DOCSLIB.ORG

Summary of Information for the Consideration of Non- Detriment Findings for Scalloped, Great and Smooth Hammerhead and Giant and Reef Manta Rays

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Summary of Information for the Consideration of Non- Detriment Findings for Scalloped, Great and Smooth Hammerhead and Giant and Reef Manta Rays Summary of Information for the Consideration of Non- Detriment Findings for Scalloped, Great and Smooth Hammerhead and Giant and Reef Manta Rays Professor Colin Simpfendorfer and Dr Cassandra Rigby Centre for Tropical Fisheries & Aquaculture & College of Science and Engineering James Cook University Queensland 4811 June 2016 Report to CITES Hammerhead and Manta Ray Information Page 1 Table of Contents 1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 6 2 Available Information on Management Context of Hammerheads and Manta Rays ...... 7 2.1 Global level information ............................................................................................ 7 2.1.1 Reported global catch........................................................................................ 7 2.1.2 Species distribution ........................................................................................... 8 2.1.2.1 Scalloped Hammerhead ................................................................................ 8 2.1.2.2 Great Hammerhead ....................................................................................... 9 2.1.2.3 Smooth Hammerhead ................................................................................. 10 2.1.2.4 Giant Manta Ray .......................................................................................... 11 2.1.2.5 Reef Manta Ray ........................................................................................... 11 2.1.3 Known stocks/populations .............................................................................. 12 2.1.3.1 Scalloped Hammerhead .............................................................................. 12 2.1.3.2 Great Hammerhead ..................................................................................... 13 2.1.3.3 Smooth Hammerhead ................................................................................. 13 2.1.3.4 Giant Manta Ray .......................................................................................... 14 2.1.3.5 Reef Manta Ray ........................................................................................... 14 2.1.4 Main catching countries .................................................................................. 14 2.1.5 Main gear types ............................................................................................... 15 2.1.6 Global conservation status .............................................................................. 15 2.1.6.1 Scalloped Hammerhead .............................................................................. 15 2.1.6.2 Great Hammerhead ..................................................................................... 16 2.1.6.3 Smooth Hammerhead ................................................................................. 16 2.1.6.4 Giant Manta Ray .......................................................................................... 16 2.1.6.5 Reef Manta Ray ........................................................................................... 16 2.1.7 Multilateral Environmental Agreements ......................................................... 16 2.2 Stock/context-specific information for Hammerheads and Manta Rays ................ 18 2.2.1 Main management bodies ............................................................................... 18 2.2.2 Stock assessment ............................................................................................. 18 2.2.3 Cooperative management arrangements ....................................................... 19 2.2.4 Non-membership of RFBs ................................................................................ 20 2.2.5 Nature of harvest............................................................................................. 20 2.2.6 Fishery types .................................................................................................... 20 2.2.7 Management units .......................................................................................... 21 2.2.8 Products in trade ............................................................................................. 21 2.3 Data and Data Sharing of Hammerheads and Manta Rays ..................................... 21 2.3.1 Reported national catch(es) ............................................................................ 21 2.3.2 Are catch and trade data available from other States fishing these stocks? .. 22 2.3.3 Reported catches by other States ................................................................... 22 2.3.4 Catch trends and values .................................................................................. 30 2.3.5 Have RFBs and/or other States fishing this stock been consulted? ................ 30 3 Intrinsic Biological Vulnerability of Hammerheads and Manta Rays ............................. 31 3.1 Median age at maturity ........................................................................................... 31 3.1.1 Scalloped Hammerhead .................................................................................. 31 3.1.2 Great Hammerhead ......................................................................................... 31 3.1.3 Smooth Hammerhead ..................................................................................... 32 Hammerhead and Manta Ray Information Page 2 3.1.4 Giant Manta Ray .............................................................................................. 32 3.1.5 Reef Manta Ray ............................................................................................... 32 3.2 Median size at maturity ........................................................................................... 32 3.2.1 Scalloped Hammerhead .................................................................................. 32 3.2.2 Great Hammerhead ......................................................................................... 33 3.2.3 Smooth Hammerhead ..................................................................................... 33 3.2.4 Giant Manta Ray .............................................................................................. 33 3.2.5 Reef Manta Ray ............................................................................................... 33 3.3 Maximum age/longevity in an unfished population ............................................... 33 3.3.1 Scalloped Hammerhead .................................................................................. 33 3.3.2 Great Hammerhead ......................................................................................... 33 3.3.3 Smooth Hammerhead ..................................................................................... 34 3.3.4 Giant Manta Ray .............................................................................................. 34 3.3.5 Reef Manta Ray ............................................................................................... 34 3.4 Maximum size .......................................................................................................... 34 3.4.1 Scalloped Hammerhead .................................................................................. 34 3.4.2 Great Hammerhead ......................................................................................... 34 3.4.3 Smooth Hammerhead ..................................................................................... 34 3.4.4 Giant Manta Ray .............................................................................................. 35 3.4.5 Reef Manta Ray ............................................................................................... 35 3.5 Natural Mortality rate (M) ....................................................................................... 35 3.5.1 Scalloped Hammerhead .................................................................................. 35 3.5.2 Great Hammerhead ......................................................................................... 35 3.5.3 Smooth Hammerhead ..................................................................................... 35 3.5.4 Giant Manta Ray .............................................................................................. 35 3.5.5 Reef Manta Ray ............................................................................................... 35 3.6 Maximum annual pup production (per mature female) ......................................... 36 3.6.1 Scalloped Hammerhead .................................................................................. 36 3.6.2 Great Hammerhead ......................................................................................... 36 3.6.3 Smooth Hammerhead ..................................................................................... 36 3.6.4 Giant Manta Ray .............................................................................................. 36 3.6.5 Reef Manta Ray ............................................................................................... 36 3.7 Intrinsic rate of population increase (r) ................................................................... 37 3.7.1 Scalloped Hammerhead .................................................................................. 37 3.7.2 Great Hammerhead ......................................................................................... 37 3.7.3 Smooth
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Educators' Resource Guide
    EDUCATORS' RESOURCE GUIDE Produced and published by 3D Entertainment Distribution Written by Dr. Elisabeth Mantello In collaboration with Jean-Michel Cousteau’s Ocean Futures Society TABLE OF CONTENTS TO EDUCATORS .................................................................................................p 3 III. PART 3. ACTIVITIES FOR STUDENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................p 4 ACTIVITY 1. DO YOU Know ME? ................................................................. p 20 PLANKton, SOURCE OF LIFE .....................................................................p 4 ACTIVITY 2. discoVER THE ANIMALS OF "SECRET OCEAN" ......... p 21-24 ACTIVITY 3. A. SECRET OCEAN word FIND ......................................... p 25 PART 1. SCENES FROM "SECRET OCEAN" ACTIVITY 3. B. ADD color to THE octoPUS! .................................... p 25 1. CHristmas TREE WORMS .........................................................................p 5 ACTIVITY 4. A. WHERE IS MY MOUTH? ..................................................... p 26 2. GIANT BasKET Star ..................................................................................p 6 ACTIVITY 4. B. WHat DO I USE to eat? .................................................. p 26 3. SEA ANEMONE AND Clown FISH ......................................................p 6 ACTIVITY 5. A. WHO eats WHat? .............................................................. p 27 4. GIANT CLAM AND ZOOXANTHELLAE ................................................p
    [Show full text]
  • Fishing, Finning and Tourism: Trends in Pacific Shark Conservation and Management
    J MARINE MARTINUS AND COASTAL The International Journal of LAW PUBLISHERS Marine and Coastal Law 27 (2012) 597-621 brill.nl/cstu Fishing, Finning and Tourism: Trends in Pacific Shark Conservation and Management Erika J.Techera Faculty of Law, The University of Western Australia, Cravirley WA, Australia Absttact Sharks have a key position in the ocean food chain and their removal could have far-reaching implications beyond the species themselves. Yet since the 1980s the harvesting of sharks, pri- marily for their fins, and their extraction as bycatch have resulted in a rapid decline in num- bers. It is against this backdrop that the Pacific is leading the way in legal developments for shark conservation: from the US shark conservation law, and finning bans in Hawai'i, the Gommonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam, to the declaration of Palau's shark sanctuary. These national initiatives have been complemented by regional action, includ- ing the adoption of a Regional Plan of Action for sharks by the Pacific nations. This article examines the legal developments and the emerging leadership role the region is taking. The lessons that they offer are explored, as well as some of the remaining challenges. Keywords environmental law; fisheries; Pacific islands; sharks; tourism; marine sanctuaries Introduction The Pacific tegion is one of the most significant fisheries in the world, conttib- uting around 54% of global marine catches.' The Westetn and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) area, fot example, provides mote than 50% of world tuna catch.^ Harvests have steadily increased in this region: 2007 produced the highest annual catch recorded to date,^ and the majotity of gtowth is in the offshore sector."* Many of the Pacific nations detive significant ' The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reports that in 2008, the Northwest Pacific, Southeast Pacific and Central Western Pacific fisheries contributed 25%, 15% and 14%, respectively: FAO, State of the Worlds Eisheries and Aquaculture 2010 (FAO, Rome 2010), 35.
    [Show full text]
  • A Practical Guide to Effective Design and Management of Mpas For
    A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO THE REPORT EFFECTIVE DESIGN AND 2019 MANAGEMENT OF MPAs FOR SHARKS AND RAYS This project has been a collaboration between the Centre LEAD AUTHOR: for Sustainable Tropical Fisheries and Aquaculture Cassandra L Rigby, James Cook (CSTFA) at James Cook University, Australia, and WWF. University ABOUT WWF AUTHORS: WWF is one of the largest and most experienced Colin Simpendorfer, James Cook independent conservation organizations, with over University 5 million supporters and a global network active in Andy Cornish, WWF-Hong Kong more than 100 countries. WWF´s mission is to stop the degradation of the planet´s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with HOW TO CITE THIS WORK: nature, by conserving the world´s biological diversity, Rigby, C.L., Simpfendorfer, C.A. ensuring that the use of renewable resources is and A. Cornish (2019) A Practical sustainable, and promoting the reduction of pollution Guide to Effective Design and and wasteful consumption. WWF works to reverse Management of MPAs for Sharks declining shark populations through Sharks: Restoring and Rays. WWF, Gland, Switzerland. the Balance, a global initiative. www.panda.org DESIGN AND PRODUCTION: sharks.panda.org Evan Jeffries, Catherine Perry – Swim2Birds Ltd ABOUT CSTFA www.swim2birds.co.uk Research within the Centre for Sustainable Tropical Fisheries and Aquaculture (CSTFA) focuses not only Published in May 2019 by WWF on the aquatic and aquaculture systems that produce – World Wide Fund for Nature, food, but also the industries and communities that Gland, Switzerland utilise them. Multidisciplinary collaborations between our researchers provide the synergies to address Any reproduction in full or part substantial research problems in a way that individual must mention the title and credit research groups cannot.
    [Show full text]
  • (Mobula Alfredi) Feeding Habitat in the Dampier Strait, Raja Ampat, West Papua, Indonesia 1Adi I
    Plankton abundance and community structure in reef manta ray (Mobula alfredi) feeding habitat in the Dampier Strait, Raja Ampat, West Papua, Indonesia 1Adi I. Thovyan, 1,2Ricardo F. Tapilatu, 1,2Vera Sabariah, 3,4Stephanie K. Venables 1 Environmental Science Master Program, Graduate School University of Papua (UNIPA) Manokwari, Papua Barat, Indonesia; 2 Research Center of Pacific Marine Resources and Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, University of Papua (UNIPA), Manokwari, Papua Barat, Indonesia; 3 Marine Megafauna Foundation, Truckee, California, USA; 4 Centre for Evolutionary Biology, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia. Corresponding author: R. F. Tapilatu, [email protected] Abstract. Reef manta rays (Mobula alfredi) are pelagic filter feeders, primarily feeding on zooplankton. Plankton plays an important role in marine food webs and can be used as a bioindicator to evaluate water quality and primary productivity. This study aimed to determine the community structure and abundance of zooplankton and phytoplankton at a M. alfredi feeding habitat in the Dampier Strait region of Raja Ampat, West Papua, Indonesia. Plankton samples were collected and environmental conditions were recorded during two sampling sessions, in March and in July 2017, respectively, from five M. alfredi feeding sites using a 20 μm plankton tow net. Plankton richness was found to be higher in March (272 ind L-1±342) than in July (31 ind L-1±11), which may be due to seasonal variations in ocean current patterns in the Dampier Strait. Copepods (Phylum Arthropoda) were the dominant zooplankton found in samples in both sampling periods. Microplastics were also present in tows from both sampling periods, presenting a cause for concern regarding the large filter feeding species, including M.
    [Show full text]
  • MANTA RAYS Giant Manta (Manta Birostris), Reef Manta (Manta Alfredi), and Manta Cf
    MANTA RAYS Giant manta (Manta birostris), reef manta (Manta alfredi), and Manta cf. birostris proposed for Annex 3 The largest genus of rays with an especially conservative life history Overview The giant manta ray and the reef manta ray, with a third putative species endemic to the Caribbean region, are the largest ray species attaining sizes over five meters disk width. They have especially conservative life histories, rendering them vulnerable to depletion. Despite evidence for long migrations, regional populations appear to be small, sparsely distributed, and fragmented, meaning localized declines are unlikely mitigated by immigration. Two manta ray species have recently been reassessed for the IUCN Red List and both are considered to be ‘Vulnerable’ on this listing. Giant mantas were also recently listed on Appendix I and II under the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), and both species are listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES). Listing of manta rays in Annex 3 of SPAW would thus be consistent with international agreements and would be compliant with criteria 4 (IUCN), 5 (CITES) and 6 (regional cooperation). Criterion 1 is met due to the decline and fragmentation of the populations. • Exceptionally vulnerable rays due to extremely slow reproduction • Regional small, sparsely distributed, and fragmented populations • Subject to overfishing due to increasing demand for gill plates for Chinese medicine • Included on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species as “Vulnerable” • Listed on Appendix II of CITES, Appendix I of CMS, and the CMS MoU sharks © FAO Biology and distribution Manta rays are migratory The giant manta and reef manta can reach disc widths of 700 cm and 500 cm, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Malaysia National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Shark (Plan2)
    MALAYSIA NATIONAL PLAN OF ACTION FOR THE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF SHARK (PLAN2) DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND AGRO-BASED INDUSTRY MALAYSIA 2014 First Printing, 2014 Copyright Department of Fisheries Malaysia, 2014 All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the Department of Fisheries Malaysia. Published in Malaysia by Department of Fisheries Malaysia Ministry of Agriculture and Agro-based Industry Malaysia, Level 1-6, Wisma Tani Lot 4G2, Precinct 4, 62628 Putrajaya Malaysia Telephone No. : 603 88704000 Fax No. : 603 88891233 E-mail : [email protected] Website : http://dof.gov.my Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia Cataloguing-in-Publication Data ISBN 978-983-9819-99-1 This publication should be cited as follows: Department of Fisheries Malaysia, 2014. Malaysia National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Shark (Plan 2), Ministry of Agriculture and Agro- based Industry Malaysia, Putrajaya, Malaysia. 50pp SUMMARY Malaysia has been very supportive of the International Plan of Action for Sharks (IPOA-SHARKS) developed by FAO that is to be implemented voluntarily by countries concerned. This led to the development of Malaysia’s own National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Shark or NPOA-Shark (Plan 1) in 2006. The successful development of Malaysia’s second National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Shark (Plan 2) is a manifestation of her renewed commitment to the continuous improvement of shark conservation and management measures in Malaysia.
    [Show full text]
  • Enhanced Visual Fields in Hammerhead Sharks
    4010 The Journal of Experimental Biology 212, 4010-4018 Published by The Company of Biologists 2009 doi:10.1242/jeb.032615 Enhanced visual fields in hammerhead sharks D. M. McComb1,*, T. C. Tricas2 and S. M. Kajiura1 1Biological Sciences, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL 33431, USA and 2Department of Zoology and Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA *Author for correspondence ([email protected]) Accepted 9 September 2009 SUMMARY Several factors that influence the evolution of the unusual head morphology of hammerhead sharks (family Sphyrnidae) are proposed but few are empirically tested. In this study we tested the ‘enhanced binocular field’ hypothesis (that proposes enhanced frontal binocularity) by comparison of the visual fields of three hammerhead species: the bonnethead shark, Sphyrna tiburo, the scalloped hammerhead shark, Sphyrna lewini, and the winghead shark, Eusphyra blochii, with that of two carcharhinid species: the lemon shark, Negaprion brevirostris, and the blacknose shark, Carcharhinus acronotus. Additionally, eye rotation and head yaw were quantified to determine if species compensate for large blind areas anterior to the head. The winghead shark possessed the largest anterior binocular overlap (48deg.) and was nearly four times larger than that of the lemon (10deg.) and blacknose (11deg.) sharks. The binocular overlap in the scalloped hammerhead sharks (34deg.) was greater than the bonnethead sharks (13deg.) and carcharhinid species; however, the bonnethead shark did not differ from the carcharhinids. These results indicate that binocular overlap has increased with lateral head expansion in hammerhead sharks. The hammerhead species did not demonstrate greater eye rotation in the anterior or posterior direction.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Shark Conservation Sanctuaries for a Predator in Peril
    GLOBAL SHARK CONSERVATION SANCTUARIES FOR A PREDATOR IN PERIL The Pew Charitable Trusts is driven by the power of knowledge to solve today’s most challenging problems. Pew applies a rigorous, analytical approach to improve public policy, inform the public, and stimulate civic life. www.PewTrusts.org THE OPPORTUNITY Swift, graceful, mysterious, superbly adapted of animals on Earth. Ironically, however, sharks. Recognizing this opportunity, The to their environment, sharks have been the even though people are the principal threat Pew Charitable Trusts initiated a campaign apex predators of the oceans since long to sharks, they also are their greatest hope. to reverse the decline of shark populations before dinosaurs roamed the planet. For worldwide. some 400 million years, they have been The fate of sharks has broad implications. the unchallenged rulers of the deeps and There is increasing evidence that the loss At the core of Pew’s shark conservation shallows of the marine world. of sharks may have a ripple effect on the efforts is its work to establish sanctuaries in vitality of food webs in many areas of the the waters of key countries and stop the No longer. They are falling victim to a fiercer global ocean. “They are our canary in the coal overfishing of sharks in places where predator that is threatening to end their mine of the oceans,” said Dr. Boris Worm, a they still stand a chance to rebound. Shark long reign and driving them to the edge of professor of marine biology at Dalhousie sanctuaries provide full protections for sharks extinction. That predator is us—people.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bonnethead (Sphyrna Tiburo) and the Scalloped Hammerhead (Sphyrna Lewini) Sarah L
    © 2017. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd | Journal of Experimental Biology (2017) 220, 3336-3343 doi:10.1242/jeb.157941 RESEARCH ARTICLE Regional variation in undulatory kinematics of two hammerhead species: the bonnethead (Sphyrna tiburo) and the scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini) Sarah L. Hoffmann1,*, Steven M. Warren2 and Marianne E. Porter1 ABSTRACT blochii), possesses a cephalofoil that is proportionally the largest Hammerhead sharks (Sphyrnidae) exhibit a large amount of and measures up to 50% of their total body length (Lim et al., 2010). morphological variation within the family, making them the focus of In comparison, the bonnethead shark (Sphyrna tiburo) is the most many studies. The size of the laterally expanded head, or cephalofoil, is recently derived species and their cephalofoil width is 18% of total inversely correlated with pectoral fin area. The inverse relationship body length. Generally, as cephalofoil width increases among between cephalofoil and pectoral fin size in this family suggests that they species, pectoral fin area decreases (Thomson and Simanek, 1977). might serve a complementary role in lift generation. The cephalofoil is Previous studies on hammerhead sharks have focused primarily on also hypothesized to increase olfaction, electroreception and vision; cephalofoil morphology and its effects on hydrodynamics and however, little is known about how morphological variation impacts post- sensory efficiency; however, little is known about the morphology cranial swimming kinematics. Previous studies demonstrate that the and function of the post-cranial body. The significant bonnethead and scalloped hammerhead have significantly different yaw morphological variation and the close phylogenetic relationship amplitude, and we hypothesized that these species utilize varied among hammerheads make them an ideal study system to examine frequency and amplitude of undulation along the body.
    [Show full text]
  • Leveraging Satellite Technology to Create True Shark Sanctuaries
    UC Santa Barbara UC Santa Barbara Previously Published Works Title Leveraging satellite technology to create true shark sanctuaries Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9c52k6x6 Journal CONSERVATION LETTERS, 12(2) ISSN 1755-263X Authors Bradley, Darcy Mayorga, Juan McCauley, Douglas J et al. Publication Date 2019 DOI 10.1111/conl.12610 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Received: 10 July 2018 Revised: 30 August 2018 Accepted: 9 September 2018 DOI: 10.1111/conl.12610 POLICY PERSPECTIVE Leveraging satellite technology to create true shark sanctuaries Darcy Bradley1,2 Juan Mayorga1,3 Douglas J. McCauley2,4 Reniel B. Cabral1,2 Patric Douglas5 Steven D. Gaines1,2 1 Bren School of Environmental Science & Abstract Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA Shark sanctuaries are an ambitious attempt to protect huge areas of ocean space to 2Marine Science Institute, University of Cali- curtail overfishing of sharks. If shark sanctuaries are to succeed, effective surveil- fornia, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA lance and enforcement is urgently needed. We use a case study with a high level of 3 Pristine Seas, National Geographic Society, illegal shark fishing within a shark sanctuary to help motivate three actionable oppor- Washington, DC 20036, USA tunities to create truly effective shark sanctuaries by leveraging satellite technology: 4Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, (1) require vessel tracking systems; (2) partner with international research organiza- Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA tions; and (3) ban vessels previously associated with illegal fishing from shark sanctu- 5Reef Worlds, Los Angeles, CA 90120, USA aries.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishing for Sharks History of Shark Finning Protection Towards Sharks Importance of Sharks Sharks Are a Top Predator of the Ocean
    Shark Finning Tiana Barron-Wright Fishing for Sharks History of Shark Finning Protection Towards Sharks Importance of Sharks Sharks are a top predator of the ocean. However, sharks are a target Shark fin soup originated in 968 AD by an emperor from the Sung The Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000, was signed by former Sharks play an important role in the ecosystem. Sharks maintain the for humans. Shark finning is the process of cutting off a shark’s Dynasty. The emperor created shark fin soup to display his wealth, President Bill Clinton. This act prohibited the process of shark finning in species below them in the ecosystem and serve as a health indicator for the fins while it is still alive and throwing the shark back into the power and generosity towards his guest. Serving shark fin soup the United States. This bans anyone in the United States jurisdiction from ocean. The decrease of sharks in the oceans has led to the decline of coral ocean where it will die. After getting their fins cut off, some sharks shark finning, owning shark fins without the shark’s body, and landing reefs, sea grass beds, and the loss of commercial fisheries. Without sharks was seen as a show of respect. Chinese Emperors thought the dish in the ecosystem, other predators can thrive. For example, groupers can can starve to death, get eaten by other fish or drown to death. shark fins without the body. This act also has NOAA (National Oceanic had medicinal benefits. Shark fin soup is considered a delicacy in and Atmospheric Administration) Fisheries to give Congress a report increase in numbers and eat herbivores.
    [Show full text]
  • CONCERTED ACTION for the WHALE SHARK (Rhincodon Typus)1 Adopted by the Conference of the Parties at Its 13Th Meeting (Gandhinagar, February 2020)
    CONVENTION ON UNEP/CMS/Concerted Action 12.7 (Rev.COP13) MIGRATORY Original: English SPECIES CONCERTED ACTION FOR THE WHALE SHARK (Rhincodon typus)1 Adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its 13th Meeting (Gandhinagar, February 2020) The Concerted Action for the Whale Shark was first adopted at the 12th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (UNEP/CMS/COP12/Concerted Action 12.7). Reports on implementation were submitted to the 13th Meeting of the Parties (COP13) together with a proposal for extension (UNEP/CMS/COP13/Doc.28.1.7.a and b) and revision (UNEP/CMS/COP13/Doc.28.1.7/Add.2), which was approved by the Parties. (i). Proponent: Government of the Philippines (ii). Target species, lower taxon or population, or group of taxa with needs in common: Class: Chondrichthyes Subclass: Elasmobranchii Order: Orectolobiformes Family: Rhincodontidae Genus: Rhincodon Species: Rhincodon typus Currently listed in CMS Appendix I and CMS Appendix II. (iii). Geographical range: The Whale Shark has a circumtropical distribution through all tropical and warm temperate seas, apart from the Mediterranean (Rowat and Brooks 2012). Their core distribution is between approximately 30°N and 35°S, with occasional seasonal penetration to the north and south (Colman 1997, Rowat and Brooks 2012, Sequeira et al. 2014a). The northernmost records are from 44°N in the Bay of Fundy, Canada (Turnbull and Randell 2006) and the Sea of Okhotsk off Japan (Tomita et al. 2014), with the southernmost from 37°S in Victoria, Australia (Wolfson 1986) and New Zealand (Duffy 2002). Whale Sharks’ distribution is likely to be temperature limited, as they are rarely sighted in surface temperatures of less than 21°C (Colman 1997, Duffy 2002, Afonso et al.
    [Show full text]