Assessment of Harbour Porpoise Bycatch along the Portuguese and Galician Coast: Insights from Strandings over Two Decades

Simple Summary The Iberian harbour porpoise is currently threatened by accidental captures in fisheries (bycatch). Because monitoring cetacean bycatch is particularly challenging, marine mammal stranding networks may provide important information. Between 2000 and 2020, 756 porpoises washed ashore (stranded) on Portuguese and Galician coastlines. The post-mortem analyses of stranded porpoises revealed that the most representative cause of stranding (46.98% of the analysed porpoises) was fishery interaction and another 10.99% was identified as probable fishery interaction. Combining this information with porpoise annual abundance estimates in Portugal available for the period between 2011 and 2015, an estimated average of 207 porpoises died each year due to bycatch in Portuguese waters alone. This estimate greatly surpassed the maximum annual number of porpoise strandings due to human interactions (22 porpoises) that were predicted to occur without negatively affecting the population in Portuguese waters. To prevent porpoise bycatch in Portugal and Spain, fishing effort management is needed and new activities at sea must be carefully considered. Moreover, appropriate measures directed at the conservation of the Iberian harbour porpoise are crucial to ensure the restoration and survival of the population. Abstract The Iberian harbour porpoise population is small and fisheries bycatch has been described as one of its most important threats. Data on harbour porpoise strandings collected by the Portuguese and Galician stranding networks between 2000 and 2020 are indicative of a recent mortality increase in the western Iberian coast (particularly in northern Portugal). Overall, in Portugal and Galicia, individuals stranded due to confirmed fishery interaction represented 46.98% of all analysed porpoises, and individuals stranded due to probable fishery interaction represented another 10.99% of all analysed porpoises. Considering the Portuguese annual abundance estimates available between 2011 and 2015, it was possible to calculate that an annual average of 207 individuals was removed from the population in Portuguese waters alone, which largely surpasses the potential biological removal (PBR) estimates (22 porpoises, CI: 12–43) for the same period. These results are conservative and bycatch values from strandings are likely underestimated. A structured action plan accounting for new activities at sea is needed to limit the Iberian porpoise population decline. Meanwhile, there is an urgent need for a fishing effort reorganization to directly decrease porpoise mortality.

[1]  Alfredo López,et al.  Harbour Porpoise Abundance in Portugal over a 5-Year Period and Estimates of Potential Distribution , 2022, Animals : an open access journal from MDPI.

[2]  R. Reeves,et al.  Estimating Bycatch Mortality for Marine Mammals: Concepts and Best Practices , 2021, Frontiers in Marine Science.

[3]  M. Fontaine,et al.  Harbor porpoise losing its edges: genetic time series suggests a rapid population decline in Iberian waters over the last 30 years , 2021, bioRxiv.

[4]  A. Read,et al.  Empty promises: The European Union is failing to protect dolphins and porpoises from fisheries by‐catch , 2021, Fish and Fisheries.

[5]  M. Leopold,et al.  Challenges in the Assessment of Bycatch: Postmortem Findings in Harbor Porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) Retrieved From Gillnets , 2020, Veterinary pathology.

[6]  Petri Suuronen,et al.  Monitoring and managing fisheries discards: New technologies and approaches , 2020 .

[7]  E. Slooten,et al.  Bycatch in gillnet fisheries threatens Critically Endangered small cetaceans and other aquatic megafauna , 2019 .

[8]  M. Pardal,et al.  Water temperature gradient shapes the structure and composition of nearshore marine fish communities in southern Europe , 2019 .

[9]  R. Irizarry ggplot2 , 2019, Introduction to Data Science.

[10]  Kate Robb,et al.  Cetacean biodiversity, spatial and temporal trends based on stranding records (1920-2016), Victoria, Australia , 2019, PloS one.

[11]  Ellen J. Coombs,et al.  What can cetacean stranding records tell us? A study of UK and Irish cetacean diversity over the past 100 years , 2019, Marine Mammal Science.

[12]  J. Otero,et al.  Inferring abundance trends of key species from a highly developed small-scale fishery off NE Atlantic , 2019, Fisheries Research.

[13]  M. Arbelo,et al.  Pathologic findings and causes of death of stranded cetaceans in the Canary Islands (2006-2012) , 2018, PloS one.

[14]  Jeffrey C. Mangel,et al.  Remote electronic monitoring as a potential alternative to on-board observers in small-scale fisheries , 2018 .

[15]  Alfredo López,et al.  Factors driving patterns and trends in strandings of small cetaceans , 2017 .

[16]  W. Dabin,et al.  Small cetacean bycatch as estimated from stranding schemes: The common dolphin case in the northeast Atlantic , 2016 .

[17]  S. Wood,et al.  Smoothing Parameter and Model Selection for General Smooth Models , 2015, 1511.03864.

[18]  W. Dabin,et al.  How much are stranding records affected by variation in reporting rates? A case study of small delphinids in the Bay of Biscay , 2014, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[19]  U. Siebert,et al.  Postglacial climate changes and rise of three ecotypes of harbour porpoises, Phocoena phocoena, in western Palearctic waters , 2014, Molecular ecology.

[20]  W. Dabin,et al.  The contribution of stranding data to monitoring and conservation strategies for cetaceans: Developing spatially explicit mortality indicators for common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) in the eastern North-Atlantic , 2014 .

[21]  Rebecca L. Lewison,et al.  Evaluating sustainability of fisheries bycatch mortality for marine megafauna: a review of conservation reference points for data-limited populations , 2013, Environmental Conservation.

[22]  M. Skern-Mauritzen,et al.  Estimated bycatch of harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in two coastal gillnet fisheries in Norway, 2006–2008. Mitigation and implications for conservation , 2013 .

[23]  P. Jepson,et al.  Criteria and case definitions for serious injury and death of pinnipeds and cetaceans caused by anthropogenic trauma. , 2013, Diseases of aquatic organisms.

[24]  P. Barber,et al.  MARSPEC: ocean climate layers for marine spatial ecology , 2013 .

[25]  R. Reeves,et al.  Marine mammal bycatch in gillnet and other entangling net fisheries, 1990 to 2011 , 2013 .

[26]  F. Larsen,et al.  Observing incidental harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena bycatch by remote electronic monitoring , 2012 .

[27]  W. Dabin,et al.  The significance of stranding data as indicators of cetacean populations at sea: Modelling the drift of cetacean carcasses , 2012 .

[28]  G. Tuck Are bycatch rates sufficient as the principal fishery performance measure and method of assessment for seabirds , 2011 .

[29]  D. Lusseau,et al.  Underestimating the damage: interpreting cetacean carcass recoveries in the context of the Deepwater Horizon/BP incident , 2011 .

[30]  Alain F. Zuur,et al.  A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems , 2010 .

[31]  Hadley Wickham,et al.  ggplot2 - Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (2nd Edition) , 2017 .

[32]  Brendan J. Godley,et al.  Spatio-temporal analysis of cetacean strandings and bycatch in a UK fisheries hotspot , 2008, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[33]  A. Zuur,et al.  Analysing Ecological Data , 2007 .

[34]  M. Stolen,et al.  Book Review: Marine Mammals Ashore: A Field Guide for Strandings (2nd ed.) , 2006, Aquatic Mammals.

[35]  A. Read,et al.  Bycatch of Marine Mammals in U.S. and Global Fisheries , 2006, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[36]  J. Geraci,et al.  Marine Mammals Ashore: A Field Guide for Strandings. Second Edition , 2005 .

[37]  H. Akaike A new look at the statistical model identification , 1974 .

[38]  S. Villasante,et al.  Small-Scale Fisheries in Spain: Diversity and Challenges , 2020 .

[39]  M. Gaspar,et al.  Small-Scale Fisheries in Portugal: Current Situation, Challenges and Opportunities for the Future , 2020 .

[40]  I. Trukhanova,et al.  Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas , 2020, European Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises.

[41]  M. Hartwick,et al.  Discrimination between bycatch and other causes of cetacean and pinniped stranding. , 2018, Diseases of aquatic organisms.

[42]  K. MacLeod,et al.  Estimates of cetacean abundance in European Atlantic waters in summer 2016 from the SCANS-III aerial and shipboard surveys , 2017 .

[43]  F. Read Understanding cetacean and fisheries interactions in the North-west Iberian Peninsula , 2016 .

[44]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[45]  J. Santos,et al.  SAFESEA - Manual de Apoio para a Promoção de uma Pesca Mais Sustentável e de um Mar Seguro para Cetáceos , 2011 .

[46]  COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS , 2009 .

[47]  Paul R. Wade,et al.  CALCULATING LIMITS TO THE ALLOWABLE HUMAN‐CAUSED MORTALITY OF CETACEANS AND PINNIPEDS , 1998 .

[48]  Kamil A. Bekiashev,et al.  International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) , 1981 .