Action

Add lights to fishing gear

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    not assessed
  • Certainty
    not assessed
  • Harms
    not assessed

Study locations

Key messages

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

  • Survival (1 study): One randomized, controlled, paired study in the Adriatic Sea found that no loggerhead turtles were caught and died in in gillnets with UV lights whereas some did in nets without lights.

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

OTHER (5 STUDIES)

  • Unwanted catch (5 studies): Four controlled studies (including three replicated and two paired studies) in the Baja California peninsula, Sechura Bay and the Adriatic Sea found that gillnets with LED lights, light sticks or UV lights caught fewer green turtles and loggerhead turtles than nets without lights. One replicated study in the Atlantic and North Pacific found mixed effects of increasing the number of light sticks on longlines on the chance of catching loggerhead and leatherback turtles.

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 2006–2009 in surface waters of a coastal lagoon and on the sea floor in the Baja California peninsula, Mexico (Wang et al. 2010) found that attaching LED lights to gillnets reduced unwanted catch of green turtles Chelonia mydas. LED-lit nets reduced turtle catch by 40% (7 turtles/12 h x 100 m net) compared to unmodified nets (12 turtles/12 h x 100 m net). Catch of commercially targeted fish was similar in LED-lit nets (11 fish/12h x 200 m net) compared to unmodified nets (11 fish/12 h x 200 m net). Green LEDs were attached every 10 m to the float line of gillnets. LED-lit gillnets were deployed in pairs < 1 km away from nets that had inactive LEDs attached (unmodified nets). In total, 15 trials were carried out at surface level to test sea turtle catch (60–95 m gillnets, July 2006, May-September 2007–2008) and 23 trials were carried out to test fish catch rates on commercial fishing vessels in a bottom-set gillnet fishery (200–400 m gillnets set 200 m apart at 10–30 m depths, May–September 2009). All nets were deployed in the dark.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, controlled study in 2006–2009 in surface waters of a coastal lagoon and on the sea floor in the Baja California peninsula, Mexico (Wang et al. 2010) found that attaching chemical light sticks to gillnets reduced unwanted catch of green turtles Chelonia mydas. Light stick-lit nets reduced turtle catch by 59% (8 turtles/12 h x 100 m net) compared to unmodified nets (19 turtles/12 h x 100 m net). Catch of commercially targeted fish was similar in light stick-lit nets (12 fish/12h x 200 m net) compared to unmodified nets (13 fish/12 h x 200 m net). Green chemiluminescent light sticks (15 cm) were attached every 5 m to the float line of gillnets. Illuminated nets were deployed in pairs < 1 km away from gillnets that had inactive light sticks attached (unmodified nets). In total, six trials were carried out at surface level to test sea turtle catch (60–95 m gillnets, July 2006, May-September 2007–2008and 17 trials were carried out to test fish catch rates on commercial fishing vessels in a bottom-set gillnet fishery (200–400 m gillnets set 200 m apart at 10–30 m depths, May–September 2009). All nets were deployed in the dark.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A replicated, controlled, paired study in 2011–2013 on the seafloor in Sechura Bay, northern Peru (Ortiz et al. 2016) found that LED net illuminators reduced unwanted catch of green turtles Chelonia mydas in a bottom-set gillnet fishery. Green turtle bycatch was reduced using illuminated nets (0.5 individuals/km/day) compared to unlit nets (1.4). Commercially-targeted fish species catch was not affected by LED lighting (illuminated: 10.4 individual fish/km/day, unlit: 10.6). Eleven vessels were equipped with a pair of bottom-set gillnets (56.4 x 2.8 m), one without illumination and the other with green LED lights every 10 m along the float line. Boats set lines for a total of 114 overnight deployments. Pairs of nets were separated by 200 m to avoid lighting the control nets. The catch of sea turtles was recorded on board.

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A replicated study in 1992–2015 in pelagic longline fisheries in the Atlantic and North Pacific (Swimmer et al. 2017) found that using more light sticks on longlines resulted in a higher chance of catching loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta but had no impact on leatherbacks Dermochelys coriacea (data reported as statistical model results). Pelagic Observer Program data from (1992–2015) was used to determine the number of turtles caught/1,000 hooks, and variation in the number of light sticks/hook (average of 0.4–0.9 sticks/hook) was used to test its effect on bycatch.

    Study and other actions tested
  5. A randomized, controlled, paired study in 2015–2016 in sandy-muddy bottom habitat in the north Adriatic Sea, central Mediterranean Sea (Virgili et al. 2018) found that using UV lights on bottom-set gillnets led to fewer loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta being caught. No statistical tests were carried out. No turtles were caught in lit gillnets, compared to 16 individuals in unlit gillnets (1 turtle/1,000 m net length/12 h). Five turtles died after being caught. Catch rates of commercially-targeted fish were similar between lit nets (15 individuals/1,000 m net length/12 h; 17 kg catch/1,000 m net length/12 hours) and unlit nets (14 individuals/1,000 m net length/12 hours soaking time; 17 kg catch/1,000 m net length/12 hours soak time). Data were collected in June–July 2015–2016 during 18 fishing trials. Fishing gear included bottom-set gillnets (average depth of deployment: 54 m) comprising connected netting panels (mesh size: 140 mm, panel length: 100 m, 3 m stretched drop). UV LED lights were positioned 15 m apart along the top line (‘floatline’) of some of the net panels (70 lights/km). Lit (3 km average net length) and unlit panels (1 km average net length) were randomly distributed along each net. A gap of 150 m was left between lit and unlit panels. Nets deployed from a single fishing vessel (18:00–06:00 h; average soak time: 15 hours). Catch of target, discard and unwanted species was monitored.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Sainsbury K.A., Morgan W.H., Watson M., Rotem G., Bouskila A., Smith R.K. & Sutherland W.J. (2021) Reptile Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for reptiles. Conservation Evidence Series Synopsis. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Reptile Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Reptile Conservation
Reptile Conservation

Reptile Conservation - Published 2021

Reptile 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 19

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