AlessandroL 2010 RevFishBiolFish

Rev Fish Biol Fisheries (2010) 20:141–161
DOI 10.1007/s11160-009-9126-1
An overview of loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta)

bycatch and technical mitigation measures
in the Mediterranean Sea
Lucchetti Alessandro Æ Sala Antonello
Received: 13 January 2009 / Accepted: 30 July 2009 / Published online: 13 August 2009
Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009
Abstract This paper reviews the gear parameters of juveniles; branchlines, once ingested, appear to be
responsible for loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) one of the major causes of sea turtle mortality; squid
capture and mortality while taking into account the bait, which consistently catches more turtles than
mitigation measures tested in the Mediterranean Sea. mackerel, and lightsticks, which strongly attract
Incidental catch is considered as one of the major turtles, should be banned, at least in some areas and
threats for turtle survival; however, the loggerhead seasons. On the contrary only two bottom trawl
bycatch estimated in different areas seems to be studies are available from the Mediterranean. Turtle
unrealistic, which highlights the need of a method for excluder devices have been tested with promising
homogenising the estimates. Drifting longlines and results in Turkey and Italy, even if the loss of large
bottom trawls have the greatest impact on Mediter- fish should be carefully investigated. For set nets no
ranean turtle populations, respectively in pelagic and practical solutions are available at this time. The
demersal phase, while passive nets (gillnets and analysis allows the conclusion that technical param-
trammel nets) seem to be responsible for the highest eters affecting turtle bycatch and mortality should
direct mortality, due to drowning. Most of the only be studied one at a time, in order to avoid
experiments available for the Mediterranean are inconclusive results, studies on post-release mortality
focused on drifting longline. The longline parameters, should be implemented and finally fishermen coop-
hook shape and size, bait type, setting position and eration is paramount in reducing turtle bycatch and
the reaction to sensory stimuli, strongly affect the sea mortality.
turtle bycatch and mortality. Circle hooks have the
potential to reduce turtle mortality only in certain Keywords Loggerhead Bycatch
fisheries and areas; larger hooks are less likely to be Mitigation measures Mediterranean
swallowed by turtles due to physical constraints of
the mouth, reducing the mortality rate and the catch
L. Alessandro (&) S. Antonello Introduction

Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR), Istituto di
Scienze Marine (ISMAR), Sede di Ancona, National Human activities such as pollution, habitat degrada-
Research Council (CNR), Institute of Marine Sciences
tion of the nesting beaches, incidental catch and inten-
(ISMAR), Fisheries Section, Largo Fiera della Pesca,
60125 Ancona, Italy tional killing (for blood and meat), represent the major
e-mail: [email protected] threats to the survival and to the general decline of
123
142 Rev Fish Biol Fisheries (2010) 20:141–161
marine turtle populations in the Mediterranean Sea the green turtle are known to nest in the Mediterra-
(Margaritoulis et al. 2003). The Barcelona Convention nean, especially on the beaches of the East side
adopted an Action Plan for the Conservation of (Cyprus, Egypt, Greece, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, Libya,
Mediterranean Marine Turtles in 1989, revised in Syria, Turkey and Tunisia; Fig. 1). It is estimated that
1998–1999 and 2007 (UNEP MAP RAC/SPA, 2007), 2,280–2,787 loggerhead sea turtles (Broderick et al.
acknowledging that the impact of fishing activities is 2002) and only 300–400 green turtle females annu-
one of the most important anthropogenic mortality ally nest in the Mediterranean. Margaritoulis et al.
factors for sea turtles in the Mediterranean Sea and that (2003) have estimated 3,375–7,085 nests per season.
their conservation deserves special priority (Lutca- The estimates made by Groombridge in 1990 (2,000
vage et al. 1997; Tudela 2004). Several countries (22 loggerhead sea turtles), are similar considering an
Mediterranean and 15 non-Mediterranean) regularly average of three clutches per season. The number of
fish in this basin and an undefined number of small adults should be even higher considering that most of
boats are active in non-EU countries. Therefore, the the individuals do not breed every year. Moreover,
fishing effort in the Mediterranean is a key factor to additional specimens migrate from Atlantic popula-
take into account in considering the sea turtle conser- tion to Mediterranean Sea through the strait of
vation. Nevertheless, present knowledge about the Gibraltar during the first half of the year (Camiñas
interaction of sea turtles with fishing gears and the 1997a, b; Fig. 1).
possible mitigation measures are still insufficiently Three main ecological phases characterize the life
studied (Casale et al. 2004). of loggerhead sea turtle: the pelagic phase, when
The leatherback- (Dermochelys coriacea), the loggerheads feed on pelagic preys; the demersal
green- (Chelonia midas) and the loggerhead-turtle phase, when they swim close to the bottom to eat
(Caretta caretta) are regularly found in the Mediter- benthic species; and finally an intermediate neritic
ranean basin (Tudela 2004). The latter two species phase, when loggerheads shift from pelagic–oceanic
are listed as Endangered while the leatherback turtle to benthic–neritic foraging habitats (Tomas et al.
is listed as Critically Endangered on the Red List of 2001; Fig. 1). The greatest density of specimens in
Threatened Species of the International Union for demersal phase is found in shallow waters (\100 m).
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Loggerheads do not dive deep and the maximum
(IUCN; Hilton-Taylor 2000). Loggerhead is the most recorded depth is 110 m (Lutcavage and Lutz 1997).
abundant species of marine turtles in the Mediterra- The bathymetry and environmental characteristics of
nean Sea and the knowledge of its biology represents different areas determine the distribution and abun-
a crucial point to evaluate the impact of different dance of marine turtles. Loggerhead turtles exhibit
fishing activity in different areas. The loggerhead and high fidelity to migratory routes, foraging areas and
Fig. 1 Loggerhead
migrations in the
Mediterranean Sea; the
main routes, nesting
beaches, pelagic and
demersal areas are shown
(Bentivegna 2002;
Broderick et al. 2007;
Camiñas 2004; Maffucci
et al. 2006)
123
Rev Fish Biol Fisheries (2010) 20:141–161 143
Fig. 2 Turtle bycatch in

Mediterranean by gear type
and area
wintering sites, between and within years and after (Thunnus thynnus) deployed over the continental
successive breeding migrations (Broderick et al. shelf and offshore waters, is considered as the main
2007; Fig. 1). threat to the marine turtles in the Mediterranean Sea,
Thus, different types of fishing gear (towed or in terms of catch per year (Gerosa and Casale 1999;
passive, on the bottom or in the water column) can Deflorio et al. 2005; Margaritoulis et al. 2003;
produce different captures and mortality rates (Gerosa Table 1). The incidental capture of loggerhead turtles
and Casale 1999) and may affect different ecological in pelagic phase with longline mainly extends from
phases (Fig. 2). spring to late autumn, with most captures occurring in
the summer (Figs. 1, 2).
Casale (2008) found that over 50,000 specimens
Assessment of loggerhead sea turtle bycatch are estimated to be caught with pelagic longlines with
a mortality of 40% mainly in Spain, Morocco, Italy,
In the Mediterranean more than 60,000 turtles per year Greece, Malta, Libya (Table 1). Lewison et al. (2004)
are estimated to be accidentally caught as a result of estimated at least 60,000–80,000 captures per year in
fishing practices (Lee and Poland 1998), direct the Mediterranean while Panou et al. (1992) found an
mortality rates ranging from 10 to 50% and even annual catch of about 35,000 specimens only for the
100% of individuals caught. Moreover, the delayed Central-Western Mediterranean Sea, which is one of
mortality (after the release at sea) is mostly unknown. the main areas of concentration for adult loggerheads,
On the other hand Casale (2008) highlights an even as well as for targeted species (swordfish). In fact,
worse picture suggesting that over 150,000 captures Spain is the country with the highest number of turtle
per year may take place in the Mediterranean by captures per year followed by Morocco and Italy
trawlers, longliners and set netters, with possibly over (Table 1; Fig. 2). Recent studies on Spanish longline
50,000 deaths per year by interaction alone. A more fleet targeting swordfish, suggested that turtle bycatch
pessimistic scenario is defined considering that official is drastically high especially around the Balearic
fleet statistics do not include all the existent fishing Islands (Aguilar et al. 1995; Camiñas 1988; Camiñas
vessels and that the number of small boats is under- et al. 2001; Mayol et al. 1988; Table 1). This is not
estimated. This leads to an estimate of more than surprising since it is known that the occurrence of a
200,000 capture events per year. high concentration of sea turtles in the western basin
is due to the Mediterranean population but also to the
Drifting longline entrance of specimens from the Atlantic Ocean via
Gibraltar (Argano et al. 1992; Camiñas and De la
Drifting longline targeting swordfish (Xiphias gladi- Serna 1995; Fig. 1). Moreover, results indicated that
us), albacore (Thunnus alalunga) and bluefin tuna swordfish longline is responsible for more abundant
123
Table 1 Assessment of turtle bycatch and direct mortality in Mediterranean by gear type
144
Gear type Area Catch/year Direct mortality Reference
123
Drifting longline Entire Mediterranean 50,000 0–4% (40% potential) Casale 2008
Entire Mediterranean 60,000–80,000 Potential mortality 17–42% Lewison et al. 2004; NMFS 2001
Western-central Mediterranean 35,000 Panou et al. 1992
Spain 22,000–35,000 0.36–7.7% (20–30% potential) Aguilar et al. 1995; Tudela 2000, Carreras et al. 2004
(Balearic Islands: 15,000–18,000;
Aguilar et al. 1995; Camiñas 1988;
Camiñas et al. 2001; Mayol et al. 1988)
Spain 0.54–4.24% Camiñas et al. 2006a, b
South Sicily (Italy) 2,148 [30% potential Casale et al. 2007a,b
Lampedusa Island (Italy) 245 Casale et al. 2007a
Ionian Sea (Italy) 1,084–4,447 0% (potential mortality high) Deflorio et al. 2005
Ionian Sea (Greece) 280–3,181 Panou et al. 1999; SGRST-SGFEN 2005
Aegean and South Ionian seas 1,145–5,474 Kapantagakis and Lioudakis 2006
(Greece)
Cephalonia (Greece) 50 Panou et al. 1992
Malta 1,500–2,500 Gramentz 1989
Cyprus 2,000 Godley et al. 1998
Morocco 3,000 Laurent 1990
Algeria 250–300 Laurent 1990, Camiñas 2004
Tunisia 486–4,000 0% (9.1% potential) Echwikhi et al. 2006; Salter 1995; Demetropoulos
1998; Jribi et al. 2008
Bottom trawl Entire Mediterranean 30,000 5% (20–25% potential) Casale et al. 2004; Casale 2008; Laurent et al. 1996;
Lazar and Tvrtkovic 1995; Oruç 2001
Italy 8,000 14% (57% potential) Casale et al. 2004, 2007a
Lampedusa Island (Italy) 4,056 Casale et al. 2007a
North Adriatic (Italy) 4,273 9.4% (43.8% potential) Casale et al. 2004
France 3.3–3.7% Laurent 1991; Delaugerre 1987
Croatia 2,500 Low Lazar and Tvrtkovic 1995
Thracian Sea 0–418 Margaritoulis et al. 2001
Ionian Sea (Greece) 0–448 Margaritoulis et al. 2001
Tunisia (whole continetal shelf) 14,000 Jribi and Bradai 2008
Gulf of Gabes (Tunisia) 2,500–5,500 3.3% Bradai 1992; Jribi et al. 2004
Egypt 2,269–high 1–10% Nada and Casale 2008; Laurent et al. 1996
Turkey High 1.6% (13% potential) Oruç (2001); Oruç et al. 1996
Table 1 continued
Gear type Area Catch/year Direct mortality Reference
Drift nets Italy 16,000 20–30% De Metrio and Megalofonou 1988

Ligurian and Tyrrhenian Sea (Italy) Low Di Natale 1995
Spain 117–354 3.3% Aguilar et al. 1995
Spain 236 Silvani et al. 1999
Bottom longline Entire Mediterranean 35,000 Potential mortality 40% Casale 2008
Lampedusa Island 257 Casale et al. 2007a
Tunisia 733–2,000 0.53–12.5% (33% potential) Echwikhi et al. 2006; Jribi et al. 2008; Bradai 1993
Egypt 2,218 Nada and Casale 2008
Fixed nets Entire Mediterranean 30,000 [50% (60% potential) Casale 2008
Balearic Islands (Spain) 209 50–100% Carreras et al. 2004

Corsica (France) Low 93.3–75% Laurent 1996; Delaugerre 1987
France 10–100–low 50–100% Laurent 1991
Italy 50% Argano et al. 1992
Slovenia–Croatia 657–4,038 50–73% Lazar et al. 2006
Cyprus 500 10% Godley et al. 1998
Tunisia 920–2,000 5% Bradai 1993
Egypt 754 Nada and Casale 2008
Turkey 1,328 10% Godley et al. 1998
Pelagic pair trawl North Adriatic 1,550 GFCM-SAC 2008
Turkey High (5 trawlers Oruç (2001)
catch around 100
loggerheads)
Purse seine Egypt 37 Nada and Casale 2008
Small scale fishery Tunisia 5,000 Bradai 1995
fixed nets, purse
seines, bottom and
surface longlines
etc.
145
123
incidental catch than bluefin tuna and albacore 1998). Usually Mediterranean continental shelf,
longlines (Camiñas et al. 2001). which constitutes the feeding habitats for several
Turtles migrating from the Eastern to the Western turtles, is really narrow in most areas. Nevertheless,
Mediterranean basin and vice versa through the in some places (Gulf of Gabés, Northern Adriatic
strait of Messina and the strait of Sicily are very Sea, Southern Turkey and Egypt), the continental
common in Italian waters (Argano and Baldari shelf is large and turtles in demersal phase are used to
1983; Argano et al. 1992; Bentivegna 2002; Mar- spend winter time in these areas. Mediterranean
garitoulis 1988; Fig. 1). The two corridors are bottom trawlers are estimated to catch around 30,000
characterized by high fishing pressure with different specimens per year altogether (Table 1), with a
gears (Bentivegna 2002) and the drifting longline is mortality of 25%, mainly in Italy, Tunisia, Croatia,
the most impacting (Table 1). In this area Cambiè Greece, Turkey, Egypt, and Libya (Casale et al. 2004;
et al. (2008) found that loggerhead sea turtle was the Casale 2008; Laurent et al. 1996; Lazar and Tvrtko-
second most abundant fished species after swordfish vic 1995; Oruç 2001; Fig. 2). Moreover it is well
in longline fishery. known that the same turtle can be caught more than
In Greek waters C. caretta bycatch seems to be one time, for this reason Casale (2008) has estimated
less abundant, even if the situation is not clear due to more than 40,000 ‘‘capture events’’ for the Italian
the year by year high variability on bycatch data waters alone.
(Table 1). Data available for Maltese waters (Gra- North Adriatic Sea with its shallow waters (\100 m)
mentz 1989) showed that turtle bycatch in this area is and rich benthic communities is considered as one of the
quite similar to the estimates obtained in other areas most important feeding habitat in the whole Mediterra-
of the Ionian Sea. nean, mainly for the population nesting in Greece
Jribi et al. (2008), recorded that sea turtle catch (Fig. 1) and the bycatch estimates for this area are high
rate coming from longline fishing activities in Zarzis (Casale et al. 2004; Lazar et al. 2004; Lazar and
(Tunisia) is higher than those reported in Greece and Tvrtkovic 1995). A study carried out in the shallow
Italy (other than Lampedusa) but lower than that waters of the continental shelf south of Lampedusa
reported in the Western Mediterranean Sea, with Island showed considerable catch rates of loggerhead
most of the incidental catches in summer (Jribi and turtle, due to the high fishing pressure by bottom
Bradai 2008; Table 1). Morocco shows a very similar trawlers coming in this area from other Italian harbours
amount of sea turtle capture (Laurent 1990) while the (Table 1; Casale et al. 2007a).
bycatch data available for Algeria (Camiñas 2004) In the Gulf of Gabès (Tunisia) Jribi et al. 2004
seem to be underestimated (Table 1). estimated that the total accidental catch of loggerhead
Bycatch due to foreign industrial longline fleets sea turtle is comparable with that reported for the
operating in the Medieterranean waters (Japanese, North Adriatic (Table 1), although the estimates for
flag of convenience) could lead to an even worse the whole continental shelf of Tunisia (captures made
situation. Data on annual catches are available for by Tunisian and Italian fleets) gave an even worse
other non-EU countries but in some cases there is a picture (Jribi and Bradai 2008). Sea turtle bycatch
little concern on their validity. estimated by Nada and Casale (2008) in Egypt was
slightly lower than that observed in the Gulf of
Bottom trawl Gabès.
The Eastern Mediterranean coast of Turkey
Bottom trawl has been considered as the second most represents an important area for marine turtle
impacting fishing gears for sea turtle populations in nesting and feeding (Baran and Kasparek 1989).
terms of number of catch per year (Table 1). Bottom Oruç (2001) observed that for this area green turtle
trawl mainly impacts turtles in demersal phase since is more important than loggerhead turtle bycatch.
they prefer coastal shallow waters less than 50 m or Moreover, turtles captured were mostly juveniles
even 20 m deep, where they feed (Hare 1991; (81%) and most turtles were alive when taken from
Caillouet et al. 1991; Bradai 1994; Epperly et al. the trawls. In Greece bottom trawl seems to have a
1995); most of them are juveniles and sub-adults minor impact on sea turtle population (Margaritoulis
usually far from their hatching ground (Bolten et al. et al. 2001).
123
Other gears the Mediterranean Sea the interaction of sea turtles

with the static net fishery could be very important and
Few official and published data are available for drift comparable to other fisheries.
nets targeting swordfish, which are illegal in most of Very little information is still available for pelagic
Mediterranean countries. Nevertheless, illegal drift pair trawl, even if in the North Adriatic an annual
nets are still widely used in some countries, and the estimate reports that about 1,550 turtles per year are
amount of bycatch is hypotized to be very high. caught accidentally (GFCM-SAC 2008) with all
According to De Metrio and Megalofonou (1988), turtles released alive. The purse seines seem to
Italian drift nets in the Ionian Sea are estimated to represent a minor problem since the annual catches
catch around 16,000 turtle/year. In recent years the are probably very low and turtles are released alive.
use of legal drift net called ‘‘Ferrettara’’, similar for
its characteristics to the illegal ‘‘spadara’’ (used to
catch swordfish), has been causing several problems Main fishing gear parameters affecting marine
for fisheries inspectors in Italian waters. For this turtle bycatch and mortality
reason illegal drift nets (masked as legal ‘‘Ferrett-
ara’’) are still being used. Moreover several drift nets The capture of loggerhead sea turtle strongly depends
of EU countries were probably sold to non-EU on different parameters. The most important factor is
countries, mainly Moroccan fleets, shifting the the fishing effort: number of vessels, engine power
bycatch problems from the North to the South basins. (KW, HP), Gross Tonnage (GT, TSL), time at sea
As it concerns bottom longlines they are generally (hours per day, days per year, etc.) are parameters
used at a depth of 200–700 m which not arouse essential to be taken under control. Nevertheless, the
concern (Bolten et al. 1994), however, there are some mortality rate is variable and it largely depends on
fishing grounds where this method is used at a much gear type, practices on board and on capability of
shallower depth, causing numerous captures of surviving to the forced apnoea.
marine turtles, mainly juveniles. Demersal longlines Three main processes must be considered in
seem to be responsible for about 35,000 capture longline turtle bycatch: attraction of the turtle by
events, the most affected marine areas being the north bait, hooking and finally escapement during hauling
African continental shelf (Tunisia, Libya, Egypt), the of the gear.
Alboran Sea (Morocco), the Levantine basin (Tur- The hooks can be identified by several parameters
key) and the Aegean (Greece; Casale 2008). as the general shape (‘J’ or ‘G’), dimensions (total
Studies concerning fixed nets in the Mediterranean length, length diameter, gap between point and shank,
are rare. Fixed nets represent a threat for sea turtles length shank, width, throat, barb size, etc.), material
mainly in coastal areas (Lazar et al. 1998, 2004; (steel, inox), point (with barb or not), shape of eye flat
Argano et al. 1992; Fig. 2) but the quantification of or twisted (generally the shank and the point are not
captures in these widely spread fisheries is very on the same plain, but on plains with a difference of
difficult to assess because of the very high number of 10–25°, degree offset, with the aim of enhancing the
small boats disseminated along all the Mediterranean catch efficiency). In the hooking process, the most
coasts. Over 30,000 captures per year are estimated important parameters are: the overall hook width,
mainly in Tunisia, Libya, Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, which can be correlated with turtle mouth dimension,
Croatia, Italy, Morocco, Egypt, France (Casale 2008; its gap, which ensures deeper penetration of the point
Fig. 2). Turtle captures seem to be very high in and better holding power of the fish, its shape which
certain areas, such as Croatia, Slovenia and Tunisia. can influence the hooking position.
(Lazar et al. 2006; Bradai 1993). Juveniles are The direct mortality induced by longlines appears
frequently caught nearby nesting areas in Greece, to be low (Table 1) but the delayed mortality is a
Turkey and Cyprus (Godley et al. 1998; Suggett and cause of concern because it is widely unknown and it
Houghton 1998). Lescure (1987) reported that in is suspected to be very high (Camiñas and Valeiras
Mediterranean French coast loggerhead sea turtles are 2001; National Marine Fisheries Service 2001;
mainly captured with trammel nets and bottom trawl. Lewison et al. 2004; Deflorio et al. 2005; Kapant-
Thus, some authors (Casale et al. 2005) stated that in agakis and Lioudakis 2006). The low direct mortality
123
can be justified by the fact that the hooked loggerhead distance from the coast or to the higher catch amount
sea turtles maintain enough power to raise the lines to that could sink the gears affecting turtle mortality by
the surface and to breathe. About the 80% of the reducing breathing possibilities. Turtle mortality in
hooked turtles is released alive but the post-release longline could be strongly affected by the depth of
mortality strongly depends on the hooks position in the main line setting. Loggerhead sea turtles spend
different parts of the digestive tract (mouth, oesoph- most of their time at less than 40 m and they do not
agus, stomach, intestine, etc.; Camiñas and Valeiras dive deeper than 100 m (Polovina et al. 2003).
2001). In particular, if the hook is swallowed in the Juveniles of loggerhead sea turtles are capable of
lower oesophagus or in the stomach the turtle has a diving to depths below 200 m, but generally they stay
very low chance of surviving. On the contrary the in the upper 30 m (Dellinger 2000; Dellinger and
mortality of turtles with a hook in the mouth or higher Ferreira 2005). Thus the main interaction depth with
oesophagus seems to be less important even if a hook longline is the upper 20 m of the water column
in the mouth could compromise the feeding perfor- (Dellinger and Ferreira 2005). Several studies con-
mance, especially if it impedes closure of the mouth firmed the very low direct mortality rate due to
(Casale et al. 2007b). Studies made by rescue centres shallow-set longline gear activities (Deflorio et al.
showed a high post-release mortality, both in the 2005; Gilman et al. 2007; Jribi et al. 2008; Pinedo
short- and in the long-term. A capture in a line with and Polacheck 2004; Piovano et al. 2009). The
hook timer showed that a turtle was able to survive mortality rate in bottom longlines seems to be
for 18 h and 9 min. The estimates of potential concentrated on juveniles particularly, since bigger
mortality caused by drifting longline obtained in specimens are able to drag the main line with its
various areas by different authors (Aguilar et al. weights up to the surface to breathe. Therefore,
1993; Casale et al. 2007b; Lewison et al. 2004; demersal longlines seem to be responsible for a
Table 1) are similar and ranged from 17–20 to 30– potential mortality (delayed) of about 40%, because
40%. The parameters barb size and hook length can hooked turtles, especially juveniles, cannot reach the
affect the capacity of the turtle to disengage. Some surface to breathe (Casale 2008). Finally turtle
studies showed that the use of barbless hooks implied mortality seems to be correlated to the time setting:
a small reduction in unhooking time, leading to an the longer the set time, the more turtles captured die
improvement of survival rate (Alós et al. 2008). (Camiñas et al. 2006a, b).
Nevertheless in addition to the hook, the secondary In bottom trawl incidental catch of loggerhead sea
lines of a longline (the so called branchlines which is turtle probably occur during towing operations when
the piece of line attached to the hook) can easily turtles are foraging on the bottom. When captured by
cause turtle death, especially if it is long enough to be a trawl, loggerhead sea turtles may drown, becoming
affected by intestinal peristalsis (Bjorndal et al. 1994; first comatose and eventually dying. Mortality by
Casale et al. 2007b; Oros et al. 2004). In these cases trawling is due to forced apnoea, thus longer or faster
death typically occurs after many days. Unfortunately tows are responsible of higher mortality rates.
as a common practice fishermen are used to cut the Therefore, towing time is one of the main factors
branchline from the deck while the captured turtle is affecting the mortality rate (Henwood and Stuntz
still in the water (they gain time because turtle are 1987) but, especially in the bottom trawl, additional
often very heavy) so leaving most turtles released factors might occur (Stabenau et al. 1991). Sasso and
with potentially lethal branchlines longer than 1 m Epperly (2006) found that turtle mortality was
(Guglielmi et al. 2000). Thus it appears that the hooks different depending on seasons, mortality being
cause death in the short term and the branchlines in higher in the winter than in summer. They also
the long term (Casale et al. 2007b). found that tows of short duration (\10 min) have
Nevertheless, other parameters affect sea turtle negligible effect on mortality. Thus it may not be a
catch and mortality. Albacore and bluefin tuna reasonable solution to allow the longer fishing times
longlines generally produce higher direct mortality 60 min in winter and 40 min in summer as recom-
in the hooked turtles than swordfish longlines. This is mended by the US National Research Council (1990).
probably because of the gear structure and hook size The observed direct mortality in Turkish waters was
but it could be also due to the fishing depth or to the really low (0.3%), while some specimens (4.6%)
123
were figured comatose or weak when released from multiple hook threading; (4) reducing gear soak time
the nets (Oruç 2001). and retrieval during daytime; (5) avoiding bycatch
As it concerns passive nets it is realistic to hotspots through fleet communication programmes
consider that this fishing gear has the potential to and area and seasonal closures. Among these solu-
be more harmful than pelagic longlines and bottom tions three are particularly promising: reducing the
trawl. The mortality rate associated with this fishing hook size, setting the hooks deeper in the water
gear is estimated to be around 50% and even more column and changing the hook shape.
(Table 1). Studies on gillnets and trammel nets found
that these gears are responsible of high turtle direct Hook size
mortality (from 50 to 100%). Drowning is the main
reason for the sea turtle mortality since turtles get The hook size influences the probability that the hook
entangled in nets when trying to feed on fish is swallowed and the turtle becomes hooked inter-
previously captured and are forced underwater for nally, increasing the delayed mortality after the
an unsustainable period of time (Laurent 1991, 1996; release. Some studies on captivity showed that
Table 1). To this, environmental parameters could loggerhead sea turtles had a much lower tendency
affect sea turtle mortality: high water temperature to ingest hooks larger than 51 mm in width, than
(such as in the North Africa countries) associated smaller hooks (Løkkeborg 2004). The reduction in
with high metabolic rates, can strongly reduce the the hook size from ‘‘18/0 J’’ to ‘‘9/0 J’’ is the easiest
resistance to forced apnoea. solution because larger hooks are less likely to be
swallowed by turtles due to physical constraints of
the mouth (Watson et al. 2003). Larger loggerheads
Mitigation measures are probably more likely to ingest hooks than smaller
loggerheads. In the Balearic Islands Alós et al. (2008)
The identification of methods to reduce or prevent sea found that the hook size is the most important cause
turtle bycatch is a high priority for fishery managers for the deep-hooking, which is reduced by the use of
and a necessary component of conservation efforts. large hooks. Moreover large turtle tend to be caught
The most obvious and simplest approach to solve the in deep-hooking locations. Finally they found that
bycatch problems is the reduction of the fishing large hooks reduce the incidence of hooking injuries,
effort, even if this is often not a practical or viable with a small reduction in catch rate. Similar results
option for economic, social and sustenance reasons. were obtained by Jribi et al. (2008) in Tunisia, where
A summary of the main mitigation measures tested in the smaller hooks of bottom longlines seemed to be
the Mediterranean Sea is shown in Table 2. more easily swallowed in the digestive tract in
comparison with hooks of surface longlines, which
Drifting longline remained in the mouth. In the Ionian Sea the hook
used for albacore fishing (4 cm long) is notably
Several studies have been carried out into mitigation smaller than the one used for swordfish (10 cm long)
measures to reduce turtle bycatch in longline fisheries and it is baited using small bait which makes the
focusing efforts within a number of different longline biting easier for small marine turtles (Deflorio et al.
fisheries around the world but, few of them have been 2005).
performed in the Mediterranean Sea. Drifting long- During the GFCM-SAC Transversal Working
line in the Mediterranean Sea targets large pelagic Group on bycatch/incidental catches (2008) partici-
fish such as albacore (T. alalunga), bluefin tuna (T. pants stressed the point that bottom longlines catch a
thynnus) and swordfish (X. Gladius). Several mea- bigger number of juvenile loggerheads, due to the
sures have recently been proposed to reduce sea turtle smaller hook size.
capture and mortality in pelagic longline (see for a
review Gilman et al. 2006): (1) using small circle Hook shape
hooks (B4.6 cm narrowest width) in place of smaller
J and Japan tuna hooks; (2) setting gear below turtle- The shape greatly affects the hook position in the
abundant depths; (3) single hooking fish bait vs. mouth and the capacity of a turtle to disengage from
123
Table 2 Principal bycatch mitigation measures tested in the Mediterranean Sea
150
Gear type Mitigation measure Area Action Reference
123
Drifting Hook size Mediterranean Smaller turtles are caught by BLL (smaller hooks) GFCM-SAC (2008)
longline Ionian Sea (Italy) Larger turtles are caught by SWO-LL (larger hooks) Deflorio et al. (2005)
Balearic Islands (Spain) Smaller hooks caused deep-hooking Alós et al. (2008)
Tunisia Smaller hooks (BLL) caused deep-hooking Jribi et al. (2008)
Hook shape: J vs Atlantic–Mediterranean Results do not support move from J to circle hook Project UE-FISH/2005/28-A
circle hook Italy Circle hooks reduced turtle bycatch; circle hooks were not Piovano et al. (2009)
easily swallowed
Spain Hook type is not the main factor for turtle bycatch reduction De La Serna et al. (2008)
Spain Inconclusive results Parga (2008)
Spain Circle hook can shift the problem from turtle to cetaceans or Camiñas and Valeiras (2001)
sharks
Western Mediterranean No evident differences Rueda and Sagarminaga (2008)
Circle hook only reduce leatherback turtle bycatch Casale 2005 (review of Watson et al. 2003, 2004)
Circle hook effective in reducing turtle bycatch in several Several authors (i.e. Watson et al. 2004; NGO
countries, circle hooks reduce the rate of hook ingestion websites etc)
Bait type Spain Mackerel bait instead of squid bait reduce turtle
bycatch Rueda and Sagarminaga (2008)
Atlantic–Mediterranean Mackerel bait instead of squid bait reduce turtle
bycatch project UE-FISH/2005/28-A
Mackerel bait instead of squid bait reduce turtle
bycatch GFCM-SAC 2008
Depth setting Atlantic–Mediterranean Deep longline: reduction in turtle bycatch, reduction in target Rueda and Sagarminaga (2008)
species
Ionian Sea (Italy) Most of turtle bycatch between 10–15 m depth Project Life Nature 2003-NAT/IT/000163
Mediterranean SWO-LL catch turtle at a depth \60 m; ALB-LL catch turtle Laurent et al. (2001)
at a depth \20 m
Sensory stimuli Italy (tank tests) Floats presence or absence does not influence turtle behaviour Piovano et al. (2002)
Italy (tank tests) Odour play a key role in the bite-no bite decision Piovano et al. (2004)
Spain Lightsticks attract sea turtle Rueda and Sagarminaga (2008)
Italy (tank tests) Acoustic tests: inconclusive results Piovano et al. (2002)
Bottom trawl TED (Turtle Italy Effective in reducing turtle bycatch, discard and debris; Lucchetti et al. (2008)
excluder device) possible problems with loss of large fish
Turkey Effective in reducing turtle bycatch Atabey and Taskavak (2001)
SWO-LL Swordfish longline, ALB-LL albacore longline, BLL bottom longline
the hook. The hook location plays a fundamental role than hook type were observed to be more important.
in the post-release survivorship of sea turtles, espe- Moreover circular hooks, especially in combination
cially when hooks remain lodged in the body with with squid bait, generally decrease the catch rates of
trailing fishing line. As it concerns the Mediterranean, the most important fish target species.
one of the most important mitigation measures tested In the western Mediterranean, turtle catch rate of
in order to reduce turtle bycatch is the change in hook circle hooks was slightly lower than on J hooks.
shape from traditional ‘‘J’’ shape to a ‘‘circular’’ one. Rueda and Sagarminaga (2008) compared 12/0 circle
Different manufacturers produce hooks in many hooks and J shape hooks having similar dimensions
different sizes and designs. In the case of J hooks in Spanish longline vessels but they did not find any
the point is parallel to the shank, while in circle hooks significant difference in turtle bycatch and in tuna
the point is perpendicular to the shank. There is catches. Moreover Camiñas and Valeiras (2001)
growing evidence that circle hooks tend to be located noticed that circular hooks seemed to shift the
mostly externally in the jaw or mouth as opposed to bycatch problem from turtles to cetaceans and sharks.
deeper hooking (Watson et al. 2005; Gilman et al. Casale (2005) in reviewing Watson et al. (2003,
2006, 2007; Read 2007). Nevertheless, the efficacy of 2004), strengthen the fact that the overall effect of the
circular hooks in reducing turtle bycatch and throat circle hooks in reducing turtle bycatch is limited to
hooking is clearly demonstrated only in certain the soft-shelled leatherback turtle. Moreover, for the
fishing grounds. loggerhead sea turtle the studies carried out by
Piovano et al. (2009) tested hooks with a different NOAA in the Atlantic suggest that catch rate of these
shape but a similar gap (about 2.6 cm width; circle species is affected by hook size and bait rather than
hook size 16/0 vs J hook size 2) in order to determine by hook shape. Parga (2008) tested small circle hooks
the potential effectiveness of the hook design to both instead of traditional J hook in Spanish surface
reduce sea turtle capture as well as to maintain longline targeting T. alalunga. Results were incon-
acceptable levels of target species capture rates in a clusive except for a significant reduction of immature
shallow-set longline swordfish fishery. They found T. thynnus.
that circle hooks can effectively reduce the number of Some differences on fishermen judgment were also
immature loggerhead sea turtles accidentally cap- observed: circular hooks are not well accepted by
tured by up to 70% without affecting the capture rate Spanish fishermen (Báez et al. 2006) as their use is
of target species (swordfish). Piovano et al. (2009) considered to diminish yields of target species
also found that all hooked turtles were brought on (Gilman et al. 2006). On the contrary Italian fisher-
board and released alive, irrespective of the type of men did not find any appreciable difference (project
hook. This seems to confirm the very low direct Life Nature 2003-NAT/IT/000163). For this, Piovano
mortality rate due to shallow-set longline gear et al. (2009) support the enforcement of circle hooks
activities. They also showed that 81% of the hooking in the Mediterranean swordfish longline fishery
occurred in the mouth, while 19% were swallowed, because it can represent a simple and inexpensive
all of which were on J hooks (zero swallowed with technical solution to decrease the capture of turtles.
circle hooks).
On the contrary the results obtained in a project Bait types
carried out in the Atlantic and Mediterranean areas
(UE-FISH/2005/28-A) do not support the promotion Bait type is considered as one of the main factors
of shifting from J hooks to either of the two circle affecting longlines efficiency. In non Mediterranean
hooks (16/0 0° offset and 18/0 10° offset), as these experiments (U.S. and Pacific data) mackerel bait
hooks did not consistently reduce turtle catch rates reduced turtle bycatch compared to squid bait (82%
(although there was an indication that 18/0 circle of all loggerheads caught were caught with squid
hooks were less likely to be swallowed than J hooks bait) and increased the catch of swordfish compared
or 16/0 circle hooks) and had negative impacts on to squid bait (Watson et al. 2005). This was probably
swordfish catches. De La Serna et al. (2008) found due to the fact that fish bait (mackerel) tends to come
that the type of hook was not a valuable solution in free of the hook while the turtle takes small bites
reducing sea turtle bycatch and probably factors other from it. On the contrary squid remains more firmly
123
attached, requiring the turtle to take larger bites in Báez et al. (2007) in a research project carried out
order to swallow the bait increasing the chances of in the Balearic Islands (Western Mediterranean),
becoming hooked (Gilman et al. 2006). Moreover, observed that probability of catching at least one
the CPUE of swordfish was reduced by using circle loggerhead was related not only to the setting depth
hooks with squid bait in Atlantic waters. In captivity but also to the distance of the fishing-ground to the
studies carried out in Italy Piovano et al. (2005) found coast.
that mackerel (Scomber spp.) bait smell was an Jribi and Bradai (2008) stated bottom longline has
important component for the detection of bait by the potential to be more harmful than pelagic
turtles while smell-less artificial baits were generally longlines, given the fact that the caught animals do
unattractive for turtles. Experiments performed not have any chance to reach the surface to breath.
onboard Spanish Mediterranean swordfish longliners One approach to reduce sea turtle interactions with
(Rueda et al. 2006, Rueda and Sagarminaga 2008) longline fisheries can also take into account the
showed that turtle bycatch was lower with mackerel behaviour of sea turtles and the factors that lead them
baits, whereas the target species (swordfish) had no to interact with fishing gear. An overview of sound,
important difference. Spanish experiments allowed to chemical, and light detection in sea turtles is provided
conclude that the shift in bait type to mackerel during by Southwood et al. (2008).
the summer periods, when the incidence of turtles in Fishermen have often suggested that hooks set
the fishing grounds of EU vessels is at its highest, closer to the floats have a higher probability of
may provide the greatest benefits to loggerhead sea catching turtles accidentally. Experiments carried out
turtle conservation, even if bluefin tuna catches were at the ‘‘Delphynursery’’of ‘‘Fondazione Cetacea’’ in
lower on mackerel compared to squid bait. Results Cattolica (Italy) as well as at the Centro Recupero
obtained in the EU project UE-FISH/2005/28-A Tartarughe Marine in Linosa (Italy) aimed at evalu-
showed that the combination of hook and bait type ating the floats attractiveness (Piovano et al. 2002).
that resulted in the lowest bycatch of turtles and the They tested sea turtle behaviour with respect to lit as
highest catches of swordfish was J hooks with well as unlit white floats. The results of the study
mackerel bait. seemed to indicate that the distribution of the turtles
The participants of the GFCM-SAC Transversal in the tanks was not affected by the presence of floats
Working Group on bycatch/incidental catches (2008) either lit or unlit. Therefore, the floats presence or
concluded that the most successful measure to reduce absence does not influence turtle behaviour. More-
turtle bycatch in swordfish longline is the change of over, the effect of bait colours (yellow, red and blue)
bait from squid to mackerel, which decreased the and bait odour was tested with experiments carried
incidental catch of turtles by 80%, without affecting out with 27 loggerheads (22 immature and 5 adults)
the catch of swordfish. in open tanks. Colour attractiveness demonstrated to
be partially age dependent. Juveniles react to bait
Depth setting colours differently with respect to sub-adults and
furthermore, sub-adults show sharp individual differ-
Rueda and Sagarminaga (2008) in the Balearic ences. Young specimens never attacked a red-
Islands carried out tests with longlines positioned at coloured sheath, whereas sub-adults apparently prefer
a different depth. They found a reduction in turtle this colour. Some other studies (Swimmer et al. 2002,
bycatch in the deeper longline but, on the other hand, 2005; Watson et al. 2002) showed that blue bait was
they also found a reduction in target species catches. not effective in reducing sea turtle capture rate than
In the Ionian Sea preliminary results of project Life untreated bait.
Nature-2003-NAT/IT/000163 seem to indicate that Swimmer and Brill (2006) highlighted the impor-
most sea turtle bycatch happened when hooks are set tance of olfactory and acoustic stimulus in turtle
between 10 and 15 m deep, however, more data are reaction.
needed to confirm this. Other studies (Laurent et al. Chemical cues can play a key role in the sea turtle
2001) showed that the maximum depth at which the bite/no bite decision once a food item has been
marine turtles were caught was 60 m for swordfish visually located. Piovano et al. (2004) demonstrated
longline and 20 m for albacore longline. that loggerheads had an ability to distinguish between
123
fishing lures based on odour. In the experiment two susceptible to lethal acidosis (Lutcavage and Lutz
identical squid-shaped plastic lures were used one of 1997). In order to reduce the time of submergence
which with a hidden small piece of fish. The lures and than the turtle mortality, a specific technical
containing the fish showed greater frequency sug- modification was proposed in the early 1980s: the
gesting that olfactory cues are involved in prey Turtle Excluder Device (TED). TED is a sort of grid,
recognition mechanisms. which diverts large objects or animals like turtles
Recent behavioural experiments indicate that towards a special exit positioned before the codend
lightsticks used in many longline fisheries attract (Epperly 2003). TEDs have demonstrated to be very
sea turtles and Rueda and Sagarminaga (2008) effective mainly in prawn trawl fisheries; for this
observed that most turtles were caught on hooks reason several countries adopted TEDs as mandatory
after sunrise. In non-Mediterranean experiments management measure and bottom trawlers of South-
Wang et al. (2006) found that lightsticks which east-Asia, South-America and Africa are obliged to
flash intermittently, or have wavelengths between use TEDs in their nets in order to export prawns to
540 and 600 nm, or project only downward may be USA.
potential strategies that limit the attractiveness of Some authors (see for a review Casale et al. 2004)
lightsticks to juvenile turtles. The participants to the believe that TEDs available at present are probably
Working Group on bycatch/incidental catches not a realistic solution for reducing turtle bycatch in
(Rome, Italy, 15–16 September 2008) recommended Mediterranean mixed bottom trawl fisheries, because
to seriously considering the opportunity of banning they are designed for the shrimp trawl fishery and
lightsticks and any light source in pelagic longline they would exclude the larger commercial specimens
fishery. too. Conversely in two recent experiments, carried
Considering the acoustic stimulus, deterrent exper- out in the Mediterranean trawl fisheries by Atabey
iments were carried out on 4 juveniles and 7 sub- and Taskavak (2001) and Lucchetti et al. (2008), the
adults of loggerhead sea turtles in open round tank authors found that TEDs can be properly proposed as
having a 10 m diameter at the Cattolica (Italy) management tool for the conservation of marine
‘‘Delphynursery’’. At frequencies between 50 and turtle population in the Mediterranean Sea, at least in
400 Hz, some avoidance behaviour was observed certain periods and areas. Atabey and Taskavak
with the maximum level of avoidance at 50 Hz (2001) tested the Supershooter TED in the shrimp
(20%). A ‘‘neutral’’ behaviour (turtles reacting to the fishery of Turkey. They obtained very good results
sound but not moving towards or away from its because both loggerhead- and green sea turtle
source) was observed between 50 and 700 Hz with were excluded by the modified Supershooter, and
highest levels (40%) between 50 and 100 Hz. At unwanted incidental catches, such as jellyfish, sharks,
frequencies above 700 Hz, no response was always and rays, were also excluded. They found that most
observed. In any case during the experiments the catches occur at the depths between 11 and 30 m and
most frequent behaviour at all frequencies was ‘‘no that the proportion of dead and comatose turtles
response’’ and this results, even if based on a small resulting from trawls increases with towing time.
sample, together with the increased level of acoustic Lucchetti et al. (2008) investigated the effect of
pollution in the Mediterranean did not encourage different TED designs and materials on loggerhead
continuation of this type of experiments. turtle bycatch of bottom trawl fisheries, frequently
captured in the Adriatic fisheries. The best results
Bottom trawl were obtained by the TED called Supershooter,
which reduced the debris and improved fish quality
Mortality by trawling is mainly due to the forced in the catch. This might imply a reduction of
apnoea during towing activity. The recovery of turtles additional sorting operations on board, increasing
after submergence takes several hours (Stabenau and time and costs. Authors, in agreement with the doubts
Vietti 2003), sometimes as long as 20 h (Lutz and expressed by Casale et al. (2004) and Laurent and
Dunbar-Cooper 1987). The long recovery time is one Lescure (1994) stressed the fact that additional tests
of the main problems as turtles that experience should be conducted in order to evaluate the loss of
multiple captures are likely to be even more large fish.
123
Discussion and requires further investigation. Thus, it is possible

to conclude that circle hooks have the potential to
The review of papers and grey literature on logger- reduce the turtle mortality only in certain fisheries
head turtles bycatch available for the Mediterranean and areas, but rigorous field tests should be conducted
Sea allows to conclude that surface longlines, bottom before requiring circle hooks as a mandatory measure
trawls and illegal driftnets are the major threats to the in longline fisheries.
survival of this species, even if the impact of fixed In combination with hooks the branchlines appear
nets (gillnets and trammel nets), due to their high to be the major source of sea turtle mortality. A
direct mortality, should be carefully considered. relatively short piece of branchline left in the mouth
Nevertheless, in our opinion turtle bycatch estimates of a released turtle can easily cause death if ingested
reported in several papers seem to be unreal. This is and further research on branchline characteristics
mainly due to the methods applied for the data (material, length, thickness etc.) should be carried out
standardization. Authors often assumed that CPUE in order to reduce turtle mortality.
was homogeneous by area, season and boat, which is The type of bait seems to be one of the main
not exactly so; the periods, the locations and the boats factors affecting turtle bycatch in the longline.
chosen for samplings at sea can affect the final Changing the bait from squid to mackerel has been
estimates. We believe it is incorrect to extrapolate the demonstrated to be effective in reducing incidental
results of a fraction of one season and fleet and capture of loggerhead sea turtles and no valuable
applied them to all boats and all year. In any case differences are observed on target species catch.
we think the turtle bycatch is an unsustainable Results obtained in different areas seem to suggest
problem which deserves to be a priority of fisheries that the greatest reduction in turtle bycatch rates, with
management. the least effect on target species catch, would be
Paper results allowed the conclusion that bottom achieved by using only mackerel bait instead of squid
trawls mainly impact turtle population during winter bait and continuing to use J hooks instead of circle
time while longlines and fixed nets have their main hooks. We believe that a very simple, relatively
influence from spring to autumn with most captures cheap and effective method to reducing incidental
occurring in the summer. Thus, a method for catches would be using mackerel bait at least during
homogenising the data collection through the cali- those periods when turtles are most abundant. It has
bration of the procedures for the bycatch estimation also been suggested that using larger bait might deter
would be very useful in the Mediterranean Sea, in or prevent turtles from swallowing it and therefore
order to provide fishing managers with reliable data. the attached hook, but this remains to be tested
Finally the assessment of turtle bycatch in some non- (Gilman et al. 2006).
EU countries, mainly in those countries where Moreover, we strongly suggest taking into consid-
nesting beaches are observed, such as Syria, would eration the possibility of banning the lightsticks and
be essential for the conservation of the sea turtle any light source in pelagic longline fishery which can
population. strongly attract loggerhead sea turtles. Obviously this
The following recommendations and remarks can extreme solution should be carefully field tested.
be summarized for the Mediterranean, on the basis of As it concerns dyeing baits (tests carried out in
analysis of the results attained in several papers. non-Mediterranean countries), although effective in
Regarding the longline, the efficacy of circle hooks laboratory settings with captive turtles, they appear
in reducing the turtle bycatch is widely investigated not to be effective as a mitigation measure in
but contrasting results have been obtained in Medi- reducing sea turtle bycatch in longline fisheries. As
terranean fisheries. Further investigation of post- the reaction to different colours strongly depends on
hooking mortality in loggerhead sea turtles would be individual age as well as other factors, such as smell,
very useful to determine the real effects of J and we suppose it does not seem worthwhile to continue
circle hook types on the overall impact of these these kinds of tests. Furthermore, the importance of
fisheries on turtle populations. Fishermen stated that physical factors (i.e. light penetration and colour
it is more difficult to release turtles from circle hooks absorbance with the depth, currents, oceanographic
than J hooks, which could also affect turtle survival factors, temperature etc.) makes it very difficult to
123
adopt different bait colours as a mitigation measure. matched to fishing conditions (i.e. TED angle,
Finally the experiments described in this current construction materials, floatation, position and size
paper were conducted within the confines of shallow of the exit hole, webbing flap etc.). The introduction
pools where there was very little light attenuation, of TEDs may reduce turtle mortality by avoiding the
thus the at-sea conditions should be seriously taken multiple submergences of a turtle, allowing an
into consideration in reading the in-pool results, adequate rest interval at the surface where the
particularly those on colour and odour. Another animal might be able to recover from the acidosis
important factor is the isolation of a single turtle in a by hyperventilating (Stabenau et al. 1991; Stabenau
captive environment. In the light of these problems and Vietti 2003). Additionally, TEDs could reduce
we believe that tank tests should be considered with the amount of discard in the codend catch leading to
caution. an improvement of fish quality and to a reduction of
Studies concerning odour bait influence on turtle the sorting time. However, there might be a risk in
bycatch highlight the importance of an integrated increasing the losses of large commercial flat
approach towards sensory deterrents, as both visual species such as turbot (Psetta maxima), flounder
and chemical cues are likely to attract sea turtles to (Scophthalmus rhombus) and angler fish (Lophius
longline gear and contribute to potentially harmful spp). Towing time is one of the main factors
interactions (Piovano et al. 2004). affecting mortality rate. Towing time would prob-
Experiments with acoustic deterrent demonstrate ably need to be to 10 min or less in order to achieve
that habituation to acoustic signals is an important the negligible mortality of \1%. Obviously in our
issue with respect to the feasibility and long-term opinion this is not a practical solution. In the light
effectiveness of an acoustic deterrent (Moein et al. of bycatch estimates we recommend to assess the
1994). Results obtained in the Mediterranean Sea (but impact of pelagic trawl on turtle population more in
more generally worldwide) taking into account the depth; moreover, we suggest trying TEDs in partic-
problems and difficulties associated with the use of ular fishing areas and fisheries such as ‘‘sea
acoustic deterrents, found that there is a low possi- cucumber grounds’’ of the middle Adriatic Sea and
bility that an acoustic signal could selectively deter the prawn fisheries in Sicilian, Turkish and Tunisian
sea turtles from interacting with longline gear without waters.
affecting commercial species. This does not encour- Concerning passive nets Casale et al. (2005) stated
age continuing these types of experiments. that fixed nets may have the same impact as the
Nevertheless, some discrepancies concerning fish- bottom trawl nets. On the other hand, the direct
ing practices and scientific strategies were observed mortality associated with these types of gears seems
in several experiments carried out in various coun- to be very high in comparison with other fishing gears
tries and fleets. The lack of standardization (i.e. types but no practical solutions other than changing mesh
of hooks-baits tested in the different experiments, size or twine thickness are available at this time in the
protocols or schemes used to perform the respective Mediterranean Sea for set nets. Nevertheless, we
experiments at sea, different areas-times investigated consider the use of high hanging ratio, which makes
etc.) might explain the discrepancies obtained among the nets tighter, and the use of gillnets instead of
fleet-authors. We believe that technical parameters trammel nets, could reduce turtle entanglements.
affecting turtle bycatch and mortality should only be Further studies to develop excluder devices in set nets
studied one at a time (hook size, hook shape, set would be necessary. However, measures other than
depth, distance from the coast etc.) to avoid incon- technical solutions should be considered to reduce
clusive results: i.g. in order to study the efficacy of interactions with this gear, such as spatial and
different hook shapes, the parameters of hook size, temporal measures. For example some regions, such
depth, bait, distance from the coast etc. should be as the coastal areas of Turkey and Greece, are
fixed first, and only than can the hook shape be characterised, in certain seasons (i.e after nesting), by
changed. high abundance of young turtles. Avoiding these
As it concerns bottom and mid-water trawl we areas where turtle occurrence is seasonally linked
think TEDs could probably represent a suitable could be good practice. Finally, we strongly support
solution in these fisheries but only when properly the banning of driftnets in all countries of the
123
Mediterranean due to the very high hypothesized on the circumstances; turtles caught are generally
bycatch rate of these nets. hauled on board in a very weak or comatose state and
As a general result the direct mortality observed at should not be released immediately because they
gear retrieval is often very low for most fishing cannot swim to the surface to breathe and in these
practices except for fixed nets. However, the post- cases the probability of drowning is very high.
release mortality is suspected to be very high. We Therefore, it is fundamental to inform fishermen on
believe that further studies with video-camera, the procedure to identify comatose turtles and release
satellite tags etc. focused on the delayed mortality them only when they are healthy. Thus this problem
would be very useful in order to understand the can be substantially reduced by simply keeping the
efficacy of the mitigation measures. For this reason, turtles onboard and allowing them to recover. Fish-
specifically regarding the question of turtle damage ermen cooperation is also essential in removing the
and the behaviour after escape or release, we think hooks from the turtle’s mouth. Hooks that are lodged
that international cooperation is important for achiev- externally (i.e. jaw) are easily detected by fishermen
ing efficient management that would ensure the and should be removed with the correct de-hooking
survival of sea turtles while sustaining the economic device and actions. Fishermen interventition at this
benefits provided by fisheries. time can greatly affect the probability of surviving
Furthermore, some simple modification to com- (Piovano et al. 2009). Mediterranean guidelines for
mon fishing practices would be useful in reducing C. fishermen strongly suggest that fishermen cut the
caretta bycatch. The increase of setting depth for fishing line as close to the hook eye as possible
longlines has been found to decrease the overall catch (Gerosa and Aureggi 2001). However, this is prob-
rates of turtles. In the meantime it has led to increase ably more likely for superficial hooking. Awareness
mortality of turtles that are still hooked because they campaigns (handling practices) and tools (dehooking
cannot reach the surface to breathe and die through devices) given to fishermen so that they can cut
drowning. Moreover, on the deeper longlines it is branchlines and remove hooks whenever possible are
possible to observe a reduction in turtle bycatch but valuable as mitigating measures (Casale 2008).
also a reduction in the catches of target species. The In summary, reducing loggerhead bycatch in the
distance from the coast is a parameter that fisheries Mediterranean Sea will only be successful through a
managers should take into account for the conserva- multidisciplinary approach of taking into consider-
tion of sea turtle population. We suggest limiting the ation changes to fishing gear and practices, manage-
drifting longline effort to within 35 international ment policies (closed areas and seasons), turtle
nautical miles from the coast, at least in certain reaction behaviour to different stimuli and the
regions, could reduce loggerhead bycatch substan- continual education and updating for fishermen.
tially without affecting swordfish captures and with Therefore, a binding cooperation between the fishing
little resistance from fishermen. As it concerns the industry, management bodies and research Institu-
bottom trawl the reduction of haul duration would be tions is paramount in protecting this species espe-
an effective operational measure for reducing direct cially for its survival after the catch.
mortality and occurrence of injured as well as weak
and comatose individuals. Acknowledgments We are indebted to Marco Affronte
(Fondazione Cetacea, Riccione) and Simona Clò (CTS-
Fishermen agree on the importance of economic
Ambiente, Rome) for having involved us in the TARTANET
loss due to turtle interactions with fishing gear. Loss project. We would like also to thank Justine Garden for helpful
of hooks, bait, branch lines and other components of revision of the manuscript. Finally, we are also grateful to the
the gear and loss of time are economic concerns editor and the reviewer for their comments, which we feel has
improved our manuscript.
needing to be solved. The capture of sea turtles also
produces a decrease in the fishing effort and yields on
drift longlines, as a consequence of the reduction in
References
the number of hooks and the time necessary to repair
or replace the gear. In any case fishermen cooperation Aguilar R, Más J, Pastor X (1993) Las tortugas marinas y la
is essential for the survival of sea turtles after catch. pesca con palangre de superficie en el Mediterráneo.
Comatose specimens can survive or die, depending Greenpeace, Proyecto internacional
123
Aguilar R, Mas J, Pastor X (1995) Impact of Spanish swordfish Bradai MN (1995) Impact de la pêche sur la tortue marine
longline fisheries on the loggerhead sea turtle Caretta Caretta caretta sur les côtes sud-est de la Tunisie. Rapp
caretta population in the western Mediterranean. In: Comm int Mer Médit 34:238
Richardson JI, Richardson TH (eds) Proceedings of the Broderick AC, Glen F, Godley BJ, Hays GC (2002) Estimating
12th annual workshop on sea turtles biology and conser- the number of green and loggerhead sea turtles nesting
vation, pp 1–6. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS- annually in the Mediterranean. Oryx 36(3):227–236
SEFSC-361 Broderick AC, Coyne MS, Fuller WJ, Glen FG, Godley BJ
Alós J, Palmer M, Grau AM, Deudero S (2008) Effects of hook (2007) Fidelity and over-wintering of sea turtles. Proc
size and barbless hooks on hooking injury, catch per unit Biol Sci 274(1617):1533–1539
effort, and fish size in a mixed-species recreational fishery Caillouet CW Jr, Duronslet MJ, Landry AM Jr, Revera DB,
in the western Mediterranean Sea. ICES J Mar Sci 65(6): Shaver DJ, Stanley KM, Heinly RW, Stabenau EK (1991)
899–905 Sea turtle strandings and shrimp fishing effort in the
Argano R, Baldari F (1983) Status of Western Mediterranean northwestern Gulf of Mexico, 1986–1989. Fish Bull 89(4):
Sea Turtles. Rapp Comm Int Mer Médit 28(5):233–235 712–718
Argano R, Basso R, Cocco M, Gerosa G (1992) New data on Cambiè G, Camiñas JA, Franquesa R, Mingozzi T (2008)
loggerhead (Caretta caretta) movements within Mediter- Impact of surface longline on loggerhead sea turtle Ca-
ranean. Boll Mus Ist Biol Univ Genova 56–57:137–163 retta caretta: a case study along the southern Ionian coast
Atabey S, Taskavak E (2001) A preliminary study on the prawn of Calabria (Italy). VII Congresso Nazionale della Società
trawls excluding sea turtles. Urun Derg J Fish Aquat Sci 18 Herpetologica Italica. Oristano (Italy) 1–5 October 2008
(1–2):71–79 Camiñas JA (1988) Incidental Captures of Caretta caretta (L.)
Báez JC, Camiñas JA, Rueda L (2006) Accidental fishing capture with surface longlines in the Western Mediterranean.
of marine turtles in South Spain. Mar Turtle Newsl 111: Rapports et process-Verbaux des Re0 unions du la Com-
11–12 mission Internationale Pour l’Exploration Scientifique de
Báez JC, Real R, Garcı́a-Soto C, De la Serna JM, Macı́as D, la Mer Méditerranée 31(2): 285. CIESM, Montecarlo
Camiñas JA (2007) Loggerhead sea turtle bycatch depends Camiñas JA (1997a) Relacion entre las poblaciones de la tortuga
on distance to the coast, independent of fishing effort: boba (Caretta caretta Linnaeus, 1758) procedentes del
implications for conservation and fisheries management. Atlantico y del Mediterraneo en la Region del Estrecho de
Mar Ecol Prog Ser 338:249–256 Gibraltar y areas adyacentes. Revista espagnola de Her-
Baran I, Kasparek M (1989) Marine turtles Turkey: status petologia 11:91–98
survey 1988 and recommendations for conservation and Camiñas JA (1997b) Capturas accidentales de tortuga boba
management. WWF, Heidelberg, p 123 (Caretta caretta, L. 1758) en el Mediterráneo Occidental
Bentivegna F (2002) Intra-Mediterranean migrations of log- en la pesquerı́a de palangre de superfı́cie de pez espada
gerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) monitored by satel- (Xiphias gladius L.). ICCAT Collective Volume of Sci-
lite telemetry. Mar Biol 141:795–800 entific Papers XLVI(4):446–455
Bjorndal KA, Bolten AB, Lagueux CJ (1994) Ingestion of Camiñas JA (2004) Sea turtles of the Mediterranean Sea:
marine debris by juvenile sea turtles in coastal Florida population dynamics, sources of mortality and relative
habitats. Mar Poll Bull 28(3):154–158 importance of fisheries impacts. FAO Fish Rep 738:27–84
Bolten AB, Bjorndal KA, Martins HR (1994) Life history model Camiñas JA, De la Serna JM (1995) The loggerhead distribution
for the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) population in in the western Mediterranean Sea as deduced from captures
the Atlantic: potential impacts of a longline fishery. In: by the Spanish longline fishery. Sci Herpet 31:6–323
Balazs GH, Pooley SG (eds) Research plan to assess marine Camiñas JA, Valeiras J (2001) Marine turtles, mammals and
turtle hooking mortality: results of an expert workshop held sea birds captured incidentally by the Spanish surface
in Honolulu, Hawaii, 16–18 November 1993, pp 48–54 longline fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea. Rapp Comm
NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Int Mer Medit 36:248
Fisheries Science Center, Honolulu Laboratory, Adminis- Camiñas JA, Valeiras J, De La Serna JM (2001) Spanish sur-
trative Report H-93-18 face longline gear types and effects on marine turtles in
Bolten AB, Bjorndal KA, Martins HR, Dellinger T, Biscoito MJ, the western Mediterranean Sea. In: Proceedings first
Encalada SE, Bowen BW (1998) Transatlantic develop- mediterranean conference on marine Turtles, Rome,
mental migrations of loggerhead sea turtles demonstrated pp 88–93
by mtDNA sequence analysis. Ecol Applic 8:1–7 Camiñas JA, Báez JC, Valeiras J, Real R (2006a) Differential
Bradai MN (1992) Les captures accidentelles de Caretta loggerhead by-catch and direct mortality due to surface
caretta au chalut benthique dans le Golfe de Gabés. Rapp longlines according to boat strata and gear type. Sci mar
Comm int Mer Médit 33:285 70(4):661–665
Bradai MN (1993) La tortue marine Caretta caretta dans le Camiñas JA, Báez JC, Real R, Sagarminaga R, Valeiras X
sud-est de la Tunisie (Peche accidentelle-Utilisation- (2006b) Analysis of loggerhead (Caretta caretta, lin-
Législation). MAP/UNEP, pp 27 naeus, 1758) and swordfish (Xiphias gladius, linnaeus,
Bradai MN (1994) Observations sur la tortue marine Caretta 1758) capture distribution within sets in the Spanish
caretta en Tunisie. Actes des Premières Journées Tunisi- Mediterranean surface drifting longline fishery. In: Frick
ennes des Sciences de la Mer, Kerkennah, 18–20 Décembre M, Panagopoulou A, Rees A, Williams K (eds) Book of
1994. Bull Inst Nat Sci Techn Mer 3:2–34 abstracts of the 26th annual symposium on sea turtle
123
biology and conservation. Island of Crete, Greece, 3–8 Echwikhi K, Jribi I, Bradai MN, Bouain A (2006) Interaction
April 2006 of marine turtles with longline fisheries in the region of
Carreras C, Cardona L, Aguilar A (2004) Incidental catch of Zarzis (gulf of Gabes, Tunisia). In: Frick M, Panagop-
the loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta off the Balearic oulou A, Rees A, Williams K (eds) Book of abstracts of
Islands (western Mediterranean). Biol Cons 117:321–329 the 26th annual symposium on sea turtle biology and
Casale P (2005) Holes in the circle. A critical review of circle conservation. Island of Crete, Greece, 3–8 April 2006
hooks as a measure for reducing the impact of longline Epperly SP (2003) Fisheries-related mortality and turtle
fishery on sea turtles. Report June 2005 (unpublished report excluder devices (TEDs). In: Lutz PL, Musick JA (eds)
to WWF) The biology of sea turtles. CRC marine science series.
Casale P (2008) Incidental catch of marine turtles in the CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, pp 339–353
Mediterranean Sea: captures, mortality, priorities. WWF Epperly SP, Braun J, Chester AJ, Cross FA, Merriner JV, Tester
Italy, Rome, pp 64 PA (1995) Winter distribution of sea turtles in the vicinity of
Casale P, Laurent L, De Metrio G (2004) Incidental capture of Cape Hatteras and their interaction with the summer
marine turtles by the Italian trawl fishery in the north flounder trawl fishery. Bull Mar Sci 56(2):547–568
Adriatic Sea. Biol Cons 119:287–295 FISH/2005/28A—Service Contract SI2.439703 (2008) Field
Casale P, Freggi D, Basso R, Argano R (2005) Interaction of study to assess some mitigation measures to reduce by-
the static net fishery with loggerhead sea turtles in the catch of marine turtles in surface longline fisheries. Final
Mediterranean: insights from mark-recapture data. Herp J report, pp 215
15:201–203 Gerosa G, Aureggi M (2001) Sea turtle handling guidebook for
Casale P, Catturino L, Freggi D, Rocco M, Argano R (2007a) fishermen. United Nations environment programme medi-
Incidental catch of marine turtles by Italian trawlers and terranean action plan—UNEP-MAP, Regional activity
longliners in the central Mediterranean. Aquatic Conserv: centre for specially protected areas, pp 31
Mar Freshw Ecosyst Published online in Wiley InterScience. Gerosa G, Casale P (1999) Interaction of marine turtles with
(www.interscience.wiley.com) doi: 10.1002/aqc.841 fisheries in the Mediterranean. Mediterranean action
Casale P, Freggi D, Rocco M (2007b) Mortality induced by plan—UNEP regional activity centre for specially pro-
drifting longline hooks and branchlines in loggerhead sea tected areas, pp 59
turtles, estimated through observation in captivity. GFCM-SAC (2008) Report of the transversal working group on
Aquatic Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst doi: 10.1002/acq. bycatch/incidental catches. Rome, Italy, pp 24
894 Gilman E, Zollet E, Beverly S, Nakano H, Davis K, Shiode D,
De La Serna JM, Ortiz De Urbina JM, Garcı́a Barcelona S Dalzell P, Kinan I (2006) Reducing sea turtle bycatch in
(2008) Factores estratégicos y tecnológicos que influyen pelagic longline fisheries. Fish Fish 7:2–23
en la captura de especies asociadas en la pesquerı́a de pez Gilman E, Kobayashi D, Swenarton T, Brothers N, Dalzell P,
espada con palangre de superficie en el Mediterráneo. Col Kinan-Kelly I (2007) Reducing sea turtle interactions in
Vol Sci Pap ICCAT 62(6):1039–1051 the Hawaii-based longline swordfish fishery. Biol Cons
De Metrio G, Megalofonou P (1988) Mortality of marine tur- 139:19–28
tles (Caretta caretta L. and Dermochelys coriacea L.) Godley BJ, Gucu AC, Broderick AC, Furness RW, Solomon
consequent to accidental capture in the Gulf of Taranto. SE (1998) Interaction between marine turtles and artisanal
Rapp Comm int Mer Médit 31(2):285 fisheries in the eastern Mediterranean: a probable cause
Deflorio M, Aprea A, Corriero A, Santamaria N, De Metrio G for concern? Zool Middle East 16:49–64
(2005) Incidental captures of sea turtles by swordfish and Gramentz D (1989) Marine turtles in the central Mediterranean
albacore longlines in the Ionian Sea. Fish sci 71:1010–1018 Sea. Centro 1(4):41–56
Delaugerre M (1987) Statut des tortues marines de la Corse (et Groombridge B (1990) Marine turtles in the Mediterranean,
de la Mediterranee). Vie Milieu 37(3–4):243–264 distribution, population status, conservation. Council of
Dellinger T (2000) Conservation Support Project for North Europe, Nature and Environment Service. 48: 98
Atlantic Caretta caretta sea turtles—Life Nature Project Guglielmi P, Di Natale A, Pelusi P (2000) Effetti della pesca
contract no. B4-3200/96/541 (Life96Nat/P/3019). Final col palangaro derivante sui grandi pelagici e sulle specie
Technical Activity Report, pp 56, CITMA, Funchal accessorie nel Mediterraneo centrale. Rapporto al Minis-
Dellinger T, Ferreira T (2005) Diving behaviour of juvenile tero per le Politiche Agricole e Forestali. DGPA Roma
loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) and its relation to Hare S (1991) Turtles caught incidental to demersal finfish
deep-sea longline fishing in Madeiran Waters. Final fishery in Oman. Mar Turtle Newsl 53:14–16
Technical Report to the Portuguese Science Foundation Henwood TA, Stuntz WE (1987) Analysis of sea turtle cap-
FCT for project PDCTM-POCTI/P/MAR/15248/1999, pp tures and mortalities during commercial shrimp trawling.
46, Universidade da Madeira, Funchal Fish Bull 85:813–817
Demetropoulos A (1998) Rehabilitation of habitats and man- Hilton-Taylor C (2000) IUCN red list of threatened species.
agement of resources. Euro Turtle web page: http://www. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK
ex.ac.uk/telematics/EuroTurtle/ Jribi I, Bradai M (2008) A bibliographic overview on marine
Di Natale A (1995) Drift net impact on protected species: turtles bycatch in the Mediterranean Sea. In: Report of the
observer data from the Italian fleet and a proposal for a GFCM-SCMEE/SCSA transversal working group on by-
model to assess the number of cetaceans in the bycatch. catch/incidental catches. FAO, Rome, Italy, 15–16 Sep-
ICCAT 44(1):255–263 tember 2008
123
Jribi I, Bradai MN, Bouain A (2004) Étude de l’Interaction Lewison RL, Freeman SA, Crowder LB (2004) Quantifying the
Tortue Marine Caretta Caretta. Chalut Bentique dans le effects of fisheries on threatened species: the impact of
Golfe de Gabès (Tunisie). Rapp Comm Int Mer Médit pelagic longlines on loggerhead and leatherback sea tur-
37:528 tles. Ecol Lett 7(3):221–231
Jribi I, Echwikhi K, Bradai MN, Bouain A (2008) Incidental Life Nature—NAT/IT/00163 (2003). Progetto Delta Life Na-
capture of sea turtles by longlines in the Gulf of Gabès tura—Riduzione impatto attivita’ umane su Caretta e
(South Tunisia): a comparative study between bottom and tursiope e loro conservazione in Sicilia
surface longlines. Sci Mar 72(2):337–342 Løkkeborg S (2004) A review of existing and potential longline
Kapantagakis A, Lioudakis L (2006) Sea turtle bycatch in the gear modifications to reduce sea turtle mortality, pp 165–
Greek drifting long line fishery. In: Frick M, Panagop- 169. Papers presented at the Expert Consultation on
oulou A, Rees A, Williams K (eds) Book of abstracts of Interactions between Sea Turtles and Fisheries within an
the 26th annual symposium on sea turtle biology and Ecosystem Context. Rome, 9–12 March 2004. FAO Fish
conservation. Island of Crete, Greece, 3–8 April 2006 Rep 738, Suppl. Rome, FAO, pp 238
Laurent L (1990) Les tortues marines en Algerie et au Maroc Lucchetti A, Palumbo V, Antolini B, Affronte M, Clò S, Sala A
(Mediterranee). Bulletin Societ0 e Herpetologique de France (2008) Reduction of loggerheah turtle (Caretta caretta)
55:1–23 bycatch in Mediterran bottom trawl fisheries. Biol mar
Laurent L (1991) Les tortues marines des côtes francaises medit 15(1):336–337
méditerranéennes continentales. Faune de Provence (CEEP) Lutcavage ME, Lutz PL (1997) Diving physiology. In: Lutz
12:76–90 PL, Musick JA (eds) The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC
Laurent L (1996) Synthese historique de la presence de tortues Marine Science Series. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton,
marines sur les côtes de France (côtes méditerranéennes). Florida, pp 277–296
Ministère Francais de l’Environnement, Paris Lutcavage ME, Plotkin P, Witherington BE, Lutz PL (1997)
Laurent L, Lescure J (1994) L’hivernage des tortues caouannes Human impacts on sea turtle survival. In: Lutz PL, Mu-
Caretta caretta (L.) dans le sud Tunisien. Rev Ecol (Terre sick JA (eds) The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Marine
Vie) 49:63–86 Science Series. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida,
Laurent L, Abd El-Mawla EM, Bradai MN, Demirayak F, Oruc pp 387–409
A (1996) Reducing sea turtle mortality induced by Med- Lutz PL, Dunbar-Cooper A (1987) Variations in the blood
iterranean fisheries: trawling activity in Egypt, Tunisia chemistry of the loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta caretta.
and Turkey. Report for the WWF international mediter- Fish Bull 85(1):37–44
ranean programme. WWF Project 9E0103, pp 32 Maffucci F, Kooistra WHCF, Bentivegna F (2006) Natal origin
Laurent L, Camiñas JA, Casale P, Deflorio M, De Metrio G, of loggerhead turtles, Caretta caretta, in the neritic habitat
Kapantagakis A, Margaritoulis D, Politou CY, Valeiras J off the Italian coasts, Central Mediterranean. Biol Cons 127
(2001) Assessing marine turtle bycatch in European drifting (2):183–189
longline and trawl fisheries for identifying fishing regula- Margaritoulis D (1988) Post-nesting movements of loggerhead
tions. Project-EC-DG Fisheries 98-008. Joint Project of sea turtles tagged in Greece. Rapp Comm Int Mer Médit
BIOINSIGHT, IEO, IMBC, STPS and University of Bari. 31(2):284
Villeurbanne, France. Available at http://www.seaturtle. Margaritoulis D, Politou CY, Laurent L (2001) Assessing
org/documents/EMTP-FINAL-REPORT.pdf marine turtle bycatch in the trawl fisheries of Greece. In:
Lazar B, Tvrtkovic N (1995) Marine turtles in the eastern part Proceedings of the first mediterranean conference on
of the Adriatic Sea: preliminary research. Natura Croatica marine turtles. Rome, pp 176–180
4:59–74 Margaritoulis D, Argano R, Baran I, Bentivegna F, Bradai MN,
Lazar B, Margaritoulis D, Tvrtkovic N (1998) Migrations of Camiñas JA, Casale P, De Metrio G, Demetropoulos A,
loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) into the Adriatic Gerosa G, Godley B, Houghton J, Laurent L, Lazar YB
Sea. In: Memorieas de 18 Simposium International de (2003) Loggerhead sea turtles in the Mediterranean: present
Biologa y Conservacion de Tortugas Marinas, Mazaltan, knowledge and conservation perspectives. In: Bolten AB,
Sinaoa (Mexico), pp 100–101 Witherington BE (eds) Ecology and conservation of log-
Lazar B, Margaritoulis D, Tvrtkovic N (2004) Tag recoveries gerhead sea turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Wash-
of the loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta in the eastern ington, DC
Adriatic Sea: implications for conservation. J Mar Biol Mayol J, Muntaner J, Aguilar R (1988) Incidencia de la Pesca
Ass UK 84:475–480 Accidental sobre las Tortugas Marinas en el Mediterraneo
Lazar B, Ziza V, Tvrtkovic N (2006) Interactions of gillnet Espanol. Butlletı0 de la Societat d’Història Natural de les
fishery with loggerhead sea turtles Caretta caretta in the Balears 32:19–31
northern Adriatic Sea. In: Frick M, Panagopoulou A, Rees Moein SE, Musick JA, Keinath JA, Barnard DE, Lenhardt M,
A, Williams K (eds) Book of abstracts of the 26th Annual George R (1994) Evaluation of seismic sources for
Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. repelling sea turtles from hopper dredges. Report from
Island of Crete, Greece, 3–8 April 2006 Virginia institute of marine science, Gloucester Point,
Lee HA, Poland GCR (1998) Threats by fishing. Euro turtle VA, to US Army Corps of Engineers
(available at www.Ex.ac.uk/telematics/Euroturtle) Nada M, Casale P (2008) Sea turtle killing and consumption in
Lescure J (1987) Tortues marines de l’Atlantique ouest. National the Mediterranean coast of Egypt. International sea turtle
report for martinique western atlantic symposium II, May- society. Available in the web-site: http://www.seaturtle.
agüez, Puerto Rico, September 1987, pp 27 (unpublished) org/ists/PDF/final/2548.pdf
123
National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Fisheries Science Polovina JJ, Howell EA, Parker DM, Balazs GH (2003) Dive
Center (2001) Stock assessments of loggerhead and depth distribution of loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and
leatherback sea turtles and an assessment of the impact of olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) turtles in the central
the pelagic longline fishery on the loggerhead and leath- North Pacific: Might deep longline sets catch fewer tur-
erback sea turtles of the Western North Atlantic. NOAA tles? Fish Bull (Wash DC) 101:189–193
Tech. Mem. NMFS-SEFSC-455 Read AJ (2007) Do circle hooks reduce the mortality of sea
National Research Council (1990) Decline of the sea turtles: turtles in pelagic longlines? A review of recent experi-
causes and prevention. National Academy Press, Wash- ments. Biol Conserv 135:155–169
ington, DC pp 355 Rueda L, Sagarminaga R (2008) Reducing bycatch of logger-
Oros J, Calabuig P, Deniz S (2004) Digestive pathology of sea head sea turtles in the southwest Mediterranean via col-
turtles stranded in the Canary islands between 1993 and laborative research with fishermen. Poster presented to the
2001. Vet Rec 155(6):169–174 28th international sea turtle symposium Loreto, Baja
Oruç A (2001) Trawl fisheries in the eastern Mediterranean and California Sur, Mexico, 19–26 January 2008
its impact on marine turtles. Zool Middle East 24:119–125 Rueda L, Sagarminaga RJ, Baez JC, Camiñas JA, Eckert SA,
Oruç A, Demirayak F, Sat G (1996) Trawl fisheries in the Boggs C (2006) Testing mackerel bait as a possible by-
Eastern Mediterranean and its impact on marine turtles. catch mitigation measure for the Spanish Mediterranean
The conclusive report. World wildlife international and swordfish longlining fleet. In: Frick M, Panagopoulou A,
dogal hayati koruma dernegi. Istanbul, Turkey Rees A, Williams K (eds) Book of abstracts of the 26th
Panou A, Antypas G, Giannopoulos Y, Moschonas S, Mou- annual symposium on sea turtle biology and conservation.
relatos DG, Mourelatos C, Toumazatos P, Tselentis L, Island of Crete, Greece, 3–8 April 2006
Voutsinas N, Voutsinas V (1992) Incidental catches of Salter EF (1995) MEDASSET’s 1990–91 research conclusions
loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta, in swordfish for the endangered Mediterranean Sea Turtle. In: Pro-
longlines in the Ionian Sea, Greece. Testudo 3(4):46–57 ceeding of the twelfth annual workshop on the sea turtle
Panou A, Tselentis L, Voutsinas N, Mourelatus C, Kaloupi S, biology and conservation. NOAA Technical Memoran-
Voutsinas V, Moschonas S (1999) Incidental catches of dum NMFS-SEFSC-361, pp 112–115
marine turtles in surface longline fishery in the Ionian Sea Sasso CR, Epperly SP (2006) Seasonal sea turtle mortality risk from
(Greece). Contrib Zoogeograp Ecol Eastern Mediterra- forced submergence in bottom trawls. Fish Res 81:86–88
nean Reg 1:435–445 Silvani L, Gazo M, Aguilar A (1999) Spanish driftnet fishing
Parga ML (2008) Oral presentation of preliminary results of and incidental catches in the western Mediterranean. Biol
Proyecto TECNO funded by the Spanish Ministry of Conserv 90(1):79–85
Environment and Fisheries, Secretarı́a General del Mar Southwood A, Fritsches K, Brill R, Swimmer Y (2008) Sound,
(2006–2008) and Bycatch Mitigation Projects I and II chemical, and light detection in sea turtles and pelagic
funded by the NOAA—NMFS (2005–2009). Report of fishes: sensory-based approaches to bycatch reduction in
the transversal working group on bycatch/incidental cat- longline fisheries. Endang Species Res 1–14
ches Rome, Italy, 15–16 September 2008 Stabenau EK, Vietti KRN (2003) The physiological effects of
Pinedo MC, Polacheck T (2004) Sea turtle bycatch in pelagic multiple forced submergences in loggerhead sea turtles
longline sets off southern 427 Brazil. Biol Cons 119:335– (Caretta caretta). Fish Bull 101:889–899
339 Stabenau EK, Heming TA, Mitchell JF (1991) Respiratory,
Piovano S, Affronte M, Balletto E, Barone, Dell’Anna L, Di acid-base and ionic status of Kemp’s ridley sea turtles
Marco S, Dominaci A, Giacoma C, Mari F, Maglietta F, (Lepidochelys kempi) subjected to trawling. Comp Bioch
Zannetti A (2002) Experimental evaluation of the attrac- Phys 99:107–111
tiveness of swordfish-fishing devices on loggerhead sea Suggett DJ, Houghton JDR (1998) Possible link between sea
turtles: testing the floats’ effect. In: Seminoff JA (ed) Pro- turtle bycatch and flipper tagging in Greece. Mar Turtle
ceedings of the twenty-second annual symposium on sea Newsl 81:10–11
turtle biology and conservation. 4–7 April 2002 Miami, Swimmer Y, Brill R (2006) Sea Turtle and pelagic fish sensory
Florida, USA biology: developing techniques to reduce sea turtle
Piovano S, Balletto E, Di Marco S, Dominici A, Giacoma C, bycatch in longline fisheries. NOAA Technical Memo-
Zannetti A (2004) Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) randum NMFS-PIFSC-7, pp 107
bycatches on longlines: the importance of olfactory Swimmer J, Brill R, Laurs M (2002) Behavior and physiology
stimuli. Ital J Zool 2:213–216 experiments aimed at reducing pelagic longline interac-
Piovano S, Celona A, Basciano A, Di Marco S, Giacoma C tions with marine turtles. Presented at the meeting of the
(2005) At-sea evaluation of artificial bait impact on American society of limnology and oceanography,
longline target and bycatch species. In: Proceedings of the Victoria, British Colombia, Canada, 10–14 June 2002
second mediterranean conference on marine turtles. 4–7 Swimmer Y, Arauz R, Higgins B, McNaughton L, McCracken
May 2005 Kemer, Antalya, Turkey, pp 48 M, Ballestero J, Brill R (2005) Food color and marine
Piovano S, Swimmer Y, Giacoma C (2009) Are circle hooks turtle feeding behaviour: Can blue bait reduce turtle
effective in reducing incidental captures of loggerhead sea bycatch in commercial fisheries? Mar Ecol Prog Ser 295:
turtles in a Mediterranean longline fishery? Aquatic con- 273–278
servation: marine and freshwater ecosystems. Published Tomas J, Aznar FJ, Raga JA (2001) Feeding ecology of the
online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley. loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta in the western
com). doi: 10.1002/aqc.1021 Mediterranean. J Zool 255:525–532
123
Tudela S (2000) Ecosystem effects of fishing in the Mediter- Frick M., Panagopoulou A, Rees A, Williams K (eds) Book
ranean: an analysis of the major threats of fishing gear and of abstracts of the 26th Annual symposium on sea turtle
practices to biodiversity and marine habitats. FAO Project biology and conservation island of Crete, Greece, 3–8 April
for the preparation of a strategic action plan for the con- 2006
servation of biological diversity (SAP BIO) in the Medi- Watson J, Foster D, Epperly S, Shah A (2002) Experiments in
terranean region. Rome, pp 45 the Western Atlantic Northeast Distant Waters to Evaluate
Tudela S (2004) Ecosystem effects of fishing in the Medi- Sea Turtle Mitigation Measures in the Pelagic Longline
terranian: an analysis of the major threats of fishing gear Fishery. Report on Experiments Conducted in 2001. US
and practices to biodiversity and marine habitats. Studies National Marine Fisheries Service, Pascagoula, MS, USA
and Reviews. General Fisheries Commission for the Watson JW, Hataway BD, Bergmann CE (2003) Effect of hook
Mediterranean. No. 74. Rome, FAO. p 44 size on ingestion of hooks by loggerhead sea turtles.
UE-FISH/2005/28-A (2005) Field study to assess some miti- Report of NOAA National Maritime Fisheries Service,
gation measures to reduce bycatch of marine turtles in Pascagoula, MS, USA
surface longline fisheries. EU Project, ref. no. FISH/2005/ Watson JW, Foster DG, Epperly S, Shah A (2004) Experiments
28A—service contract SI2.439703, pp 217 in the western Atlantic Northeast Distant Waters to evaluate
UNEP MAP RAC/SPA (2007) Action plan for the conservation of sea turtle mitigation measures in the pelagic longline fish-
Mediterranean marine turtles. Ed. RAC/SPA, Tunis, pp 40 ery. Report on experiments conducted in 2001, pp 135
Wang JH, McAlister J, Fuxjager M, Higgins B, Lohmann KJ Watson JW, Epperly SP, Shah AK, Foster DG (2005) Fishing
(2006) Light sticks used in longline fisheries attract juvenile methods to reduce sea turtle mortality associated with
loggerhead sea turtles: potential mitigation strategies. In: pelagic longlines. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 62:965–981
123

AlessandroL 2010 RevFishBiolFish

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AlessandroL 2010 RevFishBiolFish

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AlessandroL 2010 RevFishBiolFish

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rev Fish Biol Fisheries (2010) 20:141–161

An overview of loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta)

L. Alessandro (&) S. Antonello Introduction

Fig. 2 Turtle bycatch in

Gear type Area Catch/year Direct mortality Reference

Drift nets Italy 16,000 20–30% De Metrio and Megalofonou 1988

Balearic Islands (Spain) 209 50–100% Carreras et al. 2004

Other gears the Mediterranean Sea the interaction of sea turtles

Gear type Mitigation measure Area Action Reference

Discussion and requires further investigation. Thus, it is possible

You might also like