DOCSLIB.ORG

Native Fish Strategy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Native Fish Strategy MURRAY-DARLING BASIN AUTHORITY Native Fish Strategy Mesoscale movements of small- and medium-sized fish in the Murray-Darling Basin MURRAY-DARLING BASIN AUTHORITY Native Fish Strategy Mesoscale movements of small- and medium-sized fish in the Murray-Darling Basin M. Hutchison, A. Butcher, J. Kirkwood, D. Mayer, K. Chilcott and S. Backhouse Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries Published by Murray-Darling Basin Commission Postal Address GPO Box 409, Canberra ACT 2601 Office location Level 4, 51 Allara Street, Canberra City Australian Capital Territory Telephone (02) 6279 0100 international + 61 2 6279 0100 Facsimile (02) 6248 8053 international + 61 2 6248 8053 Email [email protected] Internet http://www.mdbc.gov.au For further information contact the Murray-Darling Basin Commission office on (02) 6279 0100 This report may be cited as: Hutchison, M, Butcher, A, Kirkwood, J, Mayer, D, Chikott, K and Backhouse, S. Mesoscale movements of small and medium-sized fish in the Murray-Darling Basin MDBC Publication No. 41/08 ISBN 978 1 921257 81 0 © Copyright Murray-Darling Basin Commission 2008 This work is copyright. Graphical and textual information in the work (with the exception of photographs and the MDBC logo) may be stored, retrieved and reproduced in whole or in part, provided the information is not sold or used for commercial benefit and is acknowledged. Such reproduction includes fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968. Reproduction for other purposes is prohibited without prior permission of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission or the individual photographers and artists with whom copyright applies. To the extent permitted by law, the copyright holders (including its employees and consultants) exclude all liability to any person for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this report (in part or in whole) and any information or material contained in it. Front cover photo credits: clockwise from top - Fyke and min fyke nets in Macintyre River, Michael Hutchison (DPI&F); Murray-Darling rainbow fish with vie tag, Adam Butcher (DPI&F); Two people in a boat, Michael Hutchison (DPI&F) CONTENTS List of Figures .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................v List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................viii Acknowledgments..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................x Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................xi 1. Background ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1 1.1 The importance of understanding movements by fish .............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Our current knowledge .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Project objectives ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................13 2. Methods ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 14 2.1 Pilot phase ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................14 2.1.1 Site selection ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................14 2.1.2 Tag retention trials ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................15 2.1.3 Field trials ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................16 2.2 Main phase ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................18 2.2.1 Mark-recapture ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................18 2.2.2 Radiotelemetry .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................24 2.2.3 Standardised quantitative sampling ...........................................................................................................................................................................25 2.2.4 Environmental and other variables .............................................................................................................................................................................28 2.2.5 Hunting ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................29 2.2.6 Opportunistic use of drought and migration barriers to estimate minimum upstream movement distances .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................30 2.2.7 Data analysis ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................30 3. Results and discussion ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 32 3.1 Pilot phase ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................32 3.1.1 Tag retention trials ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................32 3.1.2 Field trials ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................33 3.2 Flow conditions during the study......................................................................................................................................................................................................34 3.3 Main phase ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................36 3.3.1 Carp gudgeons Hypseleotris spp. .................................................................................................................................................................................37 3.3.2 Bony bream
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 13: Broken River Catchment
    13 Broken River Catchment Argus, 15 January 1924 True Tales of the Trout Cod: River Histories of the Murray-Darling Basin 13-1 NORTHERN BLACKFISH Noting J. T. Anderson’s remarks on the subject, “R.G.K.” (Richmond) says that he has just had a “fortnight’s fishing in the Broken River and various creeks around Lima (via Benalla) Although he had good sport with Murray cod, bream (Macquarie perch), and catfish, which he remarks is a far finer table fish than is generally realised, he noticed, too, how numerous were the blackfish. He must have hooked over a hundred, but returned them all to the river, as according to the Game Laws, they may not be kept under 8 inches, and very few of these were eight inches, many as small as four inches. Had “R.G.K.” known, he might have kept these fish, because an exception is made about them. The regulation reads:- “Blackfish, except those in streams flowing north from the Great Dividing Range, 8 1/2 inches.” These blackfish are a smaller species or variety, and the Fisheries department imposes no conditions in regard to them. Argus, 15 January 1924 13-2 True Tales of the Trout Cod: River Histories of the Murray-Darling Basin Figure 13.1 The Broken River Catchment showing major waterways and key localities. True Tales of the Trout Cod: River Histories of the Murray-Darling Basin 13-3 13.1 Early European Accounts The Broken River rises at the foot of Mt Buller north of Mansfield and, travelling west, collects water from tributaries originating in the Strathbogie and Wombat Ranges.
    [Show full text]
  • Long Swamp Fish and Frog Baseline Survey 2012
    AQUASAVE CONSULTANTS Ecology, Monitoring and Conservation A registered business of: Regional, Focussed, On-ground Long Swamp Fish and Frog Baseline Survey 2012 A report to t he Glenelg Hopkins CMA By: Mark Bachmann, Nick Whiterod and Lachlan Farrington January 2013 Aquasave - NGT: Long Swamp Fish and Frog Baseline Survey 2012 This report may be cited as: Bachmann, M., Whiterod, N. & Farrington, L. (2013) Long Swamp Fish and Frog Baseline Survey 2012. A report to the Glenelg Hopkins CMA. Aquasave Consultants – Nature Glenelg Trust. Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 5 2. Site Locations and Sampling Methods .............................................................................................. 5 2.1 Native Fish ........................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Frogs .................................................................................................................................... 9 3. Results............................................................................................................................................. 11 3.1 Native Fish ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Gwydir Waterbird and Fish Habitat Study: Final Reportdownload
    Gwydir Waterbird and Fish Habitat Study Final report Cover photographs Front page: Boyanga Waterhole, Gingham Watercourse (Credit: J. Spencer); Golden perch, Mehi River (Credit: J. Spencer); Great egret (Credit: M. Carpenter). Citation This report can be cited as follows: Spencer, J.A., Heagney, E.C. and Porter, J.L. 2010. Final report on the Gwydir waterbird and fish habitat study. NSW Wetland Recovery Program. Rivers and Wetlands Unit, Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW and University of New South Wales, Sydney. Acknowledgments Funding for this project was provided by the NSW Government and the Australian Government’s Water for the Future – Water Smart Australia program. Richard Allman, Sharon Bowen, Kirsty Brennan, Ben Daly, Simon Hunter, Jordan Iles, Jeff Kelleway, Lisa Knowles, Yoshi Kobayashi, Natalia Perera, Shannon Simpson, Rachael Thomas (DECCW), Neal Foster (NOW), Gus Porter and Ainslee Lions provided field support. Thanks to our pilots Richard Byrne (DECCW) and James Rainger (Fleet Helicopters) for their assistance with aerial waterbird surveys. Daryl Albertson (DECCW), Neal Foster, Liz Savage and James Houlahan (Border Rivers–Gwydir CMA) and Glenn Wilson (UNE) gave advice on field site locations. Jennifer and Bruce Southeron (Old Dromana), Sam Kirkby (Bunnor), Howard Blackburn (Crinolyn), Bill Johnson (DECCW), Liz Savage (Border Rivers–Gwydir CMA), Neal Foster, Tara Schalk (NOW), Richard Ping Kee (Moree fishing club), Dick Cooper, Greg Clancy and the NSW Bird Atlassers contributed historical information on waterbird and fish populations in the Gwydir. Sue Powell (ANU) supplied information on the flooding history and flow data for the Gwydir Wetlands. Mark McGrouther and Sally Reader (Australian Museum, Sydney) assisted with the identification of fish species.
