DOCSLIB.ORG

Full List of Tested Samples

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Full List of Tested Samples Sample ID Identification Status CTV03B Sphyrna lewini scalloped hammerhead shark Endangered VADL04 Sphyrna lewini scalloped hammerhead shark Endangered VADL06 Sphyrna lewini scalloped hammerhead shark Endangered VADL12 Sphyrna lewini scalloped hammerhead shark Endangered VADL29 Sphyrna mokarran great hammerhead shark Endangered VADL37 Sphyrna mokarran great hammerhead shark Endangered VADL38 Sphyrna lewini scalloped hammerhead shark Endangered VADL39 Sphyrna lewini scalloped hammerhead shark Endangered CTV01 Isurus paucus longfin mako shark Vulnerable CTV02A Alopias pelagicus pelagic thresher shark Vulnerable CTV02B Isurus oxyrinchus shortfin mako shark Vulnerable CTV02C Alopias pelagicus pelagic thresher shark Vulnerable CTV05A Isurus paucus longfin mako shark Vulnerable VADL01 Isurus oxyrinchus shortfin mako shark Vulnerable VADL07 Lamna nasus porbeagle Vulnerable VADL08 Isurus oxyrinchus shortfin mako shark Vulnerable VADL10 Lamna nasus porbeagle Vulnerable VADL11 Lamna nasus porbeagle Vulnerable VADL13 Alopias pelagicus pelagic thresher shark Vulnerable VADL15 Negaprion acutidens sicklefin lemon shark Vulnerable VADL17 Carcharhinus leiodon smoothtooth blacktip shark Vulnerable VADL18 Alopias pelagicus pelagic thresher shark Vulnerable VADL19 Isurus oxyrinchus shortfin mako shark Vulnerable VADL20 Alopias pelagicus pelagic thresher shark Vulnerable VADL23 Isurus oxyrinchus shortfin mako shark Vulnerable VADL24 Alopias pelagicus pelagic thresher shark Vulnerable VADL25 Alopias pelagicus pelagic thresher shark Vulnerable VADL26 Alopias superciliosus bigeye thresher shark Vulnerable VADL27 Isurus oxyrinchus shortfin mako shark Vulnerable VADL28 Alopias pelagicus pelagic thresher shark Vulnerable VADL30 Isurus oxyrinchus shortfin mako shark Vulnerable VADL32 Alopias pelagicus pelagic thresher shark Vulnerable VADL36 Isurus oxyrinchus shortfin mako shark Vulnerable VADL41 Lamna nasus porbeagle Vulnerable VADL47 Carcharhinus obscurus dusky shark Vulnerable VADL54 Alopias vulpinus common thresher shark Vulnerable VADL60 Alopias superciliosus bigeye thresher shark Vulnerable VADL65 Lamna nasus porbeagle Vulnerable VADL73 Alopias superciliosus bigeye thresher shark Vulnerable VADL75 Alopias superciliosus bigeye thresher shark Vulnerable VADL79 Alopias superciliosus bigeye thresher shark Vulnerable VADL81 Alopias superciliosus bigeye thresher shark Vulnerable VADL86 Isurus paucus longfin mako shark Vulnerable VADL92 Alopias pelagicus pelagic thresher shark Vulnerable VADL93 Alopias pelagicus pelagic thresher shark Vulnerable CTV02D Prionace glauca blue shark Near Threatened CTV04A Prionace glauca blue shark Near Threatened VADL21 Carcharhinus amblyrhynchoides graceful shark Near Threatened VADL22 Carcharhinus limbatus blacktip shark Near Threatened VADL31 Carcharhinus limbatus blacktip shark Near Threatened VADL34 Carcharhinus brevipinna spinner shark Near Threatened VADL02 Lamna ditropis salmon shark Least Concern VADL03 Mustelus lunulatus sicklefin smooth-hound Least Concern VADL14 Rhizoprionodon acutus milk shark Least Concern VADL16 Rhizoprionodon acutus milk shark Least Concern VADL33 Rhizoprionodon acutus milk shark Least Concern VADL42 Lamna ditropis salmon shark Least Concern VADL45 Rhizoprionodon porosus Caribbean sharpnose shark Least Concern VADL50 Lamna ditropis salmon shark Least Concern.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Diurnal Patterns in Gulf of Mexico Epipelagic Predator Interactions with Pelagic Longline Gear: Implications for Target Species Catch Rates and Bycatch Mitigation
    Bull Mar Sci. 93(2):573–589. 2017 research paper https://doi.org/10.5343/bms.2016.1008 Diurnal patterns in Gulf of Mexico epipelagic predator interactions with pelagic longline gear: implications for target species catch rates and bycatch mitigation 1 National Marine Fisheries Eric S Orbesen 1 * Service, Southeast Fisheries 1 Science Center, 75 Virginia Beach Derke Snodgrass 2 Drive, Miami, Florida 33149. Geoffrey S Shideler 1 2 University of Miami, Rosenstiel Craig A Brown School of Marine & Atmospheric John F Walter 1 Science, 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, Florida 33149. * Corresponding author email: <[email protected]>. ABSTRACT.—Bycatch in pelagic longline fisheries is of substantial international concern, and the mitigation of bycatch in the Gulf of Mexico has been considered as an option to help restore lost biomass following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The most effective bycatch mitigation measures operate upon a differential response between target and bycatch species, ideally maintaining target catch while minimizing bycatch. We investigated whether bycatch vs target catch rates varied between day and night sets for the United States pelagic longline fishery in the Gulf of Mexico by comparing the influence of diel time period and moon illumination on catch rates of 18 commonly caught species/species groups. A generalized linear model approach was used to account for operational and environmental covariates, including: year, season, water temperature, hook type, bait, and maximum hook depth. Time of day or moon
    [Show full text]
  • © Iccat, 2007
    A5 By-catch Species APPENDIX 5: BY-CATCH SPECIES A.5 By-catch species By-catch is the unintentional/incidental capture of non-target species during fishing operations. Different types of fisheries have different types and levels of by-catch, depending on the gear used, the time, area and depth fished, etc. Article IV of the Convention states: "the Commission shall be responsible for the study of the population of tuna and tuna-like fishes (the Scombriformes with the exception of Trichiuridae and Gempylidae and the genus Scomber) and such other species of fishes exploited in tuna fishing in the Convention area as are not under investigation by another international fishery organization". The following is a list of by-catch species recorded as being ever caught by any major tuna fishery in the Atlantic/Mediterranean. Note that the lists are qualitative and are not indicative of quantity or mortality. Thus, the presence of a species in the lists does not imply that it is caught in significant quantities, or that individuals that are caught necessarily die. Skates and rays Scientific names Common name Code LL GILL PS BB HARP TRAP OTHER Dasyatis centroura Roughtail stingray RDC X Dasyatis violacea Pelagic stingray PLS X X X X Manta birostris Manta ray RMB X X X Mobula hypostoma RMH X Mobula lucasana X Mobula mobular Devil ray RMM X X X X X Myliobatis aquila Common eagle ray MYL X X Pteuromylaeus bovinus Bull ray MPO X X Raja fullonica Shagreen ray RJF X Raja straeleni Spotted skate RFL X Rhinoptera spp Cownose ray X Torpedo nobiliana Torpedo
    [Show full text]
  • Seafood Watch Seafood Report
    Seafood Watch Seafood Report Sharks and Dogfish With a focus on: Blacktip shark (Carcharhinus limbatus) Common thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) Dusky smoothhound/smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis) Sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus) Shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) Spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) © Monterey Bay Aquarium Final Report December 21, 2005 Stock Status Update June 9, 2011 Santi Roberts Fisheries Research Analyst Monterey Bay Aquarium SeafoodWatch® Sharks & DogfishReport June 9, 2010 About Seafood Watch® and the Seafood Reports Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from the Internet (seafoodwatch.org) or obtained from the Seafood Watch® program by emailing [email protected]. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans. Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives,” or “Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Thresher Shark, Alopias Vulpinus
    4 Thresher Shark, Alopias vulpinus Thresher shark, Alopias vulpinus. Photo credit: Dale Sweetnam. History of the Fishery The common thresher shark, Alopias vulpinus, is the most common commercially landed shark in California. They are primarily caught using large mesh drift gill nets and hook and line gear, but are also caught incidentally with small mesh gill nets and harpoon. Prior to 1977, all sharks were reported in one market category and not separated by species, and it is assumed threshers were caught as bycatch in gears at levels similar or greater than today. The first significant fishery for thresher sharks began the late 1970s to early 1980s when drift gill net fishers began to target them close to the southern California coastline. The fishery expanded rapidly and, because of overfishing concerns, the California Department of Fish and Game (Department) as mandated by the State Legislature began an observer program, monitored landings and implemented a logbook program. A limited entry permit program for drift gill net gear was initiated in 1982, with permits issued to fishers rather than boats to prevent false inflation in value. The drift gill net fishery for thresher sharks peaked in 1981 when 113 Status of the Fisheries Report 2008 4-1 drift gill net boats landed nearly 600 tons (544 metric tons). However, total landings using all gears were highest the following year with a total of more than 1700 tons (1542 metric tons) taken by all gears (Figure 4-1). 2000 1500 1000 Landings (short tons) (short Landings 500 0 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 Year Figure 4-1.
