Pink Whiprays Himantura Fai in French Polynesia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PhD from French Polynesia University and Pink whiprays École Pratique des Hautes Études Himantura fai in French Polynesia: case study of their feeding for tourismPresented purpose by Cécile Gaspar October 24 th 2008 PhD Directors: Claude PAYRI et René GALZIN 11 Summary {A6C4140C-4C2E-4D3B-BBD2-5B25ED9693E0} {91E72BF9-9385-40C6-BB57-793EF30AFDC2} {2EDEDFF9-9A84-4D1E-B758-939ACC29961B} {5DC331BF-407C-46AA-A2D9-F87FBE3AFFB1} {158BCE23-64F4-4B7F-A114-823AEEEC1397} {75E97E0F-89DA-488C-BC6C-068AB30CD4D9} {6A3D37B7-DEB1-4C1E-BF8D-AD76DE5C47AE} ChapiterDiscussion 1Introduction : SpeciesChapiter and 3 and :study Study researchConclusionChapiter zone ofChapiter individual topics 4 and: Genetic 2 future : movements Sting structure research ray feeding of population activity in French Polynesia 22 {45ABD61F-73AD-488E-AC5A-BC1448257E81} {5CA1C32C-8572-4B5F-A3CF-8381D289A4A6} {9502B4A6-6AD5-43DF-80A4-10AE9A7158B7} Introduction and research topics Introduction and Global context: research topics Context 1/ Species and ØGlobal warming, species extinction, destruction of natural habitats… study zone Øover 300 marine animals feeding sites in the world: modification of food 2/Sting ray ressouces by human. What is the definition of «ecotourism»? feeding activity 3/ Individual movement studies 4/ Genetic structure of polynesian Characteristics of individualpopulation Stingmovements ray feeding: and impact impact of on feedingGenetic Moorea structure socio-economy of polynesian population Local context: General discussion Ø Conclusion and Himantura fai : first study on this species future research ØInvolved in polynesian culture but no interest for human consumption ØInvolved in tourism interest while marine reserve areas are created on Moorea Ø More questions on the impact of feeding on wild animals Research topics 33 {91E72BF9-9385-40C6-BB57-793EF30AFDC2} Chapiter 1 : Species and study zone 44 Chapiter 1 : Species and study zone a/ selected species: Himantura fai Introduction and Common names: research topics Sting ray, pink whipray fai i’u, fai potaka, hai Class: Chondrichtyens 1/Species pink whipray… Sub class : Elasmobranch and study Order : Rajiformes zone Family : Dasyatidae (sting rays) Sub family : Dasyatinae 2/ Touristic ray Identification Genus : Himantura feeding activity Species : fai in French Authors: Jordan et Seale 1906 3/ Study on Polynesia: individual movements B. Seret, 1994 4/ Genetic Global structure of polynesian sting distribution: ray population de 24° north to 26° south Discussion ØSouth Africa Conclusion and ØSamoa future research ØPhilippines Ø Indonesia ? ? ØMarshall Islands ØJapon ØCaroline Island ØAustralia ØEgypte Ø 55 Papoua New Guinea ØFrench Polynesia Anatomy Disc shape Size 120 cm width Colour Skin marks Sexual dimorphism Pterygopodes Pelvic fin Female size/male Spiracle Gills 66 Feeding and reproduction •Diet (crustaceans, mollusks, worms, fish) •Prey detection •Internal fecondation •Maturity age •Ovoviviparity •Gestation period •Litter size 32 cm •Nursery sites •Juvenile size and weight 77 Senses Olfaction : nostrils Vision Electro-location : ampullae of Lorenzini, electric field detection Dorsal view Ventral view Dorsal view Mechano-reception: dorsal and ventral ligne, detection of pressure changes Taste Hearing Touch Sting and venom •1 or 2 stings, 10 to 30 cm lengh •Cartilaginous •Venom gland on ventral side •Venom sensible to heat •Pain, oedema, inflammatory, necrosis •General symptoms 99 fai i’u symbolism in French Polynesia •Symbolism of wisdom and peace •Traditionnal tatoos •Legends and poems •Sting used as tools by ancient Polynesian 1010 Chapiter 1 : Species and study zone b/ Study zone French polynesia Moorea island Tiahura : 2,4 km² PGEM since 2004 Coral zone Max depth: 8 m Taotoi Pass N SP BS 1400 m M DQ {91E72BF9-9385-40C6-BB57-793EF30AFDC2} Chapiter 2 : Sting ray feeding activity 1212 Chapitre 2 : Sting ray feeding activity Introduction and a/ marketing research topic Internet 1/Species and study zone 2/ Sting ray feeding activity 3/ Study on individual movements 4/ Genetic structure of polynesian population Discussion Conclusion and future research 1313 Advertising boards 1414 Flyers 1515 b/ activity description §Definition of sting ray site fidelity §10 business operators in 2006 §Method: observation in situ and §operation types: boat size, duration… questionnaries § one-hour, half –day or day tours Sand Bank site Motu site since 1995 since 1999 1616 120 to 150 cm 30 to 50 cm c/ perception and social impact: 2004-2008 10 8 6 4 2 0 Tourist answers (n=41) to the question: 50 « what attracts you in this activity? » 40 2004 2008 30 20 10 0 Resident answers (n=77) to the question: « what attracts you in this activity? » 2004 2008 1717 2004 Tourists opinion