DOCSLIB.ORG

PRESENT STATUS of Silky Shark, Thresher Sharks, Mobulid Rays and Banggai Cardinafish in Indonesia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PRESENT STATUS of Silky Shark, Thresher Sharks, Mobulid Rays and Banggai Cardinafish in Indonesia Regional Experts Mee1ng on Commercially-Exploited Aqua1c Species: Sharks 16-17 May 2016 , Bangkok, Thailand PRESENT STATUS of Silky shark, Thresher sharks, Mobulid rays and Banggai cardinafish in Indonesia Dharmadi Center for Fisheries Research and Development, Agency of Marine and Fisheries Research and Development, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries. Jl. Pasir Putih II, Ancol Timur Jakarta 14430 Indonesia •Email: dharmadi.shark.gmail.com Introduction Indonesia as a nation is home to more shark and ray fishing activities than any other and is one of the highest volume exporters of sharks fins in the world (Blaber et al., 2009). Over the past several decades, national shark production in particular has declined by 28,30%, from 63,366 tons in 2000 to 68 366 tonnes in 2014 (DGCF, 2016). 80 000 70 000 60 000 50 000 (Source : DGCF, 2016) 40 000 30 000 Production (t) Production 20 000 10 000 - 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 Trend production of sharks based on shark group in 2002-2014. 70 000 Thresher sharks 60 000 Requiem sharks Mackerel sharks 50 000 Hammerhead sharks 40 000 Dogfish sharks 30 000 Productioni (t) 20 000 10 000 - 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 (Source : DGCF, 2016) Trend production of Thresher sharks in 200-2014 70 000 60 000 50 000 40 000 30 000 Production (t) 20 000 10 000 - 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 (Source : DGCF, 2016) Species composition of sharks landed at Cilacap (2015) 1 Alopias pelagicus Pelagic Thresher 967 25.03 2 Alopias superciliosus Bigeye Thresher 674 17.45 3 Isurus oxyrinchus Shortfin Mako 62 1.60 4 Isurus paucus Longfin Mako 36 0.93 C. falciformis was known 5 Carcharhinus falciformis Silky Shark 312 8.08 as the second most 6 Carcharhinus sorrah Spot-tail Shark 780 20.19 7 Carcharhinus brevipinna Spinner Shark 27 0.70 abundant in terms of 8 Carcharhinus Graceful Shark 17 0.44 numbers recorded during amblyrhynchoides study in Indonesia from 9 Carcharhinus plumbeus Sandbar Shark 14 0.36 10 Carcharhinus leucas Bull Shark 1 0.03 2001 to 2006 (White 11 Prionace glauca Blue Shark 115 2.98 2007) 12 Galeocerdo cuvier Tiger Shark 6 0.16 13 Negaprion acutidens Sicklefin Lemon Shark 1 0.03 14 Carcharhinus Silvertip Shark 1 0.03 albimarginatus 15 Sphyrna lewini Scalloped Hammerhead 47 1.22 Pelagic sharks are known 16 Sphyrna mokkaran Great Hammerhead 1 0.03 as one of bycatches in 17 Mustelus cf manazo Sparse-spotted Smoothhound 133 3.44 tuna gillnet fishery, with 18 Lago garricki Longnose Smoothound 5 0.13 19 Heptranchias perlo Sharpnose Sevengill Shark 228 5.90 A. pelagicus, A. 20 Hexanchus griseus Bluntnose Sixgill Shark 1 0.03 superciliosus and C. 21 Squalus sp. 1 Indonesian Greeneye Spurdog 88 2.28 falciformis as the most 22 Squalus sp. 3 Indonesian Shortnose 309 8.00 Spurdog common shark species 23 Squalus sp. E Western Longnose Shark 11 0.28 caught by this type of 24 Deanica f calcea Birdbeak Shark 4 0.10 fishing gear (Fahmi and 25 Centrophorus squamosus Leafscale Gulfer Shark 1 0.03 26 Centrophorus moluccensis Smallfin Gulfer Shark 1 0.03 Dharmadi 2013) 27 Squatina sp. 1 Indonesian Angel Shark 19 0.49 28 Hidrolagus lamures Indonesian Ghost Shark 2 0.05 Thresher sharks Shark LL Tuna LL 22% 3% Tuna GN 75% 300 Alopias superciliosus GN & LL Tuna Alopias pelagicus 298 unit 250 Shark LL 25% 200 Tuna Tuna LL GN 17% 58% 324 unit 150 Catch (t) Catch 100 21 unit 50 19 unit of boats 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 PPS Cilacap, 2016 Species composition (by ind) of sharks landed at Tanjung Luar (January-November 2015) Triaenodon obesus Prionace glauca Carcharhinidae Negaprion acutidens Galeocerdo cuvier Carcharhinus sorrah Carcharhinus obscurus Carcharhinus melanopterus Carcharhinus limbatus Carcharhinus falciformis 53% Carcharhinus brevipinna Carcharhinus albimarginatus 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 (a) Numbers of each of the five species of mobulid ray recorded at each of the four main landing sites between April 2001 and October 2005. (b) in each month at Tanjung Luar (Lombok) between April 2001 and October 2005 (c) Estimated numbers of each species that would have been landed at Tanjung Luar in each month, assuming that rays were landed daily (White et al., 2006) Length distribution of sharks landed at East Java in 2015 Max Average Min 450 400 350 300 (cm) 250 200 150 100 Total length Total 50 0 Length distribution of sharks landed at Kedonganan-Bali in 2015 Max Average Min 300 250 200 (cm) 150 100 50 Total length length Total 0 Length distribution of sharks landed at Tanjung Luar in 2015 400 Max Average Min 350 (cm) 300 250 200 150 Total length length Total 100 50 0 Mobulidae Manta (M. birostris, M. alfredi) (Fully protected (Men KP, 4/2014) Mobula japanica M. tarapaca M. kuhlii M. thurstoni Manta species Manta birostris Manta alfredi 1. Mobula japanica – spine-tail devil ray ¤ Up to 3.1 meters in width ¤ White ventral surface ¤ Deep-blue to black dorsal surface ¤ Spine at tail base 2. Mobula tarapacana – sickle-fin devil ray ¤Up to 3 meters in width ¤Olive-green dorsal surface 3. Mobula thurstoni – bent-fin devil ray ¤ Up to 2.2 meters in width ¤ Ventral surface is mostly white, with dark shading along anterior margin double curvature ¤ Deep blue-black dorsal surface Mobula japanica 4. Mobula kuhlii 3.1 m width, white shading 1.2 m width, white shading does extends above eye, spine. not extend above eye, no spine. Frequency and production of Mobulidae caught by tuna gillnet in the Indian ocean-South of Java in 2014 Production (ton) Production Total Mobulidae (ind) Weight (t) Frequency (ind) Frequency n=674 ind M.japanica 90 M.tarapacana 80 70 M.thurstoni 60 50 40 Number ofNumber individu 30 20 10 0 Agust'15 Sept'15 Okt'15 Nop'15 Des'15 Jan'16 Feb'16 Monthly catch fluctua1on of Mobula spp landed at Cilacap-Central Java M F n=674 ind M.thurstoni M.tarapacana M.japanica 0 100 200 300 400 500 Number of individu Catch composition based on individu of Mobula spp (male and female) landed at Cilacap in 2015 Average Estimated Annual Mobulid Landings 2001-15 Change 2001-5 Lamakera 2002-6 2007-12 2013-14 vs 2013-14 Mobulids 931 352 229 -75% Manta spp. 605 229 149 -75% Mobula spp. 326 123 80 -75% Tanjung Luar 2001-5 2007-12 2013-14 Change 2001-5 vs 2013-14 Mobulids 2,150 1,003 103 -95% Manta spp. 272 120 14 -95% Mobula spp. 1,023 883 66 -94% M. tarapacana 337 3 -99% M. japanica 518 20 -96% Change Cilacap 2001-5 2006-13 2014 2001-5 vs 2015 2013-15 Mobulids 2,065 924 750 -64% Manta spp. 53 15 -71% Mobula spp. 1,006 367 -63% M. tarapacana 212 48 -77% M. japanica 635 320 155 -75% M. thurstoni 106 0 -100% M. kuhlii 53 0 0 -100% BANGGAI CARDINALFISH Distribution Population (Yahya et al., 2012) which showed that density of recruits and adult tend to decrease between 2009-2011, whereas for the juveniles more abundant in 2012 compared to 2009. Another study was also carried out in 2010 (Kasim et al., 2014) of which result indicated that the population tend to decrease due to heavy collection for trade and microhabitat loss as the local community and also collect other shallow water marine species for consumption (sea urchin and sea anemone). Its population in Banggai Islands was reported at 1.4 million individuals in 2015, of which number is assumed as a result of 42% reduction compared to the population in 2004 (Vagelli, in prep.). The cause of this decline is reported mostly due to heavy collection for aquarium trade. BCF is relatively easy to adapt in other environment that resemble its known original habitat in Banggai. For example, a population in Ambon, reported being introduced in late November 2014, found grow well and expand to a fairly huge number a year after. However, current habitat exploitation practices in Banggai Islands do not support its sustainability. In a normal condition of a wild habitat, this species breed every month in a year, provided its juvenile microhabitat, with acceptable presentation of sea urchin and sea anemone is maintained (Hartati et al 2012; Erdy, pers com). Effective control and monitoring for BCF collection in this native habitat is needed, as well as local communities education, especially on the issue of correct fishery practice to avoid habitat destruction and maintain the microhabitat of this species related to their own sustainability livelihood. Harvest: Yahya et al, (2012) the harvest data from one site in Banggai, i.e Bone Baru, showed that the number was 99,898 and 99,719 individuals in 2010 and 2011. Moore et al., (2012) mentioned that annual harvest had reached 600,000-700,000 individual/year. Tumbak (Manado), Kendari and Luwuk with the number of individuals per month was 10,000, 20,000 and 5,000 respectively (CV. Cahaya Baru, pers.com). In 2015, the harvest of aquaculture in Ambon annually at 19,953 fish with approximate production is 1,600 fish/month. Bali at 20,000 fish per month. The LINI Aquaculture and Training Centre had harvested and sent its first live production to Great Britain in early March this year at a number of 400 individual fishes (Sertori, 2016).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Overview of Shark Utilisation in the Coral Triangle Region (PDF, 550
    WORKING TOGETHER FOR SUSTAINABLE SHARK FISHERIES AN OVERVIEW OF SHARK UTILISATION IN THE CORAL TRIANGLE REGION Written by Mary Lack Director, Shellack Pty Ltd Glenn Sant Fisheries Programme Leader, TRAFFIC & Senior Fellow, ANCORS Published in September 2012 This report can be downloaded from wwf.panda.org/coraltriangle Citation Lack M. and Sant G. (2012). An overview of shark utilisation in the Coral Triangle region. TRAFFIC &WWF. Photo cover © naturepl.com / Jeff Rotman / WWF-Canon Thanks to the Rufford Lang Foundation for supporting the development of this publication 2 An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region ACRONYMS ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations BFAR Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (the Philippines) CCSBT Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora CMM Conservation and Management Measure CMS Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals CNP Co-operating Non-Contracting party COFI Committee on Fisheries (of FAO) CoP Conference of the Parties (to CITES) EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations IOTC Indian Ocean Tuna Commission IPOA-Sharks International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (fishing) MoU Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks (CMS) nei Not elsewhere included NPOA-Sharks National Plan of Action for the Conservation and
    [Show full text]
  • Species Composition of the Largest Shark Fin Retail-Market in Mainland
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Species composition of the largest shark fn retail‑market in mainland China Diego Cardeñosa1,2*, Andrew T. Fields1, Elizabeth A. Babcock3, Stanley K. H. Shea4, Kevin A. Feldheim5 & Demian D. Chapman6 Species‑specifc monitoring through large shark fn market surveys has been a valuable data source to estimate global catches and international shark fn trade dynamics. Hong Kong and Guangzhou, mainland China, are the largest shark fn markets and consumption centers in the world. We used molecular identifcation protocols on randomly collected processed fn trimmings (n = 2000) and non‑ parametric species estimators to investigate the species composition of the Guangzhou retail market and compare the species diversity between the Guangzhou and Hong Kong shark fn retail markets. Species diversity was