.J. Studies on the development of the fishing system of set net in the coast of Jeju Island 3. The model experiment of fyke net for construction improvement. J. Korean Soc. Fish. Ocean Technol. 2004, 40, 37–46, (In Korean with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  57. Madsen, N.; Hansen, K.E.; Moth-Poulsen, T. The kite cover: A new concept for covered codend selectivity studies. Fish. Res. 2001, 49, 219–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lyle, J.M.; Willcox, S.T. Dolphin and seal interactions with mid-water trawling in the Small Pelagic Fishery, including an assessment of bycatch mitigation strategies. Final. Rep. Proj. 2008, 5. [Google Scholar]
  59. Baker, B.; Hamilton, S.; McIntosh, R.; Finley, L. Technical Review: Development and Application of Bycatch Mitigation Devices for Marine Mammals in Mid-water Trawl Gear. In Report prepared for the Department of the Environment (on Behalf of the Expert Panel); The Department of the Environment: Canberra, Australia, 2014; p. 12. [Google Scholar]
  60. Sabu, S.; Boopendranath, M.R. Studies on Soft Bycatch Reduction Devices for Selective Trawling. Ph.D. Thesis, Cochin University of Science & Technology, Cochin, India, 2008. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of a midwater trawl gear with a bycatch reduction device for marine mammals. (Green, Codend A; Red, Codend B; Black, Codend C).
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of a midwater trawl gear with a bycatch reduction device for marine mammals. (Green, Codend A; Red, Codend B; Black, Codend C).
Fishes 10 00276 g001
Figure 2. Design of the bycatch reduction device for midwater trawl used in this study.
Figure 2. Design of the bycatch reduction device for midwater trawl used in this study.
Fishes 10 00276 g002
Figure 3. Map of trawl fishing grounds in this study. (Yellow circle, 30 degree angle BRD used; red star, 45 degree angle BRD used).
Figure 3. Map of trawl fishing grounds in this study. (Yellow circle, 30 degree angle BRD used; red star, 45 degree angle BRD used).
Fishes 10 00276 g003
Figure 4. Position of the camera for monitoring in the net.
Figure 4. Position of the camera for monitoring in the net.
Fishes 10 00276 g004
Figure 5. Body length distributions of (a) hairtail, (b) rudderfish, (c) jack mackerel, (d) herring, and (e) mackerel caught by Tamgu-20. Black bars indicate the number of fish caught from BRD, open bars indicate the number of fish caught from COD.
Figure 5. Body length distributions of (a) hairtail, (b) rudderfish, (c) jack mackerel, (d) herring, and (e) mackerel caught by Tamgu-20. Black bars indicate the number of fish caught from BRD, open bars indicate the number of fish caught from COD.
Fishes 10 00276 g005
Figure 6. Relationship between body length (fork length or anal length) and maximum girth for hairtail. The solid line indicates the regression line shown by the equation in the graph.
Figure 6. Relationship between body length (fork length or anal length) and maximum girth for hairtail. The solid line indicates the regression line shown by the equation in the graph.
Fishes 10 00276 g006
Figure 7. BRD mesh selectivity curves for hairtail, rudderfish, jack mackerel, mackerel, and herring by (a) 30° angle BRD, (b) 45° angle BRD, and (c) total BRD. The black line shows the selectivity curve averaged from the selectivity curve of each haul with a random effects model. The shaded area indicates the 95% confidence range of the averaged selectivity curve, and the red line indicates the selectivity curve estimated from the pooled data of all hauls with a fixed effects model. The circle indicates the scale of the total number of fish caught by Tamgu-20.