    [Show full text]
  • Taking Control Spring 2020 Newsletter
    Spring 2020 Taking Control Support, information and resources for individuals and communities impacted by wild dogs Above: Wild dog exclusion fencing contructed with Bushfire Recovery Funding. Inset: Combined Bushfire Recovery Fund and DeFence fencing across eastern Victoria. Source: DELWP. Bushfire recovery aids wild dog control Significantly, more than half of the BRF fencing The Community Wild Dog Control comprises Wild Dog Exclusion Fencing (WDEF), bringing Coordinators and members of the the total amount of publicly-funded WDEF erected in both regions in 2019-20 to 516km. (Seventy-five km of Wild Dog Program have been WDEF was constructed under the DeFence Project, helping farmers replace fences which was funded by the Commonwealth Government’s lost in the 2019-20 bushfires, Communities Combating Pests and Weed Impacts strengthening wild dog control in During Drought Program (see page 4).) These stretches of WDEF (see image above) are helping the process. farmers protect livestock from the threat of wild dog predation which can increase after bushfire. The Community Wild Dog Coordinators (CWDCCs) and members of the Wild Dog Program (WDP) have helped Further assistance is being offered by the WDP which farmers access funding under the Victorian has secured funding under Work for Victoria to hire an Government’s Bushfire Recovery Fencing (BRF) program. additional four Wild Dog Controllers (WDCs) for the next few months. Almost every application has been processed, resulting in the construction of 584km of new fencing in Gippsland and 277km in the Hume. delwp.vic.gov.au Spring 2020 Above: CWDCCs, Lucy-Anne Cobby, Brian Dowley and Mick Freeman.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Patterns of Erosion and Sediment and Nutrient Transport in the Goulburn and Broken River Catchments, Victoria
    Regional Patterns of Erosion and Sediment and Nutrient Transport in the Goulburn and Broken River Catchments, Victoria R.C. DeRose, I.P.Prosser, L.J. Wilkinson, A.O. Hughes and W.J. Young CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra Technical Report 11/03, March 2003 CSIRO LAND and WATER Regional Patterns of Erosion and Sediment and Nutrient Transport in the Goulburn and Broken River Catchments, Victoria R.C. DeRose, I.P. Prosser, L.J. Wilkinson, A.O. Hughes and W.J. Young CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra Technical Report 11/03, March 2003 Copyright ©2003 CSIRO Land and Water To the extent permitted by law, all rights are reserved and no part of this publication covered by copyright may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means except with the written permission of CSIRO Land and Water. Important Disclaimer To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO Land and Water (including its employees and consultants) excludes all liability to any person for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this publication (in part or in whole) and any information or material contained in it. ISSN 1446-6163 Table of Contents Acknowledgments..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Abstract........................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • THE BIDGEE BULLETIN Quarterly Newsletter of the Murrumbidgee Monitoring Program
    M A R C H 2 0 2 0 I S S U E 3 THE BIDGEE BULLETIN Quarterly Newsletter of the Murrumbidgee Monitoring Program WATERING OUTCOMES Welcome to Issue 3 of The Bidgee Bulletin. The field monitoring season is now complete, with As in previous years Commonwealth environmental water the last of the four wetland surveys conducted is being used to support aquatic plants and animals in the over the last two weeks of March. In this issue Murrumbidgee Selected Area. This year environmental we review the highlights of the season and water was largely used to target floodplains and wetlands summarise the outcomes from Commonwealth to improve water quality, support populations of water environmental watering actions during the 2019- dependent plants and animals, maintain frog populations 20 water year. We also introduce our Chief and create breeding opportunities for threatened species Twitcher from the NSW DPIE, Dr Jennifer including the southern bell frog and Australasian bittern. Spencer. Continued dry conditions in Spring 2019 meant that The Bidgee Bulletin is a quarterly newsletter environmental water needed to be carefully managed and designed to provide updates on our progress as focused on high priority outcomes. These included we monitor the ecological outcomes of maintaining critical refuge habitats - Wagourah Lagoon, Commonwealth environmental water flows in the Yarradda Lagoon, Telephone Creek and Tala Creek. Murrumbidgee Selected Area. The 2019-2022 Maintenance of these wetland habitats is important for program builds on the previous five year native fish and turtles, and the Murrumbidgee refuge sites monitoring period (2014-2019) and uses many continue to support high native fish diversity with large of the same methods.
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Bell Frog
    June 2011 South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Southern Bell Frog Monitoring (Litoria raniformisBoard) in the Lower Lakes Goolwa River Murray Channel, Tributaries of Currency Creek and Finniss River and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert Kate Mason and Karl Hillyard The project was funded by Department for Environment and Natural Resources, Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth Program Cover Photo: Survey site ‘Pelican Lagoon Site 1’ February 2011. This document can be cited as: Mason, K & Hillyard, K. 2011. Southern Bell Frog (L. raniformis) monitoring in the Lower Lakes. Goolwa River Murray Channel, tributaries of Currency Creek and Finniss River and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert. Report to Department for Environment and Natural Resources. The South Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board, Murray Bridge. South Australia. Disclaimer The authors do not warrant or make any representation regarding the use, or results of the use, of the information contained herein as regards to its correctness, accuracy, reliability, currency or otherwise. The authors expressly disclaim all liability or responsibility to any person using the information or advice. © Government of South Australia This work is copyright. Unless permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cwlth), no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Authors and the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board (SA MDB NRM Board). Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the SA MDB NRM Board, Mannum Road, Murray Bridge SA 5253 Summary Over the past five years, Lake Alexandrina, Lake Albert and the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges tributaries experienced significant changes as a result of reduced freshwater flows and over-allocation of water resources and recently, the first stages of recovery to a functioning freshwater and estuary system, following increased freshwater flows into the system.
    [Show full text]
  • Talk Wild Trout Conference Proceedings 2015
    Talk Wild Trout 2015 Conference Proceedings 21 November 2015 Mansfield Performing Arts Centre, Mansfield Victoria Partners: Fisheries Victoria Editors: Taylor Hunt, John Douglas and Anthony Forster, Freshwater Fisheries Management, Fisheries Victoria Contact email: [email protected] Preferred way to cite this publication: ‘Hunt, T.L., Douglas, J, & Forster, A (eds) 2015, Talk Wild Trout 2015: Conference Proceedings, Fisheries Victoria, Department of Economic Development Jobs Transport and Resources, Queenscliff.’ Acknowledgements: The Victorian Trout Fisher Reference Group, Victorian Recreational Fishing Grants Working Group, VRFish, Mansfield and District Fly Fishers, Australian Trout Foundation, The Council of Victorian Fly Fishing Clubs, Mansfield Shire Council, Arthur Rylah Institute, University of Melbourne, FlyStream, Philip Weigall, Marc Ainsworth, Vicki Griffin, Jarod Lyon, Mark Turner, Amber Clarke, Andrew Briggs, Dallas D’Silva, Rob Loats, Travis Dowling, Kylie Hall, Ewan McLean, Neil Hyatt, Damien Bridgeman, Paul Petraitis, Hui King Ho, Stephen Lavelle, Corey Green, Duncan Hill and Emma Young. Project Leaders and chapter contributors: Jason Lieschke, Andrew Pickworth, John Mahoney, Justin O’Connor, Canran Liu, John Morrongiello, Diane Crowther, Phil Papas, Mark Turner, Amber Clarke, Brett Ingram, Fletcher Warren-Myers, Kylie Hall and Khageswor Giri.’ Authorised by the Victorian Government Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport & Resources (DEDJTR), 1 Spring Street Melbourne Victoria 3000. November 2015
    [Show full text]
  • Status Review, Disease Risk Analysis and Conservation Action Plan for The
    Status Review, Disease Risk Analysis and Conservation Action Plan for the Bellinger River Snapping Turtle (Myuchelys georgesi) December, 2016 1 Workshop participants. Back row (l to r): Ricky Spencer, Bruce Chessman, Kristen Petrov, Caroline Lees, Gerald Kuchling, Jane Hall, Gerry McGilvray, Shane Ruming, Karrie Rose, Larry Vogelnest, Arthur Georges; Front row (l to r) Michael McFadden, Adam Skidmore, Sam Gilchrist, Bruno Ferronato, Richard Jakob-Hoff © Copyright 2017 CBSG IUCN encourages meetings, workshops and other fora for the consideration and analysis of issues related to conservation, and believes that reports of these meetings are most useful when broadly disseminated. The opinions and views expressed by the authors may not necessarily reflect the formal policies of IUCN, its Commissions, its Secretariat or its members. The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Jakob-Hoff, R. Lees C. M., McGilvray G, Ruming S, Chessman B, Gilchrist S, Rose K, Spencer R, Hall J (Eds) (2017). Status Review, Disease Risk Analysis and Conservation Action Plan for the Bellinger River Snapping Turtle. IUCN SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group: Apple Valley, MN. Cover photo: Juvenile Bellinger River Snapping Turtle © 2016 Brett Vercoe This report can be downloaded from the CBSG website: www.cbsg.org. 2 Executive Summary The Bellinger River Snapping Turtle (BRST) (Myuchelys georgesi) is a freshwater turtle endemic to a 60 km stretch of the Bellinger River, and possibly a portion of the nearby Kalang River in coastal north eastern New South Wales (NSW).
    [Show full text]
  • Condition Monitoring of Threatened Fish Populations in Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert
    Condition Monitoring of Threatened Fish Populations in Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert Report to the Murray–Darling Basin Authority and the South Australian Department for Environment and Water Scotte Wedderburn and Thomas Barnes June 2018 © The University of Adelaide and the Department for Environment and Water With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, the Murray–Darling Basin Authority logo, photographs and presented data, all material presented in this document is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (https://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/). For the avoidance of any doubt, this licence only applies to the material set out in this document. The details of the licence are available on the Creative Commons website (accessible using the links provided) as is the full legal code for the CC BY 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode). MDBA’s preference is that this publication be attributed (and any material sourced from it) using the following: Publication title: Condition Monitoring of Threatened Fish Populations in Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert Source: Licensed from the Department for Environment and Water under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence The contents of this publication do not purport to represent the position of the Commonwealth of Australia or the MDBA in any way and are presented for the purpose of informing and stimulating discussion for improved management of Basin's natural resources. To the extent permitted by law, the copyright holders (including its employees and consultants) exclude all liability to any person for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this report (in part or in whole) and any information or material contained in it.
    [Show full text]
  • 2219573-REP-Marine Assessment Report AR
    Appendix L – Marine Assessment GHD | Report for Hunter Water Corporation - Belmont Drought Response Desalination Plant, 2219573 Hunter Water Corporation Belmont Drought Response Desalination Plant Marine Environment Assessment Amendment Report July 2020 Table of contents 1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose and structure of this report .................................................................................... 2 2. Project changes ............................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Key features of the amended Project .................................................................................. 4 3. Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Review of relevant legislation .............................................................................................. 7 3.2 Review of databases and searches ..................................................................................... 7 3.3 Review of previous marine ecology reports ........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Venom Evolution Widespread in Fishes: a Phylogenetic Road Map for the Bioprospecting of Piscine Venoms
    Journal of Heredity 2006:97(3):206–217 ª The American Genetic Association. 2006. All rights reserved. doi:10.1093/jhered/esj034 For permissions, please email: [email protected]. Advance Access publication June 1, 2006 Venom Evolution Widespread in Fishes: A Phylogenetic Road Map for the Bioprospecting of Piscine Venoms WILLIAM LEO SMITH AND WARD C. WHEELER From the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology, Columbia University, 1200 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027 (Leo Smith); Division of Vertebrate Zoology (Ichthyology), American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024-5192 (Leo Smith); and Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024-5192 (Wheeler). Address correspondence to W. L. Smith at the address above, or e-mail: [email protected]. Abstract Knowledge of evolutionary relationships or phylogeny allows for effective predictions about the unstudied characteristics of species. These include the presence and biological activity of an organism’s venoms. To date, most venom bioprospecting has focused on snakes, resulting in six stroke and cancer treatment drugs that are nearing U.S. Food and Drug Administration review. Fishes, however, with thousands of venoms, represent an untapped resource of natural products. The first step in- volved in the efficient bioprospecting of these compounds is a phylogeny of venomous fishes. Here, we show the results of such an analysis and provide the first explicit suborder-level phylogeny for spiny-rayed fishes. The results, based on ;1.1 million aligned base pairs, suggest that, in contrast to previous estimates of 200 venomous fishes, .1,200 fishes in 12 clades should be presumed venomous.
    [Show full text]