similar between both trade hubs with a small subset of species dominating the composition. The blue shark (Prionace glauca) was the most common species overall followed by the CITES‑listed silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis), scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini), smooth hammerhead shark (S. zygaena) and shortfn mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus). Our results support previous indications of high connectivity between the shark fn markets of Hong Kong and mainland China and suggest that systematic studies of other fn trade hubs within Mainland China and stronger law‑enforcement protocols and capacity building are needed. Many shark populations have declined in the last four decades, mainly due to overexploitation to supply the demand for their fns in Asia and meat in many other countries 1–4. Mainland China was historically the world’s second largest importer of shark fns and foremost consumer of shark fn soup, yet very little is known about the species composition of shark fns in this trade hub2.
    [Show full text]
  • And Their Functional, Ecological, and Evolutionary Implications
    DePaul University Via Sapientiae College of Science and Health Theses and Dissertations College of Science and Health Spring 6-14-2019 Body Forms in Sharks (Chondrichthyes: Elasmobranchii), and Their Functional, Ecological, and Evolutionary Implications Phillip C. Sternes DePaul University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/csh_etd Part of the Biology Commons Recommended Citation Sternes, Phillip C., "Body Forms in Sharks (Chondrichthyes: Elasmobranchii), and Their Functional, Ecological, and Evolutionary Implications" (2019). College of Science and Health Theses and Dissertations. 327. https://via.library.depaul.edu/csh_etd/327 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Science and Health at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in College of Science and Health Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Body Forms in Sharks (Chondrichthyes: Elasmobranchii), and Their Functional, Ecological, and Evolutionary Implications A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science June 2019 By Phillip C. Sternes Department of Biological Sciences College of Science and Health DePaul University Chicago, Illinois Table of Contents Table of Contents.............................................................................................................................ii List of Tables..................................................................................................................................iv
    [Show full text]
  • Species Carcharhinus Brachyurus (Günther, 1870
    FAMILY Carcharhinidae Jordan & Evermann, 1896 - requiem sharks [=Triaenodontini, Prionidae, Cynocephali, Galeocerdini, Carcharhininae, Eulamiidae, Loxodontinae, Scoliodontinae, Galeolamnidae, Rhizoprionodontini, Isogomphodontini] GENUS Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816 - requiem sharks [=Aprion, Aprionodon, Bogimba, Carcharias, Eulamia, Galeolamna, Galeolamnoides, Gillisqualus, Gymnorhinus, Hypoprion, Hypoprionodon, Isoplagiodon, Lamnarius, Longmania, Mapolamia, Ogilamia, Platypodon, Pterolamia, Pterolamiops, Uranga, Uranganops] Species Carcharhinus acarenatus Moreno & Hoyos, 1983 - Moroccan shark Species Carcharhinus acronotus (Poey, 1860) - blacknose shark [=remotus] Species Carcharhinus albimarginatus (Rüppell, 1837) silvertip shark [=platyrhynchus] Species Carcharhinus altimus (Springer, 1950) - bignose shark [=radamae] Species Carcharhinus amblyrhynchoides (Whitley, 1934) - graceful shark Species Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos (Bleeker, 1856) - grey reef shark [=coongoola, fowleri, nesiotes, tufiensis] Species Carcharhinus amboinensis (Müller & Henle, 1839) - Java shark [=brachyrhynchos, henlei, obtusus] Species Carcharhinus borneensis (Bleeker, 1858) - Borneo shark Species Carcharhinus brachyurus (Günther, 1870) - copper shark, bronze whaler, narrowtooth shark [=ahenea, improvisus, lamiella, remotoides, rochensis] Species Carcharhinus brevipinna (Müller & Henle, 1839) - great blacktip shark [=brevipinna B, calamaria, caparti, johnsoni, maculipinnis, nasuta] Species Carcharhinus cautus (Whitley, 1945) - nervous shark Species Carcharhinus
