You are currently viewing a beta version of our website. If you spot anything unusual, kindly let us know.
Preprint
Article
Advances in Scale Assessment of Seabird Bycatch: A New Methodological Framework
Altmetrics
Downloads
114
Views
42
Comments
0
A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.
This version is not peer-reviewed
Abstract
This paper presents a methodology for indirectly estimating the scale of seabird bycatch using existing data, eliminating the need for regular monitoring. The study focuses on five species of ducks that winter in the Polish waters of the Baltic Sea and are highly susceptible to bycatch: Long-tailed Duck, Velvet Scoter, Common Scoter, Greater Scaup, and Tufted Duck. The evaluation units used are divided into the Bornholm and Gotland Groups within the Polish Exclusive Economic Zone (PEEZ). The analysis acknowledges the lack of data for certain areas known to have high concentrations of diving birds and fishing activity. The population sizes of waterbirds were assessed using ship-based surveys and a distance sampling approach. Fishing effort data from the winter seasons between 2015/2016 and 2019/2020 were analyzed. Bycatch rates were estimated based on surveys conducted in previous seasons, and threshold values for bycatch were established using the concept of "small numbers" defined in EU directives. The results show that within the Gotland subdivision of the PEEZ, the estimated average abundance of all diving waterbirds was 207,114 individuals, with an average bycatch of 7,921 birds (3.8% of the total). The Velvet Scoter was the most abundant species, followed by the Long-tailed Duck. Benthivorous ducks constituted the majority of the bird population in the area. In the Bornholm subdivision, the estimated average abundance of diving waterbirds was 600,845 individuals, with an average bycatch of 5,056 birds (0.8% of the total). The Long-tailed Duck was the most numerous species, followed by the Velvet Scoter. Benthivorous ducks also dominated in this area. The findings highlight the need for effective management and conservation measures to address the high mortality of seabirds due to bycatch. The methodology presented in this study offers a valuable approach for estimating bycatch scale and can support efforts to minimize the impact on seabird populations in the Baltic Sea.
Keywords:
Subject: Biology and Life Sciences - Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
1. Introduction
Bycatch, which is a common occurrence in fishing activities, refers to the unintentional capture of non-target animals, such as marine mammals, sea turtles, non-target fish, and birds, aside from the desired catch [1,2,3,4]. This incidental capture of non-target species poses a significant threat to seabird populations, contributing to their mortality [5,6]. Waterbirds are susceptible to entanglement in various types of fishing gear and drowning. These species have long lifespans and low reproductive rates. As a result, their populations are vulnerable to losses, particularly among adult individuals, as it takes a relatively long time to recover from such losses [7].
Fishermen employ various fishing methods, with trawls, long-lines, and gillnets being the primary techniques used [8]. Among these, gillnets are particularly concerning as they can inadvertently trap and kill protected, rare, or threatened species [9]. While gillnet fishing has been prohibited in open ocean waters [8], it still persists in shallow shelf seas, bays, and lagoons, leading to the depletion of protected seabird populations. It is estimated that at least 400,000 birds lose their lives annually due to gillnets [9].
The southern Baltic Sea is among the three regions worldwide with the highest gillnet bycatch rates, alongside the north-west Pacific and Iceland [9]. This situation arises from the significant overlap between the spatial and temporal distribution of diving birds and gillnet fisheries [6,10]. The issue of gillnet bycatch in wintering seabird hotspots within the Baltic Sea and adjacent areas of the North Sea was identified several decades ago. However, the available data on this topic are often limited in terms of spatial and temporal coverage [11,12,13,14,15]. Bycatch predominantly occurs during the winter and migration seasons in the Baltic Sea [9]. Many seabird species, including sea ducks, divers, and auks, which primarily nest in the Arctic, spend their winters in the Baltic Sea [16,17].
Recent analyses indicate that the Polish waters of the Baltic Sea were one of the most significant hotspots where a large number of seabirds perished [4]. This can be attributed to the convergence of two factors: favorable fishing conditions and a relatively large gillnet fishing fleet [4], as well as excellent wintering conditions for a substantial population of seabirds, thanks to shallow areas rich in food resources [18,19]. It has been estimated that the highest seabird bycatch in the Polish Exclusive Economic Zone occurred in the 1970s, with around 47,000 birds perishing annually. However, the scale of bycatch gradually decreased, reaching approximately 40,000 birds per year in the 1980s and 1990s, and about 20,000 birds per year in the 2010s [4].
The reduction in bycatch scale over the past few decades can be attributed to several factors. Primarily, the wintering bird population has significantly declined, experiencing a 50% decrease over the last 30 years [19]. Additionally, the size of the fishing fleet has also diminished [20]. The most commonly caught species within the Polish Exclusive Economic Zone include the Long-tailed Duck, Velvet Scoter, Greater Scaup and Tufted Duck with the first two being classified as vulnerable (VU category) on the IUCN Red List [21,22]. Moreover, all four species are listed on the Red List of the Helsinki Commission for the Baltic Sea (HELCOM 2013).
Monitoring bycatch is a costly endeavor, and most countries do not conduct it regularly. Even if official government reports exist, they often significantly underestimate the true extent of the issue [23]. Consequently, there is a need to develop a methodology that enables the assessment of bycatch scale indirectly. While there are records of fishing effort provided by fishermen [24], they seldom report instances of bycatch in these records [25]. Additionally, data on seabird abundance and distribution are available because of monitoring conducted for reporting purposes under European Union directives such as the Birds Directive or the Marine Strategy Framework Directive [26]. Local surveys have also been conducted to calculate bycatch rates, including surveys in the southern Baltic area conducted in Germany [15], Lithuania [27,28], and Poland [25].
The objective of this paper is to present a methodology for indirectly estimating the scale of seabird bycatch using the existing data, thus eliminating the need for regular monitoring. The methodological approach was proposed for five species of sea ducks that winter in significant numbers in the Polish waters of the Baltic Sea and are also highly susceptible to bycatch in fishing nets: Long-tailed Duck (Clangula hyemalis), Velvet Scoter (Melanitta fusca), Common Scoter (Melanitta nigra), Greater Scaup (Aythya marila), and Tufted Duck (Aythya fuligula).
2. Methods
In the Polish Exclusive Economic Zone (PEEZ), which includes coastal waters and coastal lagoons spanning approximately 30,500 km², five species of benthivorous ducks (Long-tailed Duck, Velvet Scoter, Common Scoter, Greater Scaup and Tufted Duck) can be found. These species are all listed as threatened according to HELCOM [29]. The evaluation units used for waterbird indicators in this area are divided into the Bornholm Subdivision and the Gotland Subdivision [30] (Fig. 1). It should be noted that the analysis lacks data for a significant portion of Lake Dąbie and the lower sections of the Odra and Vistula rivers, which are known to have a high concentration of diving birds [31]. These areas are also exploited for fishing, making them likely hotspots for bird bycatch. The fishing effort and waterbird data were analyzed for the winter seasons spanning from 2015/2016 to 2019/2020. The number of waterbirds was obtained from annual January counts and assumed to remain constant throughout the winter period (from October 1 to April 30). Fishing effort data was collected from declarations submitted by fishermen to the Polish Fisheries Monitoring Centre during this time period.
Figure 1.
The study area – Polish Exclusive Economic Zone in the southern part of the Baltic Sea, divided into HELCOM subdivisions (Bornholm and Gotland) and Baltic Squares (20x20 km). Red lines are the transects used for ship-based monitoring of waterbirds offshore.
Figure 1.
The study area – Polish Exclusive Economic Zone in the southern part of the Baltic Sea, divided into HELCOM subdivisions (Bornholm and Gotland) and Baltic Squares (20x20 km). Red lines are the transects used for ship-based monitoring of waterbirds offshore.
2.1. Waterbirds abundance assessment
Waterbird populations were assessed through ship-based surveys conducted along 56 transects, ranging from 3.9 km to 28.7 km in length [32] (Fig. 1). These surveys followed a standardized study protocol [33,34] and utilized a distance sampling approach, a widely accepted method in seabird research [35,36]. To determine the best-fitting function, key parametric functions were evaluated, including uniform, half-normal, and hazard rate functions. Adjustments were made using cosine and simple polynomial terms. The selection of the most suitable function was based on the lowest Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) values [37]. Data analyses were conducted in the R environment (R Core Team 2021) using the Distance package (version 1.0.4) for Distance Sampling Detection Function and Abundance Estimation [38]. Additionally, the bird counts obtained from shore-based surveys conducted during the standard January waterbird count and the International Waterbird Census [34] were incorporated into the estimated offshore counts.
2.2. Fishing effort
In order to assess the overall fishing activity, an examination of data obtained from the Fisheries Monitoring Centre (CMR) was conducted. Specifically, data from the winter period was considered, as this is when the highest occurrence of seabirds is observed in this particular area of the Baltic Sea [19]. The analysis focused solely on static nets, which are known to be the most problematic fishing gear in terms of bird bycatch in this region [4,9,14]. Other fishing gears, such as long-lines and fyke traps, which may incidentally capture waterbirds but are considered less problematic than static nets in terms of bird bycatch within the study area, were not taken into account due to limited available fishing effort and/or bycatch rate data for these gears [4]. It is important to note that the analysis did not consider the impact of Polish vessels operating outside of Polish waters or within the Exclusive Economic Zones of other countries, nor did it account for non-Polish fleets operating within the Polish Exclusive Economic Zone.
2.3. Seabird bycatch
Using the bycatch rates that indicate the number of birds caught per 1000 NMD in the primary static net fisheries operating in Polish sea waters (Table 1), the overall bycatch count for all species was estimated by multiplying these rates with the total fishing effort for each year at the Statistical Baltic Squares (SKB) level. Each SKB covers an offshore area of approximately 400 km², while the squares adjacent to the coast, extending beyond the borders of the PEEZ, are smaller in size (Fig. 1). Subsequently, the total mortality due to bycatch for individual species was determined by calculating the proportion of their specific bycatch mortality in relation to the overall waterbird population. The bycatch rates were computed based on surveys conducted in the winter seasons of 2013/2014 and 2014/2015, involving observers onboard fishing vessels in water bodies within the PEEZ, including Kamień Lagoon, Szczecin Lagoon, Pomeranian Bay, and Puck Bay. These study sites were selected to represent the entire Polish fishery, encompassing areas with high, medium, and no observed bycatch [24].
2.4. Setting the threshold values
To establish a benchmark for "zero bycatch," BirdLife International [39] proposed a threshold of 1% of the natural annual adult mortality. This acknowledges that even with the implementation of effective mitigation measures, it is likely that a small number of seabirds will still be incidentally caught. The 1% threshold is based on legal interpretations by the European Court of Justice regarding the concept of "small numbers" as defined in the EU Birds Directive and EU guide to sustainable hunting [40]. Since determining the exact natural annual adult mortality for most species in the presence of anthropogenic causes is challenging, it is more practical to use the total annual adult mortality as an approximation. The annual adult mortality (m) is calculated from the survival rates (s) using the equation:
m = 1 - s
Species-specific survival values for adult individuals, which are necessary for calculating mortality across all bird species, can be found in the literature, such as Bird et al. [41]. The species-specific threshold value (SST) is then estimated by multiplying the estimated population size (N) in the evaluation area by the species-specific annual adult mortality rate (m) and 1%:
In this equation represents the estimated population size, and m denotes the annual mortality rate of adults for the species or population.
3. Results
In total, within the Gotland subdivision of the Polish Exclusive Economic Zone (PEEZ), the estimated abundance of all diving waterbirds averaged 207,114 individuals yearly over the seasons from 2015/16 to 2019/20. During these seasons, the average bycatch estimates reached 7,921 birds annually, accounting for 3.8% of the total. Among the species, the Velvet Scoter (Melanitta fusca) was the most abundant, with an average of 92,177 individuals (average bycatch = 3,504). The Long-tailed Duck (Clangula hyemalis) ranked second in abundance, with an average of 52,262 individuals observed throughout the study period (average bycatch = 2,027; Table 2). Benthivorous ducks dominated among all ecological groups and constituted 82.2% of the total bird population in the area.
For the Bornholm subdivision within the Polish Exclusive Economic Zone (PEEZ), the estimated abundance of all diving waterbirds averaged 600,845 individuals yearly over the seasons from 2015/16 to 2019/20. The average bycatch for these seasons amounted to 5,056 birds annually, which corresponds to 0.8% of the total population. Among the species, the Long-tailed Duck was the most numerous, with an average of 347,654 individuals (average bycatch = 2,915). The Velvet Scoter ranked second in abundance, with an average of 149,158 individuals observed throughout the study period (average bycatch = 1,213; Table 3). Benthivorous ducks dominated among all ecological groups and constituted 94.2% of the total bird population in the area.
Table 4.
Gotland, 1% threshold of mean wintering population abundance in Polish part of Gotland subdivision with an indication whether the threshold values have been exceeded or not. Mortality rate was taken from Bird et al. 2020.
Table 4.
Gotland, 1% threshold of mean wintering population abundance in Polish part of Gotland subdivision with an indication whether the threshold values have been exceeded or not. Mortality rate was taken from Bird et al. 2020.
| Species | Mortality rate | SST / Bycatch | Achievement (A) or failure (F) of threshold values | Helcom Red List Status |
| Velvet Scoter | 0.21 | 194 / 3,504 | F | Endangered |
| Long-tailed Duck | 0.25 | 131 / 2,027 | F | Endangered |
| Tufted Duck | 0.29 | 46 / 574 | F | Near Threatened |
| Greater Scaup | 0.26 | 15 / 216 | F | Vulnurable |
| Common Scoter | 0.22 | 10 / 173 | F | Endangered |
Table 5.
Bornholm, 1% threshold of mean wintering population abundance in Polish part of Bornholm subdivision with an indication whether the threshold values have been exceeded or not. Mortality rate was taken from Bird et al. 2020.
Table 5.
Bornholm, 1% threshold of mean wintering population abundance in Polish part of Bornholm subdivision with an indication whether the threshold values have been exceeded or not. Mortality rate was taken from Bird et al. 2020.
| Species | Mortality rate | SST / Bycatch | Achievement (A) or failure (F) of threshold values | Helcom Red List Status |
| Long-tailed Duck | 0.25 | 869 / 2,915 | F | Endangered |
| Velvet Scoter | 0.21 | 313 / 1,213 | F | Endangered |
| Common Scoter | 0.22 | 68 / 260 | F | Endangered |
| Greater Scaup | 0.26 | 59 / 204 | F | Vulnurable |
| Tufted Duck | 0.29 | 46 / 133 | F | Near Threatened |
4. Discussion
As indicated by the Results, none of the assessed species have achieved a favorable status. The threshold value set by HELCOM as the core indicator in the holistic assessment of the ecosystem health of the Baltic Sea [30], following the recommendations of BirdLife International and HELCOM/OSPAR experts, which is based on a 1% adult mortality threshold (SST), has been exceeded for each species and within each HELCOM subdivision.
It is important to note that the assessment was conducted using average population sizes (2016-2020) observed exclusively in the Polish part of each subdivision, along with the corresponding estimated bycatch. The Bornholm subdivision exhibited higher bird abundances (Table 2 and Table 3), while the bycatch rates were relatively lower compared to the Gotland subdivision (3.8% vs. 0.8% bycatch relative to abundance). This suggests that the Polish part of the Gotland subdivision experiences a higher density of fishing nets and greater fishing intensity compared to the Bornholm subdivision. The most significant hotspots where large concentrations of birds overlap with intense fishing activities in the Polish part of the Gotland subdivision are the Gulf of Gdańsk and Vistula Lagoon. In the Polish part of the Bornholm subdivision, the Odra Estuary, southern Pomeranian Bay, and the vicinity of Kołobrzeg are the key areas of concern [4].
It is worth noting that fishing effort in the Polish EEZ has decreased in recent years due to EU regulations prohibiting cod fishing. These regulations are expected to reduce bird bycatch, as cod nets were responsible for a significant portion of bird bycatch in Polish sea waters [24].
The findings of this article clearly indicate that bycatch poses a significant threat to seabird populations. While there is an obligation to monitor bycatch, not all countries regularly conduct such studies [4], and the available official reports often significantly underestimate the magnitude of the problem [23]. Therefore, there is a need to develop a methodology that enables the assessment of bycatch scale indirectly, using the available data.
Within this analysis, various aspects were considered, including the fishing effort declared by fishermen, data on the abundance and distribution of seabirds, and bycatch rates calculated based on local surveys [15,24]. However, several important factors should be taken into account in the context of the discussed results.
Firstly, it is crucial to have systematic monitoring of bycatch by governments and fisheries management institutions [42]. Only through regular studies will we have a comprehensive understanding of the problem's scale and be able to take appropriate actions for the protection of seabirds.
Secondly, it is important for fishermen to report cases of bycatch. Currently, it is often the case that fishermen do not include incidental catches in their declarations and discard them [43], leading to an underestimation of the magnitude of the problem [25]. Therefore, educational, and awareness-raising efforts are necessary to increase fishermen's understanding of the impacts of incidental bird catches and to encourage them to report such incidents [44].
Another significant point to consider is the need to increase efforts in seabird conservation and implement effective measures to reduce bycatch [45]. The adoption of innovative technological solutions and bird-friendly fishing practices can contribute to the reduction of incidental captures and minimize the impact of fishing activities on seabird populations [46].
Furthermore, further research is warranted to gain a better understanding of the factors influencing bycatch and to develop effective management strategies [47]. Studies focusing on the effectiveness of bycatch mitigation measures, the identification of high-risk areas, and the assessment of the long-term impact of bycatch on seabird populations would be valuable contributions to the field [6,15].
To summarize, tackling the problem of seabird bycatch necessitates a collective endeavor involving governmental entities, fisheries management institutions, fishermen, and researchers [48]. Through the establishment of consistent monitoring practices, encouragement of reporting mechanisms, and implementation of impactful conservation measures, we can strive to minimize the repercussions of bycatch and safeguard the enduring existence of seabird populations in our marine environments.
5. Conclusion
This article should not be interpreted as an endorsement for governments of countries obligated to monitor bycatch to disregard such monitoring. On the contrary, regular monitoring should be carried out as it provides direct data on bycatch. However, the objective of this article is to encourage the reporting of bycatch scale using indirect data in situations where direct monitoring is unavailable. The intention is not to exploit the absence of bycatch monitoring as a means to avoid reporting bird mortality in fishing nets and, in turn, neglect the assessment of fishing's impact on the conservation status of marine avian species.
Author Contributions
The publication is single authored.
Funding
The research was carried out as part of the statutory activities of the Museum and Institute of Zoology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Data are available from the author upon request.
Acknowledgments
The data used to create this publication was collected through government monitoring programs, specifically the Fisheries Monitoring Center for fishing effort data, and the Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection for Monitoring Wintering Waterbirds and Wintering Waterbirds of Transitional Waters.
Conflicts of Interest
The author declare that he has no known competing financial interest or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
- Lewison, R.L.; Crowder, L.B.; Read, A.J.; Freeman, S.A. Understanding impacts of fisheries bycatch on marine megafauna. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2004, 19, 598–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewison, R.L. , Crowder L.B., Wallace B.P., Moore J.E., Cox T., Žydelis R., McDonald S., Di Matteo A., Dunn D.C., Kot C.Y. Global patterns of marine mammal, seabird, and sea turtle bycatch reveal taxa-specific and cumulative megafauna hotspots. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 2014, 111, 5271–5276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moore, J.E. , Wallace B.P., Lewison R.L., Žydelis R., Cox T.M., Crowder L.B. A review of marine mammal, sea turtle and seabird bycatch in USA fisheries and the role of policy in shaping management. Mar. Pol., 2009, 33, 435–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marchowski, D. Bycatch of Seabirds in the Polish Part of the Southern Baltic Sea in 1970–2018: A Review. Acta Ornithologica, 2021, 56, 139–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Croxall, J.; Butchart, S.; Lascelles, B.; Stattersfield, A.; Sullivan, B.; Symes, A.; Taylor, P. Seabird conservation status, threats, and priority actions: A global assessment. Bird Conservation International, 2012, 22, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marchowski, D. , Jankowiak, J., Ławicki, Ł., Wysocki, Ł., Chylarecki, P. Fishery bycatch is among the most important threats to the European population of Greater Scaup Aythya marila. Bird Conservation International, 2020, 30, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernotat, D.; Dierschke, V. Übergeordnete Kriterien zur Bewertung der Mortalität wildlebender Tiere im Rahmen von Projekten und Eingriffen Teil I: Rechtliche und methodische Grundlagen 4. Fassung, 2021. Stand 31.08.2021, 2021.
- Northridge, S.P. Driftnet Fisheries and Their Impacts on Non-target Species: A Worldwide Review. Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, London, UK, 1991.
- Žydelis, R.; Small, C.; French, G. The incidental catch of seabirds in gillnet fisheries: A global review. Biological Conservation, 2013, 162, 76–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marchowski, D. , Leitner, M. Conservation implications of extraordinary Greater Scaup (Aythya marila) concentrations in the Odra Estuary, Poland. Condor 2019, 121, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grimm, P. Die Stellnetzfischerei als eine wichtige Form nicht nur der ornithofaunistischen Nachweisführung. Naturschutzarbeit in Mecklenburg, 1985, 28, 104–106. [Google Scholar]
- Mentjes, T. , Gabriel, O. Technical possibilities to reduce duck bycatches in winter cod fishery with static gear. Informationen für die Fischwirtschaft aus der Fischereiforschung, 1999, 46, 36–41. [Google Scholar]
- Schirmeister, B. Verluste von Wasservögeln in Stellnetzen der Küstenfischerei – das Beispiel der Insel Usedom. Meer und Museum, 2003, 17, 160–166. [Google Scholar]
- Žydelis, R.; Bellebaum, J.; Österblom, H.; Vetemaa, M.; Schirmeister, B.; Stipniece, A.; et al. Bycatch in gillnet fisheries—an overlooked threat to waterbird populations. Biological Conservation, 2009, 142, 1269–1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bellebaum, J.; Schirmeister, B.; Sonntag, N.; Garthe, S. Decreasing but still high: bycatch of seabirds in gillnet fisheries along the German Baltic coast. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 2012, 23, 210–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marchowski, D. , Jankowiak, Ł., Ławicki, Ł., Wysocki, Ł. Waterbird counts on large water bodies: comparing ground and aerial methods during different ice conditions. PeerJ, 2018, 6, e5195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marchowski, D. , Ławicki, Ł., Fox, A.D., Nielsen, R.D., Petersen, I.K., Hornman, M., Nilsson, L., Haas, F. Wahl, J., Kieckbusch, J., Nehls, H.W., Calbrade, N., Hearn, R., Meissner, W., Fitzgerald, N., Luigujoe, L., Zenatello, M., Gaudard, C., Koschinski, S. Effectiveness of the European Natura 2000 network to sustain a specialist wintering waterbird population in the face of climate change. Scientific Reports 2020, 10, 20286. [Google Scholar]
- Durinck, J.; Skov, H.; Jansen, F.P.; Pihl, S. Important Marine Areas for Wintering Birds in the Baltic Sea. Ornis Consult Report, EU DG XI Research Contract No. 2242/90-09-01, 1994.
- Skov, H.; Heinänen, S.; Žydelis, R.; Bellebaum, J.; Bzoma, S.; Dagys, M.; et al. Waterbird Populations and Pressures in the Baltic Sea. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, 2011.
- Martin, J.I. Fishery in Poland. European Parliament, Brussels. IP/B/PECH/NT/2011_02, PE 460.037, 2011.
- BirdLife International. Melanitta fusca. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020: e.T22724836A183801134. 2020. Available online: https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-3.RLTS.T22724836A183801134.en. (accessed on 11 May 2023).
- IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2022-2. 2023. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org.
- Morkūnas, J., S. Oppel, M. Bružas, Y. Rouxel, R. Morkūnė, and D. Mitchell. 2022. Seabird bycatch in a Baltic coastal gillnet fishery is orders of magnitude larger than official reports. Avian Conservation and Ecology, 2022, 17, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Psuty, I.; Szymanek, L.; Całkiewicz, J.; Dziemian, Ł.; Ameryk, A.; Ramutkowski, M.; et al. Developing the basis for rational monitoring of by-catch of birds for sustainable management of coastal fishing in the marine areas of NATURA 2000. Morski Instytut Rybacki - Państwowy Instytut Badawczy, Gdynia, Poland, 2017.
- Psuty, I.; Całkiewicz, J. Natural and social science approaches are both needed to manage bird bycatch in small-scale fisheries. Aquatic Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 2021, 31, 3507–3525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chodkiewicz, T.; Chylarecki, P.; Sikora, A.; Wardecki, Ł.; Bobrek, R.; Neubauer, G.; Marchowski, D.; Dmoch, A.; Kuczyński, L. Report on the implementation of Art. 12 of the Birds Directive in Poland in 2013-2018: status, changes, threats. Biuletyn Monitoringu Przyrody, 2019, 20, 1–80. [Google Scholar]
- Dagys, M.; Žydelis, R.; Stipniece, A.; Minde, A.; Vetemaa, M. Action C1 – Assessing and reducing impact of fishery by-catch on species of community interest, FINAL REPORT. LIFE Nature project “Marine Protected Areas in the Eastern Baltic Sea” Reference number: LIFE 05 NAT/LV/000100, 2009.
- Field, R.; Crawford, R.; Eneverc, R.; Linkowski, T.; Martin, G.; Morkūnas, J.; Morkūnė, R.; Rouxel, Y.; Oppela, S. High contrast panels and lights do not reduce bird bycatch in Baltic Sea gillnet fisheries. Global Ecology and Conservation, 2019, 18, e00602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- HELCOM. HELCOM Red List of Baltic Sea species in danger of becoming extinct. Balt. Sea Environ. No. 140. Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission – Helsinki Commission, Helsinki, 2013.
- HELCOM. Number of drowned mammals and waterbirds in fishing gear. HELCOM core indicator report. Online. [2023.05.11]. ISSN 2343-2543, 2023.
- Meissner, W. , Rydzkowski, P. Wintering of waterfowl in the Bay of Gdańsk in the season 2005/2006. Notatki Ornitologiczne, 2007, 48, 143–147. [Google Scholar]
- Chodkiewicz, T.; Neubauer, G.; Meissner, W.; Sikora, A.; Chylarecki, P.; Woźniak, B.; Bzoma, S.; Brewka, B.; Rubacha, S.; Kus, K.; Rohde, Z.; Cenian, Z.; Wieloch, M.; Zielińska, M.; Zieliński, P.; Kajtoch, Ł.; Szałański, P.; Betleja, J. Monitoring of Polish birds in 2010–2012. Biuletyn Monitoringu Przyrody, 2012, 9, 1–44. [Google Scholar]
- Komdeur, J.; Bertelsen, J.; Cracnell, G. Manual for Aeroplane and Ship Surveys of waterfowl and Seabirds. IWRB Special Publication No. 19, Slimbridge, 1992.
- Wetlands International. Guidance on waterbird monitoring methodology: Field protocol for waterbird counting. Wetlands International, Wageningen. 2010. Available online: http://www.wetlands.org.
- Ronconi, R.A.; Burger, A.E. Estimating seabird densities from vessel transects: distance sampling and implications for strip transects. Aquatic Biology, 2009, 4, 297–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spurr, E.B.; Borkin, K.M.; Drew, K.W. Line-transect distance sampling compared with fixed-width strip-transect counts for assessing tomtit (Petroica macrocephala) population trends. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 2012, 36, 365–370. [Google Scholar]
- Burnham, K. P.; Anderson, D. R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach, 2nd ed. Springer-Verlag, New York, USA, 2002.
- Miller, D.L. , Rexstad E., ThomasL., Marshall L., Laake J.L. Distance Sampling in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 2019, 89, 1–28. [Google Scholar]
- BirdLife International. BirdLife position on Good Environmental Status threshold criteria for Descriptor 1: seabird bycatch and population abundance. Brussels. 2019. Available online: https://tiny.pl/9fc3n.
- European Commission. Guidance document on hunting under Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds “The Birds Directive”. 2008. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/hunting/docs/hunting_guide_en.pdf.
- Bird, J.P. , Martin R., Akçakaya H.R., Gilroy J., Burfield I.J., Garnett S.T., Symes A., Taylor J., Şekercioğlu Ç.H. and Butchart, S.H.M. 2020. Generation lengths of the world's birds and their implications for extinction risk. Conservation Biology, 2020, 34, 1252–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamel, N.J.; Burger, A.E.; Charleton, K.; Davidson, P.; Lee, S.; Bertram, D.F.; Parrish, J.K. Bycatch and beached birds: assessing mortality impacts in coastal net fisheries using marine bird strandings. Marine Ornithology, 2009, 37, 41–60. [Google Scholar]
- Harrington, J.M.; Myers, R.A.; Rosenberg, A.A. Wasted fishery resources: discarded by-catch in the USA. Fish and Fishery, 2005, 6, 350–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piovano, S.; Basciano, G.; Swimmer, Y.; Giacoma, C. Evaluation of a bycatch reduction technology by fishermen: A case study from Sicily. Marine Policy, 2012, 36, 272–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marchowski, D. , Ławicki, Ł., Kaliciuk, J. Management of Marine Natura 2000 Sites as Exemplified by Seabirds Wintering in the Baltic Sea: The Case of Poland. Diversity, 2022, 14, 1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O'Keefe, C.E.; Cadrin, S.X.; Glemarec, G.; Rouxel, Y. Efficacy of Time-Area Fishing Restrictions and Gear-Switching as Solutions for Reducing Seabird Bycatch in Gillnet Fisheries. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, 2023, 31, 29–46. [Google Scholar]
- Komoroske, L.M.; Lewison, R.L. Addressing fisheries bycatch in a changing world. Frontiers in Marine Science, 2015, 2. [CrossRef]
- Trouwborst, A. Seabird Bycatch—Deathbed Conservation or a Precautionary and Holistic Approach? Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, 2009, 11, 293–333. [Google Scholar]
Table 1.
Bycatch rates based on studies carried out in the Polish waters of the Baltic Sea in the winter seasons of 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 (according to Psuty et al. 2017, [24]). Bycaught birds/1000 NMD: number of bycaught birds per 1000 nets * metres * days.
Table 1.
Bycatch rates based on studies carried out in the Polish waters of the Baltic Sea in the winter seasons of 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 (according to Psuty et al. 2017, [24]). Bycaught birds/1000 NMD: number of bycaught birds per 1000 nets * metres * days.
| Type of static nets | By-caught birds/1000 NMD (95% CI) |
| Cod, flounder, and turbot gillnets/trammel nets | 0.221 (0.218 – 0.225) |
| Herring, perch, roach, garfish and spart gillnets | 0.227 (0.217 – 0.238) |
| Zander and bream gillnets | 0.651 (0.447 – 1.386) |
| Trout, salmon, pike and whitefish gillnets and one-side anchored nets (i.e. semi-driftnets) | 0.279 (0.250 – 0.309) |
Table 2.
The most abundant diving bird species present in the bycatch in the Polish part of Gotland subdivision, their abundance, and the scale of the bycatch (mean and confidence intervals). Mean for the seasons 2015/16 – 2019/20.
Table 2.
The most abundant diving bird species present in the bycatch in the Polish part of Gotland subdivision, their abundance, and the scale of the bycatch (mean and confidence intervals). Mean for the seasons 2015/16 – 2019/20.
| Species | Abundance | Bycatch mean | Bycatch 95%CI- | Bycatch 95%CI+ |
| Velvet Scoter | 92,177 | 3,504 | 2,816 | 5,776 |
| Long-tailed Duck | 52,262 | 2,027 | 1,639 | 3,294 |
| Tufted Duck | 15,908 | 574 | 463 | 941 |
| Greater Scaup | 5,682 | 216 | 175 | 349 |
| Common Scoter | 4,303 | 173 | 139 | 288 |
Table 3.
The most abundant diving bird species present in the bycatch in the Polish part of Bornholm subdivision, their abundance, and the scale of the bycatch (mean and confidence intervals). Mean for the seasons 2015/16 – 2019/20.
Table 3.
The most abundant diving bird species present in the bycatch in the Polish part of Bornholm subdivision, their abundance, and the scale of the bycatch (mean and confidence intervals). Mean for the seasons 2015/16 – 2019/20.
| Species | Abundance | Bycatch mean | Bycatch 95%CI- | Bycatch 95%CI+ |
| Long-tailed Duck | 347,653 | 2,915 | 2,525 | 3,423 |
| Velvet Scoter | 149,158 | 1,213 | 1,038 | 1,367 |
| Common Scoter | 30,761 | 260 | 225 | 328 |
| Greater Scaup | 22,724 | 204 | 174 | 227 |
| Tufted Duck | 15,906 | 133 | 110 | 135 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Submitted:
12 May 2023
Posted:
15 May 2023
You are already at the latest version
Alerts
A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.
This version is not peer-reviewed
Submitted:
12 May 2023
Posted:
15 May 2023
You are already at the latest version
Alerts
Abstract
This paper presents a methodology for indirectly estimating the scale of seabird bycatch using existing data, eliminating the need for regular monitoring. The study focuses on five species of ducks that winter in the Polish waters of the Baltic Sea and are highly susceptible to bycatch: Long-tailed Duck, Velvet Scoter, Common Scoter, Greater Scaup, and Tufted Duck. The evaluation units used are divided into the Bornholm and Gotland Groups within the Polish Exclusive Economic Zone (PEEZ). The analysis acknowledges the lack of data for certain areas known to have high concentrations of diving birds and fishing activity. The population sizes of waterbirds were assessed using ship-based surveys and a distance sampling approach. Fishing effort data from the winter seasons between 2015/2016 and 2019/2020 were analyzed. Bycatch rates were estimated based on surveys conducted in previous seasons, and threshold values for bycatch were established using the concept of "small numbers" defined in EU directives. The results show that within the Gotland subdivision of the PEEZ, the estimated average abundance of all diving waterbirds was 207,114 individuals, with an average bycatch of 7,921 birds (3.8% of the total). The Velvet Scoter was the most abundant species, followed by the Long-tailed Duck. Benthivorous ducks constituted the majority of the bird population in the area. In the Bornholm subdivision, the estimated average abundance of diving waterbirds was 600,845 individuals, with an average bycatch of 5,056 birds (0.8% of the total). The Long-tailed Duck was the most numerous species, followed by the Velvet Scoter. Benthivorous ducks also dominated in this area. The findings highlight the need for effective management and conservation measures to address the high mortality of seabirds due to bycatch. The methodology presented in this study offers a valuable approach for estimating bycatch scale and can support efforts to minimize the impact on seabird populations in the Baltic Sea.
Keywords:
Subject: Biology and Life Sciences - Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
1. Introduction
Bycatch, which is a common occurrence in fishing activities, refers to the unintentional capture of non-target animals, such as marine mammals, sea turtles, non-target fish, and birds, aside from the desired catch [1,2,3,4]. This incidental capture of non-target species poses a significant threat to seabird populations, contributing to their mortality [5,6]. Waterbirds are susceptible to entanglement in various types of fishing gear and drowning. These species have long lifespans and low reproductive rates. As a result, their populations are vulnerable to losses, particularly among adult individuals, as it takes a relatively long time to recover from such losses [7].
Fishermen employ various fishing methods, with trawls, long-lines, and gillnets being the primary techniques used [8]. Among these, gillnets are particularly concerning as they can inadvertently trap and kill protected, rare, or threatened species [9]. While gillnet fishing has been prohibited in open ocean waters [8], it still persists in shallow shelf seas, bays, and lagoons, leading to the depletion of protected seabird populations. It is estimated that at least 400,000 birds lose their lives annually due to gillnets [9].
The southern Baltic Sea is among the three regions worldwide with the highest gillnet bycatch rates, alongside the north-west Pacific and Iceland [9]. This situation arises from the significant overlap between the spatial and temporal distribution of diving birds and gillnet fisheries [6,10]. The issue of gillnet bycatch in wintering seabird hotspots within the Baltic Sea and adjacent areas of the North Sea was identified several decades ago. However, the available data on this topic are often limited in terms of spatial and temporal coverage [11,12,13,14,15]. Bycatch predominantly occurs during the winter and migration seasons in the Baltic Sea [9]. Many seabird species, including sea ducks, divers, and auks, which primarily nest in the Arctic, spend their winters in the Baltic Sea [16,17].
Recent analyses indicate that the Polish waters of the Baltic Sea were one of the most significant hotspots where a large number of seabirds perished [4]. This can be attributed to the convergence of two factors: favorable fishing conditions and a relatively large gillnet fishing fleet [4], as well as excellent wintering conditions for a substantial population of seabirds, thanks to shallow areas rich in food resources [18,19]. It has been estimated that the highest seabird bycatch in the Polish Exclusive Economic Zone occurred in the 1970s, with around 47,000 birds perishing annually. However, the scale of bycatch gradually decreased, reaching approximately 40,000 birds per year in the 1980s and 1990s, and about 20,000 birds per year in the 2010s [4].
The reduction in bycatch scale over the past few decades can be attributed to several factors. Primarily, the wintering bird population has significantly declined, experiencing a 50% decrease over the last 30 years [19]. Additionally, the size of the fishing fleet has also diminished [20]. The most commonly caught species within the Polish Exclusive Economic Zone include the Long-tailed Duck, Velvet Scoter, Greater Scaup and Tufted Duck with the first two being classified as vulnerable (VU category) on the IUCN Red List [21,22]. Moreover, all four species are listed on the Red List of the Helsinki Commission for the Baltic Sea (HELCOM 2013).
Monitoring bycatch is a costly endeavor, and most countries do not conduct it regularly. Even if official government reports exist, they often significantly underestimate the true extent of the issue [23]. Consequently, there is a need to develop a methodology that enables the assessment of bycatch scale indirectly. While there are records of fishing effort provided by fishermen [24], they seldom report instances of bycatch in these records [25]. Additionally, data on seabird abundance and distribution are available because of monitoring conducted for reporting purposes under European Union directives such as the Birds Directive or the Marine Strategy Framework Directive [26]. Local surveys have also been conducted to calculate bycatch rates, including surveys in the southern Baltic area conducted in Germany [15], Lithuania [27,28], and Poland [25].
The objective of this paper is to present a methodology for indirectly estimating the scale of seabird bycatch using the existing data, thus eliminating the need for regular monitoring. The methodological approach was proposed for five species of sea ducks that winter in significant numbers in the Polish waters of the Baltic Sea and are also highly susceptible to bycatch in fishing nets: Long-tailed Duck (Clangula hyemalis), Velvet Scoter (Melanitta fusca), Common Scoter (Melanitta nigra), Greater Scaup (Aythya marila), and Tufted Duck (Aythya fuligula).
2. Methods
In the Polish Exclusive Economic Zone (PEEZ), which includes coastal waters and coastal lagoons spanning approximately 30,500 km², five species of benthivorous ducks (Long-tailed Duck, Velvet Scoter, Common Scoter, Greater Scaup and Tufted Duck) can be found. These species are all listed as threatened according to HELCOM [29]. The evaluation units used for waterbird indicators in this area are divided into the Bornholm Subdivision and the Gotland Subdivision [30] (Fig. 1). It should be noted that the analysis lacks data for a significant portion of Lake Dąbie and the lower sections of the Odra and Vistula rivers, which are known to have a high concentration of diving birds [31]. These areas are also exploited for fishing, making them likely hotspots for bird bycatch. The fishing effort and waterbird data were analyzed for the winter seasons spanning from 2015/2016 to 2019/2020. The number of waterbirds was obtained from annual January counts and assumed to remain constant throughout the winter period (from October 1 to April 30). Fishing effort data was collected from declarations submitted by fishermen to the Polish Fisheries Monitoring Centre during this time period.
Figure 1.
The study area – Polish Exclusive Economic Zone in the southern part of the Baltic Sea, divided into HELCOM subdivisions (Bornholm and Gotland) and Baltic Squares (20x20 km). Red lines are the transects used for ship-based monitoring of waterbirds offshore.
Figure 1.
The study area – Polish Exclusive Economic Zone in the southern part of the Baltic Sea, divided into HELCOM subdivisions (Bornholm and Gotland) and Baltic Squares (20x20 km). Red lines are the transects used for ship-based monitoring of waterbirds offshore.
2.1. Waterbirds abundance assessment
Waterbird populations were assessed through ship-based surveys conducted along 56 transects, ranging from 3.9 km to 28.7 km in length [32] (Fig. 1). These surveys followed a standardized study protocol [33,34] and utilized a distance sampling approach, a widely accepted method in seabird research [35,36]. To determine the best-fitting function, key parametric functions were evaluated, including uniform, half-normal, and hazard rate functions. Adjustments were made using cosine and simple polynomial terms. The selection of the most suitable function was based on the lowest Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) values [37]. Data analyses were conducted in the R environment (R Core Team 2021) using the Distance package (version 1.0.4) for Distance Sampling Detection Function and Abundance Estimation [38]. Additionally, the bird counts obtained from shore-based surveys conducted during the standard January waterbird count and the International Waterbird Census [34] were incorporated into the estimated offshore counts.
2.2. Fishing effort
In order to assess the overall fishing activity, an examination of data obtained from the Fisheries Monitoring Centre (CMR) was conducted. Specifically, data from the winter period was considered, as this is when the highest occurrence of seabirds is observed in this particular area of the Baltic Sea [19]. The analysis focused solely on static nets, which are known to be the most problematic fishing gear in terms of bird bycatch in this region [4,9,14]. Other fishing gears, such as long-lines and fyke traps, which may incidentally capture waterbirds but are considered less problematic than static nets in terms of bird bycatch within the study area, were not taken into account due to limited available fishing effort and/or bycatch rate data for these gears [4]. It is important to note that the analysis did not consider the impact of Polish vessels operating outside of Polish waters or within the Exclusive Economic Zones of other countries, nor did it account for non-Polish fleets operating within the Polish Exclusive Economic Zone.
2.3. Seabird bycatch
Using the bycatch rates that indicate the number of birds caught per 1000 NMD in the primary static net fisheries operating in Polish sea waters (Table 1), the overall bycatch count for all species was estimated by multiplying these rates with the total fishing effort for each year at the Statistical Baltic Squares (SKB) level. Each SKB covers an offshore area of approximately 400 km², while the squares adjacent to the coast, extending beyond the borders of the PEEZ, are smaller in size (Fig. 1). Subsequently, the total mortality due to bycatch for individual species was determined by calculating the proportion of their specific bycatch mortality in relation to the overall waterbird population. The bycatch rates were computed based on surveys conducted in the winter seasons of 2013/2014 and 2014/2015, involving observers onboard fishing vessels in water bodies within the PEEZ, including Kamień Lagoon, Szczecin Lagoon, Pomeranian Bay, and Puck Bay. These study sites were selected to represent the entire Polish fishery, encompassing areas with high, medium, and no observed bycatch [24].
2.4. Setting the threshold values
To establish a benchmark for "zero bycatch," BirdLife International [39] proposed a threshold of 1% of the natural annual adult mortality. This acknowledges that even with the implementation of effective mitigation measures, it is likely that a small number of seabirds will still be incidentally caught. The 1% threshold is based on legal interpretations by the European Court of Justice regarding the concept of "small numbers" as defined in the EU Birds Directive and EU guide to sustainable hunting [40]. Since determining the exact natural annual adult mortality for most species in the presence of anthropogenic causes is challenging, it is more practical to use the total annual adult mortality as an approximation. The annual adult mortality (m) is calculated from the survival rates (s) using the equation:
m = 1 - s
Species-specific survival values for adult individuals, which are necessary for calculating mortality across all bird species, can be found in the literature, such as Bird et al. [41]. The species-specific threshold value (SST) is then estimated by multiplying the estimated population size (N) in the evaluation area by the species-specific annual adult mortality rate (m) and 1%:
In this equation represents the estimated population size, and m denotes the annual mortality rate of adults for the species or population.
3. Results
In total, within the Gotland subdivision of the Polish Exclusive Economic Zone (PEEZ), the estimated abundance of all diving waterbirds averaged 207,114 individuals yearly over the seasons from 2015/16 to 2019/20. During these seasons, the average bycatch estimates reached 7,921 birds annually, accounting for 3.8% of the total. Among the species, the Velvet Scoter (Melanitta fusca) was the most abundant, with an average of 92,177 individuals (average bycatch = 3,504). The Long-tailed Duck (Clangula hyemalis) ranked second in abundance, with an average of 52,262 individuals observed throughout the study period (average bycatch = 2,027; Table 2). Benthivorous ducks dominated among all ecological groups and constituted 82.2% of the total bird population in the area.
For the Bornholm subdivision within the Polish Exclusive Economic Zone (PEEZ), the estimated abundance of all diving waterbirds averaged 600,845 individuals yearly over the seasons from 2015/16 to 2019/20. The average bycatch for these seasons amounted to 5,056 birds annually, which corresponds to 0.8% of the total population. Among the species, the Long-tailed Duck was the most numerous, with an average of 347,654 individuals (average bycatch = 2,915). The Velvet Scoter ranked second in abundance, with an average of 149,158 individuals observed throughout the study period (average bycatch = 1,213; Table 3). Benthivorous ducks dominated among all ecological groups and constituted 94.2% of the total bird population in the area.
Table 4.
Gotland, 1% threshold of mean wintering population abundance in Polish part of Gotland subdivision with an indication whether the threshold values have been exceeded or not. Mortality rate was taken from Bird et al. 2020.
Table 4.
Gotland, 1% threshold of mean wintering population abundance in Polish part of Gotland subdivision with an indication whether the threshold values have been exceeded or not. Mortality rate was taken from Bird et al. 2020.
| Species | Mortality rate | SST / Bycatch | Achievement (A) or failure (F) of threshold values | Helcom Red List Status |
| Velvet Scoter | 0.21 | 194 / 3,504 | F | Endangered |
| Long-tailed Duck | 0.25 | 131 / 2,027 | F | Endangered |
| Tufted Duck | 0.29 | 46 / 574 | F | Near Threatened |
| Greater Scaup | 0.26 | 15 / 216 | F | Vulnurable |
| Common Scoter | 0.22 | 10 / 173 | F | Endangered |
Table 5.
Bornholm, 1% threshold of mean wintering population abundance in Polish part of Bornholm subdivision with an indication whether the threshold values have been exceeded or not. Mortality rate was taken from Bird et al. 2020.
Table 5.
Bornholm, 1% threshold of mean wintering population abundance in Polish part of Bornholm subdivision with an indication whether the threshold values have been exceeded or not. Mortality rate was taken from Bird et al. 2020.
| Species | Mortality rate | SST / Bycatch | Achievement (A) or failure (F) of threshold values | Helcom Red List Status |
| Long-tailed Duck | 0.25 | 869 / 2,915 | F | Endangered |
| Velvet Scoter | 0.21 | 313 / 1,213 | F | Endangered |
| Common Scoter | 0.22 | 68 / 260 | F | Endangered |
| Greater Scaup | 0.26 | 59 / 204 | F | Vulnurable |
| Tufted Duck | 0.29 | 46 / 133 | F | Near Threatened |
4. Discussion
As indicated by the Results, none of the assessed species have achieved a favorable status. The threshold value set by HELCOM as the core indicator in the holistic assessment of the ecosystem health of the Baltic Sea [30], following the recommendations of BirdLife International and HELCOM/OSPAR experts, which is based on a 1% adult mortality threshold (SST), has been exceeded for each species and within each HELCOM subdivision.
It is important to note that the assessment was conducted using average population sizes (2016-2020) observed exclusively in the Polish part of each subdivision, along with the corresponding estimated bycatch. The Bornholm subdivision exhibited higher bird abundances (Table 2 and Table 3), while the bycatch rates were relatively lower compared to the Gotland subdivision (3.8% vs. 0.8% bycatch relative to abundance). This suggests that the Polish part of the Gotland subdivision experiences a higher density of fishing nets and greater fishing intensity compared to the Bornholm subdivision. The most significant hotspots where large concentrations of birds overlap with intense fishing activities in the Polish part of the Gotland subdivision are the Gulf of Gdańsk and Vistula Lagoon. In the Polish part of the Bornholm subdivision, the Odra Estuary, southern Pomeranian Bay, and the vicinity of Kołobrzeg are the key areas of concern [4].
It is worth noting that fishing effort in the Polish EEZ has decreased in recent years due to EU regulations prohibiting cod fishing. These regulations are expected to reduce bird bycatch, as cod nets were responsible for a significant portion of bird bycatch in Polish sea waters [24].
The findings of this article clearly indicate that bycatch poses a significant threat to seabird populations. While there is an obligation to monitor bycatch, not all countries regularly conduct such studies [4], and the available official reports often significantly underestimate the magnitude of the problem [23]. Therefore, there is a need to develop a methodology that enables the assessment of bycatch scale indirectly, using the available data.
Within this analysis, various aspects were considered, including the fishing effort declared by fishermen, data on the abundance and distribution of seabirds, and bycatch rates calculated based on local surveys [15,24]. However, several important factors should be taken into account in the context of the discussed results.
Firstly, it is crucial to have systematic monitoring of bycatch by governments and fisheries management institutions [42]. Only through regular studies will we have a comprehensive understanding of the problem's scale and be able to take appropriate actions for the protection of seabirds.
Secondly, it is important for fishermen to report cases of bycatch. Currently, it is often the case that fishermen do not include incidental catches in their declarations and discard them [43], leading to an underestimation of the magnitude of the problem [25]. Therefore, educational, and awareness-raising efforts are necessary to increase fishermen's understanding of the impacts of incidental bird catches and to encourage them to report such incidents [44].
Another significant point to consider is the need to increase efforts in seabird conservation and implement effective measures to reduce bycatch [45]. The adoption of innovative technological solutions and bird-friendly fishing practices can contribute to the reduction of incidental captures and minimize the impact of fishing activities on seabird populations [46].
Furthermore, further research is warranted to gain a better understanding of the factors influencing bycatch and to develop effective management strategies [47]. Studies focusing on the effectiveness of bycatch mitigation measures, the identification of high-risk areas, and the assessment of the long-term impact of bycatch on seabird populations would be valuable contributions to the field [6,15].
To summarize, tackling the problem of seabird bycatch necessitates a collective endeavor involving governmental entities, fisheries management institutions, fishermen, and researchers [48]. Through the establishment of consistent monitoring practices, encouragement of reporting mechanisms, and implementation of impactful conservation measures, we can strive to minimize the repercussions of bycatch and safeguard the enduring existence of seabird populations in our marine environments.
5. Conclusion
This article should not be interpreted as an endorsement for governments of countries obligated to monitor bycatch to disregard such monitoring. On the contrary, regular monitoring should be carried out as it provides direct data on bycatch. However, the objective of this article is to encourage the reporting of bycatch scale using indirect data in situations where direct monitoring is unavailable. The intention is not to exploit the absence of bycatch monitoring as a means to avoid reporting bird mortality in fishing nets and, in turn, neglect the assessment of fishing's impact on the conservation status of marine avian species.
Author Contributions
The publication is single authored.
Funding
The research was carried out as part of the statutory activities of the Museum and Institute of Zoology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Data are available from the author upon request.
Acknowledgments
The data used to create this publication was collected through government monitoring programs, specifically the Fisheries Monitoring Center for fishing effort data, and the Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection for Monitoring Wintering Waterbirds and Wintering Waterbirds of Transitional Waters.
Conflicts of Interest
The author declare that he has no known competing financial interest or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
- Lewison, R.L.; Crowder, L.B.; Read, A.J.; Freeman, S.A. Understanding impacts of fisheries bycatch on marine megafauna. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2004, 19, 598–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewison, R.L. , Crowder L.B., Wallace B.P., Moore J.E., Cox T., Žydelis R., McDonald S., Di Matteo A., Dunn D.C., Kot C.Y. Global patterns of marine mammal, seabird, and sea turtle bycatch reveal taxa-specific and cumulative megafauna hotspots. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 2014, 111, 5271–5276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moore, J.E. , Wallace B.P., Lewison R.L., Žydelis R., Cox T.M., Crowder L.B. A review of marine mammal, sea turtle and seabird bycatch in USA fisheries and the role of policy in shaping management. Mar. Pol., 2009, 33, 435–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marchowski, D. Bycatch of Seabirds in the Polish Part of the Southern Baltic Sea in 1970–2018: A Review. Acta Ornithologica, 2021, 56, 139–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Croxall, J.; Butchart, S.; Lascelles, B.; Stattersfield, A.; Sullivan, B.; Symes, A.; Taylor, P. Seabird conservation status, threats, and priority actions: A global assessment. Bird Conservation International, 2012, 22, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marchowski, D. , Jankowiak, J., Ławicki, Ł., Wysocki, Ł., Chylarecki, P. Fishery bycatch is among the most important threats to the European population of Greater Scaup Aythya marila. Bird Conservation International, 2020, 30, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernotat, D.; Dierschke, V. Übergeordnete Kriterien zur Bewertung der Mortalität wildlebender Tiere im Rahmen von Projekten und Eingriffen Teil I: Rechtliche und methodische Grundlagen 4. Fassung, 2021. Stand 31.08.2021, 2021.
- Northridge, S.P. Driftnet Fisheries and Their Impacts on Non-target Species: A Worldwide Review. Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, London, UK, 1991.
- Žydelis, R.; Small, C.; French, G. The incidental catch of seabirds in gillnet fisheries: A global review. Biological Conservation, 2013, 162, 76–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marchowski, D. , Leitner, M. Conservation implications of extraordinary Greater Scaup (Aythya marila) concentrations in the Odra Estuary, Poland. Condor 2019, 121, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grimm, P. Die Stellnetzfischerei als eine wichtige Form nicht nur der ornithofaunistischen Nachweisführung. Naturschutzarbeit in Mecklenburg, 1985, 28, 104–106. [Google Scholar]
- Mentjes, T. , Gabriel, O. Technical possibilities to reduce duck bycatches in winter cod fishery with static gear. Informationen für die Fischwirtschaft aus der Fischereiforschung, 1999, 46, 36–41. [Google Scholar]
- Schirmeister, B. Verluste von Wasservögeln in Stellnetzen der Küstenfischerei – das Beispiel der Insel Usedom. Meer und Museum, 2003, 17, 160–166. [Google Scholar]
- Žydelis, R.; Bellebaum, J.; Österblom, H.; Vetemaa, M.; Schirmeister, B.; Stipniece, A.; et al. Bycatch in gillnet fisheries—an overlooked threat to waterbird populations. Biological Conservation, 2009, 142, 1269–1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bellebaum, J.; Schirmeister, B.; Sonntag, N.; Garthe, S. Decreasing but still high: bycatch of seabirds in gillnet fisheries along the German Baltic coast. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 2012, 23, 210–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marchowski, D. , Jankowiak, Ł., Ławicki, Ł., Wysocki, Ł. Waterbird counts on large water bodies: comparing ground and aerial methods during different ice conditions. PeerJ, 2018, 6, e5195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marchowski, D. , Ławicki, Ł., Fox, A.D., Nielsen, R.D., Petersen, I.K., Hornman, M., Nilsson, L., Haas, F. Wahl, J., Kieckbusch, J., Nehls, H.W., Calbrade, N., Hearn, R., Meissner, W., Fitzgerald, N., Luigujoe, L., Zenatello, M., Gaudard, C., Koschinski, S. Effectiveness of the European Natura 2000 network to sustain a specialist wintering waterbird population in the face of climate change. Scientific Reports 2020, 10, 20286. [Google Scholar]
- Durinck, J.; Skov, H.; Jansen, F.P.; Pihl, S. Important Marine Areas for Wintering Birds in the Baltic Sea. Ornis Consult Report, EU DG XI Research Contract No. 2242/90-09-01, 1994.
- Skov, H.; Heinänen, S.; Žydelis, R.; Bellebaum, J.; Bzoma, S.; Dagys, M.; et al. Waterbird Populations and Pressures in the Baltic Sea. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, 2011.
- Martin, J.I. Fishery in Poland. European Parliament, Brussels. IP/B/PECH/NT/2011_02, PE 460.037, 2011.
- BirdLife International. Melanitta fusca. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020: e.T22724836A183801134. 2020. Available online: https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-3.RLTS.T22724836A183801134.en. (accessed on 11 May 2023).
- IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2022-2. 2023. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org.
- Morkūnas, J., S. Oppel, M. Bružas, Y. Rouxel, R. Morkūnė, and D. Mitchell. 2022. Seabird bycatch in a Baltic coastal gillnet fishery is orders of magnitude larger than official reports. Avian Conservation and Ecology, 2022, 17, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Psuty, I.; Szymanek, L.; Całkiewicz, J.; Dziemian, Ł.; Ameryk, A.; Ramutkowski, M.; et al. Developing the basis for rational monitoring of by-catch of birds for sustainable management of coastal fishing in the marine areas of NATURA 2000. Morski Instytut Rybacki - Państwowy Instytut Badawczy, Gdynia, Poland, 2017.
- Psuty, I.; Całkiewicz, J. Natural and social science approaches are both needed to manage bird bycatch in small-scale fisheries. Aquatic Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 2021, 31, 3507–3525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chodkiewicz, T.; Chylarecki, P.; Sikora, A.; Wardecki, Ł.; Bobrek, R.; Neubauer, G.; Marchowski, D.; Dmoch, A.; Kuczyński, L. Report on the implementation of Art. 12 of the Birds Directive in Poland in 2013-2018: status, changes, threats. Biuletyn Monitoringu Przyrody, 2019, 20, 1–80. [Google Scholar]
- Dagys, M.; Žydelis, R.; Stipniece, A.; Minde, A.; Vetemaa, M. Action C1 – Assessing and reducing impact of fishery by-catch on species of community interest, FINAL REPORT. LIFE Nature project “Marine Protected Areas in the Eastern Baltic Sea” Reference number: LIFE 05 NAT/LV/000100, 2009.
- Field, R.; Crawford, R.; Eneverc, R.; Linkowski, T.; Martin, G.; Morkūnas, J.; Morkūnė, R.; Rouxel, Y.; Oppela, S. High contrast panels and lights do not reduce bird bycatch in Baltic Sea gillnet fisheries. Global Ecology and Conservation, 2019, 18, e00602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- HELCOM. HELCOM Red List of Baltic Sea species in danger of becoming extinct. Balt. Sea Environ. No. 140. Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission – Helsinki Commission, Helsinki, 2013.
- HELCOM. Number of drowned mammals and waterbirds in fishing gear. HELCOM core indicator report. Online. [2023.05.11]. ISSN 2343-2543, 2023.
- Meissner, W. , Rydzkowski, P. Wintering of waterfowl in the Bay of Gdańsk in the season 2005/2006. Notatki Ornitologiczne, 2007, 48, 143–147. [Google Scholar]
- Chodkiewicz, T.; Neubauer, G.; Meissner, W.; Sikora, A.; Chylarecki, P.; Woźniak, B.; Bzoma, S.; Brewka, B.; Rubacha, S.; Kus, K.; Rohde, Z.; Cenian, Z.; Wieloch, M.; Zielińska, M.; Zieliński, P.; Kajtoch, Ł.; Szałański, P.; Betleja, J. Monitoring of Polish birds in 2010–2012. Biuletyn Monitoringu Przyrody, 2012, 9, 1–44. [Google Scholar]
- Komdeur, J.; Bertelsen, J.; Cracnell, G. Manual for Aeroplane and Ship Surveys of waterfowl and Seabirds. IWRB Special Publication No. 19, Slimbridge, 1992.
- Wetlands International. Guidance on waterbird monitoring methodology: Field protocol for waterbird counting. Wetlands International, Wageningen. 2010. Available online: http://www.wetlands.org.
- Ronconi, R.A.; Burger, A.E. Estimating seabird densities from vessel transects: distance sampling and implications for strip transects. Aquatic Biology, 2009, 4, 297–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spurr, E.B.; Borkin, K.M.; Drew, K.W. Line-transect distance sampling compared with fixed-width strip-transect counts for assessing tomtit (Petroica macrocephala) population trends. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 2012, 36, 365–370. [Google Scholar]
- Burnham, K. P.; Anderson, D. R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach, 2nd ed. Springer-Verlag, New York, USA, 2002.
- Miller, D.L. , Rexstad E., ThomasL., Marshall L., Laake J.L. Distance Sampling in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 2019, 89, 1–28. [Google Scholar]
- BirdLife International. BirdLife position on Good Environmental Status threshold criteria for Descriptor 1: seabird bycatch and population abundance. Brussels. 2019. Available online: https://tiny.pl/9fc3n.
- European Commission. Guidance document on hunting under Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds “The Birds Directive”. 2008. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/hunting/docs/hunting_guide_en.pdf.
- Bird, J.P. , Martin R., Akçakaya H.R., Gilroy J., Burfield I.J., Garnett S.T., Symes A., Taylor J., Şekercioğlu Ç.H. and Butchart, S.H.M. 2020. Generation lengths of the world's birds and their implications for extinction risk. Conservation Biology, 2020, 34, 1252–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamel, N.J.; Burger, A.E.; Charleton, K.; Davidson, P.; Lee, S.; Bertram, D.F.; Parrish, J.K. Bycatch and beached birds: assessing mortality impacts in coastal net fisheries using marine bird strandings. Marine Ornithology, 2009, 37, 41–60. [Google Scholar]
- Harrington, J.M.; Myers, R.A.; Rosenberg, A.A. Wasted fishery resources: discarded by-catch in the USA. Fish and Fishery, 2005, 6, 350–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piovano, S.; Basciano, G.; Swimmer, Y.; Giacoma, C. Evaluation of a bycatch reduction technology by fishermen: A case study from Sicily. Marine Policy, 2012, 36, 272–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marchowski, D. , Ławicki, Ł., Kaliciuk, J. Management of Marine Natura 2000 Sites as Exemplified by Seabirds Wintering in the Baltic Sea: The Case of Poland. Diversity, 2022, 14, 1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O'Keefe, C.E.; Cadrin, S.X.; Glemarec, G.; Rouxel, Y. Efficacy of Time-Area Fishing Restrictions and Gear-Switching as Solutions for Reducing Seabird Bycatch in Gillnet Fisheries. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, 2023, 31, 29–46. [Google Scholar]
- Komoroske, L.M.; Lewison, R.L. Addressing fisheries bycatch in a changing world. Frontiers in Marine Science, 2015, 2. [CrossRef]
- Trouwborst, A. Seabird Bycatch—Deathbed Conservation or a Precautionary and Holistic Approach? Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, 2009, 11, 293–333. [Google Scholar]
Table 1.
Bycatch rates based on studies carried out in the Polish waters of the Baltic Sea in the winter seasons of 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 (according to Psuty et al. 2017, [24]). Bycaught birds/1000 NMD: number of bycaught birds per 1000 nets * metres * days.
Table 1.
Bycatch rates based on studies carried out in the Polish waters of the Baltic Sea in the winter seasons of 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 (according to Psuty et al. 2017, [24]). Bycaught birds/1000 NMD: number of bycaught birds per 1000 nets * metres * days.
| Type of static nets | By-caught birds/1000 NMD (95% CI) |
| Cod, flounder, and turbot gillnets/trammel nets | 0.221 (0.218 – 0.225) |
| Herring, perch, roach, garfish and spart gillnets | 0.227 (0.217 – 0.238) |
| Zander and bream gillnets | 0.651 (0.447 – 1.386) |
| Trout, salmon, pike and whitefish gillnets and one-side anchored nets (i.e. semi-driftnets) | 0.279 (0.250 – 0.309) |
Table 2.
The most abundant diving bird species present in the bycatch in the Polish part of Gotland subdivision, their abundance, and the scale of the bycatch (mean and confidence intervals). Mean for the seasons 2015/16 – 2019/20.
Table 2.
The most abundant diving bird species present in the bycatch in the Polish part of Gotland subdivision, their abundance, and the scale of the bycatch (mean and confidence intervals). Mean for the seasons 2015/16 – 2019/20.
| Species | Abundance | Bycatch mean | Bycatch 95%CI- | Bycatch 95%CI+ |
| Velvet Scoter | 92,177 | 3,504 | 2,816 | 5,776 |
| Long-tailed Duck | 52,262 | 2,027 | 1,639 | 3,294 |
| Tufted Duck | 15,908 | 574 | 463 | 941 |
| Greater Scaup | 5,682 | 216 | 175 | 349 |
| Common Scoter | 4,303 | 173 | 139 | 288 |
Table 3.
The most abundant diving bird species present in the bycatch in the Polish part of Bornholm subdivision, their abundance, and the scale of the bycatch (mean and confidence intervals). Mean for the seasons 2015/16 – 2019/20.
Table 3.
The most abundant diving bird species present in the bycatch in the Polish part of Bornholm subdivision, their abundance, and the scale of the bycatch (mean and confidence intervals). Mean for the seasons 2015/16 – 2019/20.
| Species | Abundance | Bycatch mean | Bycatch 95%CI- | Bycatch 95%CI+ |
| Long-tailed Duck | 347,653 | 2,915 | 2,525 | 3,423 |
| Velvet Scoter | 149,158 | 1,213 | 1,038 | 1,367 |
| Common Scoter | 30,761 | 260 | 225 | 328 |
| Greater Scaup | 22,724 | 204 | 174 | 227 |
| Tufted Duck | 15,906 | 133 | 110 | 135 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Advances in Scale Assessment of Seabird Bycatch: A New Methodological Framework
Dominik Marchowski
,
2023
Management of Marine Natura 2000 Sites as Exemplified by Seabirds Wintering in the Baltic Sea: The Case of Poland
Dominik Marchowski
et al.
,
2022
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated