DOCSLIB.ORG

Anabac Atlantic Unassociated Purse Seine Yellowfin Tuna Fishery

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Anabac Atlantic Unassociated Purse Seine Yellowfin Tuna Fishery ANABAC ATLANTIC UNASSOCIATED PURSE SEINE YELLOWFIN TUNA FISHERY Public Comment Draft Report 11th February, 2021 Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) Bureau Veritas Certification Holding SAS Assessment team Gemma Quilez, Carmen Morant, Carola Kirchner ANABAC (Asociación Nacional de Armadores de Buques Atuneros Fishery client Congeladores) Assessment Type Initial Assessment 1 Contents 1 Contents .......................................................................................................... 2 2 Glossary .......................................................................................................... 4 3 Executive summary ......................................................................................... 5 4 Report details .................................................................................................. 7 4.1 Authorship and peer review details ............................................................................ 7 4.2 Version details ........................................................................................................... 8 5 Unit(s) of Assessment and Certification and results overview ......................... 8 5.1 Unit(s) of Assessment and Unit(s) of Certification ..................................................... 8 5.1.1 Unit(s) of Assessment ..................................................................................................... 8 5.1.2 Unit(s) of Certification .................................................................................................... 15 5.2 Assessment results overview................................................................................... 15 5.2.1 Determination, formal conclusion and agreement ........................................................ 15 5.2.2 Principle level scores..................................................................................................... 16 5.2.3 Summary of conditions .................................................................................................. 16 5.2.4 Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 17 6 Traceability and eligibility .............................................................................. 17 6.1 Eligibility date ........................................................................................................... 17 6.2 Traceability within the fishery ................................................................................... 17 6.2.1 Traceability and segregation systems on board ........................................................... 17 6.2.2 Determination of risk associated to traceability factors prior to entering CoC .............. 18 6.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody ............................................................. 20 6.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to enter further chains of custody 21 7 Scoring .......................................................................................................... 21 7.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores ..................................................... 21 7.2 Principle 1 ................................................................................................................ 23 7.2.1 Principle 1 background .................................................................................................. 23 7.2.2 Catch profiles ................................................................................................................ 36 7.2.3 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data ................................................................ 36 7.2.4 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales .............................................. 37 PI 1.1.1 – Stock status ............................................................................................................. 37 PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding ....................................................................................................... 40 PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy ...................................................................................................... 41 PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools ................................................................................ 45 PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring...................................................................................... 48 PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status ..................................................................................... 52 7.3 Principle 2 ................................................................................................................ 54 7.3.1 Principle 2 background .................................................................................................. 54 7.3.2 UoC catch composition: species assignment to MSC P2 categories ........................... 54 7.3.3 Primary species impacted by the UoC .......................................................................... 63 ANABAC ATLANTIC UNASSOCIATED PURSE SEINE YELLOWFIN TUNA FISHERY – PCDR 2 7.3.4 Secondary species impacted by the UoC ..................................................................... 79 7.3.5 ETP species impacted by the UoC ............................................................................... 79 7.3.6 Habitats ......................................................................................................................... 84 7.3.7 Ecosystem ..................................................................................................................... 86 7.3.8 Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales .............................................. 88 PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome ........................................................................................ 88 PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy ................................................................... 95 PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information .................................................................................. 104 PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome ................................................................................. 107 PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy ............................................................ 109 PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information ............................................................................. 