    [Show full text]
  • A Shark Conservationists Toolbox: Current DNA Methods and Techniques Aiding in the Conservation of Sharks
    Nova Southeastern University NSUWorks All HCAS Student Theses, Dissertations, and Capstones HCAS Student Theses and Dissertations 8-5-2020 A Shark Conservationists Toolbox: Current DNA Methods and Techniques Aiding in the Conservation of Sharks Arianna N. Nixon Nova Southeastern University Follow this and additional works at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/hcas_etd_all Part of the Genetics and Genomics Commons, and the Marine Biology Commons Share Feedback About This Item NSUWorks Citation Arianna N. Nixon. 2020. A Shark Conservationists Toolbox: Current DNA Methods and Techniques Aiding in the Conservation of Sharks. Capstone. Nova Southeastern University. Retrieved from NSUWorks, . (4) https://nsuworks.nova.edu/hcas_etd_all/4. This Capstone is brought to you by the HCAS Student Theses and Dissertations at NSUWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in All HCAS Student Theses, Dissertations, and Capstones by an authorized administrator of NSUWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Capstone of Arianna N. Nixon Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Marine Science Nova Southeastern University Halmos College of Arts and Sciences August 2020 Approved: Capstone Committee Major Professor: George Duncan Committee Member: Bernhard Riegl This capstone is available at NSUWorks: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/hcas_etd_all/4 NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY HALMOS COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES A Shark Conservationists Toolbox: Current DNA Methods and Techniques Aiding in the Conservation
    [Show full text]
  • SAFS Report 2018
    STATUS OF AUSTRALIAN FISH STOCKS REPORT BLACKTIP SHARKS (2018) BLACKTIP SHARKS (2018) Carcharhinus sorrah, Carcharhinus tilstoni, Carcharhinus limbatus Grant Johnson: Department of Primary Industry and Resources, Northern Territory, Matias Braccini: Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, Western Australia, Lisa Walton: Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Queensland, Vic Peddemors: Department of Primary Industries, New South Wales STOCK STATUS OVERVIEW Jurisdiction Stock Fisheries Stock status Indicators Northern Territory North and BF, BNF, Sustainable Catch, mark recapture, West Coast CNF, DF, CPUE, pup production ONLF, SMF, SPDF Northern Territory, Gulf of GOCIFFF, Undefined Catch, MSY Queensland Carpentaria GOCLF, ONLF Queensland, New East Coast ECIFFF, EGF, Sustainable Catch, MSY South Wales N/A, OTF, OTLF EGF Estuary General Fishery (NSW), N/A Not Applicable (NSW), OTF Ocean Trawl Fishery (NSW), OTLF Ocean Trap and Line Fishery (NSW), BF Barramundi Fishery (NT), DF Demersal Fishery (NT), ONLF Offshore Net and Line Fishery (NT), SMF Spanish Mackerel Fishery (NT), ECIFFF East Coast Inshore Fin Fish Fishery (QLD), GOCIFFF Gulf of Carpentaria Inshore Fin Fish Fishery (QLD), GOCLF Gulf of Carpentaria Line Fishery (QLD), BNF Bait Net Fishery (NT), CNF Coastal Net Fishery (NT), SPDF Small Pelagic Developmental Fishery (NT) STOCK STRUCTURE In the context of Australian fisheries, the Blacktip Shark species complex, part of the family Carcharhinidae (whaler sharks), comprises three species: Carcharhinus tilstoni (Australian Blacktip Shark), C. limbatus (Common Blacktip Shark) and C. sorrah (Spottail Shark). Whereas C. tilstoni and C. sorrah are distributed only within Australian and Indo–West Pacific waters, respectively, C. limbatus is globally distributed in tropical and warm temperate waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Composition of Elasmobranchs in the Surface and Subsurface Gillnet Operation in the Northern Arabian Sea
