Phocoena phocoena (Harbor porpoise)

Displaying 11 - 20 of 35

Study Type: 

Field study in the wild

Location: 

North Sea

Target catch: 

Hake

Effect on bycatch species: 

Pingers spaced at 455 m had 0 bycatch; pingers spaced at 585 m had a bycatch rate of 0.12

Effect on target catch: 

None reported

Article: 

Study Type: 

Field study in the wild

Location: 

Cornwall

Target catch: 

None reported

Effect on bycatch species: 

There was a significant difference in the number of porpoise clicks between nets with and without pingers, but the extent of displacement could not be determined. No evidence of habituation to the pingers.

Effect on target catch: 

None reported

Article: 

Species: 

Phocoena phocoena

Although it is believed that the harbor porpoise population is not seriously in danger at present, incidental catch of the species in gillnets continues to be the primary threat throughout its range (Hammond et al 2008). Off the eastern coast of the US, an estimated 1200 to 2900 harbor porpoises were killed annually in gillnets between 1990 and 1996 (Waring et al 1998). In the North Sea, Danish annual estimates of bycatch ranged from 2867 to 7566 between 1990 and 2002 (Vinther & Larsen 2002).

Distribution: 

Cold temperate to sub-Arctic coastal waters in the Northern Hemisphere

Population: 

>700,000
Photo: Ari Friedlaender

IUCN Status: 

Least Concern

Type: 

Mammal

Bycatch Threat: 

Gillnets and other entangling nets, weirs

Study Type: 

Field study in the wild

Location: 

Cornwall

Target catch: 

Monkfish

Effect on bycatch species: 

One incidentally caught harbor porpoise; significant reduction in the number of porpoise clicks at nets with pingers. Pinger effects stronger at quiet sites; no habituation observed, exclusion of porpoises following pinger use for as much as 7 hrs

Effect on target catch: 

None reported

Article: 

Study Type: 

Field study in the wild

Location: 

Southwest England

Target catch: 

None reported

Effect on bycatch species: 

DDD's caught significantly fewer porpoises but no significant difference in dolphin bycatch was observed

Effect on target catch: 

None reported

Article: 

Study Type: 

Field study in the wild

Location: 

Baltic

Target catch: 

None reported

Effect on bycatch species: 

Pingers significantly reduced echolocation encounter rates by 50-100% at 500m; sighting reduced up to 375m. Porpoise return time was 6 hrs when pingers were silent after being active for 24 hrs 50 min

Effect on target catch: 

None reported

Article: 

Study Type: 

Field study in the wild

Location: 

North Sea

Target catch: 

Cod

Effect on bycatch species: 

Reduced catch rates from 0.00229 and 0.00295 for nets with dummy pingers and no pingers respectively, to 0.00015 for nets with active pingers

Effect on target catch: 

None reported

Article: 

Study Type: 

Field study in the wild

Location: 

Turkey

Target catch: 

turbot fish

Effect on bycatch species: 

Reduced harbor porpoise interactions with gillnet

Effect on target catch: 

Use of pingers did not signficiantly affect catch rates or size of fish caught

Article: 

Pages