DOCSLIB.ORG

Pre/Post Chapter Heading

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pre/Post Chapter Heading Testing methods and ecological consequences of large-scale removal of common carp Dean Gilligan, Peter Gehrke and Craig Schiller NSW Department of Primary Industries Narrandera Fisheries Centre Buckingbong Road, Narrandera, NSW 2700 Australia Water Management Fund Programs MFW6 and MUR5 August 2005 NSW Department of Primary Industries - Fisheries Final Report Series No. 77 ISSN 1449-9967 Testing methods and ecological consequences of large-scale removal of common carp. August 2005 Authors: Gilligan, D.M., Gehrke, P.C. and Schiller, C. Published By: NSW Department of Primary Industries (now incorporating NSW Fisheries) Postal Address: Cronulla Fisheries Centre, PO Box 21, NSW, 2230 Internet: www.fisheries.nsw.gov.au NSW Department of Primary Industries This work is copyright. Except as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part of this reproduction may be reproduced by any process, electronic or otherwise, without the specific written permission of the copyright owners. Neither may information be stored electronically in any form whatsoever without such permission. DISCLAIMER The publishers do not warrant that the information in this report is free from errors or omissions. The publishers do not accept any form of liability, be it contractual, tortuous or otherwise, for the contents of this report for any consequences arising from its use or any reliance placed on it. The information, opinions and advice contained in this report may not relate to, or be relevant to, a reader’s particular circumstance. ISSN 1449-9967 (Note: Prior to July 2004, this report series was published as the ‘NSW Fisheries Final Report Series’ with ISSN number 1440-3544) Contents i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................................................I LIST OF TABLES.........................................................................................................................................III LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................................III ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..........................................................................................................................IV NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. V 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 8 1.1. CARP IN AUSTRALIA ....................................................................................................................... 8 1.2. CARP CONTROL OPTIONS................................................................................................................. 8 1.2.1. Biological control ................................................................................................................. 9 1.2.2. Habitat manipulation ............................................................................................................9 1.2.3. Chemical control................................................................................................................. 10 1.2.4. Physical control .................................................................................................................. 10 1.3. OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................................. 11 2. ASSESSMENT OF ORAL ROTENONE BAITS FOR CARP CONTROL IN NSW. ................... 12 2.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 12 2.2. METHODS ..................................................................................................................................... 13 2.2.1. Billabong experiment .......................................................................................................... 13 2.2.2. Aquarium experiment.......................................................................................................... 14 2.2.3. Pond experiment .................................................................................................................15 2.2.4. Palatability and bait toxicity for carp................................................................................. 15 2.3. RESULTS ....................................................................................................................................... 16 2.3.1. Billabong experiment .......................................................................................................... 16 2.3.2. Aquarium experiment.......................................................................................................... 18 2.3.3. Pond experiment .................................................................................................................19 2.3.4. Palatability and management bait toxicity for carp............................................................ 20 2.4. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................. 21 2.5. CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................... 23 3. EFFECTIVENESS OF LARGE-SCALE FISHING METHODS FOR THE REMOVAL OF CARP ............................................................................................................................................. 24 3.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 24 3.2. METHODS ..................................................................................................................................... 24 3.2.1. Sites ..................................................................................................................................... 24 3.2.2. Sampling methods ............................................................................................................... 24 3.2.2.1. Electro-seining.................................................................................................................................. 24 3.2.2.2. Fyke nets........................................................................................................................................... 25 3.2.2.3. Pound nets......................................................................................................................................... 26 3.3. RESULTS ....................................................................................................................................... 27 3.3.1. Carp capture efficiency....................................................................................................... 27 3.3.2. Proportion of native fish caught by different gear types..................................................... 28 3.3.3. Risk to native fish ................................................................................................................ 28 3.3.4. Cost ..................................................................................................................................... 