ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2024
Simulating drifting fish aggregating device trajectories to identify potential interactions with endangered sea turtles.
Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global impacts of drifting fish aggregating devices on marine protected areas.Science advances · 2026Article
- The global footprint of drifting fish aggregating devices.Science advances · 2025Article
- Simulating drifting fish aggregating device trajectories to identify potential interactions with endangered sea turtles.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purse-seine fishers using drifting fish aggregating devices (dFADs), mainly built with bamboo, plastic buoys, and plastic netting, to aggregate and catch tropical tuna, deploy 46,000-65,000 dFADs per year in the Pacific Ocean. Some of the major concerns associated with this widespread fishing device are potential entanglement of sea turtles and other marine fauna in dFAD netting; marine debris and pollution; and potential ecological damage via stranding on coral reefs, beaches, and other essential habitats for marine fauna. To assess and quantify the potential connectivity (number of dFADs deployed in an area and arriving in another area) between dFAD deployment areas and important oceanic or coastal habitat of critically endangered leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) sea turtles in the Pacific Ocean, we conducted passive-drift Lagrangian experiments with simulated dFAD drift profiles and compared them with known important sea turtle areas. Up to 60% of dFADs from equatorial areas were arriving in essential sea turtle habitats. Connectivity was less when only areas where dFADs are currently deployed were used. Our simulations identified potential regions of dFAD interactions with migration and feeding habitats of the east Pacific leatherback turtle in the tropical southeastern Pacific Ocean; coastal habitats of leatherback and hawksbill in the western Pacific (e.g., archipelagic zones of Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and Solomon Islands); and foraging habitat of leatherback in a large equatorial area south of Hawaii. Additional research is needed to estimate entanglements of sea turtles with dFADs at sea and to quantify the likely changes in connectivity and distribution of dFADs under new management measures, such as use of alternative nonentangling dFAD designs that biodegrade, or changes in deployment strategies, such as shifting locations.
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.