Adoption and consequences of new light-fishing technology (LEDs) on Lake Tanganyika, East Africa


Autoři: Huruma Mgana aff001;  Benjamin M. Kraemer aff003;  Catherine M. O’Reilly aff004;  Peter A. Staehr aff005;  Ismael A. Kimirei aff001;  Colin Apse aff006;  Craig Leisher aff006;  Magnus Ngoile aff002;  Peter B. McIntyre aff003
Působiště autorů: Tanzania Fisheries Research Institute, Kigoma, Tanzania aff001;  Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, University of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania aff002;  Center for Limnology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America aff003;  Department of Geography, Geology, and the Environment, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, United States of America aff004;  Department of Bioscience, Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark aff005;  The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia, United States of America aff006
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(10)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216580

Souhrn

Maintaining sustainable fisheries requires understanding the influence of technological advances on catch efficiency, as technological creep can ultimately contribute to increased efficiency. Fisheries using light sources for attraction could be widely impacted by the shift to light emitting diode (LED) light systems. We studied the transition from kerosene lanterns to LED lamps in Lake Tanganyika, East Africa, examining factors that led to adoption as well as the impact of the new light sources on fish catch and composition. We used a combination of field experiments with catch assessments, fisher surveys, underwater light spectra measurements, and cost assessments to evaluate the impact of switching from kerosene to LED lamps. Overall, we found a very rapid rate of adoption of homemade outdoor LED light systems in Lake Tanganyika. Most of the batteries used to power these lamps were charged from the city power grid, rather than photovoltaic cells, although the potential exists for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The LED light spectra was distinct from the kerosene light and penetrated much deeper into the water column. Regardless of light type, most of the fish caught within the two dominant species were below maturity. Although the LED lamps were associated with a slight increase in catch, environmental factors, particularly distance offshore, were generally more important in determining fish catch size and composition. The main advantages of the LED lamps were the lower operating costs and their robustness in bad weather. Thus, the primary effect of the use of battery-powered LED lighting systems to attract fish in Lake Tanganyika appears to reduce economic costs and increasing efficiency. However, overall the lake’s fishery remains vulnerable to overfishing.

Klíčová slova:

Artificial light – Boats – Fish – Fisheries – Freshwater fish – Fuels – Lakes – Shores


Zdroje

1. Costello C, Gaines SD, Lynham J. Can catch shares prevent fisheries collapse? Science. 2008;321(5896):1678–81. doi: 10.1126/science.1159478 18801999

2. Worm B, Hilborn R, Baum JK, Branch TA, Collie JS, Costello C, et al. Rebuilding global fisheries. science. 2009;325(5940):578–85. doi: 10.1126/science.1173146 19644114

3. Marchal P, Andersen B, Caillart B, Eigaard O, Guyader O, Hovgaard H, et al. Impact of technological creep on fishing effort and fishing mortality, for a selection of European fleets. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 2006;64(1):192–209.

4. Holland DS. Planning for changing productivity and catchability in the Maine lobster fishery. Fisheries Research. 2011;110(1):47–58.

5. Munyandorero J. The Lake Tanganyika clupeid and latid fishery system: indicators and problems inherent in assessments and management. 2002.

6. Coulter GW. Lake Tanganyika and its life. Coulter GW, editor. London: British Museum (Natural History) and Oxford University Press; 1991.

7. Mölsä H, Reynolds J, Coenen E, Lindqvist O. Fisheries research towards resource management on Lake Tanganyika. Hydrobiologia. 1999;407:1–24.

8. Cirhuza DM, Micha J-C, Ntakimazi G, Muderhwa N. Brief evaluation of the current state of fish stocks landed by artisanal fishing units from the extreme northwest part of Lake Tanganyika. International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies. 2015;2:41–8.

9. Sarvala J, Salonen K, Järvinen M, Aro E, Huttula T, Kotilainen P, et al. Trophic structure of Lake Tanganyika: carbon flows in the pelagic food web. From Limnology to Fisheries: Lake Tanganyika and Other Large Lakes: Springer; 1999. p. 149–73.

10. Van der Knaap M, Katonda K, De Graaf G. Lake Tanganyika fisheries frame survey analysis: Assessment of the options for management of the fisheries of Lake Tanganyika. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management. 2014;17(1):4–13. doi: 10.1080/14634988.2014.882733

11. Van der Knaap M. May we eat biodiversity? How to solve the impasse of conservation and exploitation of biodiversity and fishery resources. Aquatic ecosystem health & management. 2013;16(2):164–71.

12. Jamu D, Banda M, Njaya F, Hecky RE. Challenges to sustainable management of the lakes of Malawi. Journal of Great Lakes Research. 2011;37:3–14.

13. LTA-Secretariat. Lake Tanganyika Regional Fisheries Frame Survey 2011, Bujumbura, Burundi, 30 pp. 2012.

14. Patterson G, Makin J. The State of Biodiversity in Lake Tanganyika-A Literature Review. Chatham, UK: Natural Resource Institute; 1998.

15. Kimirei I, Mgaya Y, Chande A. Changes in species composition and abundance of commercially important pelagic fish species in Kigoma area, Lake Tanganyika, Tanzania. Aquatic ecosystem health & management. 2008;11(1):29–35.

16. Konings A. Tanganyika cichlids in their natural habitat: Cichlid Press El Paso; 1998.

17. Ben-Yami M. Attracting fish with light: Food & Agriculture Org.; 1988.

18. Downing AS, van Nes EH, Balirwa JS, Beuving J, Bwathondi P, Chapman LJ, et al. Coupled human and natural system dynamics as key to the sustainability of Lake Victoria's ecosystem services. 2014.

19. Weyl O, Kazembe J, Booth A, Mandere D. An assessment of a light-attraction fishery in southern Lake Malawi. African Journal of Aquatic Science. 2004;29(1):1–11.

20. van Zwieten PAM, Roest FC, Machiels MAM, van Densen WLT. Effects of inter-annual variability, seasonality and persistence on the perception of long-term trends in catch rates of the industrial pelagic purse-seine fishery of northern Lake Tanganyika (Burundi). Fisheries Research. 2002;54(3):329–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(01)00267-3.

21. Elith J, Leathwick JR, Hastie T. A working guide to boosted regression trees. Journal of Animal Ecology. 2008;77(4):802–13. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01390.x 18397250

22. Hijmans R, Elith J. dismo: Species Distribution ModelingR package (Version 1.1–4) https://CRAN.R-projectorg/package=dismo.2016.

23. Ridgeway G, Ridgeway MG. The gbm package. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2004;5(3).

24. Mills E, Gengnagel T, Wollburg P. Solar-LED alternatives to fuel-based lighting for night fishing. Energy for Sustainable Development. 2014;21:30–41.

25. Kehayias G, Bouliopoulos D, Chiotis N, Koutra P. A photovoltaic-battery-LED lamp raft design for purse seine fishery: Application in a large Mediterranean lake. Fisheries Research. 2016;177:18–23.

26. McHenry M, Doepel D, Onyango B, Opara U. Small-scale portable photovoltaic-battery-LED systems with submersible LED units to replace kerosene-based artisanal fishing lamps for Sub-Saharan African lakes. Renewable Energy. 2014;62:276–84.

27. Shikata T, Yamashita K, Shirata M, Machida Y. Performance evaluation of fishing lamp using oval-shaped blue LEDs for squid jigging fishery in offshore fishing grounds in the Sea of Japan. Nippon Suisan Gakkaish. 2012;78(6):1104–11 (in Japanese with English abstract).

28. Matsushita Y, Azuno T, Yamashita Y. Fuel reduction in coastal squid jigging boats equipped with various combinations of conventional metal halide lamps and low-energy LED panels. Fisheries Research. 2012;125:14–9.

29. Susanto A, Irnawati R, Mustahal M, Syabana MA. Fishing efficiency of LED lamps for fixed lift net fisheries in Banten Bay indonesia. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 2017;17(2):283–91.

30. Marriott RJ, Wise B, St John J. Historical changes in fishing efficiency in the west coast demersal scalefish fishery, Western Australia: implications for assessment and management. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 2010;68(1):76–86.

31. Garcia S, Kolding J, Rice J, Rochet M-J, Zhou S, Arimoto T, et al. Reconsidering the consequences of selective fisheries. Science. 2012;335(6072):1045–7. doi: 10.1126/science.1214594 22383833

32. Muška M, Tušer M, Frouzová J, Mrkvička T, Ricard D, Seďa J, et al. Real-time distribution of pelagic fish: combining hydroacoustics, GIS and spatial modelling at a fine spatial scale. Scientific reports. 2018;8(1):5381. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-23762-z 29599464

33. Phiri H, Shirakihara K. Distribution and seasonal movement of pelagic fish in southern Lake Tanganyika. Fisheries Research. 1999;41(1):63–71.

34. O'Reilly CM, Alin SR, Plisnier P-D, Cohen AS, McKee BA. Climate change decreases aquatic ecosystem productivity of Lake Tanganyika, Africa. Nature. 2003;424:766–8. doi: 10.1038/nature01833 ISI:000184733900037. 12917682


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 10