30 3.4. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................. 30 3.4.1. Electro-seine ....................................................................................................................... 30 3.4.2. Pound nets........................................................................................................................... 31 3.4.3. Fyke nets ............................................................................................................................. 32 3.5. CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................... 32 4. THE ECOLOGICAL IMPACT OF ADULT AND JUVENILE CARP AT HIGH AND LOW DENSITIES ........................................................................................................................................... 33 4.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 33 4.2. METHODS ..................................................................................................................................... 33 Methods for carp control, Gilligan, Gehrke and Schiller ii Contents 4.2.1. Site selection ........................................................................................................................33 4.2.2. Sites......................................................................................................................................34 4.2.3. Study design.........................................................................................................................34 4.3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................35 4.3.1. Problems with enclosures ....................................................................................................35 4.3.2. Future experiments using separating barriers ....................................................................35
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Long Swamp Fish and Frog Baseline Survey 2012
    AQUASAVE CONSULTANTS Ecology, Monitoring and Conservation A registered business of: Regional, Focussed, On-ground Long Swamp Fish and Frog Baseline Survey 2012 A report to t he Glenelg Hopkins CMA By: Mark Bachmann, Nick Whiterod and Lachlan Farrington January 2013 Aquasave - NGT: Long Swamp Fish and Frog Baseline Survey 2012 This report may be cited as: Bachmann, M., Whiterod, N. & Farrington, L. (2013) Long Swamp Fish and Frog Baseline Survey 2012. A report to the Glenelg Hopkins CMA. Aquasave Consultants – Nature Glenelg Trust. Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 5 2. Site Locations and Sampling Methods .............................................................................................. 5 2.1 Native Fish ........................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Frogs .................................................................................................................................... 9 3. Results............................................................................................................................................. 11 3.1 Native Fish ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Gwydir Waterbird and Fish Habitat Study: Final Reportdownload
    Gwydir Waterbird and Fish Habitat Study Final report Cover photographs Front page: Boyanga Waterhole, Gingham Watercourse (Credit: J. Spencer); Golden perch, Mehi River (Credit: J. Spencer); Great egret (Credit: M. Carpenter). Citation This report can be cited as follows: Spencer, J.A., Heagney, E.C. and Porter, J.L. 2010. Final report on the Gwydir waterbird and fish habitat study. NSW Wetland Recovery Program. Rivers and Wetlands Unit, Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW and University of New South Wales, Sydney. Acknowledgments Funding for this project was provided by the NSW Government and the Australian Government’s Water for the Future – Water Smart Australia program. Richard Allman, Sharon Bowen, Kirsty Brennan, Ben Daly, Simon Hunter, Jordan Iles, Jeff Kelleway, Lisa Knowles, Yoshi Kobayashi, Natalia Perera, Shannon Simpson, Rachael Thomas (DECCW), Neal Foster (NOW), Gus Porter and Ainslee Lions provided field support. Thanks to our pilots Richard Byrne (DECCW) and James Rainger (Fleet Helicopters) for their assistance with aerial waterbird surveys. Daryl Albertson (DECCW), Neal Foster, Liz Savage and James Houlahan (Border Rivers–Gwydir CMA) and Glenn Wilson (UNE) gave advice on field site locations. Jennifer and Bruce Southeron (Old Dromana), Sam Kirkby (Bunnor), Howard Blackburn (Crinolyn), Bill Johnson (DECCW), Liz Savage (Border Rivers–Gwydir CMA), Neal Foster, Tara Schalk (NOW), Richard Ping Kee (Moree fishing club), Dick Cooper, Greg Clancy and the NSW Bird Atlassers contributed historical information on waterbird and fish populations in the Gwydir. Sue Powell (ANU) supplied information on the flooding history and flow data for the Gwydir Wetlands. Mark McGrouther and Sally Reader (Australian Museum, Sydney) assisted with the identification of fish species.
    [Show full text]
  • THE BIDGEE BULLETIN Quarterly Newsletter of the Murrumbidgee Monitoring Program
    M A R C H 2 0 2 0 I S S U E 3 THE BIDGEE BULLETIN Quarterly Newsletter of the Murrumbidgee Monitoring Program WATERING OUTCOMES Welcome to Issue 3 of The Bidgee Bulletin. The field monitoring season is now complete, with As in previous years Commonwealth environmental water the last of the four wetland surveys conducted is being used to support aquatic plants and animals in the over the last two weeks of March. In this issue Murrumbidgee Selected Area. This year environmental we review the highlights of the season and water was largely used to target floodplains and wetlands summarise the outcomes from Commonwealth to improve water quality, support populations of water environmental watering actions during the 2019- dependent plants and animals, maintain frog populations 20 water year. We also introduce our Chief and create breeding opportunities for threatened species Twitcher from the NSW DPIE, Dr Jennifer including the southern bell frog and Australasian bittern. Spencer. Continued dry conditions in Spring 2019 meant that The Bidgee Bulletin is a quarterly newsletter environmental water needed to be carefully managed and designed to provide updates on our progress as focused on high priority outcomes. These included we monitor the ecological outcomes of maintaining critical refuge habitats - Wagourah Lagoon, Commonwealth environmental water flows in the Yarradda Lagoon, Telephone Creek and Tala Creek. Murrumbidgee Selected Area. The 2019-2022 Maintenance of these wetland habitats is important for program builds on the previous five year native fish and turtles, and the Murrumbidgee refuge sites monitoring period (2014-2019) and uses many continue to support high native fish diversity with large of the same methods.
