Broadhurst et al.: Evaluations of Nordmore grid and secondary bycatch-reduction devices 
215 
Figure 5 
Differences in mean catch (+ SE) between the various designs of (A) 
the weight of prawns (Metapenaeus macleayi ), (B) the weight of to- 
tal bycatch, (C) the number of large tooth flounder (Pseudorhombus 
arsius ), (D) the number of fortesque ( Centropogon australis ), (E) 
the number of narrow banded sole ( Synclidopus macleayanus), (F) 
the number of bridle goby ( Arenigobius bifrenatus), (G) the number 
of catfish (Euristhmus lepturus), (H) the number of noncommercial 
species, and (I) the number of commercial species. * = P< 0.05; ** = 
P<0.01. Ng = Nordmpre grid; EMF = extended mesh funnel. 
standard Nordm0re grid and EMF for meaningful 
analyses) (Fig. 5G; Table 2). There were no signifi- 
cant differences detected between the standard 
Nordm 0 re grid and fisheye, whereas the EMF caught 
significantly fewer bridled gobies and noncommer- 
cial species than did the standard Nordm0re grid 
(Fig. 5, F and H; Table 2). 
Two sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests comparing 
the size-frequency distributions for school prawns 
showed that, apart from a significant difference be- 
tween the standard Nordmpre grid and the EMF (Fig. 
6E), there were no other differences in the relative 
size-compositions between any of the codends tested 
in experiment 2. 