    __________________________________________________IOTC-2019-WPEB15-13 Species composition of elasmobranchs in the surface and subsurface gillnet operation in the Northern Arabian Sea Muhammad Moazzam WWF-Pakistan, Karachi, Pakistan ([email protected]) Abstract Sharks form important part of bycatch of the tuna gillnet operations in Pakistan. WWF- Pakistan introduced subsurface gillnetting in 2014 in which gillnet are placed 1.4 to 2 m below the sea surface. Fishing fleet engaged in tuna gillnetting adopted subsurface gillnetting and by January 2016 entire tuna fleet was converted in subsurface gillnetting. Catch of endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species such as dolphins and sea turtles were observed to be much lower in subsurface gillnet as compared to surface operations. Sharks are among the other ETP species whose catches were dropped in subsurface gillnet as compared to surface operations. It was observed that overall shark catches were 15.06 % lower in the subsurface gillnet operation as compared to surface placement of gillnets. A marked seasonality was observed in case of dominating species including mako and silky shark. Catches of mako sharks was observed to be about 8.65 % higher in subsurface gillnets as compared to surface gillnets. Introduction Sharks are considered as an important bycatch group of tuna gillnet fishing in Pakistan and other part of the Arabian Sea (Koya, 2018; Shahifar, 2018, Khan, 2013; Moazzam, 2013; Shahid et al., 2015, 2016). In Pakistan, gillnets consisting of monofilament and multifilament are used for catching tuna and tuna like species. Monofilament net is mainly used for catching neritic tuna in coastal waters whereas multifilament nylon nets are used for catching longtail tuna (Thunnus tonggol), yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) and skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) in the offshore waters.
    [Show full text]
  • WCPTOC2.CHP:Corel VENTURA
    click for previous page Carcharhinidae 1325 Carcharhinus albimarginatus (Rüppell, 1837) Frequent synonyms / misidentifications: None / Carcharhinus longimanus (Poey, 1861); Triaenodon obesus (Rüppell, 1837). FAO names: En - Silvertip shark; Fr - Requin pointe blanche; Sp - Tiburón de puntas blancas. Diagnostic characters: A large, slender to moderately stout shark. Snout moderately long and broadly parabolic, its length subequal to or slightly shorter than mouth width and equal to or greater than internasal space; labial furrows very short; anterior nasal flaps very low; spiracles absent; teeth with serrated edges, upper teeth broadly triangular and erect at front of mouth, progressively oblique posteriorly, without conspicuous cusplets; teeth in lower jaw erect and stout-cusped, serrated. First dorsal upper and lower fin moderately high, with a narrowly rounded apex, its ventral view of head tooth near centre origin over inner margins of pectoral fins; second dorsal fin moderately high, its origin about opposite that of anal fin, its inner margin less than twice its height, and its posterior margin nearly straight; pectoral fins long and slightly falcate, with narrow, pointed tips. Interdorsal ridge present. Colour: dorsal surface dark grey or grey-brown, ventral surface white; all fins have conspicuous white tips and posterior margins. Size: Maximum total length about 3 m; adults mature at 1.6 to 1.99 m; size at birth about 63 to 68 cm. Habitat, biology, and fisheries: A continental and insular species occurring from the surface to a depth of 800 m, close inshore in lagoons and near island dropoffs or well offshore, but not oceanic. Viviparous, number of embryos 1 to 11.
