DOCSLIB.ORG

WLG2013-17 Trophic Model 15May2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
WLG2013-17 Trophic Model 15May2013 Volume Two May 2014 Appendix 22 Ecosystem Modelling of the Chatham Rise (Pinkerton 2013) Ecosystem Modelling of the Chatham Rise Prepared for Chatham Rock Phosphate April 2013 Authors/Contributors : Matt Pinkerton For any information regarding this report please contact: Matt Pinkerton Principal Scientist Coasts & Oceans +64-4-386 0369 [email protected] National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd 301 Evans Bay Parade, Greta Point Wellington 6021 Private Bag 14901, Kilbirnie Wellington 6241 New Zealand Phone +64-4-386 0300 Fax +64-4-386 0574 NIWA Client Report No: WLG2013-17 Report date: April 2013 NIWA Project: CRP12302 Catch of mesopelagic fish on Fisheries Oceanography I voyage to Chatham Rise, TAN0806. [Len Doel, Teacher Fellow, NIWA] © All rights reserved. This publication may not be reproduced or copied in any form without the permission of the copyright owner(s). Such permission is only to be given in accordance with the terms of the client’s contract with NIWA. This copyright extends to all forms of copying and any storage of material in any kind of information retrieval system. Whilst NIWA has used all reasonable endeavours to ensure that the information contained in this document is accurate, NIWA does not give any express or implied warranty as to the completeness of the information contained herein, or that it will be suitable for any purpose(s) other than those specifically contemplated during the Project or agreed by NIWA and the Client. Contents Executive summary .............................................................................................................. 7 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 8 2 Modelling approach .................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Study region ......................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Model structure .................................................................................................. 10 2.3 Initial parameter estimation ................................................................................ 13 2.4 Balancing methodology ...................................................................................... 16 2.5 Trophic levels ..................................................................................................... 16 2.6 Trophic Importance ............................................................................................ 16 3 Results ....................................................................................................................... 18 4 Discussion & Conclusions ....................................................................................... 36 5 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... 38 6 References ................................................................................................................. 39 Appendix A Birds .................................................................................................... 45 Appendix B Cetaceans ........................................................................................... 54 Appendix C Seals .................................................................................................... 91 Appendix D Fish .................................................................................................... 102 Appendix E Mesopelagics .................................................................................... 123 Appendix F Phytoplankton .................................................................................. 143 Appendix G Microbial loop ................................................................................... 152 Appendix H Benthos and hyperbenthos ............................................................. 160 References ........................................................................................................................ 179 Ecosystem Modelling of the Chatham Rise Tables Table 1: Summary of groups and parameter estimation used in the Chatham Rise trophic model. 14 Table 2: Initial estimates of model parameters (see Appendices for information on derivation). EE=Ecotrophic efficiency; B=Biomass; P/B=annual production to biomass ratio; Q/B=annual consumption to biomass ratio; P/Q=growth efficiency; Acc=accumulation as a fraction of annual production; Export, X as a fraction of annual production; U=Unassimilated consumption; T S=seasonal transfers (water column particulate detritus to benthos) as a fraction of annual inflow to the group. 20 Table 3a: Initial estimates of diet parameters for the Chatham Rise trophic model showing predator groups 1-18. Predators are referred to by group number for brevity and this is the same group number shown in column 1. Figures are the proportions of prey by weight of organic carbon in diet of each predator. Predators are shown as columns and prey as rows. Columns sum to 1. Entries of “0.00” imply that the diet fraction is >0% and <0.5%. 21 Table 3b: Initial estimates of diet parameters for the Chatham Rise trophic model showing groups 19-37. Predators are referred to by group number for brevity and this is the same group number shown in column 1. Figures are the proportions of prey by weight of organic carbon in diet of each predator. Predators are shown as columns and prey as rows. Columns sum to 1 for consumers. Entries of “0.00” imply that the diet fraction is >0% and <0.5%. 22 Table 4: Relative uncertainty (K) parameters for the Chatham Rise trophic model, with higher K values indicating higher relative uncertainty in the parameter. K E=uncertainty in ecotrophic efficiency parameters; KB=uncertainty in biomass parameters; K P=uncertainty in production parameters (P/B); K PQ = uncertainty in growth efficiency factor (P/Q); KA = uncertainty in accumulation parameters; K X= uncertainty in export parameters; K F = uncertainty in fishery catch parameter; K U=uncertainty in unassimilated consumption parameters; K S=uncertainty in seasonal transfer parameters; K D=uncertainty in diet parameters. 23 Table 5: Changes to Biomass (B), Production (P/B), growth efficiencies (P/Q) and diet fractions (D) during the SVD balancing process. Each line shows the parameter, the trophic group in the model, the original value of the parameter, an arrow (->), the final value of the parameter (in the balanced model), and the % change in square brackets. For diet fractions, the actual change in diet fraction (not the proportion) is shown. Within each type of parameter, the changes are ranked in descending magnitude. All changes of more than 10% are shown. 24 Table 6: Trophic group parameters for the balanced trophic model. Initial estimates of model parameters. EE=Ecotrophic efficiency; B=Biomass; P/B=annual production to biomass ratio; Q/B=annual consumption to biomass ratio; P/Q=growth efficiency; Acc=accumulation as a fraction of annual production; Export, X as a fraction of annual production; U=Unassimilated consumption; T S=seasonal transfers (water column particulate detritus to benthos) as a fraction of annual inflow to the group. 25 Ecosystem Modelling of the Chatham Rise Table 7a: Diet parameters in the balanced model of the Chatham Rise showing groups 1-18. Predators are referred to by group number for brevity and this is the same group number shown in column 1. Figures are the proportions of prey by weight of organic carbon in diet of each predator. Predators are shown as columns and prey as rows. Columns sum to 1. Entries of “0.00” imply that the diet fraction is >0% and <0.5%. 26 Table 7b: Diet parameters in the balanced model of the Chatham Rise showing groups 19-37. Predators are referred to by group number for brevity and this is the same group number shown in column 1. Figures are the proportions of prey by weight of organic carbon in diet of each predator. Predators are shown as columns and prey as rows. Columns sum to 1 for consumers. Entries of “0.00” imply that the diet fraction is >0% and <0.5%. 27 Table 8: Output parameters for the Chatham Rise trophic model. The table shows trophic levels, respiration quotients (R/B), trophic importances (TI) by two methods and rank of trophic importance (1=highest). 31 Figures Figure 1: Depth of water over the Chatham Rise. High values are red; low values are blue (range 0–5100 m). The trophic model area and prospecting licence area are shown as thick black outlines. Depth contours (thin black lines) are plotted at 500, 1000, 2000 and 3000 m. 10 Figure 2: Net primary production (NPP) in 14 large marine ecosystems (Conti & Scardi, 2010) compared with that for the Chatham Rise estimated in this study. Ecosystems compared are taken from the Atlantic Ocean (blue bars), Pacific Ocean (green bars) and Eastern Boundary Currents (pink bars). 28 Figure 3: Single-step trophic impact matrix, Q, for the Chatham Rise based on the balanced model. Positive impacts are shown white and negative are black, with the diameter of the circle proportional to the magnitude of the effect. The “impact” is interpreted as the effect that a small increase in the biomass of the impacting group (shown on the left of the diagram) may have on the biomass of the impacted group (shown across the top). 33 Figure 4: Multiple-step mixed trophic impact matrix, M, for the Chatham Rise. Positive impacts are shown white and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Macruronus Novaezelandiae ) Diet Variability and Associated Middle-Depth Demersal Fish Species Depth Distribution in the Ecosystem on the Chatham Rise, New Zealand
    Hoki ( Macruronus novaezelandiae ) diet variability and associated middle-depth demersal fish species depth distribution in the ecosystem on the Chatham Rise, New Zealand. Amelia MacLeod Connell A thesis submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science in Marine Biology. Victoria University of Wellington 2009 ABSTRACT Fisheries management in New Zealand is mostly on a single species basis. Globally there is a shift towards multispecies or ecosystem based fisheries management. For this to happen an understanding of how the ecosystem is organised and functions is needed. Trophic food web and diet studies have been used effectively to begin to understand the functioning of marine ecosystems. Who eats whom, however, is not the full extent of ecosystem function. Understanding of species distribution patterns, of both predators and prey species are also needed to begin to understand the full function of the marine ecosystem. The first part of this study investigated the diet of hoki ( Macruronus novaezelandiae ) over the Chatham Rise, New Zealand, between 200-800m. It characterised the diet of hoki as well as investigated potential sources of diet variability. Hoki diet was found to consist largely of mesopelagic teleosts, mainly of the family Myctophidae, natant decapods and euphausids, suggesting a pelagic feeding strategy, as other studies have also found. Differences were found in diet composition between this study and other studies on hoki diet, potentially suggesting differences in prey distribution between study areas. Differences in diet were found between fish from different depths and different sized fish from the same depth.
    [Show full text]
  • For This Impact Assessment. 79 Appendix 5
    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Dredging of marine phosphates from ML 170 FISHERIES, MAMMALS AND SEABIRDS SPECIALIST STUDY SPECIALIST STUDY NO. 1A: Marine Benthic Specialist Study for a Proposed Development of Phosphate Deposits in the Sandpiper Phosphate Licence Area off the Coast of Central Namibia Capricorn Fisheries Monitoring Project: The Dredging of marine phosphate enriched sediments from Mining Licence Area No. 170 Date: December 2011 Prepared for: Namibian Marine Phosphate (Pty) Ltd. Prepared by: M. J. Smith (CapFish) D.W. Japp (CapFish) Dr T. Robinson (Stellenbosch University) Declaration: I, D.W. Japp of Capricorn Fisheries Monitoring, do not have and will not have any vested interest (either business, financial, personal or other) in the proposed activity proceeding other than remuneration for work performed in terms of the South African Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 Draft Report Namibian Marine Phosphate (Pty) Ltd. Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Dredging of marine phosphates from ML 170 FISHERIES, MAMMALS AND SEABIRDS SPECIALIST STUDY A broad overview of Namibia’s marine resources characteristics only in the immediate target and commercial fisheries is presented. Five mining sites is expected. Any expansion of the primary impacts of the proposed Sandpiper proposed dredging will significantly alter the phosphate mining are suggested. These are: the potential to impact on the broader ecosystem. likely impact of mining on commercial fisheries; There is an obvious impact in the immediate area the likely impact of mining on the main of the mining which is serious and likely to be commercial fish species; the likely impact of permanent (or at least > 20 years) – that is the mining on the recruitment of commercially physical removal and destruction of substrate.
    [Show full text]
  • New Zealand Fishes a Field Guide to Common Species Caught by Bottom, Midwater, and Surface Fishing Cover Photos: Top – Kingfish (Seriola Lalandi), Malcolm Francis
    New Zealand fishes A field guide to common species caught by bottom, midwater, and surface fishing Cover photos: Top – Kingfish (Seriola lalandi), Malcolm Francis. Top left – Snapper (Chrysophrys auratus), Malcolm Francis. Centre – Catch of hoki (Macruronus novaezelandiae), Neil Bagley (NIWA). Bottom left – Jack mackerel (Trachurus sp.), Malcolm Francis. Bottom – Orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus), NIWA. New Zealand fishes A field guide to common species caught by bottom, midwater, and surface fishing New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No: 208 Prepared for Fisheries New Zealand by P. J. McMillan M. P. Francis G. D. James L. J. Paul P. Marriott E. J. Mackay B. A. Wood D. W. Stevens L. H. Griggs S. J. Baird C. D. Roberts‡ A. L. Stewart‡ C. D. Struthers‡ J. E. Robbins NIWA, Private Bag 14901, Wellington 6241 ‡ Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, PO Box 467, Wellington, 6011Wellington ISSN 1176-9440 (print) ISSN 1179-6480 (online) ISBN 978-1-98-859425-5 (print) ISBN 978-1-98-859426-2 (online) 2019 Disclaimer While every effort was made to ensure the information in this publication is accurate, Fisheries New Zealand does not accept any responsibility or liability for error of fact, omission, interpretation or opinion that may be present, nor for the consequences of any decisions based on this information. Requests for further copies should be directed to: Publications Logistics Officer Ministry for Primary Industries PO Box 2526 WELLINGTON 6140 Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0800 00 83 33 Facsimile: 04-894 0300 This publication is also available on the Ministry for Primary Industries website at http://www.mpi.govt.nz/news-and-resources/publications/ A higher resolution (larger) PDF of this guide is also available by application to: [email protected] Citation: McMillan, P.J.; Francis, M.P.; James, G.D.; Paul, L.J.; Marriott, P.; Mackay, E.; Wood, B.A.; Stevens, D.W.; Griggs, L.H.; Baird, S.J.; Roberts, C.D.; Stewart, A.L.; Struthers, C.D.; Robbins, J.E.
    [Show full text]
  • Centriscidae Bonaparte, 1831 - Razorfishes, Shrimpfishes
    FAMILY Centriscidae Bonaparte, 1831 - razorfishes, shrimpfishes SUBFAMILY Macroramphosinae Bleeker, 1879 - razorfishes, snipefishes [=Siluridi, Orthichthyinae, Macrorhamphoidei] Notes: Name in prevailing recent practice Siluridi Rafinesque, 1810b:35 [ref. 3595] (ordine) Macroramphosus [no stem of the type genus, no available, Article 11.7.1.1] Orthichthyinae Gill, 1862j:234 (footnote) [ref. 1663] (subfamily) Orthichthys [family-group name never used as valid after 1899] Macrorhamphoidei Bleeker, 1879a:14 [ref. 460] (family) Macroramphosus [Macrorhamphus inferred from the stem, Article 11.7.1.1; name must be corrected Article 32.5.3; stem corrected to Macroramphos- by Gill 1884c:156, 162 [ref. 17660]; family-group name used as valid by: Schultz with Stern 1948 [ref. 31938], Kamohara 1967, McAllister 1968 [ref. 26854], Lindberg 1971 [ref. 27211], Lagler, Bardach, Miller & May Passino 1977, Nelson 1984 [ref. 13596], Smith & Heemstra 1986 [ref. 5715], Whitehead et al. (1986a) [ref. 13676], Paxton et al. 1989 [ref. 12442], Quéro et al. 1990 [ref. 15946], Nelson 1994 [ref. 26204], Eschmeyer 1998 [ref. 23416], Menezes et al. 2003 [ref. 27192], Nelson et al. 2004 [ref. 27807], Hoese et al. 2006, Nelson 2006 [ref. 32486]; family name sometimes seen as †Rhamphosidae] GENUS Centriscops Gill, 1862 - bellowsfishes [=Centriscops Gill [T. N.], 1862:234, Limiculina (subgenus of Macrorhamphosus) Fowler [H. W.], 1907:425] Notes: [ref. 1663]. Masc. Centriscus humerosus Richardson, 1846. Type by monotypy. •Valid as Centriscops Gill, 1862 -- (Mohr 1937:53 [ref. 15290], Heemstra 1986:459 [ref. 5660], Paxton et al. 1989:407 [ref. 12442], Duhamel 1995:264 [ref. 21927], Gomon et al. 1994:436 [ref. 22532], Keivany & Nelson 2006:S84 [ref. 28978], Paxton et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Swimbladders in Mesopelagic Fishes Bibliography
    Swimbladders in Mesopelagic Fishes Bibliography Hope Shinn, Librarian, LAC Group on assignment at NOAA Central Library NCRL subject guide 2021-06 DOI: 10.25923/a1p9-zh44 June 2021 U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research NOAA Central Library – Silver Spring, Maryland Table of Contents Background & Scope ................................................................................................................................. 2 Sources Reviewed ..................................................................................................................................... 2 References ................................................................................................................................................ 3 1 Background & Scope This bibliography is a representative sample of relevant literature on swimbladders in mesopelagic fish and their acoustic properties. References included in this bibliography are mainly from peer-reviewed, academic literature and span the years 1954-2021. The references are listed alphabetically by first author. Sources Reviewed The following databases were used to identify sources: Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded and Social Science Index; EconLit; ProQuest’s Science and Technology including Aquatic Science Fisheries Abstracts; Elsevier’s Science Direct; JSTOR; EBSCO’s Academic Search Complete and Environment Complete; NOAA’s Institutional Repository; the Biodiversity
    [Show full text]
  • Biogeographic Atlas of the Southern Ocean
    Census of Antarctic Marine Life SCAR-Marine Biodiversity Information Network BIOGEOGRAPHIC ATLAS OF THE SOUTHERN OCEAN CHAPTER 7. BIOGEOGRAPHIC PATTERNS OF FISH. Duhamel G., Hulley P.-A, Causse R., Koubbi P., Vacchi M., Pruvost P., Vigetta S., Irisson J.-O., Mormède S., Belchier M., Dettai A., Detrich H.W., Gutt J., Jones C.D., Kock K.-H., Lopez Abellan L.J., Van de Putte A.P., 2014. In: De Broyer C., Koubbi P., Griffiths H.J., Raymond B., Udekem d’Acoz C. d’, et al. (eds.). Biogeographic Atlas of the Southern Ocean. Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, Cambridge, pp. 328-362. EDITED BY: Claude DE BROYER & Philippe KOUBBI (chief editors) with Huw GRIFFITHS, Ben RAYMOND, Cédric d’UDEKEM d’ACOZ, Anton VAN DE PUTTE, Bruno DANIS, Bruno DAVID, Susie GRANT, Julian GUTT, Christoph HELD, Graham HOSIE, Falk HUETTMANN, Alexandra POST & Yan ROPERT-COUDERT SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON ANTARCTIC RESEARCH THE BIOGEOGRAPHIC ATLAS OF THE SOUTHERN OCEAN The “Biogeographic Atlas of the Southern Ocean” is a legacy of the International Polar Year 2007-2009 (www.ipy.org) and of the Census of Marine Life 2000-2010 (www.coml.org), contributed by the Census of Antarctic Marine Life (www.caml.aq) and the SCAR Marine Biodiversity Information Network (www.scarmarbin.be; www.biodiversity.aq). The “Biogeographic Atlas” is a contribution to the SCAR programmes Ant-ECO (State of the Antarctic Ecosystem) and AnT-ERA (Antarctic Thresholds- Ecosys- tem Resilience and Adaptation) (www.scar.org/science-themes/ecosystems). Edited by: Claude De Broyer (Royal Belgian Institute
    [Show full text]
  • Depensation Is Not Evident in Orange Roughy Fisheries
    MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 August 2019 8950 Martin Luther King Jr. Street N. #202 St. Petersburg, Florida 33702-2211 Tel: (727) 563-9070 Fax: (727) 563-0207 Email: [email protected] President: Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D. Australia Orange Roughy—Eastern Zone Trawl Fishery Final Report and Determination June 23, 2020 Conformity Assessment Body MRAG Americas (CAB) Assessment team Amanda Stern-Pirlot, Richard Banks, Cameron Dixon Atlantis Fisheries Consulting Group on Behalf of Orange Roughy Fishery client Quota Holding Companies. Assessment Type Initial Assessment 1 MRAG Americas – US2620 Australia Orange Roughy—Eastern Zone Trawl Fishery FRD MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 August 2019 Document Control Record Document Draft Submitted By Date Reviewed By Date ACDR ASP, RB, CD 26 Sept 2019 ASP 30 Sept 2019 CR/PRDR ASP, RB, CD 8 April 2020 ASP 11 April 2020 PCDR ASP, RB, CD 8 May 2020 EW and ASP 18 May 2020 FRD ASP, RB, CD 19 June 2020 GP 22 June 2020 2 MRAG Americas – US2620 Australia Orange Roughy—Eastern Zone Trawl Fishery FRD MRAG-MSC-F13-v1.1 August 2019 1 Contents 1 Contents ..................................................................................................................... 3 List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... 6 List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... 7 2 Glossary of Abbreviations .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Trophic Relationships of Prey Species (Etrumeus Whiteheadi
    TROPHIC RELATIONSHIPS OF PREY SPECIES (ETRUMEUS WHITEHEADI, MYCTOPHIDAE AND SEPIA) AND THEIR PREDATORS (MERLUCCIUS CAPENSIS, MERLUCCIUS PARADOXUS, LOPHIUS VOMERINUS AND TRACHURUS CAPENSIS) OFF NAMIBIA A THESIS SUBMITTED IN FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NAMIBIA BY VICTORIA NDINELAGO ERASMUS: 200405004 FEBRUARY 2015 Main supervisor: Dr. E. Julies (University of Namibia) Co-supervisor: Dr. J.A Iitembu (Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources) ii Abstract This study was conducted in Namibian waters that forms part of the Benguela current ecosystem. This upwelling-driven ecosystem supports high abundances of fish species, some of which have been the backbone of Namibian commercial fishery for decades. The study of the trophic relationships of prey species of commercial fish is important, as it improves understanding of the ecology of their predators and considers multi-species interactions in fisheries management. The objectives of this study were to assess the trophic levels of Sepia spp, Etrumeus whiteheadi and Myctophidae, to determine the trophic relationships among these species, to identify their potential trophic roles in the marine ecosystem and to determine the likely contributions of these prey species to the diet of Merluccius capensis, Merluccius paradoxus, Lophius vomerinus and Trachurus capensis, using stable isotopes. Muscle tissues were sampled from E. whiteheadi, Myctophidae, Sepia spp, M. capensis, M. paradoxus, L. vomerinus and T. capensis. Isotope analyses revealed that all the prey species analysed are on the same trophic level except for L. hectoris that fed at a slightly higher trophic level. δ15N values of prey species varied among all prey species.
    [Show full text]
  • Description of Key Species Groups in the East Marine Region
    Australian Museum Description of Key Species Groups in the East Marine Region Final Report – September 2007 1 Table of Contents Acronyms........................................................................................................................................ 3 List of Images ................................................................................................................................. 4 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 5 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 6 2 Corals (Scleractinia)............................................................................................................ 12 3 Crustacea ............................................................................................................................. 24 4 Demersal Teleost Fish ........................................................................................................ 54 5 Echinodermata..................................................................................................................... 66 6 Marine Snakes ..................................................................................................................... 80 7 Marine Turtles...................................................................................................................... 95 8 Molluscs ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of the Diets of Highly Migratory Species in New Zealand Waters
    CCSBT-ERS/1503/11 Evaluation of the diets of highly migratory species in New Zealand waters New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 116 P.L. Horn S.L. Ballara P.J.H. Sutton L.H. Griggs ISSN 1179-6480 (online) ISBN978-0-478-42300-6 (online) November 2013 Requests for further copies should be directed to: Publications Logistics Officer Ministry for Primary Industries PO Box 2526 WELLINGTON 6140 Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0800 00 83 33 Facsimile: 04-894 0300 This publication is also available on the Ministry for Primary Industries websites at: http://www.mpi.govt.nz/news-resources/publications.aspx http://fs.fish.govt.nz go to Document library/Research reports © Crown Copyright - Ministry for Primary Industries Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1. INTRODUCTION 2 2. METHODS 3 2.1 Fishery data 3 2.2 Environmental data 4 2.3 Data summaries and analyses 4 3. RESULTS 9 3.1 Overall diet composition by species 9 3.2 Detailed diet descriptions 18 3.2.1 Mako shark 18 3.2.2 Porbeagle shark 25 3.2.3 Blue shark 31 3.2.4 Shortsnouted lancetfish 38 3.2.5 Longsnouted lancetfish 43 3.2.6 Moonfish 50 3.2.7 Ray’s bream 56 3.2.8 Butterfly tuna 62 3.2.9 Albacore 68 3.2.10 Yellowfin tuna 75 3.2.11 Southern bluefin tuna 81 3.2.12 Bigeye tuna 87 3.2.13 Swordfish 93 3.3 Anthropogenic material in stomachs 99 3.4 Influence of moon phase on feeding 99 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Mcmillan NZ Fishes Vol 2
    New Zealand Fishes Volume 2 A field guide to less common species caught by bottom and midwater fishing New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 78 ISSN 1176-9440 2011 Cover photos: Top – Naked snout rattail (Haplomacrourus nudirostris), Peter Marriott (NIWA) Centre – Red pigfish (Bodianus unimaculatus), Malcolm Francis. Bottom – Pink maomao (Caprodon longimanus), Malcolm Francis. New Zealand fishes. Volume 2: A field guide to less common species caught by bottom and midwater fishing P. J McMillan M. P. Francis L. J. Paul P. J. Marriott E. Mackay S.-J. Baird L. H. Griggs H. Sui F. Wei NIWA Private Bag 14901 Wellington 6241 New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 78 2011 Published by Ministry of Fisheries Wellington 2011 ISSN 1176-9440 © Ministry of Fisheries 2011 McMillan, P.J.; Francis, M.P.; Paul, L.J.; Marriott, P.J; Mackay, E.; Baird, S.-J.; Griggs, L.H.; Sui, H.; Wei, F. (2011). New Zealand fishes. Volume 2: A field guide to less common species caught by bottom and midwater fishing New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No.78. This series continues the Marine Biodiversity Biosecurity Report series which ended with MBBR No. 7 in February 2005. CONTENTS PAGE Purpose of the guide 4 Organisation of the guide 4 Methods used for the family and species guides 5 Data storage and retrieval 7 Acknowledgments 7 Section 1: External features of fishes and glossary 9 Section 2: Guide to families 15 Section 3: Guide to species 31 Section 4: References 155 Index 1 – Alphabetical list of family
    [Show full text]
  • Fisheries Resources in Otago Harbour and on the Adjacent Coast
    Fisheries resources in Otago Harbour and on the adjacent coast Prepared for Port Otago Limited December 2008 R O Boyd Boyd Fisheries Consultants Ltd 1 Baker Grove Wanaka 9305 NEW ZEALAND Table of Contents Table of Contents i List of Tables and Figures ii Executive Summary iii Fisheries resources in Otago Harbour and on the adjacent coast 1 (Ver 1 – Preliminary) 1 1. Introduction 1 2. Methods 2 2.1. The Fisheries Literature 2 2.2. Fisheries catch and effort data 2 2.3. Consultation with the Fisheries Sector (this section to be revised following further consultation) 2 3. The Fisheries Environments of Otago Harbour and Coastal Otago 3 3.1. Otago Harbour 3 3.2. Coastal Otago 3 4. Fish and Shellfish Fauna of Otago Harbour and Coastal Otago 5 4.1. Otago Harbour 5 4.2. Coastal Otago 6 4.3. Regional and National Significance 7 5. Areas of Importance for Spawning, Egg Laying or Juveniles 8 6. Fisheries Uses of Otago Harbour and Coastal Otago 9 6.1. Recreational Fisheries 9 6.1.1. Otago Harbour 9 6.1.2. Coastal Otago 10 6.2. Commercial Fisheries 10 6.2.1. History and Background to the Commercial Fishery 10 6.2.2. Commercial Fisheries Catch and Effort Data 11 6.2.3. Overview of the Present Otago Commercial Fishery 12 6.2.4. Otago’s Inshore Fisheries 13 Trawl fishery 13 Set net fishery 14 Cod potting 14 Line fishing 14 Paua and kina diving 14 Queen scallops 15 Rock lobster 15 Cockles 15 6.3. Customary Fisheries (this section to be revised following further consultation) 16 7.
    [Show full text]