    [Show full text]
  • Shark Catch Trends and Effort Reduction in the Beach Protection Program, Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa (Elasmobranch Fisheries - Oral)
    NOT TO BE CITED WITHOUT PRIOR REFERENCE TO THE AUTHOR(S) Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Serial No. N4746 NAFO SCR Doc. 02/124 SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL MEETING – SEPTEMBER 2002 Shark Catch Trends and Effort Reduction in the Beach Protection Program, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa (Elasmobranch Fisheries - Oral) S.F.J. Dudley Natal Sharks Board, P. Bag 2, Umhlanga Rocks, 4320, South Africa E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Shark nets have been set off the beaches of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, since 1952, to minimise risk of shark attack. Reliable catch data for each of the 14 shark species commonly caught are available from 1978 only. The nets fish in fixed localities very close to shore and there is an absence of fisheries independent data for most species. There is uncertainty about factors such as localised stock depletion and philopatry. Catch rates of seven species show a significant decline, but this figure drops to four with the exclusion of the confounding effects of the annual sardine run. Of the four, two are caught in very low numbers (Java Carcharhinus amboinensis and great hammerhead Sphyrna mokarran) and it is probable that any decline in population size reflects either local depletion or additional exploitation elsewhere. The other two species (blacktip C. limbatus and scalloped hammerhead S. lewini) are caught in greater numbers. C. limbatus appears to have been subject to local depletion. Newborn S. lewini are captured by prawn trawlers and discarded, mostly dead, adding to pressure on this species. As a precautionary measure, and in the absence of clarity on the question of stock depletion, in September 1999 a process of reducing the number of nets per installation was begun, with a view to reducing catches.
    [Show full text]
  • Gill Morphometrics of the Thresher Sharks (Genus Alopias): Correlation of Gill Dimensions with Aerobic Demand and Environmental Oxygen
    JOURNAL OF MORPHOLOGY :1–12 (2015) Gill Morphometrics of the Thresher Sharks (Genus Alopias): Correlation of Gill Dimensions with Aerobic Demand and Environmental Oxygen Thomas P. Wootton,1 Chugey A. Sepulveda,2 and Nicholas C. Wegner1,3* 1Center for Marine Biotechnology and Biomedicine, Marine Biology Research Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093 2Pfleger Institute of Environmental Research, Oceanside, CA 92054 3Fisheries Resource Division, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries, La Jolla, CA 92037 ABSTRACT Gill morphometrics of the three thresher related species that inhabit similar environments shark species (genus Alopias) were determined to or have comparable metabolic requirements. As examine how metabolism and habitat correlate with such, in reviews of gill morphology (e.g., Gray, respiratory specialization for increased gas exchange. 1954; Hughes, 1984a; Wegner, 2011), fishes are Thresher sharks have large gill surface areas, short often categorized into morphological ecotypes water–blood barrier distances, and thin lamellae. Their large gill areas are derived from long total filament based on the respiratory dimensions of the gills, lengths and large lamellae, a morphometric configura- namely gill surface area and the thickness of the tion documented for other active elasmobranchs (i.e., gill epithelium (the water–blood barrier distance), lamnid sharks, Lamnidae) that augments respiratory which both reflect a species’ capacity for oxygen surface area while
    [Show full text]
  • Use of Productivity and Susceptibility Indices to Determine the Vulnerability of a Stock: with Example Applications to Six U.S