    [Show full text]
  • Alia2006.Pdf (2.103Mb)
    APPENDIX 3 PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF MICROSCOPIC OBSERVATION ON DERMAL DENTICLES OF SHARK FINS By Ahmad Ali Mahyam Mohd. Isa Noor Azman Zakaria Sollahuddin A. Razak Annie Lim Pheik Khiok 207 SHARKS AND RAY SPECIES USED FOR DERMAL DENTICLES STUDY DURING 2004 No Family/Species Sex Total Length Body Weight (cm) (kg) Family Sphyrnidae 1. Sphyrna lewini ♀ 50.5 0.6 2. Sphyrna lewini ♀ 50.2 0.6 3. Sphyrna lewini ♂ 89.4 3.1 4. Sphyrna lewini ♂ 46.4 0.4 5. Sphyrna lewini ♂ 44.0 0.6 6. Sphyrna lewini ♀ 59.5 1.1 7 Sphyrna lewini ♂ 56.2 0.8 8. Sphyrna mokarran ♂ 73.4 1.0 9. Sphyrna mokarran ♂ 197 33 Family Carcharhinidae 10. Carcharhinus amblyrhynchoides ♀ 90.2 5.6 11. Carcharhinus amblyrhynchoides ♀ 83.2 4.2 12. Carcharhinus amblyrhynchoides ♀ 80.2 3.7 13. Carcharhinus amblyrhynchoides ♂ 107 NA 14. Carcharhinus amblyrhynchoides NA NA NA 15. Carcharhinus leucas NA NA NA 16. Carcharhinus leucas NA NA NA 17. Carcharhinus sorrah ♀ 84.8 2.6 18. Carcharhinus sorrah ♂ 83.8 2.8 19. Carcharhinus sorrah ♀ 83.4 2.9 20. Carcharhinus sorrah ♀ 88.2 3.4 21. Carcharhinus sorrah NA NA NA 22. Carcharhinus sorrah ♂ 86.1 3.3 23. Carcharhinus sorrah ♀ 91.3 4.2 24. Loxodon macrorhinus ♂ 74.6 1.2 25. Loxodon macrorhinus ♂ 73.8 1.4 26. Loxodon macrorhinus ♂ 78 1.4 27. Loxodon macrorhinus ♀ 74.4 1.5 28. Loxodon macrorhinus ♀ 64.1 0.7 29. Loxodon macrorhinus ♀ 70.4 1.2 30. Loxodon macrorhinus ♀ 57.7 0.6 31. Rhizoprionodon acutus ♂ 84.6 2.1 32.
    [Show full text]
  • AC20 Inf. 28 Table 1. Provisional List of Key Shark Species Identified Under Res. Conf. 12.6 by the 20Th Meeting of the Animals
    AC20 Inf. 28 Table 1. Provisional list of key shark species identified under Res. Conf. 12.6 by the 20th Meeting of the Animals Committee. Species name UNCLOS CITES Shared Declining Red List * Management International stocks ** trade Hexanchus griseus Bluntnose sixgill shark Yes ? Yes NT No ? Squalus acanthias Spiny dogfish Proposed II Yes Yes NT (VU/EN) Some Yes Genus Centrophorus, Gulper Sharks (~10 species) Yes Yes DD–CR Mostly none Liver oil (meat?) Family Squatinidae Angel Sharks (~20 species) Some Yes (some) LC–EN Mostly none ? Rhincodon typus Whale shark Yes II Yes Yes VU Mostly none Yes Family Odontaspididae, Sand tigers (3 species) Yes Yes DD–VU, (NT–CR) Mostly none Fins, aquaria Genus Alopias, Thresher sharks (3 species) Yes Yes Yes DD under review (NT) Mostly none Meat and fins Cetorhinus maximus Basking shark Yes II Yes Yes VU (EN) Mostly none Fins Carcharodon carcharias Great white shark Yes III/proposed I Yes Yes VU Some Jaws and fins Genus Isurus Mako sharks (2 species) Yes Yes Yes DD under review (NT) Mostly none Meat and fins Lamna ditropis Salmon shark Yes Yes In NW Pac? DD Mostly none Meat and fins Lamna nasus Porbeagle shark Yes Proposed II Yes Yes NT (VU–EN) Mostly none Meat and fins Galeorhinus galeus School/tope/soupfin shark Yes Yes VU (NT–EN) Mostly none Meat and fins Genus Mustelus Smoothhound sharks (25 species) Yes Some LC–VU Mostly none Meat Family Carcharinidae (12 genera, 54 species) Yes Genus Carcharinus (31 species) Yes Carcharhinus albimarginatus Silvertip shark Yes Yes Yes DD (under review) None Fins
    [Show full text]
  • Florida, Bahamas, Cuba, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Venezuela. Eastern North Atlan- Tic: Senegal, Gambia, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast and Ghana
