Follow-up study after four years shows reduced deterrence effect of pingers on harbour porpoises in Norwegian gillnet fishery

André Moan; Arne Bjørge

doi:10.7557/3.8004

Authors

André Moan Institute of Marine Research https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9506-2949
Arne Bjørge Institute of Marine Research https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2626-2071

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7557/3.8004

Keywords:

By-catch, Fisheries interactions, Pingers, Marine mammals, Small cetaceans, Harbour porpoise

Abstract

We report results from follow-up field trials testing acoustic deterrents (pingers) as a measure to reduce harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) by-catch rates in coastal gillnet fisheries in Norway. Twelve gillnet fishers conducted a total of 308 fishing trips, fishing with and without pingers in alternating weeks between January and April 2024. Harbour porpoises were by-caught in both pingered (9 porpoises) and control nets (25 porpoises), with most (~73%) taken in control nets. Average by-catch rates were calculated using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) approach. The average harbour porpoise by-catch rate was estimated at 0.061 (95% CI 0.034 – 0.098) porpoises per net km day in control nets and 0.031 (95% CI 0.011 – 0.060) porpoises per net km day in pingered nets. This shows that the by-catch rate in pingered nets was about 50% lower than in control nets (95% CI 0 – 83%). This estimate is lower (i.e. the pinger effect size is smaller) than a directly comparable study (Moan & Bjørge, 2023). Possible causes include limited sample size, the use of bait bags to attach pingers to the nets, reporting biases, and/or desensitisation/habituation of porpoises to the pinger sounds. Extra time use due to pingers was low, about two minutes per haul. The use of bait bags seems to have mitigated some, but not all the practical issues reported earlier. The pooled pinger effect size estimate using data from both Moan and Bjørge (2023) and the present study, was estimated at 72% (95% CI 44 – 89%).

References

Babcock, E. A., Pikitch, E. K., & Hudson, C. G. (2003). How much observer coverage is enough to adequately estimate bycatch? Pew Institute of Ocean Science Miami, FL. https://oceana.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/BabcockPikitchGray2003FinalReport1.pdf

Brooks, M., Bolker, B., Kristensen, K., Maechler, M., Magnusson, A., McGillycuddy, M., . . . van Bentham, K. (2017). glmmTMB Balances Speed and Flexibility Among Packages for Zero-inflated Generalized Linear Mixed Modeling. The R Journal, 1(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2017-066

Cao, Y., Williams, D. D., & Larsen, D. P. (2002). Comparison of ecological communities: The problem of sample representativeness. Ecological Monographs, 72(1), 41-56. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9615(2002)072[0041:COECTP]2.0.CO;2

Carlström, J., Berggren, P., & Tregenza, N. J. (2009). Spatial and temporal impact of pingers on porpoises. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 66(1), 72-82.https://doi.org/10.1139/F08-186

Carretta, J. V., & Barlow, J. (2011). Long-Term Effectiveness, Failure Rates, and "Dinner Bell" Properties of Acoustic Pingers in a Gillnet Fishery. Marine Technology Society Journal, 45(5), 7-19. https://doi.org/10.4031/MTSJ.45.5.3

Cox, T. M., Read, A. J., Solow, A., & Tregenza, N. (2001). Will harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) habituate to pingers? J. Cetacean Res. Manage., 3(1), 81-86. https://doi.org/10.47536/jcrm.v3i1.904

Dawson, S. M., Northridge, S., Waples, D., & Read, A. J. (2013). To ping or not to ping: the use of active acoustic devices in mitigating interactions between small cetaceans and gillnet fisheries. Endangered Species Research, 19(3), 201-221.https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00464

Fiskeridirektoratet. (2021). Evaluering av bruk av pingere i Vestfjorden i 2021. https://www.fiskeridir.no/rapporter/evaluering-av-bruk-av-pingere-i-vestfjorden-i-2021

IJsseldijk, L. L., Scheidat, M., Siemensma, M. L., Couperus, B., Leopold, M. F., Morell, M., . . . Kik, M. J. L. (2021). Challenges in the Assessment of Bycatch: Postmortem Findings in Harbor Porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) Retrieved From Gillnets. Veterinary Pathology, 58(2), 405-415. https://doi.org/10.1177/0300985820972454

Kindt-Larsen, L., Brooks, M. E., & Glemarec, G. (2025). Mind the Gap-Pinger Spacing and Sound Levels Influence Bycatch Rates of Harbour Porpoises. SSRN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5115164

Kyhn, L. A., Jørgensen, P. B., Carstensen, J., Bech, N. I., Tougaard, J., Dabelsteen, T., & Teilmann, J. (2015). Pingers cause temporary habitat displacement in the harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 526, 253-265. http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps11181

Königson, S., Naddafi, R., Hedgärde, M., Pettersson, A., Östman, Ö., Benavente Norrman, E., & Amundin, M. (2022). Will harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) be deterred by a pinger that cannot be used as a “dinner bell” by seals? Marine Mammal Science, 38(2), 469-485. https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12880

Leonard, D., & Øien, N. (2019). Estimated abundances of cetacean species in the Northeast Atlantic from Norwegian shipboard surveys conducted in 2014–2018. NAMMCO Scientific Publications, 11. https://doi.org/10.7557/3.4694

Lowry, N., & Teilmann, J. (1994). Bycatch and bycatch reduction of the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in Danish waters. In W. F. Perrin (Ed.), Gillnets and cetaceans (pp. 203-209). International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee.

Lüdecke, D. (2018). ggeffects: Tidy data frames of marginal effects from regression models. Journal of Open Source Software, 3(26), 772. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00772

Lüdecke, D., Ben-Shachar, M. S., Patil, I., Waggoner, P., & Makowski, D. (2021). performance: An R package for assessment, comparison and testing of statistical models. Journal of Open Source Software, 6(60). https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.03139#

Mazerolle, M. J. (2020). AICcmodavg: Model selection and multimodel inference based on (Q) AIC (c). R package version, 2.3.3(1). https://cran.r-project.org/package=AICcmodavg

Moan, A. (2023). Bycatches of harbour porpoises in Norwegian coastal gillnet fisheries: implications for management and conservation. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Oslo]. UiO DUO Research Archive. https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/101072

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, J. H., & 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, 77(7-8), 3039-3049. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsaa186

Morizur, Y., Le Niliot, P., Buanic, M., & Pianalto, S. (2009). Expérimentations de répulsifs acoustiques commerciaux sur les filets fixes à baudroies en mer d’Iroise. IFREMER, Issyles-Moulineaux.http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/2009/rapport-6864.pdf

NAMMCO. (2022). Report of the Scientific Committee Working Group on Harbour Porpoise. November 2022. Retrieved from https://nammco.no/scientific-working-group-reports/

Omeyer, L. C. M., Doherty, P. D., Dolman, S., Enever, R., Reese, A., Tregenza, N., . . . Godley, B. J. (2020). Assessing the Effects of Banana Pingers as a Bycatch Mitigation Device for Harbour Porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). Frontiers in Marine Science, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00285

Palka, D. L., Rossman, M. C., VanAtten, A. S., & Orphanides, C. D. (2008). Effect of pingers on harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) bycatch in the US Northeast gillnet fishery. Journal of Cetacean Research Management, 10(3), 217-226. https://doi.org/10.47536/jcrm.v10i3.638

Pinn, E. H. (2023). Porpoises, by-catch and the ‘pinger’ conundrum. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 33(11), 1360-1368. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.4004

Williams, R., Burgess, M. G., Ashe, E., Gaines, S. D., & Reeves, R. R. (2016). U.S. seafood import restriction presents opportunity and risk. Science, 354(6318), 1372-1374. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aai8222