Fish aggregating devices (FADs) as scientific platforms

Abstract Fish aggregating devices (FADs) are floating objects used by fishers to aggregate pelagic fish such as tunas, and enhance the catch of these species. Because this is so important for tuna fisheries, nearly 100,000 FADs are deployed by fishers every year in the world's tropical oceans. Fishers use geo-locating buoys to track and maintain these FADs by visiting them regularly, reinforcing them if they are weak or replacing them. Many of these buoys are now equipped with echo-sounders in order to provide remote information on the aggregated biomass. FADs are currently only used for fishing purposes but they can also serve scientific objectives. In this paper, we investigate the potential of these data for improving our knowledge on the ecology of tunas and other pelagic animals as well as to obtain fishery-independent indices of distribution and abundance. These FADs also represent platforms for scientists to deploy scientific instruments, such as electronic tag receivers, cameras and hydrophones. Because FADs naturally aggregate several pelagic species other than tuna, these instrumented FADs can be a unique opportunity to observe pelagic ecosystem dynamics that are not possible from conventional research vessels. The amount of cost-effective data that they can provide would make a significant contribution to the scientific understanding of pelagic ecosystems. This information is vital for improved conservation and management of pelagic fisheries.

[1]  K. Holland,et al.  Different residence times of yellowfin tuna, Thunnus albacares, and bigeye tuna, T. obesus, found in mixed aggregations over a seamount , 1999 .

[2]  K. Anraku,et al.  Association of early juvenile yellowfin tuna Thunnus albacares with a network of payaos in the Philippines , 2011, Fisheries Science.

[3]  Kurt M. Schaefer,et al.  Vertical movements, behavior, and habitat of bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) in the equatorial eastern Pacific Ocean, ascertained from archival tag data , 2010 .

[4]  A. Punt,et al.  Standardizing catch and effort data: a review of recent approaches , 2004 .

[5]  Tim Dempster,et al.  Temporal variability of pelagic fish assemblages around fish aggregation devices : biological and physical influences , 2005 .

[6]  Jean-Louis Deneubourg,et al.  Size-dependent behavior of tuna in an array of fish aggregating devices (FADs) , 2012 .

[7]  H. Lotze,et al.  Predator diversity hotspots in the blue ocean , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[8]  Olav Rune Godø,et al.  Towards an acoustic‐based coupled observation and modelling system for monitoring and predicting ecosystem dynamics of the open ocean , 2013 .

[9]  E. Cillaurren.  Daily fluctuations in the presence of Thunnus albacares and Katsuwonus pelamis around fish aggregating devices anchored in Vanuatu, Oceania , 1995 .

[10]  J. Deneubourg,et al.  Intra-individual behavioral variability displayed by tuna at fish aggregating devices (FADs) , 2013 .

[11]  Hannah M Murphy,et al.  Observational methods used in marine spatial monitoring of fishes and associated habitats: a review , 2010 .

[12]  L. Nøttestad,et al.  Evidence that whales (Balaenoptera borealis) visit drifting fish aggregating devices: do their presence affect the processes underlying fish aggregation? , 2012 .

[13]  L. Dagorn,et al.  First field-based experiment supporting the meeting point hypothesis for schooling in pelagic fish , 2009, Animal Behaviour.

[14]  J. Fromentin,et al.  Association between bluefin tuna schools and oceanic features in the western Mediterranean , 2004 .

[15]  Gavin Fay,et al.  Fleet dynamics and fishermen behavior: lessons for fisheries managers , 2006 .

[16]  Victor Restrepo,et al.  Is it good or bad to fish with FADs? What are the real impacts of the use of drifting FADs on pelagic marine ecosystems? , 2013 .

[17]  Emmanuel Chassot,et al.  How many Fish Aggregating Devices are currently drifting in the Indian Ocean? Combining sources of information to provide a reliable estimate. , 2014 .

[18]  B. Morales-Nin,et al.  Fish communities associated with FADs , 1999 .

[19]  J. Castro,et al.  A general theory on fish aggregation to floating objects: An alternative to the meeting point hypothesis , 2002, Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries.

[20]  Jon Lopez,et al.  Evolution and current state of the technology of echo-sounder buoys used by Spanish tropical tuna purse seiners in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans , 2014 .

[21]  Chris Field,et al.  Mapping species richness and human impact drivers to inform global pelagic conservation prioritisation , 2011 .

[22]  Emmanuel Chassot,et al.  Bycatch of the European purse seine tuna fishery in the Atlantic Ocean for the 2003-2007 period , 2010 .

[23]  David Itano,et al.  Characterizing fish communities associated with drifting fish aggregating devices (FADs) in the Western Indian Ocean using underwater visual surveys , 2007 .

[24]  L. Dubroca,et al.  Mortality of marine megafauna induced by fisheries: Insights from the whale shark, the world’s largest fish , 2014 .

[25]  M. Lutcavage,et al.  Understanding Environmental Influences on Movements and Depth Distributions of Tunas and Billfishes Can Significantly Improve Population Assessments , 2001 .

[26]  M. Kingsford.  Biotic and abiotic structure in the pelagic environment: importance to small fishes : Larval fish assemblages and oceanic boundaries , 1993 .

[27]  L. Dagorn,et al.  Visual censuses around drifting fish aggregating devices (FADs): a new approach for assessing the diversity of fish in open-ocean waters , 2008 .

[28]  Jean-Louis Deneubourg,et al.  Looking behind the curtain: quantifying massive shark mortality in fish aggregating devices , 2013 .

[29]  Pierre Fréon,et al.  Dynamics of pelagic fish distribution and behaviour : effects on fisheries and stock assessment , 1999 .

[30]  E. Romanov.  Bycatch in the tuna purse-seine fisheries of the western Indian Ocean , 2002 .

[31]  I. Ohta,et al.  Periodic behavior and residence time of yellowfin and bigeye tuna associated with fish aggregating devices around Okinawa Islands, as identified with automated listening stations , 2005 .

[32]  Patrice Brehmer,et al.  Echotrace classification and spatial distribution of pelagic fish aggregations around drifting fish aggregating devices (DFAD) , 2007 .

[33]  David Itano,et al.  Fish behaviour from fishers' knowledge: the case study of tropical tuna around drifting fish aggregating devices (DFADs) , 2007 .

[34]  J. Deneubourg,et al.  Quantifying the Interplay between Environmental and Social Effects on Aggregated-Fish Dynamics , 2011, PloS one.

[35]  David Itano,et al.  Behavior of yellowfin (Thunnus albacares) and bigeye (T. obesus) tuna in a network of fish aggregating devices (FADs) , 2007 .

[36]  Euan S. Harvey,et al.  Development and validation of a mid-water baited stereo-video technique for investigating pelagic fish assemblages , 2014 .

[37]  J. Hampton,et al.  A critique of the ecosystem impacts of drifting and anchored FADs use by purse-seine tuna fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean , 2013 .

[38]  Frédéric Ménard,et al.  Drifting FADs used in tuna fisheries: an ecological trap? , 2000 .

[39]  Emmanuel Chassot,et al.  Global spatio-temporal patterns in tropical tuna purse seine fisheries on drifting fish aggregating devices (DFADs): Taking a historical perspective to inform current challenges , 2013 .

[40]  D. L. Alverson,et al.  By-Catch: Problems and Solutions , 2000 .

[41]  John David Filmalter,et al.  First Descriptions of the Behavior of Silky Sharks, Carcharhinus Falciformis, Around Drifting Fish Aggregating Devices in the Indian Ocean , 2011 .

[42]  F. Andaloro,et al.  Spatial and temporal changes in the assemblage structure of fishes associated to fish aggregation devices in the Western Mediterranean , 2006 .