• Journal of the Korean Society of Fisheries and Ocean Technology
• /
• v.43 no.1
• /
• pp.28-37
• /
• 2007

In order to develop the biodegradable monofilament gill net for the protection of marine ecosystem and reduction of ghost fishing, enpol monofilament gill net was made for Chionoecetes opilio using polybutylene succinate as a biodegradable chip. Catching efficiency on 2 type monofilament gill net, PA and Enpol, were carried out using 2 commercial fishing boats around the fishing ground of Wang-dol rock from January 2004 to May 2006. Enpol monofilament gill net spun polybutylene succinate as a biodegradable chip was appeared high practicality for Chionoecetes opilio gill net. Target fishing ratio were 98% and 98.3% for the PA and enpol monfilament gill net, respectively. In addition, CPUE ratio of female and male(CL < 90mm) to Chionoecetes opilio caught in the enpol gill net were 25.3-40.3%, 14.0-22.1% less than PA gill net, respectively. However, CPUE ratio of male(CL > 90mm) to Chionoecetes opilio caught in the enpol gill net were 2.5-11.3% more than PA gill net. There was no difference in CPUE of female and male to Chionoecetes opilio caught using 2 gill nets as a result of the significance level of 5% by T-test.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Fisheries and Ocean Technology
• /
• v.46 no.4
• /
• pp.281-291
• /
• 2010

To estimate the mesh selectivity of monofilament and multifilament gill net for Marbled sole, Pleuronectes yokohamae, the field testes were carried out 12 times with five different mesh sizes (86.6, 101.0, 121.2, 137.7, 151.5mm) in the western sea of Korea, 2007-2009. The master curve of selectivity was estimated by the extended Kitahara's method. In the field testes, the total number of species and catch were 26 and 987, respectively. The catch number of marbled sole was 728 and occupied 73.8% in total catch. The optimum values of l/m for 1.0 of retention probability in monofilament and multifilament gill net were estimated 0.288 and 0.307, respectively and l/m was estimated to be 0.189, 0.203, 0.213, 0.222 and 0.230 in case of monofilament gill net and 0.171, 0.191, 0.205, 0.216 and 0.227 in case of multifilament gill net when the retention probability were 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5, respectively. The 0.5 selection range of multifilament gill net was wider about 1.5 times than that of monofilament gill net according as multifilament gill net was 0.216 and monofilament gill net was 0.148. So the multifilament gill net has a low selectivity than that of the monofilament gill net. To estimate the optimum mesh size on first maturity length 19.5cm of marbled sole, the retention probability value of 0.1 was adopted in consideration of using the gill net for marbled sole at present. The optimum mesh size were estimated to be 103.2mm and 114.0mm in monofilament gill net and multifilament gill net, respectively, on first maturity length 19.5cm of marbled sole.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Fisheries and Ocean Technology
• /
• v.40 no.3
• /
• pp.182-188
• /
• 2004

It has been, in general, known that the catching efficiency of a trammel net is better than that of a gill net because of the variability of catch species and size. In this stidy, A fishing gear test was carried out to analyze the catching efficiency of the gill net and the trammel net on the coast of Geomun-do of southern Korean waters and fish school aggregation was also investigated using a underwater video camera. CPUE of the gill net was 49.2% higher than the trammel net but fish species was 34.5% lower where there was no difference on the significance level of 5% by ANOVA test. Main catch species caught by the gill net were red seabream(Pagrus major) and triggerfish(Aluterus monoceros), skate ray(Raja Kenojei) and red seabream for the trammel net, and the average body length of red seabream was shorter than the trammel net. It was thought that the reason of higher catch in the gill net than the trammel net was a fish school which can be caught easily by gill net and the size of population was suitable for the gill net.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Fisheries and Ocean Technology
• /
• v.48 no.4
• /
• pp.310-321
• /
• 2012

There are many studies of the biodegradable net for fishing to prevent marine pollution in Korea and the snow crab gill nets is developed effectively. Recently, the biodegradable gill net for fishes is being developed. This study is the experiment of the catch characteristics for the biodegradable flounder gill net. The 8 experiments were carried out using the nylon gill net and the biodegradable gill net in from August to October, 2011 in the southern East Sea. The results obtained from the above approaches are summarized as follows; A total of 16 species was caught with most dominant species of Cleisthenes pinetorum followed by Liparis tanakai, Glyptocephalus stelleri, Buccinum striatissimum and Dasycottus setiger. A total of catch of the nylon net was 342,885g and that of the biodegradable net was 236,857g. Thus catch of the nylon net was 1.45 times more than that of the biodegradable net. The length composition of Cleisthenes pinetorum, caught by the biodegradable net was very similar to that of nylon. As a result of analysis on the effect of submerged time, small fish escaped more easily than large fish as the submerged time is getting longer. And catches of the biodegradable net was less than the nylon net's as higher as wave height. Wave height was more influential factor for fishing capacity than submerged time based on the results of a comparison between catch difference of two kinds of gill nets and catch characteristics.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Fisheries and Ocean Technology
• /
• v.38 no.2
• /
• pp.91-100
• /
• 2002

The field experiments were carried out to examine for the mesh selectivity in trammel net and optimum mesh size, during Aug. 10~13, Non 9~13 2000 in Jumunjin, Kangwon-Do and during Jun. 1~27 2001 in Suyong-Bay, Busan. The experiments in Jumunjin area were conducted by using trammel nets with seven different mesh sizes (60, 75, 90, 105, 135, 150, 180mm) and those in Suyong-Bay were done by using trammel nets and gill nets with three different mesh sizes (60, 75, 90mm) in order to compare two types of nets of same structure. The mesh selectivity analysis was done mainly with flat fish(Eopsetta grigorjewi) that was occupied 60% out of total catches. And the mesh selectivity was written by extension of Kitahara's method included master curve with function type. The results obtained are summarized as follows 1. Total number of catch by, trammel net was 2,331 and that of gill net was 1,433, and flat fishes occupied 59.8 ~60% in total catches. 2. The value of optimum l/m by, trammel net was higher about 0.1 than that of gill net according as trammel net was 2.56, and gill net was 2.47. 3. The 50% selection range by, trammel net was wider about 1.5 time than that of gill net according as trammel net was 1.88~3.36(1.48) and gill net was 2.00~3.02(1.02). 4. The optimum mesh size(OMS) was estimated that trammel net was about 141mm and gill net was about 132mm on first maturity length(FML) 265mm of flat fish. 5. On the optimum mesh size based on the first maturity length of flat fish, The 50% range by, trammel net was wider about 76mm than that of gill net according as trammel net was 265 mm~474mm and gill net was 265mm~398mm.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Fisheries and Ocean Technology
• /
• v.49 no.2
• /
• pp.95-105
• /
• 2013

Physical characteristics of net filament were investigated to test the fishing capacity of gill nets due to the flexibility difference between nylon and biodegradable nets (PBS 95%+PBAT 5% and PBS 80%+PBAT 20%). In addition, a total of 16 fishing experiments were conducted in the coastal waters of Jeongja, Ulsan, from August 10 to October 20, 2011 and from September 11 to November 3, 2012. The test results showed that nylon net filament exhibited more flexibility than biodegradable net filament when they were wet. Accordingly, the longer submerged time, the more fishing capacity the nylon gill nets demonstrated in comparison with the biodegradable gill nets. A total of 16 species were caught in 2011 with the nylon gill nets (1,323 fishes, weighing 342,885g) and the biodegradable gill nets (958 fishes, weighing 236,857g). 15 species were caught in 2012 with the nylon gill nets (1,582 fishes, weighing 448,360g) and the biodegradable gill nets (1,431 fishes, weighing 406,590g). Thus catch weights and the number of fish caught produced by the nylon nets were 1.45 times and 1.38 times higher than those of the biodegradable nets produced in 2011, and 1.1 times and 1.11 times higher in 2012. A test on the target species, pointhead flounder (Cleisthenes pinetorum) has similar results. The flexibility of a net was proved to be related to the fishing capacity, and as a result, it is concluded that the higher flexibility, the higher fishing capacity.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Fisheries and Ocean Technology
• /
• v.51 no.3
• /
• pp.370-374
• /
• 2015

Pacific herring Clupea pallasii eggs were attached to the gill net in Korean coastal waters off Busan. To conservation and management the eggs attached to the gill net, we followed the natural hatching in coastal waters from five days after fertilization to the hatching finished, where the temperature was $9^{\circ}C$. The diameter of fertilized eggs was 1.24-1.55 mm (n= 50), and had a segmented pale yellow yolk, no oil globule. Natural hatching had started by 10 days after fertilization. Mass hatching occurred around 11-12 days after fertilization, most of eggs separated from the gill net. Therefore, when the Pacific herring eggs attached in gill net, should be natural hatching-induced in coastal waters during 12-14 days.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Fisheries and Ocean Technology
• /
• v.53 no.1
• /
• pp.41-48
• /
• 2017

Encircling gill net fishery is a kind of gill net which is generally used in shallow coastal waters. After the fish have been encircled by the gill net, noise stimulus such as a stone or sound is used to force them to gill or entangle themselves in the netting surrounding them. Although the fishing by a stone is a traditional fishing method, it is considered as an illegal fishing method by physical stimulus such as explosives and mechanical vibrator. However, this illegal fishing method has raised some problems to the fishing boat of other fisheries or many anglers due to disturb aggregating fish schools. This study is aimed to provide scientific base data to verify whether to impact the ecosystem caused by this encircling gill net. This study exhibited that the impulse noise by concrete sphere in the encircling gill net was $159dB/{\mu}Pa$, the ambient noise from ship engine was $160dB/{\mu}Pa$, and the maximum noise from continuous artificial vibrator was $175dB/{\mu}Pa$. These may be stimulus to the escape of fish distributed in a wide area in its natural state; it is not likely the cause of death due to catastrophic stress. Therefore, it needs to prepare the consideration of standard limit on fishing stimulus in fishing methods of the fishery laws and regulations, prevent fishermen form using illegal fishing gear (i.e. explosive sound standards: $200{\sim}220dB/{\mu}Pa$ and provide them with countermeasures.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Fisheries and Ocean Technology
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.33-41
• /
• 1996

In order to obtain the most favourable classification system for fishing gears, the problems in the existing systems were investigated and a new system in which the fishing method was adopted as the criterion of classification and the kinds of fishing gears were obtained by exchanging the word method into gear in the fishing methods classified newly for eliminating the problems was established. The new system to which the actual gears are arranged is as follows ; (1)Harvesting gear \circled1Plucking gears : Clamp, Tong, Wrench, etc. \circled2Sweeping gears : Push net, Coral sweep net, etc. \circled3Dredging gears : Hand dredge net, Boat dredge net, etc. (2)Sticking gears \circled1Shot sticking gears : Spear, Sharp plummet, Harpoon, etc. \circled2Pulled sticking gears : Gaff, Comb, Rake, Hook harrow, Jerking hook, etc. \circled3Left sticking gears : Rip - hook set line. (3)Angling gears \circled1Jerky angling gears (a)Single - jerky angling gears : Hand line, Pole line, etc. (b)Multiple - jerky angling gears : squid hook. \circled2Idly angling gears (a)Set angling gears : Set long line. (b)Drifted angling gears : Drift long line, Drift vertical line, etc. \circled3Dragged angling gears : Troll line. (4)Shelter gears : Eel tube, Webfoot - octopus pot, Octopus pot, etc. (5)Attracting gears : Fishing basket. (6)Cutoff gears : Wall, Screen net, Window net, etc. (7)Guiding gears \circled1Horizontally guiding gears : Triangular set net, Elliptic set net, Rectangular set net, Fish weir, etc. \circled2Vertically guiding gears : Pound net. \circled3Deeply guiding gears : Funnel net. (8)Receiving gears \circled1Jumping - fish receiving gears : Fish - receiving scoop net, Fish - receiving raft, etc. \circled2Drifting - fish receiving gears (a)Set drifting - fish receiving gears : Bamboo screen, Pillar stow net, Long stow net, etc. (b)Movable drifting - fish receiving gears : Stow net. (9)Bagging gears \circled1Drag - bagging gears (a)Bottom - drag bagging gears : Bottom otter trawl, Bottom beam trawl, Bottom pair trawl, etc. (b)Midwater - drag gagging gears : Midwater otter trawl, Midwater pair trawl, etc. (c)Surface - drag gagging gears : Anchovy drag net. \circled2Seine - bagging gears (a)Beach - seine bagging gears : Skimming scoop net, Beach seine, etc. (b)Boat - seine bagging gears : Boat seine, Danish seine, etc. \circled3Drive - bagging gears : Drive - in dustpan net, Inner drive - in net, etc. (10)Surrounding gears \circled1Incomplete surrounding gears : Lampara net, Ring net, etc. \circled2Complete surrounding gears : Purse seine, Round haul net, etc. (11)Covering gears \circled1Drop - type covering gears : Wooden cover, Lantern net, etc. \circled2Spread - type covering gears : Cast net. (12)Lifting gears \circled1Wait - lifting gears : Scoop net, Scrape net, etc. \circled2Gatherable lifting gears : Saury lift net, Anchovy lift net, etc. (13)Adherent gears \circled1Gilling gears (a)Set gilling gears : Bottom gill net, Floating gill net. (b)Drifted gilling gears : Drift gill net. (c)Encircled gilling gears : Encircled gill net. (d)Seine - gilling gears : Seining gill net. (e)Dragged gilling gears : Dragged gill net. \circled2Tangling gears (a)Set tangling gears : Double trammel net, Triple trammel net, etc. (b)Encircled tangling gears : Encircled tangle net. (c)Dragged tangling gears : Dragged tangle net. \circled3Restrainting gears (a)Drifted restrainting gears : Pocket net(Gen - type net). (b)Dragged restrainting gears : Dragged pocket net. (14)Sucking gears : Fish pumps.

• Korean Journal of Ecology and Environment
• /
• v.53 no.2
• /
• pp.156-164
• /
• 2020

The accurate estimation of fish assemblages is highly dependent on the sampling gear used for sampling. We used data from 15 sampling sites along the Nakdong River, which is a large river in South Korea, to identify differences in assemblages and sizes of freshwater fishes collected with either cast nets or gill nets, the two most commonly used sampling gear in South Korea. The two gears differed in the fish assemblages they captured, with more species caught by gill nets. Further, due to its tighter mesh size, the cast net caught significantly smaller fishes than the gill nets(independent t-test, p<0.05). We found the cast net to be appropriate for species that inhabit shallow (less than 2 m) and open water, but inappropriate for deep water, habitats with plant beds, and nocturnal species. Thus, cast net sampling is not efficient in a large river environment, and a combination of sampling methods is more suitable for understanding fish assemblages in such habitats. In general, appropriate selection of fishing methods to specific habitats is necessary to improve data quality and minimize the misrepresentation of environmental conditions.