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Bell Frog
    June 2011 South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Southern Bell Frog Monitoring (Litoria raniformisBoard) in the Lower Lakes Goolwa River Murray Channel, Tributaries of Currency Creek and Finniss River and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert Kate Mason and Karl Hillyard The project was funded by Department for Environment and Natural Resources, Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth Program Cover Photo: Survey site ‘Pelican Lagoon Site 1’ February 2011. This document can be cited as: Mason, K & Hillyard, K. 2011. Southern Bell Frog (L. raniformis) monitoring in the Lower Lakes. Goolwa River Murray Channel, tributaries of Currency Creek and Finniss River and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert. Report to Department for Environment and Natural Resources. The South Australian Murray Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board, Murray Bridge. South Australia. Disclaimer The authors do not warrant or make any representation regarding the use, or results of the use, of the information contained herein as regards to its correctness, accuracy, reliability, currency or otherwise. The authors expressly disclaim all liability or responsibility to any person using the information or advice. © Government of South Australia This work is copyright. Unless permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cwlth), no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Authors and the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board (SA MDB NRM Board). Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the SA MDB NRM Board, Mannum Road, Murray Bridge SA 5253 Summary Over the past five years, Lake Alexandrina, Lake Albert and the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges tributaries experienced significant changes as a result of reduced freshwater flows and over-allocation of water resources and recently, the first stages of recovery to a functioning freshwater and estuary system, following increased freshwater flows into the system.
    [Show full text]
  • Laboratory Evaluation of the Predation Efficacy of Native Australian Fish on Culex Annulirostris (Diptera: Culicidae)
    Journal of the Americctn Mosquito Control Association, 20(3):2g6_291,2OO4 Copyright A 2OO4by the American Mosquib Control Association, Inc. LABORATORY EVALUATION OF THE PREDATION EFFICACY OF NATIVE AUSTRALIAN FISH ON CULEX ANNULIROSTRIS (DIPTERA: CULICIDAE) TIMOTHY P HURST, MICHAEL D. BRowNI eNo BRIAN H. KAY Australian Centre International for and Tropical Health and Nutrition at the eueensland Institute of Medical pO Research, Royal Brisbane H<tspital, eueensland 4029, Austalia ABSTRACT. The introduction and establishment of fish populations can provide long-term, cost-effective mosquito control in habitats such as constructed wetlands and ornamental lakes. The p.idution efficacy of 7 native Brisbane freshwater fish on I st and 4th instars of the freshwater arbovirus vector culex annulirostris was evaluated in a series of 24-h laboratory trials. The trials were conducted in 30-liter plastic carboys at 25 + l"C urder a light:dark cycle of l4:10 h. The predation eflcacy of native crimson-spotted rainbowfish Melanotaenia (Melanotaeniidae), cluboulayi Australian smelt Retropinna semoni (Retropinnadae), pacific blue-eye pseudomugil (Atherinidae), signfer fly-specked hardyhead Craterocephalus stercusmLtscarum (Atherinidae), hretail gudgeon Hypseleotris gttlii (Eleotridae), empire gudgeon Hypseleotris compressa (Eleotridae), and estuary percilet Am- bassis marianus (Ambassidae) was compared with the exotic eaitern mosquitofish Getmbusia iolbrooki (poe- ciliidae). This environmentally damaging exotic has been disseminated worldwide and has been declared noxrous in Queensland. Melanotaenia duboulayi was found to consume the greatest numbers of both lst and 4th instars of Cx. annuliro.t/ri.t. The predation efficacy of the remaining Australian native species was comparable with that of the exotic G. holbrooki. With the exception of A- marianu^s, the maximum predation rates of these native species were not statistically different whether tested individually or in a school of 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Status Review, Disease Risk Analysis and Conservation Action Plan for The
    Status Review, Disease Risk Analysis and Conservation Action Plan for the Bellinger River Snapping Turtle (Myuchelys georgesi) December, 2016 1 Workshop participants. Back row (l to r): Ricky Spencer, Bruce Chessman, Kristen Petrov, Caroline Lees, Gerald Kuchling, Jane Hall, Gerry McGilvray, Shane Ruming, Karrie Rose, Larry Vogelnest, Arthur Georges; Front row (l to r) Michael McFadden, Adam Skidmore, Sam Gilchrist, Bruno Ferronato, Richard Jakob-Hoff © Copyright 2017 CBSG IUCN encourages meetings, workshops and other fora for the consideration and analysis of issues related to conservation, and believes that reports of these meetings are most useful when broadly disseminated. The opinions and views expressed by the authors may not necessarily reflect the formal policies of IUCN, its Commissions, its Secretariat or its members. The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Jakob-Hoff, R. Lees C. M., McGilvray G, Ruming S, Chessman B, Gilchrist S, Rose K, Spencer R, Hall J (Eds) (2017). Status Review, Disease Risk Analysis and Conservation Action Plan for the Bellinger River Snapping Turtle. IUCN SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group: Apple Valley, MN. Cover photo: Juvenile Bellinger River Snapping Turtle © 2016 Brett Vercoe This report can be downloaded from the CBSG website: www.cbsg.org. 2 Executive Summary The Bellinger River Snapping Turtle (BRST) (Myuchelys georgesi) is a freshwater turtle endemic to a 60 km stretch of the Bellinger River, and possibly a portion of the nearby Kalang River in coastal north eastern New South Wales (NSW).