    Use of productivity and susceptibility indices to determine the vulnerability of a stock: with example applications to six U.S. fisheries. Wesley S. Patrick1, Paul Spencer2, Olav Ormseth2, Jason Cope3, John Field4, Donald Kobayashi5, Todd Gedamke6, Enric Cortés7, Keith Bigelow5, William Overholtz8, Jason Link8, and Peter Lawson9. 1NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East- West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; 2 NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way, Seattle, WA 98115; 3NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle, WA 98112; 4NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 110 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060; 5NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, 2570 Dole Street, Honolulu, HI 96822; 6NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, FL 33149; 7NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 3500 Delwood Beach Road, Panama City, FL 32408; 8NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543; 9NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2030 South Marine Science Drive, Newport, OR 97365. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Wesley S. Patrick, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East-West
    [Show full text]
  • Field Guide to Requiem Sharks (Elasmobranchiomorphi: Carcharhinidae) of the Western North Atlantic
    Field guide to requiem sharks (Elasmobranchiomorphi: Carcharhinidae) of the Western North Atlantic Item Type monograph Authors Grace, Mark Publisher NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service Download date 24/09/2021 04:22:14 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/20307 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 153 U.S. Department A Scientific Paper of the FISHERY BULLETIN of Commerce August 2001 (revised November 2001) Field Guide to Requiem Sharks (Elasmobranchiomorphi: Carcharhinidae) of the Western North Atlantic Mark Grace NOAA Technical Report NMFS 153 A Scientific Paper of the Fishery Bulletin Field Guide to Requiem Sharks (Elasmobranchiomorphi: Carcharhinidae) of the Western North Atlantic Mark Grace August 2001 (revised November 2001) U.S. Department of Commerce Seattle, Washington Suggested reference Grace, Mark A. 2001. Field guide to requiem sharks (Elasmobranchiomorphi: Carcharhinidae) of the Western North Atlantic. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 153, 32 p. Online dissemination This report is posted online in PDF format at http://spo.nwr.noaa.gov (click on Technical Reports link). Note on revision This report was revised and reprinted in November 2001 to correct several errors. Previous copies of the report, dated August 2001, should be destroyed as this revision replaces the earlier version. Purchasing additional copies Additional copies of this report are available for purchase in paper copy or microfiche from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161; 1-800-553-NTIS; http://www.ntis.gov. Copyright law Although the contents of the Technical Reports have not been copyrighted and may be reprinted entirely, reference to source is appreciated.
    [Show full text]
  • White-Tip Reef Shark (Triaenodon Obesus) Michelle S
    White-tip Reef Shark (Triaenodon obesus) Michelle S. Tishler Common Name There are several common names for the Triaenodon obesus, which usually describes the “white tips” on their dorsal and caudal fins. Common names include: White-tip Reef Shark, Blunthead Shark, Light-Tip Shark and Reef Whitetip. Names in Spanish Cazón, Cazón Coralero Trompacorta and Tintorera Punta Aleta Blanca. Taxonomy Domain Eukarya Kingdom Anamalia Phylum Chordata Class Chondrichthyes Order Carcharhiniformes Family Carcharhinidae Genus Triaenodon Species obesus Nearest relatives Sharks are cartilaginous fishes in the class Chondrichthyes with skates, rays and other sharks. Within the family Carcharhinidae (requiem sharks), the White-tip Reef Shark is related to the Galapagos Shark, Bull Shark, Oceanic Whitetip, Tiger Shark and Blue Sharks. The White-tip Reef Shark does not share their genus name with any other organism. Island They are found amongst the reefs surrounding most or all of the Galapagos Islands. Geographic range White-tip Sharks range geographically from Costa Rica, Ecuador, Galapagos, Cocos, South Africa, Red Sea, Pakistan and etc. to primarily residing in the Indo-West Pacific region. (Red region indicates distribution of White-tip Reef Shark) Habitat Description As described in their name, White-tip Reef Sharks live amongst coral reefs with a home range of a couple square miles. They are also found in sandy patches and deeper waters. During the day these sharks tend to rest on the seabed or within caves and crevices. Physical description White-tip Reef sharks are named after the white tip on the dorsal (first and sometimes second) fins, and caudal fin lobes.
    [Show full text]
  • Spinner Shark, Carcharhinus Brevipinna
    Published Date: 1 March 2019 Spinner Shark, Carcharhinus brevipinna Report Card Sustainable assessment IUCN Red List IUCN Red List Australian Least Concern Global Near Threatened Assessment Assessment Assessors Burgess, G.H. & Smart, J.J. Report Card Remarks In Australia, fishing pressure is currently well managed Summary The Spinner Shark is a common, coastal pelagic shark found in warm- temperate and tropical waters across the globe. It frequents nearshore waters and is often captured in commercial and recreational fisheries. It is sensitive to fishing pressure and habitat degradation of coastal nursery Source: CSIRO national Fish Collection. License: CC By Attribution. habitats. Little information is known on the status of Spinner Sharks throughout its distribution. Within Australia, fishing pressure is currently well managed. The Spinner Shark is assessed globally as Near Threatened (IUCN) and in Australia as Least Concern (IUCN), while Australian stocks are classified as Sustainable (SAFS). Distribution Within Australia, the Spinner Shark is found across northern Australia, from Walpole (Western Australia), throughout the Northern Territory, Queensland and to southern New South Wales (Last and Stevens 2009). It is distributed throughout the world, including the east coast of the United States, Brazil, Mediterranean Sea, west coast of Central Africa, South Africa, Madagascar and throughout the Indo-Pacific. A recent genetic study detected evidence suggesting there may be multiple, genetically- distinct stocks throughout its Australian range (Geraghty et al. 2013). Stock structure and status There is currently very little information on population size and stock status for the Spinner Shark in Australian waters. A suite of management measures introduced from 2009 have led to a substantial reduction in fishing effort targeting adults in New South Wales waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Thresher Sharks (Alopias Spp.) in Subareas 10 and 12, Divisions 7.C–K and 8.D–E, and in Subdivisions 5.B.1, 9.B.1, and 14.B.1 (Northeast Atlantic)
    ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Oceanic Northeast Atlantic ecoregion Published 4 October 2019 Thresher sharks (Alopias spp.) in subareas 10 and 12, divisions 7.c–k and 8.d–e, and in subdivisions 5.b.1, 9.b.1, and 14.b.1 (Northeast Atlantic) ICES advice on fishing opportunities ICES advises that when the precautionary approach is applied, there should be zero catch in each of the years 2020–2023. Stock development over time No information is available to inform on the current stock status of either common thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) or bigeye thresher shark (A. superciliosus). Landings data for the entire stock area are uncertain for both species. Stock and exploitation status ICES cannot assess the stock and exploitation status relative to maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and precautionary approach (PA) reference points, because the reference points are undefined. Thresher sharks (Alopias spp.) in the Northeast Atlantic. State of the stocks and fishery relative to reference points. Table 1 Catch scenarios The ICES framework for category 6 stocks (ICES, 2012) was applied. For stocks without information on abundance or exploitation, ICES considers that a precautionary reduction of catches should be implemented unless there is ancillary information clearly indicating that the current level of exploitation is appropriate for the stock. Discarding is known to take place, but ICES cannot quantify the corresponding catch. Discard survival, which may occur, has also not been fully estimated. Table 2 Thresher sharks (Alopias spp.) in the Northeast Atlantic. Basis for the catch scenario. Recent advised catch 0 Discard rate Unknown Precautionary buffer Not applied - Catch advice 0 % Advice change * 0% * Advice value for 2020–2023 relative to the advice for 2016–2019 issued in 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • FAU Institutional Repository This
    FAU Institutional Repository http://purl.fcla.edu/fau/fauir This paper was submitted by the faculty of FAU’s Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute. Notice: ©1983 American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists. This manuscript is an author version with the final publication available and may be cited as: Gilmore, R. G. (1983). Observations on the embryos of the longfin mako, Isurus paucus, and the bigeye thresher, Alopias superciliosus. Copeia 2, 375-382. /<""\ \ Copria, 1983(2), pp. 375-382 Observations on the Embryos of the Longfin Mako, Jsurus paucus, and the Bigeye Thresher, Alopias superciliosus R. GRANT GILMORE Four embryos of Alopias superciliosus and one of lsurus paucus were dissected and examined along with the reproductive organs of adults captured in the Florida Current off the east-central coast of Florida between latitude 26°30'N and 28°30'N. The embryos were found to contain yolk, demonstrating prenatal nutrition through intrauterine oophagy. Various proportions of embryo anatomy considered diagnostic for these species resemble those of adults. The general gonad morphology and presence of egg capsules containing multiple ova resem­ ble the described development stages of other lamnids, alopiids and Odontaspis taurus (Odontaspidae). This is the first documented observation of oophagy in these species. OPHAGOUS embryos have been record­ As these species are rarely caught and examined O ed in three elasmobranch families, Odon­ by biologists, there are no documented obser­ taspidae (Odontaspis taurus, Springer, 1948; Bass vations of oophagy in Alopias superciliosus and eta!., 1975; Pseudocarcharias kamoharai, Fujita, lsurus paucus. For this reason I present the fol­ 1 981 ), Lamnidae (Lamna nasus, Lohberger, lowing embryonic description of Isurus paucus 191 0; Shann, 1911, 1923; Bigelow and Schroe­ and Alopias superciliosus with evidence of oo­ der, 1948) and Alopiidae (Alopias vulpinus, Gub­ phagy in these species.
    [Show full text]