“atone NOM ENAOREUN OS. HIGHEST RISK LOWEST RISK. Figure 17. DFAD categories based on entanglement and environmental impact. Source: ISSF, 2015 Another ecological concerns include the increase catch of small yellowfin and bigeye tuna (Fonteneau et al. 2000; Miyake et al. 2010; Leroy et al. 2012). Associated school around DFADs has much higher proportion of small yellowfin and bigeye tuna compared to FSC. As a result of the increased use of DFADs, the exploitation patterns of tropical tuna have been modified with a decrease in the mean weight of yellowfin and bigeye tuna (Chassot et al. 2015). Most of these two species are caught under DFADs between lengths of 40 to 60 cm (Fonteneau et al. 2013), while the size at which they reach maturity is between 80-100 cm (Sun et al. 2013; Zudaire et al. 2013). Therefore, large catches of small juveniles may threaten the viability of the tuna stocks and decrease the yield per recruit and Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) (Fonteneau et al. 2000). Another concern on using DFADs is the alteration of the natural movements of the species associated to DFADs modifying their behavior and biology (Marsac et al. 2000; Bromhead et al. 2003; Hallier and Gaertner 2008; Dagorn et al. 2012b; Sempo et al 2013). Marsac et al. (2000) proposed the “ecological trap” hypothesis, which suggest that DFADs could entrain tunas to biologically unsuitable locations, having a detrimental effect on the health of the stock (e.g. condition, natural mortality) and alter the spatio- temporal dynamics of fish that are strongly associated with floating objects. Some evidence has been observed that shows significant differences in many biological and ecological characteristics of tunas associated with DFADs as opposed to those in free- 24