on sting ray feeding in 2004 and 2008 (n=41) Resident opinion on sting ray feeding in 2004 and 2008 (n=77) d/ place of sting ray fedding in PGEM and feeding guidelignes Plan de Gestion de l’Espace maritime (P.G.E.M) vRole of PGEM: management tool since October 2004 vPresence of one full time coordinator since 2007 vControls and communication of new rules vShark feeding forbiden in Moorea lagoon under fishermen pressure vRays: 4 authorized zones, guidelines Authorized zones for sting ray feeding 1919 Tourist answers in 2004 and 2008 (n=41) to the question « Is it necessary to create guidelines to help maintain sting ray activity in the future? » 2020 Resident answers in 2004 and 2008 (n=77) to the question « Is it necessary to create guidelines to help maintain sting ray activity in the future? » e/ PGEM role and sting ray feeding guidelines Sting ray feeding guidelines summary Draft ü 20 minutes per group on site, only one group simultaneously ü10 visitors per guide in the water ü Less than 1 kg of fish per feeding; only the guide is feeding the animals üQuality ofthe fish, small pieces, not carcass ü No left-over on the floor üEducational message 2121 f/ touristic image and ecologic impact of ray feeding activty üHigh marketing value üEconomic and social impact but : vSafety measures? vEducative value ? v Impact on the rays and their ecosystem? 2222 {91E72BF9-9385-40C6-BB57-793EF30AFDC2} Chapiter 3 : Study on individual movements 2323 Chapiter 3 : Study on individual movements a/ colour tagging: method Introduction and research topics Inventory in study zone 1/Species and ØNatural marks not sufficient for individual study zone identification 2/ Sting ray ØVisual colour tags (10 cm) feeding activity ØShort time of presence on animals: 3/ Study on positive aspect for tourism individual movements Square net collection 4/ Genetic Material: « spaghetti tag » Floytag structure of polynesian Method: population üCapture square net or net Discussion üWithout capture: modified spare - Conclusion and gun future research Insertion in dorsal muscle Modified spare-gun Tags 2424 a/ colour tagging: results and discussion 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 others Total in june-july 2004: 58 individuals 30 males et 28 females üGood choice of method( spaghetti tags) photo-identification not appropriated üConfirmation of individual exchanges between feeding sites But: üTouristic context impact on visual aspect 2525 ü Global sex-ratio even in the area but not per site üPreliminary study for acoustic tagging b/ passive acoustic tagging: material Acoustic teemetry: definition, types, methods Choice : ØTags V8 et V13 ØIndividuals ØReceivers VR2 positionning Sand Bank Site Motu site Acoustic tag Receiver VR2 Receivers Distance (m) R1-R2Acoustic tags380 R5 R6 R4 R1-R3testing for530 receiving range: R2 R2-R3 490 R3 R3-R4 550 R4-R5 450 R1 VR2 covered receiving zone 202 VR2: 0.65 km2 = 33.7% of R5-R6 570 overall area meters 2626 Localisation of the 6 receivers in study zone b/ passive acoustic tagging: method- tag insertion Collection of animals and Incision of 1 cm, insertion Total duration : max 5 set up on boat of tag and suture min Choice of internal In-water observation tagging: duration of of tagged individuals emisson, not touched by (D+15) tourists, anterior studies Control of scar 2727 region (D+7) b/ Passive acoustic tagging: results – emission duration •14 individuals tagged • from March 30 th to July 24 th 2005 •1 tag never emitted •Short common emission period Number of rays with common emision period 12 04/05 05/05 06/05 07/05 08/05 09/05 10/05 11/05 12/05 01/06 02/06 03/06 04/06 10 07/05 08/05 09/05 10/05 11/05 12/05 01/06 02/06 03/06 04/06 8 6 4 2 2828 0 b/ passive acoustic tagging: all receivers results Receiver Total number of detections Number of days with detections Number of days without detection R5 32 967 43,6 % Period: 362 j R2 24 130 31,9 % }>75 % Days R4 7 350 R3 5 592 R6 4 212 R1 1 306 Total 75 557 Number of detections per receiver on total period Data given by receivers: Ray numbers time and dates of emission = treatment of data into Total of days with and without detection for each tagged ray duration of presence 1 detection = 10 minutes of presence of this individual 2929 134134 % of diurnal and nocturnal detection for each individual Average for all rays: 71% day and 29 % night Average all receivers: 60% day and 40 % night % of diurnal and nocturnal detection per receiver 3030 31 • 1 ray31 (7%) feeding sites use < 2% • 2 rays (15%) feeding sites use < 35% • 8 rays (62%) feeding sites use > 80% 10 rays (77%) use of 2 feeding sites on same same on sites feeding 2 of use (77%) •rays 10 day 1 ray (7%) regular use of both feeding sites: sites: feeding both of use regular (7%) • ray 1 57,4% Motu and 42,6% BS % of feeding site detections compared to total detections