114 PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome ........................................................................................... 116 PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy ...................................................................... 121 PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information ....................................................................................... 126 PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome .................................................................................................. 129 PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy ............................................................................. 131 PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information .............................................................................................. 134 PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome .............................................................................................. 137 PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy ......................................................................... 139 PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information .......................................................................................... 142 7.4 Principle 3 .............................................................................................................. 145 7.4.1 Principle 3 background ................................................................................................ 145 7.4.2 Principle 3 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ............................................ 175 PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework ....................................................................... 175 PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities ................................................................. 182 PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives ............................................................................................. 188 PI 3.2.1 – Fishery-specific objectives .................................................................................... 191 PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes .................................................................................. 193 PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement ............................................................................... 199 PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation .......................................... 205 8 References .................................................................................................. 208 9 Appendices ................................................................................................. 214 9.1 Assessment information ......................................................................................... 214 9.1.1 Small-scale fisheries ................................................................................................... 214 9.2 Evaluation processes and techniques ................................................................... 215 9.2.1 Site visits ....................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • C.9. Ctenochaetus Binotatus (Itingan) C.9.1. General Biology C.9.2. Size
    C.9. Ctenochaetus binotatus (Itingan) C.9.1. General Biology Inhabits coral and rubble areas of deep lagoon and seaward reefs. Usually solitary, grazing on surface algae. Feeds by scooping film of detritus and unicellular algae (e.g. dinoflagellate Gambierdiscus toxicus) that produce ciguatera toxin making this species a key link in the ciguatera food chain. Commonly caught by nets. Distributed in Indo-Pacific: East Africa to the Tuamoto Islands, north to southern Japan, south to Figure xx. The target species, Ctenochaetus inotatus central New South Wales (Australia) and New Caledonia. Not known from the Red Sea, Gulf of Oman, the Gulf, the Hawaiian Islands, Marquesas, Rapa, Pitcairn Islands, and Easter Island. (source: FishBase) C.9.2. Size Distribution A total of 162 fish individuals of Ctenochaetus binotatus were measured to the nearest centimeter. Measured length were from both the weekly measurements of the enumerators and biological samples brought Figure xx. Size distribution of Ctenochaetus binotatus with corresponding Lm50 of C. striatus of this study. to the lab. The smallest individual measured 7.0 cm SL and the largest is 17.0 cm SL. Approximately 30% of the total catch is below the computed Lm50 of C. striatus of this study. Since, there is no available data and literatures regarding the length at which it reaches maturity, we will use the estimated Lm50 and Lm95 of C. striatus. C.9.3. Gonadal Maturation and Maturation Curve Only 5 biological specimens were brought to the lab for examination. Out of 5 samples, 4 were males and only 1 female. All were staged as mature.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimation of Fatty Acid Profile and Proximate
    ESTIMATION OF FATTY ACID PROFILE AND PROXIMATE COMPOSITION OF CANTHIDERMIS MACULATA (BLOCH, 1786) (TETRADONTIFORMES, BALISTIDAE) COLLECTED FROM SOUTHERN COAST OF SRI LANKA 1WILLIAMS S.S., 2MUNASINGHE D.H.N. 1,2Department of Zoology, University of Ruhuna,Sri Lanka. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Abstract - Rough oceanic triggerfish Canthidermis maculata (Bloch, 1786) belongs to family Balistidae and has year round availability as the main by-catch species in tuna fishery industry. Due to high availability and low market value, this species gain low demand in the local market. Further, the society believes that the taste of this fish species is similar to chicken and therefore chicken dishes are prepared with the substitution of C. maculata. Due to lack of knowledge gap of nutritional value of this species, the objective of current study was to estimate nutritional components of C. maculata in order to popularize it as a food source to fulfill nutritional requirement of the society. Fish samples were collected from fish landing sites of three regions (Mirissa, Dondra and Tangalle) in the southern coast of Sri Lanka. Samples from commercially demanded fish species Cephalopholis sonnerati (Tomato Hind) and chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) were analyzed in order to compare the proximate values of C. maculata. Samples were collected from three individuals of each species and each sample was analyzed in triplicates. Fatty acid profile of C. maculata was determined by Fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) Test with gas chromatographic technique. Analyses revealed that flesh samples of C. maculata contained important fatty acids such as Eicosapentaenoic acid and Docosahexaenoic acid in high amounts with other essential fatty acids.
    [Show full text]
  • IUCN-European-Red-List-Of-Marine
    European Red List of Marine Fishes Ana Nieto, Gina M. Ralph, Mia T. Comeros-Raynal, James Kemp, Mariana García Criado, David J. Allen, Nicholas K. Dulvy, Rachel H.L. Walls, Barry Russell, David Pollard, Silvia García, Matthew Craig, Bruce B. Collette, Riley Pollom, Manuel Biscoito, Ning Labbish Chao, Alvaro Abella, Pedro Afonso, Helena Álvarez, Kent E. Carpenter, Simona Clò, Robin Cook, Maria José Costa, João Delgado, Manuel Dureuil, Jim R. Ellis, Edward D. Farrell, Paul Fernandes, Ann-Britt Florin, Sonja Fordham, Sarah Fowler, Luis Gil de Sola, Juan Gil Herrera, Angela Goodpaster, Michael Harvey, Henk Heessen, Juergen Herler, Armelle Jung, Emma Karmovskaya, Çetin Keskin, Steen W. Knudsen, Stanislav Kobyliansky, Marcelo Kovačić, Julia M. Lawson, Pascal Lorance, Sophy McCully Phillips, Thomas Munroe, Kjell Nedreaas, Jørgen Nielsen, Constantinos Papaconstantinou, Beth Polidoro, Caroline M. Pollock, Adriaan D. Rijnsdorp, Catherine Sayer, Janet Scott, Fabrizio Serena, William F. Smith-Vaniz, Alen Soldo, Emilie Stump and Jeffrey T. Williams European Red List of Marine Fishes Ana Nieto, Gina M. Ralph, Mia T. Comeros-Raynal, James Kemp, Mariana García Criado, David J. Allen, Nicholas K. Dulvy, Rachel H.L. Walls, Barry Russell, David Pollard, Silvia García, Matthew Craig, Bruce B. Collette, Riley Pollom, Manuel Biscoito, Ning Labbish Chao, Alvaro Abella, Pedro Afonso, Helena Álvarez, Kent E. Carpenter, Simona Clò, Robin Cook, Maria José Costa, João Delgado, Manuel Dureuil, Jim R. Ellis, Edward D. Farrell, Paul Fernandes, Ann-Britt Florin, Sonja Fordham, Sarah Fowler, Luis Gil de Sola, Juan Gil Herrera, Angela Goodpaster, Michael Harvey, Henk Heessen, Juergen Herler, Armelle Jung, Emma Karmovskaya, Çetin Keskin, Steen W. Knudsen, Stanislav Kobyliansky, Marcelo Kovačić, Julia M.
    [Show full text]
  • FAMILY Balistidae Risso, 1810 – Triggerfishes GENUS Abalistes
    FAMILY Balistidae Risso, 1810 – triggerfishes GENUS Abalistes Jordan & Seale, 1906 [=Abalistes Jordan [D. S.] & Seale [A.] 1906:364, Leiurus (subgenus of Capriscus) Swainson [W.] 1839:194, 326] Notes: [Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries v. 25 (for 1905); ref. 2497] Masc. Leiurus macrophthalmus Swainson 1839. Type by being a replacement name. Replacement for Leiurus (subgenus of Capriscus) Swainson 1839, preoccupied by Leiurus Swainson 1839:242 in fishes. •Valid as Abalistes Jordan & Seale 1906 -- (Matsuura 1980:39 [ref. 6943], Tyler 1980:121 [ref. 4477], Arai 1983:199 [ref. 14249], Matsuura in Masuda et al. 1984:358 [ref. 6441], Smith & Heemstra 1986:877 [ref. 5714], Lindberg et al. 1997:50 [ref. 23547] as Abolistes, Matsuura 2001:3912 [ref. 26315], Matsuura & Yoshino 2004:189 [ref. 27771], Allen et al. 2006:1870 [ref. 29098], Matsuura 2014:7 [ref. 33576], Motomura et al. 2017:229 [ref. 35490], Fricke et al. 2018:376 [ref. 35805]). Current status: Valid as Abalistes Jordan & Seale 1906. Balistidae. (Leiurus) [The natural history and classification v. 2; ref. 4303] Masc. Leiurus macrophthalmus Swainson 1839. Type by subsequent designation. Type designated by Swain 1883:282 [ref. 5966]. Objectively invalid; preoccupied by Leiurus Swainson on p. 242 of same work, replaced by Abalistes Jordan & Seale 1906. •Synonym of Abalistes Jordan & Seale 1906 -- (Allen et al. 2006:1870 [ref. 29098]). Current status: Synonym of Abalistes Jordan & Seale 1906. Balistidae. Species Abalistes filamentosus Matsuura & Yoshino, 2004 [=Abalistes filamentosus Matsuura [K.] & Yoshino [T.] 2004:190, Fig. 1A] Notes: [Records of the Australian Museum v. 56 (no. 2); ref. 27771] Off Itoman, south coast of Okinawa-jima Island, Ryukyu Islands, Japan.
    [Show full text]
  • Seamap Environmental and Biological Atlas of the Gulf of Mexico, 2017
    environmental and biological atlas of the gulf of mexico 2017 gulf states marine fisheries commission number 284 february 2019 seamap SEAMAP ENVIRONMENTAL AND BIOLOGICAL ATLAS OF THE GULF OF MEXICO, 2017 Edited by Jeffrey K. Rester Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission Manuscript Design and Layout Ashley P. Lott Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission GULF STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2019 NUMBER 284 This project was supported in part by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, under State/Federal Project Number NA16NMFS4350111. GULF STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS ALABAMA Chris Blankenship John Roussel Alabama Department of Conservation 1221 Plains Port Hudson Road and Natural Resources Zachary, LA 70791 64 North Union Street Montgomery, AL 36130-1901 MISSISSIPPI Joe Spraggins, Executive Director Representative Steve McMillan Mississippi Department of Marine Resources P.O. Box 337 1141 Bayview Avenue Bay Minette, AL 36507 Biloxi, MS 39530 Chris Nelson TBA Bon Secour Fisheries, Inc. P.O. Box 60 Joe Gill, Jr. Bon Secour, AL 36511 Joe Gill Consulting, LLC 910 Desoto Street FLORIDA Ocean Springs, MS 39566-0535 Eric Sutton FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission TEXAS 620 South Meridian Street Carter Smith, Executive Director Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 4200 Smith School Road Representative Jay Trumbull Austin, TX 78744 State of Florida House of Representatives 402 South Monroe Street Troy B. Williamson, II Tallahassee, FL 32399 P.O. Box 967 Corpus Christi, TX 78403 TBA Representative Wayne Faircloth LOUISIANA Texas House of Representatives Jack Montoucet, Secretary 2121 Market Street, Suite 205 LA Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Galveston, TX 77550 P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • The Associative Behaviour of Oceanic Triggerfish and Rainbow Runner with Floating Objects
    1 Marine Environmental Research Archimer October 2020, Volume 161, Pages 104994 (12p.) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2020.104994 https://archimer.ifremer.fr https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00624/73626/ Drifting along in the open-ocean: The associative behaviour of oceanic triggerfish and rainbow runner with floating objects Forget Fabien 1, 2, *, Cowley Paul 2, Capello Manuela 1, Filmalter John D. 2, Dagorn Laurent 1 1 MARBEC, University of Montpellier, CNRS, IFREMER, IRD, Sete, France 2 South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity (SAIAB), Grahamstown, South Africa * Corresponding author : Fabien Forget, email address : [email protected] Abstract : Multispecies aggregations at floating objects are a common feature throughout the world's tropical and subtropical oceans. The evolutionary benefits driving this associative behaviour of pelagic fish remains unclear and information on the associative behaviour of non-tuna species remains scarce. This study investigated the associative behaviour of oceanic triggerfish (Canthidermis maculata) and rainbow runner (Elagatis bipinnulata), two major bycatch species in the tropical tuna purse seine fishery, at floating objects in the western Indian Ocean. A total of 24 rainbow runner and 46 oceanic triggerfish were tagged with acoustic transmitters at nine drifting FADs equipped with satellite linked receivers. Both species remained associated with the same floating object for extended periods; Kaplan-Meier survival estimates (considering the censored residence time due to equipment failure and fishing) suggested that mean residence time by rainbow runner and oceanic triggerfish was of 94 and 65 days, respectively. During daytime, the two species increased their home range as they typically performed short excursions (<2 h) away from the floating objects.
    [Show full text]
  • Tropical Pacific Triggerfish and Filefish REEF Fishinar February 20, 2018, Amy Lee - Instructor Questions? Feel Free to Contact [email protected]
    Tropical Pacific Triggerfish and Filefish REEF Fishinar February 20, 2018, Amy Lee - Instructor Questions? Feel free to contact [email protected] Orange-lined Triggerfish (Balistapus undulatus) • Dark green to brownish body with curved diagonal orange lines • Large black blotch on tail base • Blue and orange stripes run from mouth to below pectoral fin Regions: CIP, SOP, Indian Ocean & Red Sea Photo by: Florent Charpin Size: Max. 1 ft. Redtooth Triggerfish (Odonus niger) • Dark blue body with pale blue head • Teeth are reddish and usually visible • Crescent-shaped tail with long lobes Regions: CIP, SOP, Indian Ocean Photo by: Paddy Ryan Size: Max. 16 in. Clown Triggerfish (Balistoides conspicillum) • Black body with large white spots on belly • Yellowish reticulated pattern on back • Orange lips and pale band in front of eyes Regions: CIP, SOP, Indian Ocean Photo by: Florent Charpin Size: Max. 20 in. Yellowmargin Triggerfish (Pseudobalistes flavimarginatus) • Tan body with dark spots and crosshatch pattern • Pale orange snout and cheeks • Yellow-orange margins on pectoral, dorsal, anal and caudal fins Regions: CIP, SOP, Indian Ocean & Red Sea Photo by: Paddy Ryan Size: Max. 2 ft. © 2018 Reef Environmental Education Foundation (REEF). All rights reserved. Titan Triggerfish (Balistoides viridescens) • Dark body with crosshatch pattern • Yellow-green snout and cheeks • Dark band above mouth – looks like a moustache Regions: CIP, SOP, Indian Ocean & Red Sea Photo by: Florent Charpin Size: Max. 2.5 ft. Pinktail Triggerfish (Melichthys vidua) • Dark brown body with yellowish snout and yellow pectoral fins • White dorsal and anal fins with black margin • Pinkish caudal fin with white base Regions: CIP, HAW, SOP, Indian Ocean Photo by: Ross Robertson Size: Max.
    [Show full text]
  • Identification of Tuna and Tuna -Like Species in Indian
    IDENTIFICATION OF TUNA AND TUNA-LIKE SPECIES IN INDIAN OCEAN FISHERIES Indian Ocean Tuna Commission Commission des Thons de l’Océan Indien These identification cards are produced by the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) to help improve catch data and statistics on tuna and tuna-like species, as well as on other species caught by fisheries in the Indian Ocean. The most likely users of the cards are fisheries observers, samplers, fishing masters and crew on board fishing vessels targeting tuna and tuna-like species in the Indian Ocean. Fisheries training institutions and fishing communities are other potential users. This publication was made possible through financial support provided by IOTC For further information contact: Indian Ocean Tuna Commission Le Chantier Mall PO Box 1011, Victoria, Seychelles Phone: +248 422 54 94 Fax: +248 422 43 64 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.iotc.org Layout: Julien Million. Scientific advice: Julien Million and David Wilson We gratefully acknowledge David Itano and Dr. Charles Anderson for the development of this publication. Illustrations © R.Swainston/anima.net.au. Photos: cover © J. Million, p.7&8 © D. Itano © Copyright: IOTC, 2013 Common English name FAO How to use these cards? Scientific name J —Japanese name Each card contains C —simplified Chinese / traditional Chinese names - the scientific name of the species as F —French name S —Spanish name well as its common names in English, French, Spanish, Japanese, traditional First dorsal and simplified Chinese, length First dorsal Second - its FAO code fin Caudal fin dorsal fin - an illustration of the species with Eye Finlet some distinctive features - its maximum fork length (Max.
    [Show full text]
  • First Specimen-Based Records of Canthidermis Macrolepis (Tetraodontiformes: Balistidae) from the Pacific Ocean and Comparisons with C
    Species Diversity 25: 135–144 Published online 7 August 2020 DOI: 10.12782/specdiv.25.135 First Specimen-based Records of Canthidermis macrolepis (Tetraodontiformes: Balistidae) from the Pacific Ocean and Comparisons with C. maculata Mizuki Matsunuma1,4, Shinichirou Ikeguchi2 and Yoshiaki Kai3 1 Department of Environmental Management, Faculty of Agriculture, Kindai University, Nara 631-8505, Japan E-mail: [email protected] 2 Joetsu Aquarium, Joetsu, Niigata 942-0081, Japan 3 Maizuru Fisheries Research Station, Field Science Education and Research Center, Kyoto University, Nagahama, Maizuru, Kyoto 625-0086, Japan 4 Corresponding author (Received 12 September 2019; Accepted 12 April 2020) Canthidermis macrolepis (Boulenger, 1888) is newly recorded from Japan and Micronesia on the basis of nine spec- imens (206.9–349.8 mm SL), having been previously reported from the northwestern Indian Ocean and northern South China Sea (the latter based solely on DNA barcoding). The species is probably widespread throughout the Indo-West Pa- cific region but has been confused with Canthidermis maculata (Bloch, 1786). Detailed morphological comparisons of both species resulted in the following differences being recognized between them: numbers of body scale rows [38–41 (modally 40) in C. macrolepis vs. 40–49 (44) in C. maculata], second dorsal-fin rays [25–27 (26)vs . 22–26 (24)], anal-fin rays [22– 24 (23) vs. 20–23 (21)] and pectoral-fin rays [14–16 (15) vs. 13–15 (14)]. Sequences of the mitochondrial DNA COI gene determined from the presently-reported specimens of C. macrolepis, which also differed in color from similarly sized C. maculata, having a uniformly grayish body without spots, were also compared with congeners.
    [Show full text]
  • Identification of Tuna and Tuna-Like Species in Indian Ocean Fisheries
    IDENTIFICATION OF TUNA AND TUNA-LIKE SPECIES IN INDIAN OCEAN FISHERIES Indian Ocean Tuna Commission Commission des Thons de l’Océan Indien These identification cards are produced by the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) to help improve catch data and statistics on tuna and tuna-like species, as well as on other species caught by fisheries in the Indian Ocean. The most likely users of the cards are fisheries observers, samplers, fishing masters and crew on board fishing vessels targeting tuna and tuna-like species in the Indian Ocean. Fisheries training institutions and fishing communities are other potential users. Layout: Julien Million. Scientific advice: Julien Million and David Wilson We gratefully acknowledge D. Itano, Dr C. Anderson and Dr E. Romanov (CAPRUN-ARDA) for the development of this publication. Illustrations © R. Swainstonanima.net.au. Photographs courtesy of J. Million (cover), D. Itano (p. 7&8) and M. Potier (p. 23) © FAO, 2019 Common English name FAO How to use these cards? Scientific name Each card contains J —Japanese name C —simplified Chinese / traditional Chinese names - the scientific name of the species F —French name as well as its common names in S —Spanish name English, French, Spanish, Japanese, traditional and simplified Chinese, Eye – Fork length (EF) - its FAO code First dorsal Second fin Caudal fin dorsal fin - an illustration of the species with Eye some distinctive features Finlet - its maximum fork length (Max. FL) - its common fork length in the Indian Ocean (Com. FL) Caudal keel Mouth Terminology Anal fin - Caudal keel: fleshy ridge; usually Pectoral fin Pelvic fin relates to a skin fold on the precaudal peduncle.
    [Show full text]
  • Size Structure and Reproduction of Exploited Reef Fishes Before Establishing a Management Plan at Kamiali Wildlife Management Area, Papua New Guinea
    Six-Year Baseline Information: Size Structure and Reproduction of Exploited Reef Fishes Before Establishing a Management Plan at Kamiali Wildlife Management Area, Papua New Guinea Ken Longenecker, Ross Langston, Holly Bolick, Utula Kondio, and Mara Mulrooney Honolulu, Hawai‘i December 2014 COVER Hamm Geamsa prepares his gear for hook-and-line fishing just off the fringing reef at Kamiali Wildlife Management Area. Photo: Sarah Rose. Six-Year Baseline Information: Size Structure and Reproduction of Exploited Reef Fishes Before Establishing a Management Plan at Kamiali Wildlife Management Area, Papua New Guinea Ken Longenecker1, Ross Langston1, Holly Bolick1, Utula Kondio,2 and Mara Mulrooney1 (1) Pacific Biological Survey Bishop Museum Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96817, USA (2) Kamiali Wildlife Management Area Lababia, Morobe Province, PNG Bishop Museum Technical Report 63 Honolulu, Hawai‘i December 2014 Bishop Museum Press 1525 Bernice Street Honolulu, Hawai‘i Copyright © 2014 Bishop Museum All Rights Reserved Printed in the United States of America ISSN 1085-455X Contribution No. 2014-005 to the Pacific Biological Survey Contents LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................................... 7 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 12 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Characterizing Fish Communities Associated with Drifting Fish
    Aquat. Living Resour. 20, 331–341 (2007) Aquatic c EDP Sciences, IFREMER, IRD 2008 DOI: 10.1051/alr:2008007 Living www.alr-journal.org Resources Characterizing fish communities associated with drifting fish aggregating devices (FADs) in the Western Indian Ocean using underwater visual surveys Marc Taquet1,a, Gorka Sancho2, Laurent Dagorn3, Jean-Claude Gaertner4,DavidItano5, Riaz Aumeeruddy6, Bertrand Wendling6 and Christophe Peignon7 1 IFREMER, CRH, Av. Jean Monnet, BP 171, 34203 Sète Cedex, France 2 College of Charleston, Grice Marine Laboratory, 205 Fort Johnson Road, Charleston, SC 29412, USA 3 IRD, UR Thetis, CRH, Av. Jean Monnet, BP 171, 34203 Sète Cedex, France 4 Centre d’Océanologie de Marseille, LMGEM, UMR CNRS 6117, rue de la Batterie des Lions, 13007 Marseille, France 5 University of Hawaii, JIMAR, Pelagic Fisheries Research Program, 1000 Pope Road MSB 312 Honolulu, HI 96822, USA 6 Seychelles Fishing Authority, PO Box 449, Victoria, Mahe, Seychelles 7 IRD, UR 109 Thetis, PO Box 570, Victoria, Mahe Seychelles Received 21 September 2007; Accepted 17 December 2007 Abstract – We adapted a visual census method, mainly used in demersal and reef fish studies, to characterize fish communities associated to drifting fish aggregating devices (FADs) in the Western Indian Ocean. Drifting FAD associ- ated fishes from both equatorial (Seychelles) and tropical waters (Reunion Island) were examined by divers. A total of 32 species (belonging to 16 families) were observed associated with drifting FADs in equatorial waters, and 24 species (14 families) were found around FADs in tropical waters. Twenty species were found in both regions. The highest number of species observed at a single FAD was 18 (12 ± 2, mean ± SD) in equatorial and 13 (10 ± 3) in tropical waters, not counting circumnatant species loosely associated with the FAD.
    [Show full text]