    [Show full text]
  • Fisheries Guidelines for Design of Stream Crossings
    Fish Habitat Guideline FHG 001 FISH PASSAGE IN STREAMS Fisheries guidelines for design of stream crossings Elizabeth Cotterell August 1998 Fisheries Group DPI ISSN 1441-1652 Agdex 486/042 FHG 001 First published August 1998 Information contained in this publication is provided as general advice only. For application to specific circumstances, professional advice should be sought. The Queensland Department of Primary Industries has taken all reasonable steps to ensure the information contained in this publication is accurate at the time of publication. Readers should ensure that they make appropriate enquiries to determine whether new information is available on the particular subject matter. © The State of Queensland, Department of Primary Industries 1998 Copyright protects this publication. Except for purposes permitted by the Copyright Act, reproduction by whatever means is prohibited without the prior written permission of the Department of Primary Industries, Queensland. Enquiries should be addressed to: Manager Publishing Services Queensland Department of Primary Industries GPO Box 46 Brisbane QLD 4001 Fisheries Guidelines for Design of Stream Crossings BACKGROUND Introduction Fish move widely in rivers and creeks throughout Queensland and Australia. Fish movement is usually associated with reproduction, feeding, escaping predators or dispersing to new habitats. This occurs between marine and freshwater habitats, and wholly within freshwater. Obstacles to this movement, such as stream crossings, can severely deplete fish populations, including recreational and commercial species such as barramundi, mullet, Mary River cod, silver perch, golden perch, sooty grunter and Australian bass. Many Queensland streams are ephemeral (they may flow only during the wet season), and therefore crossings must be designed for both flood and drought conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Condition Monitoring of Threatened Fish Populations in Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert
    Condition Monitoring of Threatened Fish Populations in Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert Report to the Murray–Darling Basin Authority and the South Australian Department for Environment and Water Scotte Wedderburn and Thomas Barnes June 2018 © The University of Adelaide and the Department for Environment and Water With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, the Murray–Darling Basin Authority logo, photographs and presented data, all material presented in this document is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (https://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/). For the avoidance of any doubt, this licence only applies to the material set out in this document. The details of the licence are available on the Creative Commons website (accessible using the links provided) as is the full legal code for the CC BY 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode). MDBA’s preference is that this publication be attributed (and any material sourced from it) using the following: Publication title: Condition Monitoring of Threatened Fish Populations in Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert Source: Licensed from the Department for Environment and Water under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence The contents of this publication do not purport to represent the position of the Commonwealth of Australia or the MDBA in any way and are presented for the purpose of informing and stimulating discussion for improved management of Basin's natural resources. To the extent permitted by law, the copyright holders (including its employees and consultants) exclude all liability to any person for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this report (in part or in whole) and any information or material contained in it.
    [Show full text]
  • Petition to List US Populations of Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser Fulvescens)
    Petition to List U.S. Populations of Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act May 14, 2018 NOTICE OF PETITION Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on May 14, 2018: Gary Frazer, USFWS Assistant Director, [email protected] Charles Traxler, Assistant Regional Director, Region 3, [email protected] Georgia Parham, Endangered Species, Region 3, [email protected] Mike Oetker, Deputy Regional Director, Region 4, [email protected] Allan Brown, Assistant Regional Director, Region 4, [email protected] Wendi Weber, Regional Director, Region 5, [email protected] Deborah Rocque, Deputy Regional Director, Region 5, [email protected] Noreen Walsh, Regional Director, Region 6, [email protected] Matt Hogan, Deputy Regional Director, Region 6, [email protected] Petitioner Center for Biological Diversity formally requests that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) list the lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) in the United States as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544. Alternatively, the Center requests that the USFWS define and list distinct population segments of lake sturgeon in the U.S. as threatened or endangered. Lake sturgeon populations in Minnesota, Lake Superior, Missouri River, Ohio River, Arkansas-White River and lower Mississippi River may warrant endangered status. Lake sturgeon populations in Lake Michigan and the upper Mississippi River basin may warrant threatened status. Lake sturgeon in the central and eastern Great Lakes (Lake Huron, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River basin) seem to be part of a larger population that is more widespread.
    [Show full text]
  • Susceptibility of Australian Fish to Entrainment Through Irrigation Systems with a Review of Research and Potential Mitigation Strategies
    Susceptibility of Australian fish to entrainment through irrigation systems with a review of research and potential mitigation strategies. December 2020 This publication has been compiled by Michael Hutchison, Andrew Norris, Jenny Shiau and David Nixon of Animal Science, Fisheries and Aquaculture R&D, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. © State of Queensland, 2020. The Queensland Government supports and encourages the dissemination and exchange of its information. The copyright in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. Under this licence you are free, without having to seek our permission, to use this publication in accordance with the licence terms. You must keep intact the copyright notice and attribute the State of Queensland as the source of the publication. Note: Some content in this publication may have different licence terms as indicated. <Delete if this does not apply.> For more information on this licence, visit creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice. The Queensland Government shall not be liable for technical or other errors or omissions contained herein. The reader/user accepts all risks and responsibility for losses, damages, costs and other consequences resulting directly or indirectly from using this information. Contents Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • Native Fish Strategy
    MURRAY-DARLING BASIN AUTHORITY Native Fish Strategy Mesoscale movements of small- and medium-sized fish in the Murray-Darling Basin MURRAY-DARLING BASIN AUTHORITY Native Fish Strategy Mesoscale movements of small- and medium-sized fish in the Murray-Darling Basin M. Hutchison, A. Butcher, J. Kirkwood, D. Mayer, K. Chilcott and S. Backhouse Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries Published by Murray-Darling Basin Commission Postal Address GPO Box 409, Canberra ACT 2601 Office location Level 4, 51 Allara Street, Canberra City Australian Capital Territory Telephone (02) 6279 0100 international + 61 2 6279 0100 Facsimile (02) 6248 8053 international + 61 2 6248 8053 Email [email protected] Internet http://www.mdbc.gov.au For further information contact the Murray-Darling Basin Commission office on (02) 6279 0100 This report may be cited as: Hutchison, M, Butcher, A, Kirkwood, J, Mayer, D, Chikott, K and Backhouse, S. Mesoscale movements of small and medium-sized fish in the Murray-Darling Basin MDBC Publication No. 41/08 ISBN 978 1 921257 81 0 © Copyright Murray-Darling Basin Commission 2008 This work is copyright. Graphical and textual information in the work (with the exception of photographs and the MDBC logo) may be stored, retrieved and reproduced in whole or in part, provided the information is not sold or used for commercial benefit and is acknowledged. Such reproduction includes fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968. Reproduction for other purposes is prohibited without prior permission of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission or the individual photographers and artists with whom copyright applies.
    [Show full text]
  • Targeted Review of Biological and Ecological Information from Fisheries Research in the South East Marine Region
    TARGETED REVIEW OF BIOLOGICAL AND ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION FROM FISHERIES RESEARCH IN THE SOUTH EAST MARINE REGION FINAL REPORT B. D. Bruce, R. Bradford, R. Daley, M. Green and K. Phillips December 2002 Client: National Oceans Office Targeted review of biological and ecological information from fisheries research in the South East Marine Region Final Report B. D. Bruce, R. Bradford, R. Daley M. Green and K. Phillips* CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart * National Oceans Office December 2002 2 Table of Contents: Table of Contents:...................................................................................................................................3 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................5 Objective of review.............................................................................................................................5 Structure of review..............................................................................................................................5 Format.................................................................................................................................................6 General ecological/biological issues and uncertainties for the South East Marine Region ....................9 Specific fishery and key species accounts ............................................................................................10 South East Fishery (SEF) including the South East Trawl
    [Show full text]