ANALYSIS OF CATCHING EFFICIENCY OF COLLAPSIBLE  SERIAL FISH TRAPS WITH TWO DIFFERENT FUNNELS

S. Mariappan; N. Neethiselven; B. Sundaramoorthy; S. Athithan; T. Ravikumar

doi:10.56093/ijvasr.v49i5.130718

Authors

S. Mariappan Assistant professor (contractual), Department of Fishing Technology and Fisheries Engineering, Dr. MGR Fisheries College and Research Institute, Tamil Nadu Dr. J. Jayalalithaa Fisheries University, Ponneri
N. Neethiselven Director, Directorate of Incubation and Vocational Training in Fisheries, Mandapam
B. Sundaramoorthy Dean, Fisheries College and Research Institute, Thoothukudi
S. Athithan Department of Aquaculture, Dr.MGR Fisheries College and Research Institute, Thalaignayiru
T. Ravikumar Assistant professor (contractual), Fisheries College and Research Institute, Thoothukudi

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijvasr.v49i5.130718

Keywords:

Trap, Funnel opening, Catch rate

Abstract

A Study on the comaprative efficancy of two types of serial collapasible fish traps differning rear end funnel opening was carried out. With respect to Type-1 trap having rectangular rear end funnel opening and Type-2 trap with elliptical rear end were fabricated. The experiment was carried out in fishing ground one nautical mile off the coast of mandatam (Lat 09 degree 16.633 'N long .. 0.79 degree 08.992 ') Feb 2015 to june 2015. significant differnce wasobserved with respect to catch rate of different species caught irrespective of the design of traps (P<0.05). The difference in shape of rear funnel opening was found to be responsible for the significant difference in the catch rear funnel opening was about 3 times higher catch rate of Type-1 trap with rectangular rear funnel opening was about three times higher (17.1 Nos/ soaking day) than that of Type-2 trap with elliptical shaped rear funnel opening (5.9 Nos./ soaking day). The impact of seasonal variation on the catch rate was found to be insignificant (P> 0.05). Though Psammoperca waigensis was found to be the dominant specices in both types of traps in terms of number, Epinephalus coioides ranked first in term of weight and price per kilogram in both Type-1 and Type-2 traps. Irrespective of the types of traps tested, the higher catch rate, including all the species caught, and was observed during the month of February which directly increased the overall catch rate during February month. With respect to the behavior of different species caught in relation to the types of traps tested, Sarcocendrum rubrum was recorded only in Type-1 trap which had rectangular shaped rear funnel opening and Muraena sp was recorded only in Type-2 trap with elliptical shaped rear end of the funnel opening which served like a burrow and hence facilitated the entry of eel. Type -1 trap gave three times higher gross returns than Type-2 trap.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Beenamol, C., Karthy, A., Neethiselvan, N., Sundaramoorthy, B., Athithan, S. and Ravikumar, T. (2017). Traditional fish trapping practices along Enayam coast of Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu. Journal of Experimental Zoology India, 20(2): 1059-1063.

Brandt, A.V. (1984). Fish catching methods of the world, 3rd Revised edition, Wiley–Blackwell, London.

Butcher, P.A., Leland, J.C., Broadhurst, M.K., Paterson, B.D. and Mayer, D.G. (2012). Giant mud crab (Scylla serrata): relative efficiencies of common baited traps and impacts on discards. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 69: 1511–1522.

Hornell, J. (1950). Fishing in many waters. Cambridge University Press, London, 207p

Gondo Puspito. (2013). Design of entrance and escape gaps in collapsible trap for mangrove crabs Scylla sp. Aquaculture, Aquarium, Conservation & Legislation. International Journal of the Bioflux Society, 6: 407-414

Furevik and Lokkerborgl (1994). Fishing trials in Norway for torsk (Brosme brosme) and cod (Gadus morhua) using baited commercial pots. Fisheries Research (Amsterdam) 19: 219-229

Prajith, K. K. and Remesan, M. P. (2019). Design, construction and operation of fishing pots and traps, In: Edwin, L. Thomas, S.N., Ramesan, M.P., Ashraf, P.M., Baiju, M.V., Lekshmi, N.M. and Madhu, V.R. (Eds), ICAR Winter School Manual on ‘Responsible Fishing: Recent Advances in Resource and Energy Conservation, 21 November – 11 December, 2019, ICAR-CIFT, Kochi.

Prabhu, M.S. (1954). The perch-fishery by special traps in the area around Mandapam in the Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay. Indian Journal of Fisheries, 1: 94-129.

Prudden, T. (1951). Buoyancy of wood traps causes losses. Marine coast fishermen, 6 (4): 5.

Slack-Smith, R.J. (2001). Fishing with Traps and Pots, FAO training series, pp: 1-61, http://www.fao.org/3/x2590e/x2590e00.htm#TopOfPage, Accessed 08-03-2021.

Shepherd, G.R, Moore, C.W. and Seagraves, R.J. (2002). The effect of escape vents on the capture of black sea bass, Centropristis striata, in fish traps. Fisheries Research, 54: 195-207.

Spence, A. (1989). Crab and Lobster Fishing. Wiley–Blackwell, England.

Stewart, J. and Ferrell, D.J. (2003). Mesh selectivity in the New South demarsal trap fishery. Fisheries Research, 59: 379-392.

Thomas, N.J. (1953). The efficiency of fishes methods employed in the capture of lobster and crabs. Journal of Conseil International pour l’ Exploration de la Mer, 18: 333-350.

Webster, W.A.K. (1959). Works at Florida craw fish boat can pay! Canada Pay. World fishing, 8(6): 63-71.

Cruz, Y.M. and Olatunbosun, O. (2013). Comparative study on the efficiency of three different types of crab pot in Iceland fishing ground. UNU-Fisheries Training Programme.