DOCSLIB.ORG

Urolophus Orarius (Coastal Stingaree) (Last and Gomon, 1987)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Urolophus Orarius (Coastal Stingaree) (Last and Gomon, 1987) The Minister decided this species was not eligible for listing as threatened on 21 December 2009 Advice to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (the Committee) on Amendment to the list of Threatened Species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) 1. Name Urolophus orarius The species is commonly known as the Coastal Stingaree. It is in the Family Urolophidae. 2. Reason for Conservation Assessment by the Committee This advice follows assessment of information provided by a public nomination to list the Coastal Stingaree. The nominator suggested listing in the vulnerable category of the list. This is the Committee’s first consideration of the species under the EPBC Act. 3. Summary of Conclusion The Committee judges that the species is not eligible for listing in any category. 4. Taxonomy The species is conventionally accepted as Urolophus orarius (Coastal Stingaree) (Last and Gomon, 1987). 5. Description The Coastal Stingaree is a small stingray that grows up to 34 cm in length (SARDI, unpubl. data, 2009). It has a subcircular, disk-shaped body, a stout tail about three-quarters the length of the body disk, a spear-shaped tail fin, and no dorsal fin. It bears a stout and prominent, serrated, poisonous spine on the middle reaches of its tail. Its upper side is coloured greyish to brown, with dark blotches across the eyes, body and base of the tail. Its underside is pale whitish-grey (Last and Gomon, 1987). 6. National Context The Coastal Stingaree is endemic to inshore areas of the eastern half of South Australia’s coastlines, from Beachport to Ceduna. It is present in the southern areas of both Spencer Gulf and Gulf St Vincent but the northern areas of the gulfs are considered unsuitable habitat (Last, pers. comm., 2009). It is currently known to use habitats between the 14 and 50 metre depth range, with the majority of records of the species coming from the 20 to 50 metre depth range. The species may utilise shallower habitats as well, however there has been no sampling in shallow waters. Almost all records of the species are from prawn trawl by-catch, which is restricted to depths of more than 10 metres. Recreational divers have reported a few sightings of the species in water less than 10 metres deep (Last, pers. comm., 2009; SA DEH, unpubl. data, 2009). Urolophus orarius (Coastal Stingaree) Listing Advice — Page 1 of 6 The Minister decided this species was not eligible for listing as threatened on 21 December 2009 The Coastal Stingaree’s distribution occurs in the Eyre Meso-scale Bioregion , the Murat Meso- scale Bioregion and the Great Australian Bight Transition of the Integrated Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia (IMCRA v4.0) scheme. The Coastal Stingaree’s distribution occurs in the Spencer Gulf Prawn Fishery, the Gulf St Vincent Prawn Fishery and the West Coast Prawn Fishery, which target the Western King Prawn (Melicertus latisulcatus) and are managed by Primary Industries and Resources South Australia (PIRSA). 7. Relevant Biology / Ecology The Coastal Stingaree is a small stingray species that utilises inshore habitats with sand substrates and depth ranges of 14–50 metres, and possibly shallower depths. It is considered to be a sparsely distributed species with low abundance (Walker, 2004; Last et al., 2006). Little is known about the Coastal Stingaree’s diet, but other Urolophus species feed primarily on small crustaceans (Trinnie, 2003). Little is known about the species’ reproductive biology, however the biology of closely related species in the Urolophus genus has been studied. These studies show that Urolophus species become sexually mature at a relatively late stage in female fish, have a long 10–12 month gestation period and produce relatively few young (generally one to two, four or six, depending on the species) (Trinnie, 2003; White and Potter, 2005). The young are developed internally, feeding on their yolk sacs but also receive nourishment from nutrient-rich uterine fluids, a phenomenon termed matrotrophic viviparity (Dulvy and Reynolds, 1997). The young are very large relative to the size of adult fish (Trinnie, 2003; White and Potter, 2005). There is a fair probability that the Coastal Stingaree has a similar reproductive biology. 8. Description of Threats The main threat to the Coastal Stingaree is mortality resulting from capture as by-catch in prawn trawl fisheries. The current known depth range for the species coincides with the depths prawn trawling is undertaken in Spencer Gulf and Gulf St Vincent and adjacent areas. Walker (2004) categorises the species as having a high risk of being encountered during trawl fishing, a high selectivity to trawl fishing gear and a medium risk of mortality during the by-catch sorting process. In addition to direct mortality, by-catch is likely to reduce recruitment rates, as stingaree species tend to spontaneously abort their young while on sorting tables (White, pers. comm., 2009). Last et al. (2006) report similar observations. If present in the Coastal Stingaree, this behaviour, combined with the long gestation of stingaree species (10–12 months) and the risk of gravid Coastal Stingarees being caught in any 12 month period in the trawl zone, may significantly reduce recruitment rates. Prawn trawling has also degraded or altered benthic habitats and ecological communities in areas of Gulf St Vincent, which is likely to impact on the Coastal Stingaree given the species’ habitat preferences (Tanner, 2003, 2005). Damage to coastal marine habitats as a result of dredging projects or other developments are a potential threat to the species. The South Australia prawn trawl fisheries feature various gear restrictions, seasonal closures, depth restrictions and other management arrangements intended to reduce by-catch and environmental impact. Notably, the number of licences in the fisheries are fixed, and this along Urolophus orarius (Coastal Stingaree) Listing Advice — Page 2 of 6 The Minister decided this species was not eligible for listing as threatened on 21 December 2009 with a biologically determined total allowable catch, means there is not expected to be any significant future increase in fishing effort in these fisheries. 9. Public Consultation The nomination used in this assessment was made available for public exhibition and comment for 30 business days. No public comments were received. 10. How judged by the Committee in relation to the criteria of the EPBC Act and Regulations The Committee judges that the species is not eligible for listing under any category under the EPBC Act. The assessment against the criteria is as follows: Criterion 1: It has undergone, is suspected to have undergone or is likely to undergo in the immediate future a very severe, severe or substantial reduction in numbers. While there have been no targeted surveys for the Coastal Stingaree, the species has been recorded in prawn trawling by-catch surveys in Spencer Gulf and Gulf St Vincent. No pattern of decline in numbers is indicated in by-catch data dating from the late 1990s to present (Carrick, 1997; PIRSA, 2003; Dixon et al., 2005; SARDI, unpubl. data, 2009). While data gathered in prawn trawling surveys do not indicate a past decline in species’ numbers, as there have been no targeted population surveys for the Coastal Stingaree, the impacts of commercial fishing are difficult to determine. Therefore the Committee considers that there are insufficient data to determine whether the Coastal Stingaree has undergone a substantial reduction in numbers. The Coastal Stingaree is subject to the ongoing threat of prawn trawl fisheries which can cause mortality, abortion of young and degradation of suitable habitat. This threat may lead to reduced recruitment rates given the species’ biological characteristics of low fecundity and delayed sexual maturity. However, there are insufficient data available to determine whether this will result in a future decline in the species’ numbers. There are insufficient data to establish whether the species has undergone or will undergo a decline in numbers in biologically relevant timeframes, therefore the species has not been demonstrated to have met the required elements of Criterion 1, and is not eligible for listing in any category under this Criterion. Criterion 2: Its geographic distribution is precarious for the survival of the species and is very restricted, restricted or limited. Based on prawn trawling by-catch and museum records, the Coastal Stingaree’s geographic distribution is considered to encompass inshore areas of the eastern half of South Australia’s coastline between Beachport and Ceduna, including all seabed between depths of 14–50 metres and including the eastern half of the Great Australian Bight, but excluding the northern areas of the gulfs. Based on this distribution, the species’ extent of occurrence is indicated to be up to 40,000 km2 (DEWHA, 2009), however this figure is not likely to be absolutely definitive. The Committee does not consider this distribution to be limited to any particular degree. Urolophus orarius (Coastal Stingaree) Listing Advice — Page 3 of 6 The Minister decided this species was not eligible for listing as threatened on 21 December 2009 The Coastal Stingaree is subject to the ongoing threat of prawn trawl fisheries which can cause mortality, abortion of young and degradation of suitable habitat. However, the extent of impacts on the species from this threat is not known. No past or potential future declines, or fragmentation of populations, can be inferred from current data. Therefore the Committee does not consider the species’ geographic distribution to be precarious. As the species’ geographic distribution is not limited or precarious, it does not meet sufficient elements of Criterion 2 and is therefore not eligible for listing in any category under this Criterion. Criterion 3: The estimated total number of mature individuals is limited to a particular degree; and either (a) evidence suggests that the number will continue to decline at a particular rate; or (b) the number is likely to continue to decline and its geographic distribution is precarious for its survival.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Contributions to the Skeletal Anatomy of Freshwater Stingrays (Chondrichthyes, Myliobatiformes): 1
    Zoosyst. Evol. 88 (2) 2012, 145–158 / DOI 10.1002/zoos.201200013 Contributions to the skeletal anatomy of freshwater stingrays (Chondrichthyes, Myliobatiformes): 1. Morphology of male Potamotrygon motoro from South America Rica Stepanek*,1 and Jrgen Kriwet University of Vienna, Department of Paleontology, Geozentrum (UZA II), Althanstr. 14, 1090 Vienna, Austria Abstract Received 8 August 2011 The skeletal anatomy of most if not all freshwater stingrays still is insufficiently known Accepted 17 January 2012 due to the lack of detailed morphological studies. Here we describe the morphology of Published 28 September 2012 an adult male specimen of Potamotrygon motoro to form the basis for further studies into the morphology of freshwater stingrays and to identify potential skeletal features for analyzing their evolutionary history. Potamotrygon is a member of Myliobatiformes and forms together with Heliotrygon, Paratrygon and Plesiotrygon the Potamotrygoni- dae. Potamotrygonids are exceptional because they are the only South American ba- toids, which are obligate freshwater rays. The knowledge about their skeletal anatomy Key Words still is very insufficient despite numerous studies of freshwater stingrays. These studies, however, mostly consider only external features (e.g., colouration patterns) or selected Batomorphii skeletal structures. To gain a better understanding of evolutionary traits within sting- Potamotrygonidae rays, detailed anatomical analyses are urgently needed. Here, we present the first de- Taxonomy tailed anatomical account of a male Potamotrygon motoro specimen, which forms the Skeletal morphology basis of prospective anatomical studies of potamotrygonids. Introduction with the radiation of mammals. Living elasmobranchs are thus the result of a long evolutionary history. Neoselachians include all living sharks, rays, and Some of the most astonishing and unprecedented ex- skates, and their fossil relatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyrighted Material
    06_250317 part1-3.qxd 12/13/05 7:32 PM Page 15 Phylum Chordata Chordates are placed in the superphylum Deuterostomia. The possible rela- tionships of the chordates and deuterostomes to other metazoans are dis- cussed in Halanych (2004). He restricts the taxon of deuterostomes to the chordates and their proposed immediate sister group, a taxon comprising the hemichordates, echinoderms, and the wormlike Xenoturbella. The phylum Chordata has been used by most recent workers to encompass members of the subphyla Urochordata (tunicates or sea-squirts), Cephalochordata (lancelets), and Craniata (fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals). The Cephalochordata and Craniata form a mono- phyletic group (e.g., Cameron et al., 2000; Halanych, 2004). Much disagree- ment exists concerning the interrelationships and classification of the Chordata, and the inclusion of the urochordates as sister to the cephalochor- dates and craniates is not as broadly held as the sister-group relationship of cephalochordates and craniates (Halanych, 2004). Many excitingCOPYRIGHTED fossil finds in recent years MATERIAL reveal what the first fishes may have looked like, and these finds push the fossil record of fishes back into the early Cambrian, far further back than previously known. There is still much difference of opinion on the phylogenetic position of these new Cambrian species, and many new discoveries and changes in early fish systematics may be expected over the next decade. As noted by Halanych (2004), D.-G. (D.) Shu and collaborators have discovered fossil ascidians (e.g., Cheungkongella), cephalochordate-like yunnanozoans (Haikouella and Yunnanozoon), and jaw- less craniates (Myllokunmingia, and its junior synonym Haikouichthys) over the 15 06_250317 part1-3.qxd 12/13/05 7:32 PM Page 16 16 Fishes of the World last few years that push the origins of these three major taxa at least into the Lower Cambrian (approximately 530–540 million years ago).
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Longnose Skates Zearaja Chilensisand Dipturus Trachyderma (Rajiformes: Rajidae)
    Univ. Sci. 2015, Vol. 20 (3): 321-359 doi: 10.11144/Javeriana.SC20-3.arol Freely available on line REVIEW ARTICLE A review of longnose skates Zearaja chilensis and Dipturus trachyderma (Rajiformes: Rajidae) Carolina Vargas-Caro1 , Carlos Bustamante1, Julio Lamilla2 , Michael B. Bennett1 Abstract Longnose skates may have a high intrinsic vulnerability among fishes due to their large body size, slow growth rates and relatively low fecundity, and their exploitation as fisheries target-species places their populations under considerable pressure. These skates are found circumglobally in subtropical and temperate coastal waters. Although longnose skates have been recorded for over 150 years in South America, the ability to assess the status of these species is still compromised by critical knowledge gaps. Based on a review of 185 publications, a comparative synthesis of the biology and ecology was conducted on two commercially important elasmobranchs in South American waters, the yellownose skate Zearaja chilensis and the roughskin skate Dipturus trachyderma; in order to examine and compare their taxonomy, distribution, fisheries, feeding habitats, reproduction, growth and longevity. There has been a marked increase in the number of published studies for both species since 2000, and especially after 2005, although some research topics remain poorly understood. Considering the external morphological similarities of longnose skates, especially when juvenile, and the potential niche overlap in both, depth and latitude it is recommended that reproductive seasonality, connectivity and population structure be assessed to ensure their long-term sustainability. Keywords: conservation biology; fishery; roughskin skate; South America; yellownose skate Introduction Edited by Juan Carlos Salcedo-Reyes & Andrés Felipe Navia Global threats to sharks, skates and rays have been 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Conserving Marine Biodiversity in South Australia - Part 1 - Background, Status and Review of Approach to Marine Biodiversity Conservation in South Australia
    Conserving Marine Biodiversity in South Australia - Part 1 - Background, Status and Review of Approach to Marine Biodiversity Conservation in South Australia K S Edyvane May 1999 ISBN 0 7308 5237 7 No 38 The recommendations given in this publication are based on the best available information at the time of writing. The South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) makes no warranty of any kind expressed or implied concerning the use of technology mentioned in this publication. © SARDI. This work is copyright. Apart of any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the publisher. SARDI is a group of the Department of Primary Industries and Resources CONTENTS – PART ONE PAGE CONTENTS NUMBER INTRODUCTION 1. Introduction…………………………………..…………………………………………………………1 1.1 The ‘Unique South’ – Southern Australia’s Temperate Marine Biota…………………………….…….1 1.2 1.2 The Status of Marine Protected Areas in Southern Australia………………………………….4 2 South Australia’s Marine Ecosystems and Biodiversity……………………………………………..9 2.1 Oceans, Gulfs and Estuaries – South Australia’s Oceanographic Environments……………………….9 2.1.1 Productivity…………………………………………………………………………………….9 2.1.2 Estuaries………………………………………………………………………………………..9 2.2 Rocky Cliffs and Gulfs, to Mangrove Shores -South Australia’s Coastal Environments………………………………………………………………13 2.2.1 Offshore Islands………………………………………………………………………………14 2.2.2 Gulf Ecosystems………………………………………………………………………………14 2.2.3 Northern Spencer Gulf………………………………………………………………………...14
    [Show full text]
  • Shark Action Plan Policy Report
