Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:09:40.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bycatch in an experimental fishery for Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides, Nototheniidae) in Ecuadorian oceanic waters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2023

René Zambrano*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Ciencias del Mar, Carrera de Biología, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad de Guayaquil, C.P. 090601, Guayaquil, Ecuador Carrera de Tecnología Superior en Acuicultura, Instituto Superior Tecnológico Luis Arboleda Martínez – Extensión Jaramijó, Frente a la playa de Balsamaragua, C.P. 132150, Jaramijó, Ecuador
Dialhy Coello
Affiliation:
Departamento de Ciencias del Mar, Carrera de Biología, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad de Guayaquil, C.P. 090601, Guayaquil, Ecuador
Marco Herrera
Affiliation:
Programa de Especies Vulnerables, Proceso de Investigación de Recursos Bioacuáticos y su Ambiente, Instituto Público de Investigación de Acuicultura y Pesca, C.P. 090308, Guayaquil, Ecuador
*
Corresponding author: René Zambrano; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The objective of this paper was to characterize bycatch in an experimental fishery for Patagonian toothfish in Ecuador during 2017–2021. Diversity was analysed using Shannon, Margalef, Simpson, and Dominance indices. Bycatch representativity was calculated as the difference percentage between the target catch and non-target, in weight. The bycatch comprised 51 taxa and was composed primarily of fish. In addition, 12 species of pelagic habits (i.e. fishes and sharks) were also captured during the deployment/retrieval of fishing gear. The most frequent species (by number of individuals) were chimaeras (Hydrolagus melanophasma), grenadiers (Antimora rostrata, Coryphaenoides delsolari, and Coryphaenoides armatus), and sharks (Etmopterus granulosus and Centroscymnus owstonii). The diversity was medium low, according to the Shannon indices (0.5–1.8), with a negative trend for dominance and a positive trend for equitability.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom

Introduction

Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides Smith, 1898) is endemic to the Southern Hemisphere. It has a circumpolar distribution and is found around sub-Antarctic islands and seamounts. In the Atlantic Ocean, it extends north onto the Patagonian shelf and Uruguay, while in the Pacific Ocean, it occurs off Chile and Peru (Møller et al., Reference Møller, Nielsen and Fossen2003; Collins et al., Reference Collins, Ross, Belchier and Reid2007; Taki et al., Reference Taki, Kiyota, Ichii and Iwami2011; Aramayo, Reference Aramayo2016). In Ecuador, Patagonian toothfish was recorded in research campaigns during 2008, occurring between 1200 and 1400 m depth, corresponding to the extreme northern area of its distribution (de González et al., Reference de González, Maroto-Castaño and Muñoz-Recio2008).

Patagonian toothfish is a commercial species in the Tropical Pacific Ocean (TPO) region of South America and fished by bottom longline. Patagonian toothfish has been fished since 1980 off Chile, and since 1999 off Peru (Sancho-Andrade et al., Reference Sancho-Andrade, Ortiz -Von Halle and Naranjo-Cuvi2002; Collins et al., Reference Collins, Brickle, Brown and Belchier2010). An experimental fishery was developed in Ecuador between 2017 and 2022 for the assessment of the opening of commercial exploitation of Patagonian toothfish.

All the countries have reported bycatch in the Patagonian toothfish fishery. Bycatch includes non-target species that are landed and sold, species that are retained for consumption onboard, as well as those non-target species that are discarded. Discards are the portion of the catch returned to the sea (Alverson et al., Reference Alverson, Freeberg, Murawski and Pope1994). Common species reported as bycatch in longline fisheries for Patagonian toothfish fishery include grenadiers (Macrouridae), morid cods (Moridae), and skates (Rajiformes) (Collins et al., Reference Collins, Brickle, Brown and Belchier2010).

In Peruvian waters, reported bycatch has included chimaera (Hydrolagus sp.), sharks (Somniosus sp.), skates (Bathyraja sp.), teleosts (Nezumia sp. and Trachyrincus helolepsis), octopus (Benthoctopus sp.), and king crabs (Lithodes sp. and Paralomis longipes) (Aramayo, Reference Aramayo2016). Bycatch is also a risk for the conservation of protected, threatened, and endangered species. Sharks and rays are highly vulnerable species in surface and bottom longline fisheries (Chaves, Reference Chaves, Leal-Filho, Azul, Brandli, Lange-Salvia and Wall2021), including in Ecuadorian waters (Sepa et al., Reference Sepa, Coello, Herrera and Zambrano2021). In Chile, an interaction of the Patagonian toothfish fishery with marine mammals (e.g. killer whales and sperm whales) and seabirds (e.g. Diomedea spp. and Macronectes giganteus) has also been reported (Guerrero and Arana, Reference Guerrero and Arana2009; Céspedes et al., Reference Céspedes, Vargas and Adasme2016).

Ecuador has been a cooperating party in The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) since 2018 but became a member in 2022 (meetings: CCAMLR-XXXVII/14 and CCAMLR-41). Parties to CCAMLR must demonstrate responsibilities in the use and collection of data related to marine Antarctic resources. Therefore, the objective of this study was to provide initial data on the species and size composition, and species diversity, of the bycatch observed over the period 2017–2021. This study could be considered a baseline for determining the effect of Patagonian toothfish fishery on demersal species and benthic.

Materials and methods

We considered bycatch as non-target species landed and sold as well as those discarded. Bycatch data from an experimental fishery of Patagonian toothfish (June 2017–July 2021) were analysed. The data correspond to fishing trips undertaken by the same fishing vessel (only one vessel had a fishing permission), recorded by observers onboard. Fishing deployments (sets) were conducted at depths of 1000–2700 m (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Study area and locations of observed hauls of the experimental fishery of Patagonian toothfish (D. eleginoides) in Ecuadorian oceanic waters, between June 2017 and July 2021.

Fishing gear was a horizontal bottom longline with a principal line and vertical drop lines rigged every 10 m. The hooks were circular with a crooked tip, size 14/0 (Sepa et al., Reference Sepa, Coello, Herrera and Zambrano2021).

A total of 1500 or 2000 hooks were used per set, which were baited with the fish Auxis thazard. All the bycatch species were identified by two observers onboard using identification guides for the region (Fischer et al., Reference Fischer, Krupp, Schneider, Sommer, Carpenter and Niem1995a, Reference Fischer, Krupp, Schneider, Sommer, Carpenter and Niem1995b; Robertson and Allen, Reference Robertson and Allen2015; Ebert and Mostarda, Reference Ebert and Mostarda2016; Froese and Pauly, Reference Froese and Pauly2021). Scientific names were validated according to Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes (Fricke et al., Reference Fricke, Eschmeyer and Van der Laan2022).

Each bycatch taxon was reported as the total number of individuals per species. The taxa captured during deployment/retrieval of the fishing gear were also reported as the number of individuals. Bycatch representativity was calculated as the difference percentage between the target catch and non-target, in weight. The diversity of bycatch was determined by Shannon (entropy), equitability (Pielou J), and dominance (1-Simpson) indices. The analysis was carried out using software Past ver. 4.10 (Hammer, Reference Hammer2022).

Results

A total of 60 fishing trips were analysed, comprising 100–330 sets per year. The catch of Patagonian toothfish has decreased since 2019 while the bycatch ratio has increased (Table 1). Bycatch was composed of 51 taxa, comprising fish (52%), skates and rays (23%), sharks (15%), crustaceans (6%), and cephalopods (4%). Macrouridae, Arhynchobatidae, and Somniosidae were the families with the most of bycatch species.

Table 1. Number (n) of trips and sets, fishing depth, Patagonian toothfish landed, bycatch representativity, and number of individuals in each bycatch taxa in an experimental fishery for Patagonian toothfish (D. eleginoides) in Ecuadorian oceanic waters

The years 2017 and 2018 presented the fewest number of taxa records. The most frequent bycatch species (by number of individuals) were Hydrolagus melanophasma, followed by Antimora rostrata, Coryphaenoides delsolari, Coryphaenoides armatus, Etmopterus granulosus, and Centroscymnus owstonii. Other taxa presented a record sporadic (Table 1).

A total of 12 pelagic taxa were captured during the deployment/retrieval of the fishing gear. Coryphaena hippurus presented the highest interannual presence, followed by Pteroplatytrygon violacea, which was the only myliobatiform ray recorded. The other species were caught sporadically (Table 2).

Table 2. Number of individuals fished during the deployment/retrieval of the fishing gear, by species, in an experimental fishery for Patagonian toothfish (D. eleginoides) in Ecuadorian oceanic waters

Dominance index showed a decrease towards 2021. Equitability and Shannon indices presented a positive trend. The diversity was between medium and low (0.5–1.8), according to the Shannon index (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Trends in the diversity indices related to the bycatch of the experimental fishery of Patagonian toothfish (D. eleginoides) in Ecuadorian oceanic waters.

Discussion

Bycatch in the Patagonian toothfish fishery in Ecuadorian oceanic waters included teleost, rays, sharks, crustaceans, and cephalopods. While those are characteristic species groups in deep longline fishing in the southern region of the TPO, the proportion in landings may vary by region, depth, and fishing gear (Collins et al., Reference Collins, Brickle, Brown and Belchier2010; Sellanes et al., Reference Sellanes, Pedraza and Zapata Hernandez2012).

In Ecuador, bycatch had more species than the reports from Chile (between 18 and 25 species) and Peru (11 species) (Lamilla et al., Reference Lamilla, Bustamante, Roa, Acuña, Concha, Melendez, López, Aedo, Flores and Vargas2010; Sellanes et al., Reference Sellanes, Pedraza and Zapata Hernandez2012; Aramayo, Reference Aramayo2016). The most representative species were chimaeras (H. melanophasma), grenadiers (A. rostrata, C. delsolari, and C. armatus), and sharks (E. granulosus, and C. owstonii). H. melanophasma is a species associated with the Patagonian toothfish local fishery in Chile and Peru (Aramayo, Reference Aramayo2016; Ñacari et al., Reference Ñacari, Sepulveda, Droguet, Escribano and Oliva2020). Grenadiers are common species in the Patagonian toothfish fishery globally, and A. rostrata is quite common in the southern TPO (Reyes et al., Reference Reyes, Torres and Reyes2009; Collins et al., Reference Collins, Brickle, Brown and Belchier2010).

Bait has the function of attracting target fishes, but it can also be consumed by non-target species (Emiati et al., Reference Emiati and Brown2022). In Ecuador, the bait was the fish A. thazard, which is one of the food items of large pelagic fishes, including sharks (Aguilar-Palomino et al., Reference Aguilar-Palomino, Galván-Magaña, Abitia-Cárdenas, Muhlia-Melo and Rodríguez-Romero1998; Estupiñán-Montaño et al., Reference Estupiñán-Montaño, Cedeño-Figueroa and Galván-Magaña2009, Reference Estupiñán-Montaño, Cedeño-Figueroa, Estupiñán-Ortiz, Galván-Magaña, Sandoval-Londoño, Castañeda-Suarez and Polo-Silva2019; Trujillo-Olvera et al., Reference Trujillo-Olvera, Ortega-García, Tripp-Valdez, Escobar-Sánchez and Acosta-Pachón2018; Calle-Morán et al., Reference Calle-Morán, Hernández-Téllez, Tibán-Vivar, Intriago-Vera, del Valle-Coello, Loor-Jama and Ganchozo-López2022).

Large pelagic fish were also caught by the gear, presumably during the deployment/retrieval of the fishing gear. These included seven species of shark (Pseudocarcharias kamoharai, Prionace glauca, Sphyrna lewini, Sphyrna zygaena, Alopias pelagicus, Alopias superciliosus, and Isurus oxyrinchus), P. violacea, and four species of teleost (C. hippurus, Xiphias gladius, Ruvettus pretiosus, and Thunnus albacares). Sharks have commercial importance in Ecuador but are largely taken as incidental species (Martínez-Ortiz et al., Reference Martínez-Ortiz, Aires-Da-Silva, Lennert-Cody and Maunder2015; Coello and Herrera, Reference Coello and Herrera2018), while the teleosts observed are all targeted by local artisanal fisheries.

The observed diversity was medium to low, with a negative trend for dominance and a positive for evenness. The results are consistent with the relatively low diversity of the deep seabed, compared to the shallow water, but also noting that these were based on longline-caught fish and so will not be representative for the whole deep-sea fish assemblage in the area. There was a decrease in the diversity of species on the seabed as depth increased, which is reflected in the bycatch of the Patagonian toothfish fishery (Grassle, Reference Grassle1989; Costello and Chaudhary, Reference Costello and Chaudhary2017; Myers et al., Reference Myers, Anderson, Liggins, Harvey, Roberts and Eme2021).

In the period 2008–2010, research fishing was carried out in deep waters off the mainland coast of Ecuador (de González et al., Reference de González, Maroto-Castaño and Muñoz-Recio2008; González-Troncoso, Reference González-Troncoso2009, Reference González-Troncoso2010). In 2008, the trawls were carried out between 500 and 1500 m, and in the same year, the Patagonian toothfish was recorded, between 1200 and 1400 m. The most representative species, according to the weight, were reported to be Merluccius gayi, Rouleina attrita, C. delsolari, Dicrolene filamentosa, Haliporoides diomedeae, Dicrolene nigra, Alepocephalus spp., Nematocarcinus agassizii, Coryphaenoides carminifer, Nezumia spp., Etmopterus spp., Centroscyllium nigrum, Hydrolagus spp., Coryphaenoides anguliceps, and Benthoecetes tanneri (de González et al., Reference de González, Maroto-Castaño and Muñoz-Recio2008).

The mean diversity reported by de González et al. (Reference de González, Maroto-Castaño and Muñoz-Recio2008) was 2.58 (SD ± 0.58), which is higher than our results. This is because trawling provides a view of the wider assemblage structure, while the longline refers to the proportion of the assemblage that is susceptible to being captured by the fishing gear.

Fish, sharks, rays, and other taxa (e.g. sea turtles) could be part of the bycatch in the Patagonian toothfish fishery. However, the low and sporadic presence of those taxa is because bottom longlines have a low impact on non-target species, contrary to surface longlines; despite this, they could affect certain benthic species and change the community structure in the long term (Pham et al., Reference Pham, Diogo, Menezes, Porteiro, Braga-Henriques, Vandeperre and Morato2014; Oliver et al., Reference Oliver, Braccini, Newman and Harvey2015). The removal of vulnerable organisms could decrease their population, leaving it to the most resilient species, inclusively promoting an increase of opportunistic fauna in the ecosystem. In this sense, it is necessary to monitor, assess, and take decisions for improving fishing practices (e.g. fishing gear) and reducing bycatch (Pham et al., Reference Pham, Diogo, Menezes, Porteiro, Braga-Henriques, Vandeperre and Morato2014; Gilman et al., Reference Gilman, Hall, Booth, Gupta, Chaloupka, Fennell, Kaiser, Karnad and Milner-Gulland2022).

The diversity results in 2017 should be considered as minimum estimates, because the identification of species by fishing observers has improved since 2018. That occurred due to the complexity of the identification of deep-sea species present in Ecuadorian seas. However, the possible bias did not affect the trend in diversity indices. Patagonian toothfish fishery presented a decline in the catch trend and an increase in the bycatch for the period 2017–2021. It could show a negative effect on the target species population as well as on the bycatch species.

Data

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the Public Institute of Aquaculture Research and Fishery. Restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for this study. Data are available from M. Herrera with the permission of the Public Institute of Aquaculture Research and Fishery.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to G. Sandoval for elaborating the study area map. This study is a part of the project ‘Distribution, abundance, and biological aspects of Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) in Ecuadorian oceanic waters’ supported by the Public Institute of Aquaculture Research and Fisheries as well as ‘TRANSMARINA C.A.’.

Author's contribution

René Zambrano: definition, conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing, and visualization. Dialhy Coello: definition, conceptualization, methodology, and writing – original draft. Marco Herrera: definition, conceptualization, project administration, and funding acquisition.

Financial support

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interest

None.

References

Aguilar-Palomino, B, Galván-Magaña, F, Abitia-Cárdenas, LA, Muhlia-Melo, A and Rodríguez-Romero, J (1998) Aspectos alimentarios del dorado Coryphaena hippurus Linnaeus, 1758 en Cabo San Lucas California Sur, México. Ciencias Marinas 24, 253265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alverson, DL, Freeberg, MH, Murawski, SA and Pope, JG (1994) A global assessment of fisheries bycatch and discards. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 339. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
Aramayo, V (2016) A brief synthesis on the marine resource Patagonian toothfish Dissostichus eleginoides in Peru. Revista de Biologia Marina y Oceanografia 51, 229239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calle-Morán, MD, Hernández-Téllez, AR, Tibán-Vivar, ER, Intriago-Vera, YE, del Valle-Coello, IG, Loor-Jama, BC and Ganchozo-López, ÁR (2022) Diet composition and feeding habits of the crocodile shark, Pseudocarcharias kamoharai. Environmental Biology of Fishes 105, 685697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Céspedes, R, Vargas, C and Adasme, L (2016) Monitoreo de la pesquería del bacalao de profundidad (Dissostichus eleginoides): observadores científicos y sus desafíos. Anales Instituto Patagonia (Chile) 44, 3948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaves, PT (2021) Bycatch: causes, impacts, and reduction of incidental captures. In Leal-Filho, W, Azul, AM, Brandli, L, Lange-Salvia, A and Wall, T (eds) Life below Water. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, pp. 111. Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Coello, D and Herrera, M (2018) Desembarque de tiburones en las pesquerías artesanales del Ecuador durante el 2012. Revista Científica de Ciencias Naturales y Ambientales 12, 18.Google Scholar
Collins, MA, Brickle, P, Brown, J and Belchier, M (2010) The Patagonian toothfish. Biology, ecology and fishery. In Michael Lesser (eds), Advances in Marine Biology, Vol. 58. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Collins, MA, Ross, KA, Belchier, M and Reid, K (2007) Distribution and diet of juvenile Patagonian toothfish on the South Georgia and Shag Rocks shelves (Southern Ocean). Marine Biology 152, 135147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costello, MJ and Chaudhary, C (2017) Marine biodiversity, biogeography, deep-sea gradients, and conservation. Current Biology 27, R511R527.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de González, EC, Maroto-Castaño, MP and Muñoz-Recio, A (2008) Informe de investigación pesquera, Campaña Ecuador 08. B/O Miguel Oliver 1–65.Google Scholar
Ebert, DA and Mostarda, E (2016) Guía para la identificación de peces cartilaginosas de aguas profundas del Océano Pacífico Sudoriental. Programa FishFinder. Roma: FAO.Google Scholar
EmiatiE., Nasution P and Brown, A (2022) The effect of bait types on the catch of bottom longline in Bantan Sari Village Bantan district Bengkalis regency. Journal of Coastal and Ocean Sciences 3, 171175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estupiñán-Montaño, C, Cedeño-Figueroa, L, Estupiñán-Ortiz, JF, Galván-Magaña, F, Sandoval-Londoño, A, Castañeda-Suarez, D and Polo-Silva, CJ (2019) Feeding habits and trophic level of the smooth hammerhead shark, Sphyrna zygaena (Carcharhiniformes: Sphyrnidae), off Ecuador. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 99, 673680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estupiñán-Montaño, C, Cedeño-Figueroa, LG and Galván-Magaña, F (2009) Hábitos alimentarios del tiburón martillo Sphyrna lewini (Griffith & Smith, 1834) (Chondrichthyes) en el Pacífico ecuatoriano. Revista de Biología Marina y Oceanografía 44, 379386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, W, Krupp, F, Schneider, W, Sommer, C, Carpenter, KE and Niem, VH (1995 a) Guía FAO para la identificación de especies para los fines de la pesca. Pacifico centro-oriental. Volumen II. Vertebrados-Parte 1. Roma: FAO.Google Scholar
Fischer, W, Krupp, F, Schneider, W, Sommer, C, Carpenter, KE and Niem, VH (1995 b) Guía FAO para la identificación de especies para los fines de la pesca. Pacifico centro-oriental. Volumen III. Vertebrados-Parte 2. Roma: FAO.Google Scholar
Fricke, R, Eschmeyer, WN and Van der Laan, R (2022) Eschmeyer's catalog of fishes: Genera, species, references. Available at http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp (accessed 15 April 2022).Google Scholar
Froese, R and Pauly, D (2021) FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. Available at www.fishbase.org (accessed 12 October 2021).Google Scholar
Gilman, E, Hall, M, Booth, H, Gupta, T, Chaloupka, M, Fennell, H, Kaiser, MJ, Karnad, D and Milner-Gulland, EJ (2022) A decision support tool for integrated fisheries bycatch management. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 32, 441472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Troncoso, DM (2009) Informe de la Campaña de investigación pesquera, Ecuador 2009. B/O Miguel Oliver. Guayaquil.Google Scholar
González-Troncoso, DM (2010) Informe de la Campaña de investigación Oceanográfico-Pesquera, Ecuador 2010. B/O Miguel Oliver 1–14.Google Scholar
Grassle, JF (1989) Species diversity in communities deep-sea. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 4, 1215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guerrero, A and Arana, P (2009) Fishing yields and size structures of Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) caught with pots and long-lines off far southern Chile. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Research 37, 361370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammer, Ø (2022) Paleontological statistics. Natural History Museum, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Lamilla, J, Bustamante, C, Roa, R, Acuña, E, Concha, F, Melendez, R, López, S, Aedo, G, Flores, H and Vargas, C (2010) Estimación del descarte de condrictios en pesquerías artesanales. Informe Final Proyecto del Fondo de Investigación Pesquera (F.I.P.) No. 2008-60. 1–259.Google Scholar
Martínez-Ortiz, J, Aires-Da-Silva, AM, Lennert-Cody, CE and Maunder, MN (2015) The ecuadorian artisanal fishery for large pelagics: Species composition and spatio-temporal dynamics. PLoS ONE 10, e0135136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Møller, PR, Nielsen, JG and Fossen, I (2003) Patagonian toothfish found off Greenland. Nature 421, 599599.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Myers, EMV, Anderson, MJ, Liggins, L, Harvey, ES, Roberts, CD and Eme, D (2021) High functional diversity in deep-sea fish communities and increasing intraspecific trait variation with increasing latitude. Ecology and Evolution 11, 1060010612.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ñacari, LA, Sepulveda, FA, Droguet, F, Escribano, R and Oliva, ME (2020) Calicotyle hydrolagi n. sp. (Monogenea: Monocotylidae) infecting the deep-sea Eastern Pacific black ghost shark Hydrolagus melanophasma from the Atacama Trench, with comments on host specificity of Calicotyle spp. Parasitology International 75, 102025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, S, Braccini, M, Newman, SJ and Harvey, ES (2015) Global patterns in the bycatch of sharks and rays. Marine Policy 54, 8697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pham, CK, Diogo, H, Menezes, G, Porteiro, F, Braga-Henriques, A, Vandeperre, F and Morato, T (2014) Deep-water longline fishing has reduced impact on vulnerable marine ecosystems. Scientific Reports 4, 4837.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reyes, PR, Torres, JP and Reyes, EM (2009) Peces abisales del extremo austral de América del sur (52°S–57°S), componentes de la fauna acompañante de la pesquería de palangre del bacalao de profundidad (Dissostichus eleginoides Smitt, 1898). Revista de Biologia y Oceanografia 44, 5965.Google Scholar
Robertson, DR and Allen, GR (2015) Peces Costeros del Pacífico Oriental Tropical: sistema de Información en línea. Available at https://biogeodb.stri.si.edu/sftep/es/pages (accessed 14 April 2022).Google Scholar
Sancho-Andrade, A, Ortiz -Von Halle, B and Naranjo-Cuvi, N (2002) La pesca y el comercio de bacalao de profundidad Dissostichus eleginoides en América del Sur: Una perspectiva regional. Quito: Traffic América del Sur.Google Scholar
Sellanes, J, Pedraza, MJ and Zapata Hernandez, G (2012) Las areas de filtracion de metano constituyen zonas de agregación del bacalao de profundidad (Dissostichus eleginoides) frente a Chile central. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Research 40, 980991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sepa, P, Coello, D, Herrera, M and Zambrano, R (2021) Length-weight relationship of four deep-sea chondrichthyans (Elasmobranchii & Holocephali) in Ecuadorian oceanic waters. Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Research 48, 397399.Google Scholar
Taki, K, Kiyota, M, Ichii, T and Iwami, T (2011) Distribution and population structure of Dissostichus eleginoides and D. mawsoni on Banzare Bank (CCAMLR Division 58.4.3b), Indian Ocean. CCAMLR Science 18, 145153.Google Scholar
Trujillo-Olvera, A, Ortega-García, S, Tripp-Valdez, A, Escobar-Sánchez, O and Acosta-Pachón, TA (2018) Feeding habits of the swordfish (Xiphias gladius Linnaeus, 1758) in the subtropical northeast Pacific. Hydrobiologia 822, 173188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Study area and locations of observed hauls of the experimental fishery of Patagonian toothfish (D. eleginoides) in Ecuadorian oceanic waters, between June 2017 and July 2021.

Figure 1

Table 1. Number (n) of trips and sets, fishing depth, Patagonian toothfish landed, bycatch representativity, and number of individuals in each bycatch taxa in an experimental fishery for Patagonian toothfish (D. eleginoides) in Ecuadorian oceanic waters

Figure 2

Table 2. Number of individuals fished during the deployment/retrieval of the fishing gear, by species, in an experimental fishery for Patagonian toothfish (D. eleginoides) in Ecuadorian oceanic waters

Figure 3

Figure 2. Trends in the diversity indices related to the bycatch of the experimental fishery of Patagonian toothfish (D. eleginoides) in Ecuadorian oceanic waters.