Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T20:48:12.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Observations on incidental catch of cetaceans in three landing centres along the Indian coast

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2009

K.S.S.M. Yousuf ,
A.K. Anoop ,
B. Anoop ,
V.V. Afsal ,
E. Vivekanandan ,
R.P. Kumarran ,
M. Rajagopalan ,
P.K. Krishnakumar  and
P. Jayasankar
K.S.S.M. Yousuf*
Affiliation:
Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin 682018, India
A.K. Anoop
Affiliation:
Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin 682018, India
B. Anoop
Affiliation:
Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin 682018, India
V.V. Afsal
Affiliation:
Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin 682018, India
E. Vivekanandan
Affiliation:
Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin 682018, India
R.P. Kumarran
Affiliation:
AP 454, 22nd Street Thiruvalluvar Kudiyiruppu Anna Nagar, Chennai 600040, India
M. Rajagopalan
Affiliation:
Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin 682018, India
P.K. Krishnakumar
Affiliation:
Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin 682018, India
P. Jayasankar
Affiliation:
Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin 682018, India
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: K.S.S.M. Yousuf, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin 682018, India email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

A short term survey to quantify the number of marine mammals incidentally caught, and interviews to gain perceptions of local fishers towards issues of by-catch, were conducted. A total of 44 cetaceans was recorded as incidental catches at Chennai, Kakinada and Mangalore fishing harbours during 80 days of observation. Six species of dolphins and one species of porpoise were recorded. The spinner dolphin Stenella longirostris was the most frequently caught (38.6%), followed by the finless porpoise Neophocaena phocaenoides (31.8%). Gill-nets and purse seines operated from motorized boats accounted for the entire by-catch. It is estimated that 9000–10,000 cetaceans are killed by gill-nets every year along the Indian coast. The intricacies and possibilities of reducing cetacean kills by gill-nets are discussed in this paper.

Keywords

marine mammalgill-netpurse seinefishery interactionincidental catchIndia
Type
Research Article
Information
Marine Biodiversity Records , Volume 2 , January 2009 , e64
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anoop, A., Yousuf, K.S., Kumaran, P.L., Nayak, H., Anoop, B., Afsal, V.V., Rajagopalan, M., Vivekanandan, E., Krishnakumar, P.K. and Jayasankar, P. (2008) Stomach content of cetaceans incidentally caught along Mangalore and Chennai coasts of India. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 76, 909–913.Google Scholar
Archer, F., Gerrodette, T., Dizon, A., Abella, K. and Southern, S. (2001) Unobserved kill of nursing dolphin calves in a tuna purse-seine fishery. Marine Mammal Science 17, 540–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, J. and Cameron, G.A. (2003) Field experiments show that acoustic pingers reduce marine mammal by-catch in the California drift gill net fishery. Marine Mammal Science 19, 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandrasekar, M., Chittibabu, K., Achaya, P., Prabhakar, R.V.D. and Viyayakumaran, K. (1993) On the landing of a young bottlenose dolphin at Visakhapatnam. Marine Fisheries Information Service, Technical and Extension Series 122, 24–25.Google Scholar
CMFRI (2006) Marine Fisheries Census 2005, part 1. Kochi: Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, pp. 104.Google Scholar
CMFRI (2007) Studies on marine mammals of Indian EEZ and the contiguous seas. New Delhi: Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Final Report submitted to Ministry of Earth Sciences, 1–212.Google Scholar
Cockcroft, V.G. and Krohn, R. (1994) Passive gear fisheries of the south-western Indian and south-eastern Atlantic Oceans. An assessment of their possible impact on cetaceans. In Perrin, W.F. et al. (eds) Gill-nets and cetaceans. Report of the International Whaling Commission, Special Issue 15, 317–328.Google Scholar
ICAR (2005) An indigenous turtle excluder device for protection of sea turtle. ICAR Newsletter 11, 1–3.Google Scholar
Kasim, H.M., Ameer Hamsa, K.M.S and Balasubramanian, T.S. (1993) On an accidental landing of false killer whale, Pseudorca crassidens by drift gill-net off Veerpandianpatnam along Gulf of Mannar. Marine Fisheries Information Service, Technical and Extension Series 120, 18–19.Google Scholar
Lal Mohan, R.S. (1985) Observations on the by-catch of dolphins S. longirostris, T. aduncus, S. chinensis and D. delphis tropicalis in the gill-nets off Calicut coast, India. In Silas, E.G. (ed.) Proceedings of the Symposium on Endangered Marine Animals and Marine Parks, Marine Biological Association of India12–16 January 1985, pp. 78–83.Google Scholar
Lal Mohan, R.S. (1994) Review of gill-net fisheries and cetacean by-catches in the north-eastern Indian Ocean. Report of the International Whaling Commission, Special Issue 15, 329–343.Google Scholar
Mahadevan Pillai, P.K. and Chandrangathan, S.B. (1990) On the drift-net entangled dolphins landed at Sakthikulangara. Marine Fisheries Information Service, Technical and Extension Series 104, 16–17.Google Scholar
Maigret, J. (1994) Marine mammals and fisheries along the West African coast. Report of the International Whaling Commission, Special Issue 15, 307–317.Google Scholar
Nageswara Rao, T. and Venkataramana, P. (1994) On the landing of bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus at Kakinada. Marine Fisheries Information Service, Technical and Extension Series 127, 16 pp.Google Scholar
Northridge, S. and Pilleri, G. (1986) A review of human impact on small cetaceans. Investigations on Cetacea 18, 221–261.Google Scholar
NRC (1992). Dolphins and the tuna industry. Washington, DC: National Research Council Report, National Academy Press, 169 pp.Google Scholar
Perrin, W.F., Donovan, G.P. and Barlow, J. (1994) Gill-nets and cetaceans. Report of the International Whaling Commission, Special Issue 15, 629 pp.Google Scholar
Pillai, K.S. and Kasinathan, C. (1987) Some observations on dolphin in Mandapam area with a note on their food. Marine Fisheries Information Service, Technical and Extension Series 71, 13–16.Google Scholar
Read, A.J., Drinker, P. and Northridge, S. (2006) By-catch of marine mammals in US and global fisheries. Biological Conservation 20, 163–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satya Rao, S. and Chandrasekar, S. (1994) On the landing of spinner dolphins Stenella longirostris at Lawson's Bay, Visakhapatnam. Marine Fisheries Information Service, Technical and Extension Series 127, 18.Google Scholar
Thathaya, E. and Achayya, P. (1998) On the landing of dolphins at Dummulupetta, East Godavari district, Andhra Pradesh. Marine Fisheries Information Service, Technical and Extension Series 152, 17–18.Google Scholar
Thiagarajan, R. and Krishnapillai, S. (2000) Accidental catch of three Risso's dolphins at Beemapally, near Vizhinjam. Marine Fisheries Information Service, Technical and Extension Series 163, 10.Google Scholar
Venkataramana, P. and Achayya, P. (1998) On the capture of a bottlenose dolphin off Kakinada. Marine Fisheries Information Service, Technical and Extension Series 155, 20.Google Scholar
Waring, G.T., Gerior, P., Payne, M.P., Parry, B.L. and Nicolas, J.R. (1990) Incidental take of marine mammals in foreign fishery activities off the north-east United States, 1977–1988. Fisheries Bulletin 88, 347–360.Google Scholar
Werner, T., Kraus, S., Read, A. and Zollett, E. (2006) Fishing techniques to reduce the bycatch of threatened marine animals. Marine Technology Society Journal 40, 50–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wise, L., Silva, A., Ferreira, M., Silva, M.A. and Sequeira, M. (2001) Interactions between small cetaceans and the purse-seine fishery in western Portuguese waters. Scientia Marina 71, 405–412.Google Scholar