    click for previous page - 458 - Geographical Distribution : Western Atlantic: Florida, Bahamas, Cuba, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Venezuela. Eastern North Atlan- tic: Senegal, Gambia, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast and Ghana. Mediterranean Sea. Western Indian Ocean: South Africa, Mada- gascar, India, Red Sea. ? Western Pacific: China. Central Pacific: Hawaii. Eastern Pacific: Gulf of California, southern Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador, Revillagigedo Islands. Habitat and Biology: A common off- shore, bottom-dwelling warm-temperate and tropical shark usually found in deeper water near the edge of the continental and insular shelves and the uppermost slopes, in depths of 90 m or more down to at least 250 to 430 m. The young may occur in shallower water, up to 25 m depth. Development viviparous, number of young per litter 3 to 15. Mediterranean sharks give birth in August and September, Madagascar sharks September and October. Eats a variety of bony fishes, including lizardfish, croakers, batfish, soles, other sharks including dogfish (Squalus), catsharks (Holohalaelurus), stingrays (Dasyatis), and cuttlefish. Although of large size, this species is probably not dangerous to people because of its deep-water habitat. Size : Maximum possibly about 300 cm, mature males 216 to at least 267 cm, mature females 226 to 282 cm; size at birth probably between 70 and 90 cm. Interest to Fisheries: Apparently regularly taken in the Caribbean region on deep-set longlines (especially off Cuba, but also southern Florida), and there utilized for fishmeal, oil and shagreen; also taken in bottom trawls in the western Indian Ocean and probably by line or gillnet off India. Literature : Springer (1950); Fourmanoir (1961); Bass, D'Aubrey & Kistnasamy (1973); Garrick (1982), Morenos & Hoyos (1983).
    [Show full text]
  • Towards Better Management of Australia's Shark Fishery: Genetic
    CSIRO PUBLISHING www.publish.csiro.au/journals/mfr Marine and Freshwater Research, 2010, 61, 253–262 Towards better management of Australia’s shark fishery: genetic analyses reveal unexpected ratios of cryptic blacktip species Carcharhinus tilstoni and C. limbatus J. R. OvendenA,C, J. A. T. MorganA, T. KashiwagiA, D. BroderickA and J. SaliniB AMolecular Fisheries Laboratory, Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries, PO Box 6097, St Lucia, QLD 4069, Australia. BCSIRO Marine Laboratories, Cleveland, QLD 4163, Australia. CCorresponding author. Email: [email protected] Abstract. The common blacktip shark (Carcharhinus limbatus) and the Australian blacktip shark (C. tilstoni) are morphologically similar species that co-occur in subtropical and tropical Australia. In striking contrast to what has been previously reported, we demonstrate that the common blacktip shark is not rare in northern Australia but occurs in approximately equal frequencies with the Australian blacktip shark. Management of shark resources in northern Australia needs to take account of this new information. Species identification was performed using nucleotide sequences of the control, NADH dehydrogenase subunit 4 (ND4) and cytochrome oxidase I (COI) regions in the mitochondrial genome. The proportion of overall genetic variation (FST) between the two species was small (0.042, P < 0.01) based on allele frequencies at five microsatellite loci. We confirm that a third blacktip species (C. amblyrhynchoides, graceful shark) is closely related to C. tilstoni and C. limbatus and can be distinguished from them on the basis of mtDNA sequences from two gene regions. The Australian blacktip shark (C. tilstoni) was not encountered among 20 samples from central Indonesia that were later confirmed to be common blacktip and graceful sharks.
    [Show full text]