ArticlePloS one2024
Exploring odontocete depredation rates in a pelagic longline fishery.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several odontocete species depredate catch and bait from fishing gear, resulting in their bycatch and causing substantial economic costs. There are no known mitigation methods for odontocete depredation in pelagic longline fisheries that are effective, do not harm odontocetes and are commercially viable. Understanding odontocetes' depredation strategies can contribute to mitigating this human-wildlife conflict. Using observer data from the Hawaii-based tuna longline fishery, this study summarized teleost and elasmobranch species-specific mean posterior odontocete depredation rates using a simple Bayesian binomial likelihood estimator with a Bayes-Laplace prior. Depredation rates of species with sufficient sample sizes ranged from a high of 1.2% (1.1 to 1.3 95% highest posterior density interval or HDI) for shortbill spearfish to a low of 0.002% (0.001 to 0.003 95% HDI) for blue shark. Depredation of catch is a rare event in this fishery, occurring in about 6% of sets. When depredation did occur, most frequently odontocetes depredated a small proportion of the catch, however, there was large variability in depredation rates between teleost species. For example, bigeye tuna was two times more likely to be depredated than yellowfin tuna (odds ratio = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.8-2.3, P<0.0001). For sets with depredation, 10% and 2% of sets had depredation of over half of the captured bigeye tuna and combined teleosts, respectively. All elasmobranch species had relatively low depredation rates, where only 7 of almost 0.5M captured elasmobranchs were depredated. Odontocetes selectively depredate a subset of the teleost species captured within sets, possibly based on net energy value, chemical, visual, acoustic and textural characteristics and body size, but not median length, which was found to be unrelated to depredation rate (Pearson's r = 0.14, 95% CI: -0.26 to 0.50, p = 0.49). Study findings provide evidence to support the identification and innovation of effective and commercially viable methods to mitigate odontocete depredation and bycatch.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.