Figure 7. BRD mesh selectivity curves for hairtail, rudderfish, jack mackerel, mackerel, and herring by (a) 30° angle BRD, (b) 45° angle BRD, and (c) total BRD. The black line shows the selectivity curve averaged from the selectivity curve of each haul with a random effects model. The shaded area indicates the 95% confidence range of the averaged selectivity curve, and the red line indicates the selectivity curve estimated from the pooled data of all hauls with a fixed effects model. The circle indicates the scale of the total number of fish caught by Tamgu-20.
Fishes 10 00276 g007
Figure 8. Result of monitoring for the escape of jellyfish. The order of time is numbered.
Figure 8. Result of monitoring for the escape of jellyfish. The order of time is numbered.
Fishes 10 00276 g008
Table 1. Dates and positions of codend mesh selectivity experiments by Tamgu-20.
Table 1. Dates and positions of codend mesh selectivity experiments by Tamgu-20.
Haul No.DateStart Position of the HaulUnderwater Camera Record
LatitudeLongitude
#1012 September 202434°56.058′ N129°03.446′ E-
#1023 September 202434°31.000′ N128°24.128′ E-
#1034 September 202434°46.076′ N128°37.967′ E-
#1044 September 202436°50.784′ N129°39.087′ E-
#1054 September 202435°56.072′ N129°40.945′ E-
#1065 September 202435°58.026′ N129°40.785′ E-
#1075 September 202435°05.693′ N129°42.921′ E-
#1086 September 202436°09.762′ N129°43.325′ E
#1096 September 202436°16.434′ N129°34.745′ E
#1108 September 202436°03.900′ N129°41.283′ E
#1119 September 202436°00.205′ N129°41.414′ E
#1129 September 202436°00.205′ N129°41.706′ E
#11310 September 202435°42.863′ N129°41.067′ E
#11410 September 202435°43.841′ N129°43.267′ E
#11511 September 202435°43.059′ N129°44.584′ E
#11611 September 202435°43.577′ N129°41.777′ E
#11712 September 202435°31.000′ N129°34.210′ E
“✓” designates a tow which the underwater camera recorded.
Table 2. Total catch results from 17 fishing operations of midwater trawl in the fishing ground.
Table 2. Total catch results from 17 fishing operations of midwater trawl in the fishing ground.
Common NameScientific NameNumber CaughtWeight of Catch
HairtailTrichiurus lepturus59730.77 kg
RudderfishPsenopsis anomala554.07 kg
Jack mackerelTrachurus japonicus611.43 kg
MackerelScomber japonicus41758.25 kg
HerringClupea pallasii2648.42 kg
Firefly squidWatasenia scintillans2652.01 kg
PearlsidesMaurolicus muelleri1,144,5511230.20 kg
Nomura’s jellyfishNemopilema nomurai47807.47 kg
Total1,146,2572142.62 kg
Table 3. Fish behavior monitoring inside the gear with BRD.
Table 3. Fish behavior monitoring inside the gear with BRD.
Haul No.Date *1Recorded
Duration
Remark
COD *2BRD *2
HRJMMJHRJMMJ
#1086 September 202400 h 59 min 50 s1-2-1--36-6
#1096 September 202400 h 59 min 20 s2-15-1--5-13
#1108 September 202400 h 34 min 19 s-3----1---
#1119 September 202400 h 59 min 01 s42--1121--5
#1129 September 202401 h 00 min 34 s28----39----
#11310 September 202400 h 50 min 25 s---10----30-
#11410 September 202401 h 02 min 22 s----1--1-5
#11511 September 202401 h 00 min 44 s-----101--2
#11611 September 202400 h 44 min 17 s12----53----
#11712 September 202400 h 27 min 27 s10----11---3
*1, all observations were carried out in the daytime. *2, number of observed species (“H”, hairtail, “R”, rudderfish, “JM”, jack mackerel, “M”, mackerel, “J”, Nomura’s jellyfish) were categorized by observed position (COD or BRD).
Table 4. Estimated parameters for sorting selectivity curves after capture (hairtail).
Table 4. Estimated parameters for sorting selectivity curves after capture (hairtail).
Common Name
(Angle of BRD)
Estimation Method *1Logistic Parameters *2Selectivity Curve Parameters *3Model Fit
abL50C.I. of L50S.R.C.I. of S.R.Deviancedfp-Value
Hairtail (30°)Average of each haul−0.110 (0.841)0.005 (0.072)20.8Error416.3Error0190.98
Sum of hauls−0.032 (0.732)0.001 (0.052)28.7-1997.2-0190.94
Hairtail (45°)Average of each haul−0.161 (0.845)0.003 (0.072)52.3Error715.5Error0190.97
Sum of hauls−0.019 (2.82)0.002 (0.191)9.2-1046.3-0190.99
