Search References

Brown SL, Reid D, Rogan E (2015) Spatial and temporal assessment of potential risk to cetaceans from static fishing gears. Marine Policy 51:267–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.09.009

Carlström J, Berggren P, Tregenza NJC (2009) Spatial and temporal impact of pingers on porpoises. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 66:72–82. https://doi.org/10.1139/F08-186

Carretta JV, Barlow J, Enriquez L (2008) Acoustic pingers eliminate beaked whale bycatch in a gill net fishery. Marine Mammal Science 24:956–961. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2008.00218.x

Clay T, Alfaro-Shigueto J, Godley B, et al (2019) Pingers reduce the activity of Burmeister’s porpoise around small-scale gillnet vessels. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 626:197–208. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps13063

Cox TM, Lewison RL, Zydelis R, et al (2007) Comparing Effectiveness of Experimental and Implemented Bycatch Reduction Measures: the Ideal and the Real. Conservation Biology 21:1155–1164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00772.x

Dawson S, Northridge S, Waples D, Read A (2013) To ping or not to ping: the use of active acoustic devices in mitigating interactions between small cetaceans and gillnet fisheries. Endang Species Res 19:201–221. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00464

Dolman SJ, Evans PGH, Ritter F, et al (2021) Implications of new technical measures regulation for cetacean bycatch in European waters. Marine Policy 124:104320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104320

Dolman S, Baulch S, Evans PGH, et al (2016) Towards an EU Action Plan on Cetacean Bycatch. Marine Policy 72:67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.06.020

Giménez J, Waggitt JJ, Jessopp M (2023) Identification of priority cetacean areas in the north-east Atlantic using systematic conservation planning. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 33:1571–1579. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.4015

Goetz S, Read FL, Ferreira M, et al (2015) Cetacean occurrence, habitat preferences and potential for cetacean–fishery interactions in Iberian Atlantic waters: results from cooperative research involving local stakeholders. Aquatic Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst 25:138–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2481

ICES (2023) Theme Session C – Managing fisheries bycatch of threatened species. In: ICES Annual Science Conference. Bilbao, Spain

Izquierdo I, Barreiro M, Saavedra C, et al (2023) Bycatch mitigation measures to reduce the impact of fisheries-related mortality of cetaceans in north Spanish gillnet and purse seine fisheries

Jefferson TA, Curry BE (1994) A global review of porpoise (Cetacea: Phocoenidae) mortality in gillnets. Biological Conservation 67:167–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(94)90363-8

Kindt-Larsen L, Glemarec G, Berg CW, et al (2023) Knowing the fishery to know the bycatch: bias-corrected estimates of harbour porpoise bycatch in gillnet fisheries. Proc R Soc B 290:20222570. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2022.2570

Kindt-Larsen L, Berg C, Tougaard J, et al (2016) Identification of high-risk areas for harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena bycatch using remote electronic monitoring and satellite telemetry data. Marine Ecology Progress Series 555:261–271. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11806

Kratzer IMF, Brooks ME, Bilgin S, et al (2021) Using acoustically visible gillnets to reduce bycatch of a small cetacean: first pilot trials in a commercial fishery. Fisheries Research 243:106088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2021.106088

Mangel JC, Alfaro-Shigueto J, Van Waerebeek K, et al (2010) Small cetacean captures in Peruvian artisanal fisheries: High despite protective legislation. Biological Conservation 143:136–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.09.017

Moan A, Bjørge A (2023) Pingers reduce harbour porpoise bycatch in Norwegian gillnet fisheries, with little impact on day-to-day fishing operations. Fisheries Research 259:106564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2022.106564

Moan A, Skern-Mauritzen M, Vølstad JH, Bjørge A (2020) Assessing the impact of fisheries-related mortality of harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) caused by incidental bycatch in the dynamic Norwegian gillnet fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsaa186

Mooney TA, Nachtigall PE, Au WWL (2004) Target Strength of a Nylon Monofilament and an Acoustically Enhanced Gillnet: Predictions of Biosonar Detection Ranges. aquatic mammals 30:220–226. https://doi.org/10.1578/AM.30.2.2004.220

Omeyer LCM, Doherty PD, Dolman S, et al (2020) Assessing the Effects of Banana Pingers as a Bycatch Mitigation Device for Harbour Porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). Front Mar Sci 7:. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00285

Popov DV, Meshkova GD, Hristova PD, et al (2020) Pingers as Cetacean Bycatch Mitigation Measure in Bulgarian Turbot Fishery. Acta Zool Bulg 15:235–242

Rosshagen F (2023) Making nets more acoustically visible. Masters Project, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Senko J, White ER, Heppell SS, Gerber LR (2014) Comparing bycatch mitigation strategies for vulnerable marine megafauna. Anim Conserv 17:5–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12051

Trippel EA, Holy NL, Palka DL, et al (2003) Nylon Barium Sulphate Gillnet Reduces Porpoise and Seabird Mortality. Marine Mammal Sci 19:240–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2003.tb01106.x