Alternative configurations of Australian recreational portunid hoop nets were investigated to address debris and selectivity issues. Four treatment nets (all comprising 152-mm polyamide-PA mesh) were assessed that differed in their twine (conventional multifilament vs new multi-monofilament) and fishing configuration (conventional conical vs inverted shapes). The conical multifilament design lost means (±SEs) of 130.6±23.1 and 5.3±1.2mm of twine 3-h soak(-1) when used to target Scylla serrata and Portunus pelagicus. Inverting this hoop net significantly reduced legal-sized catches (by up to 70%) and with greater twine loss (×5) when targeting P. pelagicus. Conversely, both multi-monofilament configurations maintained legal catches of S. serrata and P. pelagicus, but lost 78 and 95% less twine than the conical multifilament design. Using multi-monofilament hoop nets could reduce PA debris by thousands of m p.a. in south-eastern Australia, without affecting targeted catches. Further, a lower fishing height of inverted multi-monofilament nets might reduce non-portunid bycatch.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 June 2017.
All research outputs
#7,208,166
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Marine Pollution Bulletin
#2,629
of 9,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,501
of 322,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Marine Pollution Bulletin
#60
of 209 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,589 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,965 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 209 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
