Attach acoustically reflective objects to fishing gear

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    10%
  • Certainty
    41%
  • Harms
    15%

Study locations

Key messages

  • Two studies evaluated the effects on marine mammals of attaching acoustically reflective objects to fishing gear. One study was in the Timor Sea and Arafura Sea (Australia) and one was in the Gulf of Alaska (USA).

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

OTHER (2 STUDIES)

  • Reduction in entanglements/unwanted catch (1 study): One controlled study in the Timor Sea and Arafura Sea found that attaching metallic bead chains to fishing nets did not reduce the number of dolphin entanglements.
  • Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): One controlled study in the Gulf of Alaska found that attaching acrylic beads next to fishing hooks did not reduce predation on fish catches by sperm whales.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A replicated, controlled study in 1984–1985 of two pelagic areas in the Timor Sea and Arafura Sea, Australia (Hembree & Harwood 1987) found that attaching metallic bead chains to fishing nets did not reduce dolphin entanglements. In both years of the study, dolphin entanglement rates did not differ significantly between nets with bead chains (rates not reported; total entanglements: 1984 = 3 dolphins, 1985 = 29 dolphins) and conventional nets (total entanglements: 1984 = 21 dolphins, 1985 = 17 dolphins). Three dolphin species were entangled: common bottlenose Tursiops truncatus, spinner Stenella longirostris and pantropical spotted dolphins Stenella attenuata (see original paper for data). In 1984, a commercial vessel fished two types of gill net: one with 4-mm bead chains (8 or 16-m vertical chains attached at 8 m intervals; fished for 450 h); and one conventional net (fished for 354 h). Both net types (approximately 5 km long x 16 m deep, mesh size 150 mm) were deployed 3 m below the water surface. In 1985, a commercial vessel fished gill nets (10.5 km long; 39 deployments in total) with alternating 1-km sections with and without 4-mm bead chains (woven into the net in diagonal rows). Nets (15 m deep, mesh size 140–150 mm) were deployed at the water surface. Fishers recorded dolphins entangled in the nets in September–October 1984 and September–November 1985.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A controlled study in 2012 in a pelagic area in the Gulf of Alaska, USA (O'Connell et al. 2015) found that attaching acrylic beads next to fishing hooks did not reduce sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus predation on catches of target sablefish Anoplopoma fimbria. Catch rates of sablefish when sperm whales were present did not differ significantly between fishing gear with and without beads attached next to hooks (data not reported). The number of whale vocalizations associated with predation events (rapid clicks followed by a pause) also did not differ significantly between fishing gear with and without beads (data not reported). In March–August 2012, four commercial fishing vessels deployed 24 ‘long line’ fishing lines each divided into five experimental units. Each unit (comprising 4 x 183 m sections of gear with 168 hooks on each) was randomly assigned as a treatment (25 mm acrylic sphere ‘beads’ attached next to hooks) or control (no beads). An observer on board the fishing vessels recorded sablefish catches during hauls of 32 units of fishing gear in which whales were present. Acoustic recorders attached to each of the 24 fishing lines recorded sperm whale vocalizations.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Berthinussen, A., Smith, R.K. and Sutherland, W.J. (2021) Marine and Freshwater Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions. Conservation Evidence Series Synopses. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Marine and Freshwater Mammal Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Marine and Freshwater Mammal Conservation
Marine and Freshwater Mammal Conservation

Marine and Freshwater Mammal Conservation - Published 2021

Marine and Freshwater Mammal Synopsis

What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust