DOCSLIB.ORG

Management of Freshwater Fish Incursions a Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Management of Freshwater Fish Incursions a Review Management of freshwater fish i ncursions a review R. Ayres and P. Clunie Management of freshwater fish incursions: a review Renae Ayres Pam Clunie Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research 123 Brown Street, Heidelberg, Victoria 3084 2010 An IA CRC Project Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this report reflect those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Australian Government or the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre. The material presented in this report is based on sources that are believed to be reliable. Whilst every care has been taken in the preparation of the report, the authors give no warranty that the said sources are correct and accept no responsibility for any resultant errors contained herein, any damages or loss whatsoever caused or suffered by any individual or corporation. Published by: Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre. Postal address: University of Canberra, ACT 2600. Office Location: University of Canberra, Kirinari Street, Bruce ACT 2617. Telephone: (02) 6201 2887 Facsimile: (02) 6201 2532 Email: [email protected] Internet: http://www.invasiveanimals.com ISBN: 978-1-921777-20-2 Web ISBN: 978-1-921777-21-9 © Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre 2010 This work is copyright. The Copyright Act 1968 permits fair dealing for study, research, information or educational purposes. Selected passages, tables or diagrams may be reproduced for such purposes provided acknowledgement of the source is included. Major extracts of the entire document may not be reproduced by any process. This document should be cited as: Ayres R and Clunie P (2010). Management of freshwater fish incursions: a review. PestSmart Toolkit publication, Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra, Australia. ii Invasive Animals CRC Contents Acknowledgements ........................................................................ vi Summary ...................................................................................... 1 Scope .......................................................................................... 3 Aim ............................................................................................. 3 Approach ............................................................................................. 3 Outline ............................................................................................. 3 1. Introduction ............................................................................... 5 1.1 What is an alien species? ................................................................. 5 1.2 Alien fish introductions in freshwater ecosystems ................................ 5 1.2.1 Alien fish introductions in Australian freshwater ecosystems ..................... 6 1.3 Reasons for the introduction of alien freshwater fish ........................... 15 1.3.1 Reasons for the introduction of alien freshwater fish in Australia ............. 16 1.4 The invasion process ..................................................................... 17 1.4.1 Stages of invasion ........................................................................ 17 1.4.2 Factors influencing invasion success ................................................. 18 1.5 Impacts of alien freshwater fish ....................................................... 19 1.5.1 Environmental impacts .................................................................. 20 1.5.2 Economic impacts ........................................................................ 20 1.5.3 Social impacts ............................................................................. 21 1.6 Management of alien species .......................................................... 22 1.6.1 Early detection ........................................................................... 23 1.6.2 Rapid assessment ........................................................................ 24 1.6.3 Rapid response ........................................................................... 25 1.7 Key conclusions ........................................................................... 26 2. Review of international approaches to alien fish incursions ................... 27 2.1 Conventions and programs ............................................................. 27 2.2 International approaches to new alien freshwater fish incursions ............ 30 2.2.1 Canada ....................................................................................... 30 2.2.2 United States of America ............................................................... 32 2.2.3 The Great Lakes .......................................................................... 35 2.2.4 South America ............................................................................ 37 2.2.5 Great Britain .............................................................................. 37 2.2.6 European Union .......................................................................... 39 2.2.7 Africa ....................................................................................... 40 2.2.8 Asia ......................................................................................... 41 2.2.9 New Zealand .............................................................................. 42 2.3 Common challenges of alien species management ................................ 45 2.4 Key conclusions ........................................................................... 47 3. Existing prevention, detection and management programs and tools in Australia 49 3.1 Legislation .................................................................................. 49 Management of freshwater fish incursions: a review iii 3.2 Rapid response procedures ............................................................. 52 3.3 Management plans and strategies ..................................................... 53 3.4 Surveillance programs ................................................................... 54 3.5 Community education ................................................................... 54 3.6 Reporting systems ........................................................................ 55 3.7 Risk assessment/decision support procedure ...................................... 56 3.8 Management options ..................................................................... 62 3.8.1 The drought: a unique opportunity for alien freshwater fish management? . 67 3.8.2 The problems of alien freshwater fish disposal .................................... 67 3.9 Past eradication and control programs in Australia ............................... 68 3.10 Key conclusions ........................................................................... 84 4. Review of international alien freshwater fish containment methods ........ 87 4.1 Physical barriers .......................................................................... 88 4.1.1 Barrier screens ........................................................................... 88 4.1.2 Rotating drum screens .................................................................. 88 4.1.3 Rotating travelling screens ............................................................. 89 4.1.4 Barrier nets or fences ................................................................... 89 4.1.5 Floating curtains ......................................................................... 90 4.1.6 Vertical drop barriers ................................................................... 90 4.1.7 Traps and cages .......................................................................... 90 4.2 Behavioural barriers ..................................................................... 91 4.2.1 Sound barriers ............................................................................ 92 4.2.2 Light barriers ............................................................................. 93 4.2.3 Electrical barriers ........................................................................ 93 4.2.4 Air bubble curtain........................................................................ 94 4.2.5 Water jet curtain ......................................................................... 95 4.2.6 Hydrodynamic louvre screens ......................................................... 95 4.2.7 Pheromone barriers ..................................................................... 95 4.3 Considerations for fish containment ............................................... 102 4.3.1 A strategic approach to fish barrier technology in Australia ....................102 4.3.2 Knowledge of targeted fish species biology ........................................102 4.3.3 Barrier design ............................................................................103 4.3.4 Permanent versus temporary fish barriers .........................................104 4.4 Key conclusions ......................................................................... 106 Appendices ................................................................................ 107 Appendix 1. Objectives in various Aquatic Nuisance Species Rapid Response Plans in the United States of America ................................................. 107 Appendix 2. The National Noxious Fish List for Australia ............................. 109 Appendix 3. Legislation to be considered when devising alien freshwater fish emergency response or management plans ................................... 112 References ...............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • §4-71-6.5 LIST of CONDITIONALLY APPROVED ANIMALS November
    §4-71-6.5 LIST OF CONDITIONALLY APPROVED ANIMALS November 28, 2006 SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME INVERTEBRATES PHYLUM Annelida CLASS Oligochaeta ORDER Plesiopora FAMILY Tubificidae Tubifex (all species in genus) worm, tubifex PHYLUM Arthropoda CLASS Crustacea ORDER Anostraca FAMILY Artemiidae Artemia (all species in genus) shrimp, brine ORDER Cladocera FAMILY Daphnidae Daphnia (all species in genus) flea, water ORDER Decapoda FAMILY Atelecyclidae Erimacrus isenbeckii crab, horsehair FAMILY Cancridae Cancer antennarius crab, California rock Cancer anthonyi crab, yellowstone Cancer borealis crab, Jonah Cancer magister crab, dungeness Cancer productus crab, rock (red) FAMILY Geryonidae Geryon affinis crab, golden FAMILY Lithodidae Paralithodes camtschatica crab, Alaskan king FAMILY Majidae Chionocetes bairdi crab, snow Chionocetes opilio crab, snow 1 CONDITIONAL ANIMAL LIST §4-71-6.5 SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Chionocetes tanneri crab, snow FAMILY Nephropidae Homarus (all species in genus) lobster, true FAMILY Palaemonidae Macrobrachium lar shrimp, freshwater Macrobrachium rosenbergi prawn, giant long-legged FAMILY Palinuridae Jasus (all species in genus) crayfish, saltwater; lobster Panulirus argus lobster, Atlantic spiny Panulirus longipes femoristriga crayfish, saltwater Panulirus pencillatus lobster, spiny FAMILY Portunidae Callinectes sapidus crab, blue Scylla serrata crab, Samoan; serrate, swimming FAMILY Raninidae Ranina ranina crab, spanner; red frog, Hawaiian CLASS Insecta ORDER Coleoptera FAMILY Tenebrionidae Tenebrio molitor mealworm,
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Invasive Species in Illinois
    Illinois Needs Heroes: Aquatic Invader Prevention Programs Greg Hitzroth Illinois Lake Management Association Conference 2018 Bloomington Illinois Rambling Presentation Directory • Background • Aquatic Pet Take Back Events and Network • Aquatic Invader Boat Decontamination Zones • Invasive Crayfish Collaborative • Some up and Coming Potential Invasives Combines research, education Guardian and recorder of and outreach to empower Illinois biological resources. southern Lake Michigan Foster an understanding and communities to secure a appreciation of our natural healthy environment and economy. heritage through outreach. Transport -> Introduce -> Establish -> Spread -> Impact Kolar and Lodge 2001 Aquatic Pets and Aquatic Invaders Commercial activity involving organisms in trade is one of the principal ways in which non-native organisms have been introduced into the Laurentian Great Lakes Keller and Lodge 2007 Organisms in Trade Pathway • Species have been established in the Great Lakes through aquarium release(17), planted (23) and bait release (9) (GLANSIS search Oct 6th, 2016) • 9 million households with ornamental fish (Chapman et al 1997) • 7% - 25% hobbyists release ornamentals (Gertzen et al 2008, Seekamp et al 2016) Pet Surrender Events Illinois Organizations and People IISG/INHS University of Illinois Legal Illinois Department of Natural Resources Conservation Police Biologists Regulatory IL Department of Agriculture Animal welfare/State Veterinarian US Fish and Wildlife Animal Control Aquarium Fish Sanctuary Chicago Herpetological
    [Show full text]
  • Isolation of Intestinal Parasites of Schilbe Mystus from the Mid Cross River Flood System Southeastern Nigeria
    AASCIT Journal of Health 2015; 2(4): 26-31 Published online July 20, 2015 (http://www.aascit.org/journal/health) Isolation of Intestinal Parasites of Schilbe mystus from the Mid Cross River Flood System Southeastern Nigeria Uneke Bilikis Iyabo, Egboruche Joy Dept of Applied Biology, Faculty of Biological Sciences, Ebonyi State University, Abakaliki, Ebonyi State, Nigeria Email address [email protected] (U. B. Iyabo), [email protected] (U. B. Iyabo) Citation Keywords Uneke Bilikis Iyabo, Egboruche Joy. Isolation of Intestinal Parasites of Schilbe mystus from the Intestinal Parasites, Mid Cross River Flood System Southeastern Nigeria. AASCIT Journal of Health. Nematodes, Vol. 2, No. 4, 2015, pp. 26-31. Trematodes, Cestodes, Abstract Protozoans, A survey of Schilbe mystus of the mid Cross River flood system was conducted between Acanthocephalans, August and October, 2014 to determine the presence of parasitic infection in S. mystus . Schilbe mystus The fish were collected with gill nets, hook and line. Seventy five out of the one hundred fish examined were infected (75.0%) with parasites. The end oparasites recovered were mostly nematodes, trematodes, cestodes, protozoa and acanthocephalans. Numerical abundance of parasites showed that a total of 128 species of end oparasites occurred in Received: June 30, 2015 the fish examined. Nematodes had 33.6% (43/128), trematodes 11.7% (15/128), Revised: July 10, 2015 cestodes 24.2% (31/128), protozoa 12.5% (16/128) and acanthocephalan 18.0% Accepted: July 11, 2015 (23/128). The prevalence of end oparasites of the fish showed that parasites were most prevalent in fishes with length Class 14.1-16 cm TL with 67.2% while class 21.1-22cm had the least prevalence (1.60%).
    [Show full text]
  • Cairns Regional Council Water and Waste Report for Mulgrave River Aquifer Feasibility Study Flora and Fauna Report
    Cairns Regional Council Water and Waste Report for Mulgrave River Aquifer Feasibility Study Flora and Fauna Report November 2009 Contents 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Scope 1 1.3 Project Study Area 2 2. Methodology 4 2.1 Background and Approach 4 2.2 Demarcation of the Aquifer Study Area 4 2.3 Field Investigation of Proposed Bore Hole Sites 5 2.4 Overview of Ecological Values Descriptions 5 2.5 PER Guidelines 5 2.6 Desktop and Database Assessments 7 3. Database Searches and Survey Results 11 3.1 Information Sources 11 3.2 Species of National Environmental Significance 11 3.3 Queensland Species of Conservation Significance 18 3.4 Pest Species 22 3.5 Vegetation Communities 24 3.6 Regional Ecosystem Types and Integrity 28 3.7 Aquatic Values 31 3.8 World Heritage Values 53 3.9 Results of Field Investigation of Proposed Bore Hole Sites 54 4. References 61 Table Index Table 1: Summary of NES Matters Protected under Part 3 of the EPBC Act 5 Table 2 Summary of World Heritage Values within/adjacent Aquifer Area of Influence 6 Table 3: Species of NES Identified as Occurring within the Study Area 11 Table 4: Summary of Regional Ecosystems and Groundwater Dependencies 26 42/15610/100421 Mulgrave River Aquifer Feasibility Study Flora and Fauna Report Table 5: Freshwater Fish Species in the Mulgrave River 36 Table 6: Estuarine Fish Species in the Mulgrave River 50 Table 7: Description of potential borehole field in Aloomba as of 20th August, 2009. 55 Figure Index Figure 1: Regional Ecosystem Conservation Status and Protected Species Observation 21 Figure 2: Vegetation Communities and Groundwater Dependencies 30 Figure 3: Locations of Study Sites 54 Appendices A Database Searches 42/15610/100421 Mulgrave River Aquifer Feasibility Study Flora and Fauna Report 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishes of the King Edward River in the Kimberley Region, Western Australia
    Records of the Western Australian Museum 25: 351–368 (2010). Fishes of the King Edward River in the Kimberley region, Western Australia David L. Morgan Freshwater Fish Group, Centre for Fish and Fisheries Research, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia 6150, Australia. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract – The King Edward River, in the far north of the Kimberley region of Western Australia drains approximately 10,000 km2 and discharges into the Timor Sea near the town of Kalumburu. This study represents an ichthyological survey of the river’s freshwaters and revealed that the number of freshwater fishes of the King Edward River is higher than has previously been recorded for a Western Australian river. Twenty-six strictly freshwater fish species were recorded, which is three species higher than the much larger Fitzroy River in the southern Kimberley. The study also identified a number of range extensions, including Butler’s Grunter and Shovel-nosed Catfish to the west, and the Slender Gudgeon to the north and east. A possibly undescribed species of glassfish, that differs morphologically from described species in arrangement of head spines, fin rays, as well as relative body measurements, is reported. A considerable proportion of Jenkins’ Grunter, which is widespread throughout the system but essentially restricted to main channel sites, had ‘blubber-lips’. There were significant differences in the prevailing fish fauna of the different reaches of the King Edward River system. Thus fish associations in the upper King Edward River main channel were significantly different to those in the tributaries and the main channel of the Carson River.
    [Show full text]
  • Golden Galaxias
    Threatened Species Link www.tas.gov.au SPECIES MANAGEMENT PROFILE Galaxias auratus Golden Galaxias Group: Chordata (vertebrates), Actinopterygii (bony fish), Salmoniformes (salmonids), Galaxiidae Status: Threatened Species Protection Act 1995: rare Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999: Endangered Endemic Found only in Tasmania Status: A complete species management profile is not currently available for this species. Check for further information on this page and any relevant Activity Advice. Key Points Important: Is this species in your area? Do you need a permit? Ensure you’ve covered all the issues by checking the Planning Ahead page. Important: Different threatened species may have different requirements. For any activity you are considering, read the Activity Advice pages for background information and important advice about managing around the needs of multiple threatened species. Further information ​Check also for listing statement or notesheet pdf above (below the species image). Recovery Plan Cite as: Threatened Species Section (2021). Galaxias auratus (Golden Galaxias): Species Management Profile for Tasmania's Threatened Species Link. https://www.threatenedspecieslink.tas.gov.au/Pages/Golden-Galaxias.aspx. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania. Accessed on 2/10/2021. Contact details: Threatened Species Section, Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, GPO Box 44, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 7001. Phone (1300 368 550). Permit: A permit is required under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 to 'take' (which includes kill, injure, catch, damage, destroy and collect), keep, trade in or process any specimen or products of a listed species. Additional permits may also be required under other Acts or regulations to take, disturb or interfere with any form of wildlife or its products, (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Tas Catchment Selection.Indd
    Technical Report No. 1 Selecting catchments for the retrospective study of land-use and water quality September 2007 Published September 2007 This publication is available for download as a PDF from www.landscapelogic.org.au LANDSCAPE LOGIC is a research hub under the Commonwealth Environmental Research Facilities scheme, managed by the Department of Environment, Water Heritage and the Arts. It is a partnership between: • six regional organisations – the North Central, North East & Goulburn–Broken Catchment Management Authorities in Victoria and the North, South and Cradle Coast Natural Resource Management organisations in Tasmania; • five research institutions – University of Tasmania, Australian National University, RMIT University, Charles Sturt University and NORTH CENTRAL Catchment CSIRO; and Management Authority • state land management agencies in Tasmania and Victoria – the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries & Water, Forestry Tasmania and the Victorian Department of Sustainability & Environment. The purpose of Landscape Logic is to work in partnership with regional natural resource managers to develop decision-making approaches that improve the effectiveness of environmental management. Landscape Logic aims to: 1. Develop better ways to organise existing knowledge and assumptions about links between land management actions and environmental outcomes. 2. Improve our understanding of the links between land management actions and environmental outcomes through historical studies of the effects of private and public investment on water quality and native vegetation condition. Selecting catchments for the retrospective study of land-use and water quality By Bill Cotching, UTAS Summary This report describes the criteria and process use to select Tasmanian catchments in a study of the relationships between land use, land management and water quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydro 4 Water Storage
    TERM OF REFERENCE 3: STATE-WIDE WATER STORAGE MANAGEMENT The causes of the floods which were active in Tasmania over the period 4-7 June 2016 including cloud-seeding, State-wide water storage management and debris management. 1 CONTEXT 1.1 Cause of the Floods (a) It is clear that the flooding that affected northern Tasmania (including the Mersey, Forth, Ouse and South Esk rivers) during the relevant period was directly caused by “a persistent and very moist north-easterly airstream” which resulted in “daily [rainfall] totals [that were] unprecedented for any month across several locations in the northern half of Tasmania”, in some cases in excess of 200mm.1 (b) This paper addresses Hydro Tasmania’s water storage management prior to and during the floods. 1.2 Overview (a) In 2014, Tasmania celebrated 100 years of hydro industrialisation and the role it played in the development of Tasmania. Hydro Tasmania believes that understanding the design and purpose of the hydropower infrastructure that was developed to bring electricity and investment to the state is an important starting point to provide context for our submission. The Tasmanian hydropower system design and operation is highly complex and is generally not well understood in the community. We understand that key stakeholder groups are seeking to better understand the role that hydropower operations may have in controlling or contributing to flood events in Tasmania. (b) The hydropower infrastructure in Tasmania was designed and installed for the primary purpose of generating hydro-electricity. Flood mitigation was not a primary objective in the design of Hydro Tasmania’s dams when the schemes were developed, and any flood mitigation benefit is a by-product of their hydro- generation operation.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey Guidelines for Australia's Threatened Fish
    Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened fish Guidelines for detecting fish listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Authorship and acknowledgments This report updates and expands on a report prepared in May 2004 by Australian Museum ichthyologist John Pogonoski and approved by AMBS Senior Project Manager Jayne Tipping. The current (2011) report includes updates to the 2004 report and additional information regarding recently listed species, current knowledge of all the listed species and current survey techniques. This additional information was prepared by Australian Museum ichthyologists Dr Doug Hoese and Sally Reader. Technical assistance was provided by AMBS ecologists Mark Semeniuk and Lisa McCaffrey. AMBS Senior Project Manager Glenn Muir co- ordinated the project team and reviewed the final report. These guidelines could not have been produced without the assistance of a number of experts. Individuals who have shared their knowledge and experience for the purpose of preparing this report are indicated in Appendix A. Disclaimer The views and opinions contained in this document are not necessarily those of the Australian Government. The contents of this document have been compiled using a range of source materials and while reasonable care has been taken in its compilation, the Australian Government does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this document and shall not be liable for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of or reliance on the contents of the document. © Commonwealth of Australia 2011 This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Thesis Report WUR
    ReĈbalancing of ecosystem services through biodiversity conservation and sustainable exploitations of the provisioning services Study cases from the Inner Niger Delta, Mali MSc Thesis by Claire Marblé Irrigation and Water Engineering Group Agricultural and Environmental Sciences Group Reĉbalancing of ecosystem services through biodiversity conservation andsustainable exploitations of the provisioning services Study cases from the Inner Niger Delta, Mali Master thesis Irrigation and Water Engineering submitted in partial fulfilment of the double degree of the Master of Science in International Land and Water Management at Wageningen University, the Netherlands and the Master of Science in Environmental Planning at École Supérieure d’Agriculture d’Angers, France Claire Marblé November 2008 Supervisor: Dr. Ir. G. E. van Halsema Mr. R. Biagi (Professeur universitaire) Irrigation and Water Engineering Group Environmental Assessment Centre for Water and Climate Wageningen University École Supérieure d’Agriculture d’Angers (E.S.A) The Netherlands France www.iwe.wur.nl www.groupeĉesa.com 1 « Les hommes peuvent atteindre un but commun sans emprunter les mêmes voies » (Amadou Hampaté Ba) “A farmer/fisher/cattle breeder that diversifies his source of income is a farmer/fisher/cattle breeder who does not earn enough to feed his family from his traditional activity” (Sentence heard frequently in each visited community ii Abstract The local communities of the Inner Niger Delta, IND, have overexploited the provisioning services of the ecosystem and have expanded their activities at the cost of their surrounding ecosystem to support their main livelihood strategies: fishing, farming and cattle breeding. However, the IND is also an important ecological area for migratory and African water birds.
    [Show full text]
  • Indian and Madagascan Cichlids
    FAMILY Cichlidae Bonaparte, 1835 - cichlids SUBFAMILY Etroplinae Kullander, 1998 - Indian and Madagascan cichlids [=Etroplinae H] GENUS Etroplus Cuvier, in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1830 - cichlids [=Chaetolabrus, Microgaster] Species Etroplus canarensis Day, 1877 - Canara pearlspot Species Etroplus suratensis (Bloch, 1790) - green chromide [=caris, meleagris] GENUS Paretroplus Bleeker, 1868 - cichlids [=Lamena] Species Paretroplus dambabe Sparks, 2002 - dambabe cichlid Species Paretroplus damii Bleeker, 1868 - damba Species Paretroplus gymnopreopercularis Sparks, 2008 - Sparks' cichlid Species Paretroplus kieneri Arnoult, 1960 - kotsovato Species Paretroplus lamenabe Sparks, 2008 - big red cichlid Species Paretroplus loisellei Sparks & Schelly, 2011 - Loiselle's cichlid Species Paretroplus maculatus Kiener & Mauge, 1966 - damba mipentina Species Paretroplus maromandia Sparks & Reinthal, 1999 - maromandia cichlid Species Paretroplus menarambo Allgayer, 1996 - pinstripe damba Species Paretroplus nourissati (Allgayer, 1998) - lamena Species Paretroplus petiti Pellegrin, 1929 - kotso Species Paretroplus polyactis Bleeker, 1878 - Bleeker's paretroplus Species Paretroplus tsimoly Stiassny et al., 2001 - tsimoly cichlid GENUS Pseudetroplus Bleeker, in G, 1862 - cichlids Species Pseudetroplus maculatus (Bloch, 1795) - orange chromide [=coruchi] SUBFAMILY Ptychochrominae Sparks, 2004 - Malagasy cichlids [=Ptychochrominae S2002] GENUS Katria Stiassny & Sparks, 2006 - cichlids Species Katria katria (Reinthal & Stiassny, 1997) - Katria cichlid GENUS
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Biology of the Golden Galaxias
    Conservation Biology of the Golden Galaxias (Galaxias auratus) (Pisces: Galaxiidae) Scott Anthony Hardie A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the School of Zoology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia 2007 Declaration of Originality This thesis does not contain any material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in the University of Tasmania nor any other university or institution. The material this thesis contains is, to the best of my knowledge, original except where due acknowledgement is made. Mr Scott A. Hardie June 2007 Statement of Authority of Access This thesis may be reproduced, archived, and communicated in any material form in whole or in part by the University of Tasmania or its agents, and may be made available for loan and copying in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968. Mr Scott A. Hardie June 2007 i Statement of Co-authorship The following people and institutions contributed to the publication (or submission for publication) of some of the work undertaken as part of this thesis: Preface Candidate*† (96%), Leon A. Barmuta (2%), Robert W. G. White* (2%) Chapter 2. Candidate*† (82%), Jean E. Jackson† (6%), Leon A. Barmuta* (10%), Robert W. G. White* (2%) Chapter 3. Candidate* (82%), Leon A. Barmuta* (14%), Robert W. G. White* (4%) Chapter 4. Candidate*† (85%), Leon A. Barmuta* (13%), Robert W. G. White* (2%) Chapter 6. Candidate*† (85%), Leon A. Barmuta* (13%), Robert W. G. White* (2%) Chapter 7. Candidate*† (80%), Stephen B. Pyecroft‡ (10%), Leon A. Barmuta* (8%), Robert W. G. White* (2%) *School of Zoology and Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 5, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia †Inland Fisheries Service, PO Box 288, Moonah, Tasmania 7009, Australia ‡Animal Health Laboratory, Department of Primary Industries and Water, PO Box 46, Kings Meadows, Tasmania 7249, Australia L.A.B.
    [Show full text]