    Shark Action Plan Policy Report Michelle R Heupel, Peter M Kyne, William T White, Colin A Simpfendorfer Project A11 - Shark action plan 5 December 2018 Milestone 11 – Research Plan v3 (2017) Revised 5 Aug 2019 www.nespmarine.edu.au Enquiries should be addressed to: Michelle Heupel [email protected] Project Leader’s Distribution List Department of the Environment and Energy, Biodiversity Conservation Division Department of the Environment and Energy, Biodiversity Conservation Division Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Darren Cameron Preferred Citation Heupel, M.R., Kyne, P.M., White, W.T. and Simpfendorfer, C.A. (2018). Shark Action Plan Policy Report. Report to the National Environmental Science Program, Marine Biodiversity Hub. Australian Institute of Marine Science. Copyright This report is licensed by the University of Tasmania for use under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Australia Licence. For licence conditions, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Acknowledgement This work was undertaken for the Marine Biodiversity Hub, a collaborative partnership supported through funding from the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program (NESP). NESP Marine Biodiversity Hub partners include the University of Tasmania; CSIRO, Geoscience Australia, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Museum Victoria, Charles Darwin University, the University of Western Australia, Integrated Marine Observing System, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, NSW Department of Primary Industries. Important Disclaimer The NESP Marine Biodiversity Hub advises that the information contained in this publication comprises general statements based on scientific research. The reader is advised and needs to be aware that such information may be incomplete or unable to be used in any specific situation.
    [Show full text]
  • Rapid Assessment of Sustainability for Ecological Risk of Shark and Other
    Rapid assessment of sustainability for ecological risk of shark and other chondrichthyan bycatch species taken in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Terence I. Walker, John D. Stevens, J. Matias Braccini, Ross K. Daley, Charlie Huveneers, Sarah B. Irvine, Justin D. Bell, Javier Tovar‐Ávila, Fabian I. Trinnie, David T. Phillips, Michelle A. Treloar, Cynthia A. Awruck, Anne S. Gason, John Salini, and William C. Hamlett Project No. 2002/033 Rapid assessment of sustainability for ecological risk of shark and other chondrichthyan bycatch species taken in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Terence I. Walker, John D. Stevens, J. Matias Braccini, Ross K. Daley, Charlie Huveneers, Sarah B. Irvine, Justin D. Bell, Javier Tovar‐ Ávila, Fabian I. Trinnie, David T. Phillips, Michelle A. Treloar, Cynthia A. Awruck, Anne S. Gason, John Salini, and William C. Hamlett July 2008 Project Number 2002/033 Rapid assessment of sustainability for ecological risk of shark and other chondrichthyan bycatch species taken in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery FRDC Report 2002/033 Terence I. Walker, John D. Stevens, J. Matias Braccini, Ross J. Daley, Charlie Huveneers, Sarah B. Irvine, Justin D. Bell, Javier Tovar‐ Ávila, Fabian I. Trinnie, David T. Phillips, Michelle A. Treloar, Cynthia A. Awruck, Anne S. Gason, John Salini, and Hamlett, W. C. Published by Department of Primary Industries, Fisheries Research Brand, Queenscliff, Victoria, 3225. © Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, and Fisheries Victoria. 2008 This work is copyright. Except as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), no part of this publication may be reproduced by any process, electronic or otherwise, without the specific written permission of the copyright owners.
    [Show full text]
  • Zootaxa, Urolophus Kapalensis Sp. Nov., a New Stingaree (Myliobatiformes: Urolophidae)
    Zootaxa 1176: 41–52 (2006) ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ ZOOTAXA 1176 Copyright © 2006 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) Urolophus kapalensis sp. nov., a new stingaree (Myliobatiformes: Urolophidae) off eastern Australia GORDON K. YEARSLEY & PETER R. LAST CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, GPO Box 1538, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia; gordon.years- [email protected] Abstract A new stingaree, Urolophus kapalensis sp. nov., is described from material collected off eastern Australia. It differs from the partially sympatric U. paucimaculatus, the only other known Urolo- phus with a bell-shaped internasal flap, in having a dorsal fin (absent in U. paucimaculatus), in col- oration (e.g. with a V-shaped band across the interorbit, which is absent in U. paucimaculatus), and in a number of morphometric and meristic characters including: a narrower disc (disc width 4.6–5.0 times distance between first gill slits vs 5.1 in U. paucimaculatus), a longer stinging spine (11.8– 14.9 vs 9.3–11.5% TL), a shorter spiracle (0.8–1.0 vs 1.1–1.2 times orbit length), and more pre- spine vertebrae (86–95 vs 79–88). The two species are also distinguished by the cytochrome oxi- dase subunit 1 (CO1) gene with a divergence of 9%. The new Urolophus is medium-sized, and occurs from Cape Moreton (Qld) south to Disaster Bay (N.S.W.) in depths of 9–79 m. Key words: Australia, new species, southwestern Pacific Ocean, stingaree, Tasman Sea, Urol- ophidae, Urolophus Introduction The batoid family Urolophidae, otherwise known as stingarees, is represented in Australia by two genera Trygonoptera Müller & Henle, 1841 and Urolophus Müller & Henle, 1837 (Last & Stevens 1994; Last & Compagno 1999).
    [Show full text]
  • General Intro
    For further information, please contact: Coast and Marine Conservation Branch Department of Environment and Natural Resources GPO Box 1047 ADELAIDE SA 5001 Telephone: (08) 8124 4900 Facsimile: (08) 8124 4920 Cite as: Department of Environment and Natural Resources (2010), Environmental, Economic and Social Values of the Far West Coast Marine Park, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, South Australia Mapping information: All maps created by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources unless otherwise stated. All Rights Reserved. All works and information displayed are subject to Copyright. For the reproduction or publication beyond that permitted by the Copyright Act 1968 (Cwlth) written permission must be sought from the Department. Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information displayed, the Department, its agents, officers and employees make no representations, either express or implied, that the information displayed is accurate or fit for any purpose and expressly disclaims all liability for loss or damage arising from reliance upon the information displayed. © Copyright Department of Environment and Natural Resources 2010. 12/11/2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1 VALUES STATEMENT 1 ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES...............................................................................................................................1 1.2 PHYSICAL INFLUENCES
    [Show full text]
  • Australia's Coral
    Australia’s Coral Sea: A Biophysical Profile 2011 Dr Daniela Ceccarelli 2011 Dr Daniela Ceccarelli Coral Sea: A Biophysical Profile Australia’s Australia’s Coral Sea A Biophysical Profile Dr. Daniela Ceccarelli August 2011 Australia’s Coral Sea: A Biophysical Profile Photography credits Author: Dr. Daniela M. Ceccarelli Front and back cover: Schooling great barracuda © Jurgen Freund Dr. Daniela Ceccarelli is an independent marine ecology Page 1: South West Herald Cay, Coringa-Herald Nature Reserve © Australian Customs consultant with extensive training and experience in tropical marine ecosystems. She completed a PhD in coral reef ecology Page 2: Coral Sea © Lucy Trippett at James Cook University in 2004. Her fieldwork has taken Page 7: Masked booby © Dr. Daniela Ceccarelli her to the Great Barrier Reef and Papua New Guinea, and to remote reefs of northwest Western Australia, the Coral Sea Page 12: Humphead wrasse © Tyrone Canning and Tuvalu. In recent years she has worked as a consultant for government, non-governmental organisations, industry, Page 15: Pink anemonefish © Lucy Trippett education and research institutions on diverse projects requiring field surveys, monitoring programs, data analysis, Page 19: Hawksbill turtle © Jurgen Freund reporting, teaching, literature reviews and management recommendations. Her research and review projects have Page 21: Striped marlin © Doug Perrine SeaPics.com included studies on coral reef fish and invertebrates, Page 22: Shark and divers © Undersea Explorer seagrass beds and mangroves, and have required a good understanding of topics such as commercial shipping Page 25: Corals © Mark Spencer impacts, the effects of marine debris, the importance of apex predators, and the physical and biological attributes Page 27: Grey reef sharks © Jurgen Freund of large marine regions such as the Coral Sea.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimating the Impacts of Management Changes on Bycatch Reduction and Sustainability of High-Risk Bycatch Species in the Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery
    Estimating the impacts of management changes on bycatch reduction and sustainability of high-risk bycatch species in the Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery Matthew Campbell, Anthony Courtney, Na Wang, Mark McLennan and Shijie Zhou November 2017 FRDC 2015/014 © 2017 Fisheries Research and Development Corporation. All rights reserved. ISBN 978 0 7345 0455 5 Estimating the impacts of management changes on bycatch reduction and sustainability of high-risk bycatch species in the Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery FRDC Project Number 2015/014 2017 Ownership of Intellectual property rights Unless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights, if any) in this publication is owned by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, The Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and CSIRO Marine Research. This publication (and any information sourced from it) should be attributed to: Campbell, M. J., Courtney, A. J., Wang, N., McLennan, M. F., and Zhou, S. (2017) Estimating the impacts of management changes on bycatch reduction and sustainability of high-risk bycatch species in the Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery : FRDC Final Report Project number 2015/014, Brisbane, Queensland. CC BY 3.0 Creative Commons licence All material in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence, save for content supplied by third parties, logos and the Commonwealth Coat of Arms. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence is a standard form licence agreement that allows you to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt this publication provided you attribute the work. A summary of the licence terms is available from creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Final Report FRDC 2003/023
    Prawn Fishery By-catch and Discards: marine ecosystem analysis – population effects Ib Svane, Kate Rodda & Philip Thomas 2007 Project No. 2003/023 Prawn Fishery By-catch and Discards: marine ecosystem analysis – population effects Ib Svane, Kate Rodda & Philip Thomas 2007 Project No. 2003/023 SARDI Aquatic Sciences Publication No. RD 03-0132 SARDI Research Report Series No. 199 Principal Investigator Dr Ib Svane South Australian Research and Development Institute Aquatic Sciences Lincoln Marine Science Centre Hindmarsh Street, Port Lincoln SA 5606 Ph: +618 8683 2562 Fax: +618 8683 2520 Email: [email protected] COPYRIGHT © Fisheries Research and Development Corporation and SARDI, 2007. This work is copyright. Except as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), no part of this publication 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 Although SARDI has taken all reasonable care in preparing this report, neither SARDI nor its officers accept any liability resulting from the interpretation or use of the information set out in this document. Information contained in this document is subject to change without notice. SARDI Aquatic Sciences Publication No RD 03-0132 SARDI Research Report Series No. 199 ISBN: 0 7308 5361 6 Printed in Adelaide, March 2007 Authors: Ib Svane, Kate Rodda, Philip Thomas Reviewed by: J. Tanner and J. Carragher Approved by: J. Carragher Signed: Date: 21st March 2007 Distribution: PIRSA Fisheries, South Australian Fisheries Research Advisory Boards, WC&SGPFA, SARDI Aquatic Sciences Library, State Library, Parliamentary Library, National Library, SARDI Executive Library.
    [Show full text]
  • Description of Key Species Groups in the East Marine Region
    Australian Museum Description of Key Species Groups in the East Marine Region Final Report – September 2007 1 Table of Contents Acronyms........................................................................................................................................ 3 List of Images ................................................................................................................................. 4 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 5 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 6 2 Corals (Scleractinia)............................................................................................................ 12 3 Crustacea ............................................................................................................................. 24 4 Demersal Teleost Fish ........................................................................................................ 54 5 Echinodermata..................................................................................................................... 66 6 Marine Snakes ..................................................................................................................... 80 7 Marine Turtles...................................................................................................................... 95 8 Molluscs ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]