Hairtail (total)Average of each haul−0.096 (0.843)0.004 (0.072)21.4Error491.3Error0190.95
Sum of hauls−0.003 (0.071)0.001 (0.005)299.0-21974.9-0190.99
Rudderfish (30°)Average of each haul−9.16 (5.26)0.55 (0.21)16.615.2–17.94.0 (2.7)Error0150.28
Sum of hauls−11.20 (7.68)0.67 (0.53)16.5-3.2 (0.5)-0.1150.19
Rudderfish (45°)Average of each haul−2.63 (1.55)0.12 (0.01)22.8Error19.0 (12.3)Error0150.42
Sum of hauls−2.60 (1.77)0.11 (0.03)20.4-20.4 (16.3)-0.1150.75
Rudderfish (total)Average of each haul−4.86 (2.95)0.26 (0.13)18.7Error8.4 (4.6)Error0150.27
Sum of hauls−4.97 (2.72)0.27 (0.16)18.6-8.2 (4.2)-0.1150.32
Jack mackerel (30°)Average of each haul−11.31 (7.79)0.72 (0.31)15.615.0–16.23.0 (1.6)0.1–4.8015>0.05
Sum of hauls−7.90 (4.47)0.47 (0.21)16.7-4.6 (2.1)-015<0.05
Jack mackerel (45°)Average of each haul−3.63. (1.94)0.22 (0.16)16.614.9–18.310.0 (6.63)Error0150.18
Sum of hauls−3.37 (1.95)0.20 (0.15)16.8-11.0 (7.51)-0150.19
Jack mackerel (total)Average of each haul−5.95 (3.57)0.37 (0.27)16.115.5–16.75.9 (4.1)Error015>0.05
Sum of hauls−6.00 (2.02)0.37 (0.15)16.4-6.0 (2.5)-0150.02
Mackerel (30°)Average of each haul−35.97 (26.74)1.81 (1.34)19.919.8–20.02.2 (0.9)2.0–2.4024<0.05
Sum of hauls−35.00 (4.38)1.75 (0.21)20.0-2.3 (0.1)-024<0.01
Herring (45°)Average of each haul−20.61 (16.13)1.20 (0.84)17.117.0–17.22.1 (1.3)2.0–2.20170.12
Sum of hauls−18.08 (3.11)1.05 (0.19)17.1-2.1 (0.4)-017<0.01
*1, average of each haul; parameters were estimated by a random effects model for each haul and average values are shown. Sum of hauls parameters were estimated from catch results summed from all hauls by a fixed model. *2, parameters for Equation (2) in text. Values in parentheses are standard errors. *3, C.I., the 95% confidence interval, error; the value of C.I. (95% confidential interval) of L50 and C.I. could not be estimated.
Table 5. Catch loss rate for target species by using BRD.
Table 5. Catch loss rate for target species by using BRD.
NameScientific NameCatch Loss Rate (%) *1
30°45°Total (Average)
NWNWNW
HairtailTrichiurus lepturus535252585354
RudderfishPsenopsis anomala181924262223
Jack mackerelTrachurus japonicus141620191818
MackerelScomber japonicus9797--9797
HerringClupea pallasii--13111311
Nomura’s jellyfish *2Nemopilema nomurai939388898990
*1, Catch loss rate (“N”, the number caught, “W”, the weight of the catch) was categorized for each species. *2, catch loss rate of jellyfish is the opposite concept of bycatch rate, which means that the higher rate, the more escape.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jung, J.-M.; Kim, H.-Y.; Cha, B.-J.; Kim, S.-J.; Kim, T.-S.; Hyun, G.-C.; Choi, K.-S. Catch Losses and Reduction of Bycatch for Jellyfish Using Marine Mammal Bycatch Reduction Devices in Midwater Trawl Gear. Fishes 2025, 10, 276. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10060276

AMA Style

Jung J-M, Kim H-Y, Cha B-J, Kim S-J, Kim T-S, Hyun G-C, Choi K-S. Catch Losses and Reduction of Bycatch for Jellyfish Using Marine Mammal Bycatch Reduction Devices in Midwater Trawl Gear. Fishes. 2025; 10(6):276. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10060276

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jung, Jung-Mo, Hyun-Young Kim, Bong-Jin Cha, Sung-Jae Kim, Tae-Suk Kim, Gyeong-Cheol Hyun, and Kyu-Suk Choi. 2025. "Catch Losses and Reduction of Bycatch for Jellyfish Using Marine Mammal Bycatch Reduction Devices in Midwater Trawl Gear" Fishes 10, no. 6: 276. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10060276

APA Style

Jung, J.-M., Kim, H.-Y., Cha, B.-J., Kim, S.-J., Kim, T.-S., Hyun, G.-C., & Choi, K.-S. (2025). Catch Losses and Reduction of Bycatch for Jellyfish Using Marine Mammal Bycatch Reduction Devices in Midwater Trawl Gear. Fishes, 10(6), 276. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10060276

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop