The fishery for Nephrops norvegicus (Linnaeus, 1758) in the central Adriatic Sea (Italy): Preliminary observations comparing bottom trawl and baited creels

  • Published source details Morello E.B., Antolini B., Gramitto M.E., Atkinson R.J.A. & Froglia C. (2009) The fishery for Nephrops norvegicus (Linnaeus, 1758) in the central Adriatic Sea (Italy): Preliminary observations comparing bottom trawl and baited creels. Fisheries Research, 95, 325-331.


This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Modify fishing trap/pot configuration

Action Link
Marine Fish Conservation
  1. Modify fishing trap/pot configuration

    A replicated study in 2004 in an area of seabed in the Adriatic Sea, Italy (Morello et al. 2009) found that trap (creel) type did not typically affect the catch of non-commercially targeted fish species, however compared to bottom trawl gear, creels did not catch high proportions of immature fish of commercial species. Overall, the percentage of creels containing non-target species (fish and invertebrates other than Norway lobster Nephrops norvegicus) was similar between Scottish (14%) and Croatian (6%) creels, but for both designs it was lower than for the Italian creel design (52%). However, only two of the 11 catch species were fish, and these were caught in Scottish creels only (<1 fish/creel). By comparison (but not tested statistically) 30 of the 55 species caught in bottom trawl deployments for lobster were fish, including a large proportion of immature individuals of commercial and other species (see paper for data). Data were collected from deployments of three different creel designs and a traditional commercial bottom trawl (11 hauls) in the western Pomo pit in August 2004 (see original paper for gear specifications). Traps were soaked for 24 h at depths of 210–235 m. On each of two deployments, two fleets were shot, one with 81 Scottish creels and the other with 40 Croatian and 20 Italian creels interspersed. Two further deployments were made of Scottish creels only. Trawl hauls were 1 h.

    (Summarised by: Chris Barrett)

Output references
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 21

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 ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust