DOCSLIB.ORG

Communal Or Competitive? Stable Isotope Analysis Provides Evidence of Resource Partitioning Within a Communal Shark Nursery

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Communal Or Competitive? Stable Isotope Analysis Provides Evidence of Resource Partitioning Within a Communal Shark Nursery Vol. 439: 263–276, 2011 MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES Published October 20 doi: 10.3354/meps09327 Mar Ecol Prog Ser Communal or competitive? Stable isotope analysis provides evidence of resource partitioning within a communal shark nursery Michael J. Kinney1,*, Nigel E. Hussey2, Aaron T. Fisk2, Andrew J. Tobin1, Colin A. Simpfendorfer1 1Fishing and Fisheries Research Centre, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia 2Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Science, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, Ontario N9B 3P4, Canada ABSTRACT: Quantifying the diet of sympatric co-occurring predatory species is a challenging task, made more so when investigations attempt to focus on specific age groups. This is the task that confronts efforts to understand dietary resource partitioning among co-occurring juvenile shark species within nursery areas. Here, stable isotope analysis (δ13C and δ15N) is used to over- come these challenges in describing species dietary resource partitioning strategies within the communal shark nursery area of Cleveland Bay, Queensland, Australia. We analyzed the isotopic composition of 3 distinct tissues, (muscle, blood plasma, and red blood cells), for 7 species of shark and 3 species of large predatory teleost to investigate whether these communal areas support their diverse array of predators without the need for resource partitioning strategies. Clustered δ15N values for all examined species indicated feeding within the same trophic level; however, wide ranging δ13C values denoted exploitation of several primary carbon sources. Our results demon- strate inter-species resource partitioning strategies at work within the examined communal shark nursery, altering the previous interpretation of these areas as resource-rich and/or competition- limited environments. KEY WORDS: Coastal · Dietary overlap · Muscle · Niche partitioning · Plasma · Red blood cells Resale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisher INTRODUCTION few years of life with little to no competition (Bran - stetter 1990, Salini et al. 1992, Castro 1993, Simpfen - The use of discrete inshore shallow water areas as dorfer & Milward 1993). nurseries by juvenile sharks has been established in More recent shark nursery area studies are finding the scientific literature since the mid twentieth cen- evidence countering the theory of nursery area tury (Springer 1967). Over time many aspects of the resource abundance. Evidence of slow growth rates original shark nursery area theory have been altered, (Bush & Holland 2002, Lowe 2002, Duncan & Holland omitted, or added to, but the central paradigm has 2006) and high mortality rates of young sharks in persisted. One of the longest standing tenets of the nursery areas has been attributed in part to a lack of nursery area paradigm is the theory of resource sufficient food resources (Manire & Gruber 1993, abundance — the idea that young sharks can remain Duncan & Holland 2006). In the Gulf of Mexico, mor- in the nursery while feeding and growing for the first tality rates of up to 90% for juvenile blacktip sharks *Email: [email protected] © Inter-Research 2011 · www.int-res.com 264 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 439: 263–276, 2011 Carcharhinus limbatus within Terra Ceia Bay, Flo - a rate of approximately 2 to 4‰ of δ15N with each rida, USA, were attributed to natural mortality, inclu - step up in trophic level (Peterson & Fry 1987, Mich- ding predation, starvation, and disease (Heupel & ener & Schell 1994, Post 2002), making it possible to Simpfendorfer 2002). These findings provide strong model an organism’s relative trophic position within evidence that the view of nursery areas as protective, a given ecosystem. resource abundant reserves for young sharks is out- Stable isotope analysis (SIA) provides many bene- dated and no longer fits much of the current data fits over traditional stomach content analysis: (1) it (Heupel et al. 2007). represents assimilated, not just ingested, prey items While evidence of resource limitations within sin- (Bearhop et al. 2004, Domi et al. 2005); (2) isotopic gle species nursery areas is mounting, few studies values represent long-term feeding behaviours (from have investigated resource partitioning among co- months to years depending on the tissue analyzed) occurring shark species (Salini et al. 1992, Platell et (Domi et al. 2005, MacNeil et al. 2005, 2006); (3) sam- al. 1998, Bethea et al. 2004, White et al. 2004), with pling multiple tissues can provide distinct timeframes only Bethea et al. (2004) focusing specifically on due to differences in tissue turnover rates (Kurle & juveniles in these areas. Although these studies have Worthy 2002, MacNeil et al. 2005); and (4) samples found some evidence of resource partitioning, sev- from several different tissues can be obtained with- eral limitations inherent to stomach content analysis out the need to euthanize animals. SIA therefore pro- have made determining broad-scale resource parti- vides a useful tool to investigate questions such as tioning difficult. These include: the snapshot nature dietary resource partitioning within communal shark of stomach content data (Pinnegar & Polunin 1999, nursery areas. Pinnegar et al. 2001, Bearhop et al. 2004, MacNeil et While a number of SIA studies have been carried al. 2005), the persistence of hard structures like out on the structure of marine food webs (Hobson & cephalopod beaks and crustacean shells (Wilson et Welch 1992, Michener & Schell 1994, Hobson et al. al. 1985) and, in the case of animals such as sharks, 2002), and focusing on specific teleost species the preponderance of empty stomachs and unidenti- (Thomas & Cahoon 1993, Das et al. 2000, Harvey et fiable prey items (Cortés 1997). These limitations al. 2002, Cunjak et al. 2005, Perga & Gerdeaux 2005, typically necessitate large sample sizes (Cortés 1997, Schlacher et al. 2005), little research has been pub- 1999, Estrada et al. 2005, MacNeil et al. 2005), which lished on SIA for sharks. These include a handful of however are often feasible either due to simple pro- field studies that focus on sharks and rays (Fisk et al. ject logistics or concerns over a species’ conservation 2002, Estrada et al. 2003, Domi et al. 2005, MacNeil status (Heupel & Simpfendorfer 2010). These prob- et al. 2005, Estrada et al. 2006, Kerr et al. 2006, lems are compounded further when an investigation McMeans et al. 2009), and only 3 laboratory studies: seeks to understand the diet of a select size or age MacNeil et al. (2006), who assessed variable uptake range, for example the diet of young sharks within and elimination of carbon and nitrogen isotopes in nursery areas. the tissues of freshwater ocellate river stingrays Pota- One way to address the limitations of stomach con- motrygon motoro; Hussey et al. (2010a), who looked tent analysis is through the use of naturally occurring at diet-tissue discrimination factors in large sharks stable isotopes of carbon (δ13C) and nitrogen (δ15N). held under semi-controlled conditions; and Logan & This technique has emerged as a powerful alterna- Lutcavage (2010), who investigated the effects of diet tive or complementary tool for assessing the feeding switching on captive sandbar sharks Carcharhinus ecology of organisms (Domi et al. 2005). The plumbeus. approach is based on the principle that the stable iso- The present study utilized SIA of multiple tissues tope ratios in consumer tissues can be related in a representing variable integration periods to assess predictive way to those in their diet (DeNiro & the extent of dietary resource partitioning by 7 of the Epstein 1978, 1981). Values of δ13C can be used to most commonly occurring juvenile shark species, as track sources of primary carbon, as δ13C shows rela- well as 3 large predatory teleost species, within an tively little change between trophic levels (~1‰ per established communal shark nursery area (Simpfen- trophic level) from primary producers up through dorfer & Milward 1993). The juvenile shark species apex predators (Peterson & Fry 1987, Hobson & examined were distributed throughout the nursery, Welch 1992). As such, δ13C can be a useful indicator displayed varying degrees of spatial and temporal of sources of primary productivity in simple systems overlap, and rarely left the nursery during early life where at least 2 isotopically distinct sources are pre- (M. J. Kinney unpubl. data). Therefore, comparisons sent (Hobson et al. 1995). Enrichment of 15N occurs at of stable isotope values between species were not Kinney et al.: Resource partitioning in a communal shark nursery 265 compromized by spatial or temporal factors specific to any one section of the bay. Results from this study will further our understanding of the important eco- logical interactions at work within communal nursery areas and may assist in the prioritization of conserva- tion and management strategies for co-occurring shark species in nursery environments. MATERIALS AND METHODS Study site alues are confounded by maternal Cleveland Bay, QLD, Australia. Target Cleveland Bay, Cleveland Bay is situated east Townsville on the north-east coast of Queensland, Australia, and covers an area of approximately 225 km² from 19° 10’ to 19° 19’ S and from 146° 50’ to 147° 01’ E. The bay is shallow throughout, reaching a maximum depth of 15 m near its outer edge. The benthic environment of the bay is predominantly soft mud with some smaller areas of coastal reefs; for a
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bycatch Assessment in the Gambian Sole Bottom Gillnet Fishery
    Bycatch Assessment in the Gambian Sole Bottom Gillnet Fishery Gambia-Senegal Sustainable Fisheries Project (USAID/BaNafaa) 2010-2011 This publication is available electronically on the Coastal Resources Center’s website at http://www.crc.uri.edu. For more information contact: Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett Bay Campus, South Ferry Road, Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882, USA. Tel: 401) 874-6224; Fax: 401) 789-4670; Email: [email protected] The USAID/BaNafaa project is implemented by the Coastal Resources Center of the University of Rhode Island and the World Wide Fund for Nature-West Africa Marine Program Office (WWF-WAMPO) in partnership with the Department of Fisheries and the Ministry of Fisheries and Water Resources. Citation: Gabis, G., Drammeh, O., Nichols, E., Kelpsite, L., Castro, K., Parkins, C., Mendy, A., Ceesay, S. and F. Joof. 2012. Bycatch Assessment in the Gambian Sole Bottom Gillnet Fishery. Gambia-Senegal Sustainable Fisheries Project (USAID/Ba Nafaa). Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, pp. 20 Disclaimer: This report was made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. Cooperative Agreement # 624-A-00-09-00033-00. Cover Photo: Gambia gillnet fishery Photo Credit: Christopher Parkins, USAID/BaNafaa project/World Wide Fund for Nature-West Africa Marine Program Office (WWF-WAMPO). 2 Acknowledgements There is little doubt that involving stakeholders as partners in developing management plans will assist in the progress towards improved management of the fishery resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Hardnose Shark, Carcharhinus Macloti
    Published Date: 1 March 2019 Hardnose Shark, Carcharhinus macloti Report Card Sustainable assessment IUCN Red List IUCN Red List Australian Least Concern Global Near Threatened Assessment Assessment Assessors Simpfendorfer, C., Stevens, J.D. & Smart, J.J. In Australia, fishing pressure across its northern range is strictly Report Card Remarks managed Summary The Hardnose Shark is a small bodied shark that inhabits continental shelf waters throughout the Indo-West Pacific region. It is caught in artisanal and commercial Source: CSIRO National Fish Collection. License: CC By Attribution. fisheries throughout its distribution. It is not as productive as similar small bodied sharks (eg: Rhizoprionodon spp.), making it more sensitive to fishing pressure. Globally, fishing pressure has likely caused <30% declines in the population. In Australia, fishing pressure is strictly managed. Therefore, it is assessed as globally Near Threatened (IUCN) and in Australia as Least Concern (IUCN) and Sustainable (SAFS). Distribution The Hardnose Shark occurs throughout the tropical Indo-West Pacific in continental shelf waters. Within Australia, it occurs from Bundaberg (Queensland), across the Northern Territory and as far south as Carnarvon (Western Australia) (Last and Stevens 2009). Stock structure and status There is currently no information on population structure for the Hardnose Shark. There is limited population size and trend data, but limited fishing pressure and well managed fisheries suggest the population is Sustainable. Fisheries In northern Australia, it constitutes 13% of gillnet and 4% of longline catches. In Queensland, it constitutes 4% of the Inshore Finfish Fishery (Harry et al. 2011). These catch levels are likely sustainable. Globally, it is commonly taken in subsistence, artisanal and commercial fisheries.
    [Show full text]
  • Shark and Ray Products in the Processing Centres Of
    S H O R T R E P O R T ALIFA BINTHA HAQUE BINTHA ALIFA 6 TRAFFIC Bulletin Vol. 30 No. 1 (2018) TRAFFIC Bulletin 30(1) 1 May 2018 FINAL.indd 8 5/1/2018 5:04:26 PM S H O R T R E P O R T OBSERVATIONS OF SHARK AND RAY Introduction PRODUCTS IN THE PROCESSING early 30% of all shark and ray species are now designated as Threatened or Near Threatened with extinction CENTRES OF BANGLADESH, according to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. This is a partial TRADEB IN CITES SPECIES AND understanding of the threat status as 47% of shark species have not CONSERVATION NEEDS yet been assessed owing to data deficiency (Camhi et al., 2009;N Bräutigam et al., 2015; Dulvy et al., 2014). Many species are vulnerable due to demand for their products Alifa Bintha Haque, and are particularly prone to unsustainable fishing practices Aparna Riti Biswas and (Schindler et al., 2002; Clarke et al., 2007; Dulvy et al., Gulshan Ara Latifa 2008; Graham et al., 2010; Morgan and Carlson, 2010). Sharks are exploited primarily for their fins, meat, cartilage, liver oil and skin (Clarke, 2004), whereas rays are targeted for their meat, skin, gill rakers and livers. Most shark catch takes place in response to demand for the animals’ fins, which command high prices (Jabado et al., 2015). Shark fin soup is a delicacy in many Asian countries—predominantly China—and in many other countries (Clarke et al., 2007). Apart from the fins being served in high-end restaurants, there is a demand for other products in different markets and by different consumer groups, and certain body parts are also used medicinally (Clarke et al., 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • Cartilaginous Fish: Sharks, Sawfish and Stingrays
    Cartilaginous fish: Sharks, sawfish and stingrays. It may come as a surprise to some readers that there are sharks, sawfish and stingrays in the Mekong River, because most people connect these fishes with the big oceans. Most species in these groups are in fact strictly marine. However, several species have some tolerance to freshwater and have the ability to venture far up into rivers during their searches for food, while a few live their entire life in fresh water. Sharks, sawfish and stingrays are all cartilaginous fishes (the class Chondrichthyes), while all the species we have presented in Catch and Cultures supplement series until this point have been bony fish (the class Osteichthyes). Let us therefore start by looking at the characters that distinguish cartilaginous fish from bony fishes. As implied in the name, the skeleton in cartilaginous fish does not include bone but consists of cartilage, and all Fins supported by the fins are supported by horny horny structures structures rather than fin rays. Gill openings seen as Body covered with None of the species possess a a series of slits denticles swimbladder, the organ most bony fish use to prevent them from sinking to the bottom. Many cartilaginous fish species are therefore Mouth protrusible either bottom dwellers or accomplish neutral buoyancy by Specialized teeth arranged in rows maintaining a high fat or oil content A generalized cartilaginous fish, the milk shark in their tissues. (Rhizoprionodon acutus), which has been The gill openings in cartilaginous fish are not covered recorded from the Great Lake in Cambodia. with operculae, and are seen as a series of slits on the side of the fish just behind the head, or on the underside of the fish.
    [Show full text]
  • Sharks in the Seas Around Us: How the Sea Around Us Project Is Working to Shape Our Collective Understanding of Global Shark Fisheries
    Sharks in the seas around us: How the Sea Around Us Project is working to shape our collective understanding of global shark fisheries Leah Biery1*, Maria Lourdes D. Palomares1, Lyne Morissette2, William Cheung1, Reg Watson1, Sarah Harper1, Jennifer Jacquet1, Dirk Zeller1, Daniel Pauly1 1Sea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada 2UNESCO Chair in Integrated Analysis of Marine Systems. Université du Québec à Rimouski, Institut des sciences de la mer; 310, Allée des Ursulines, C.P. 3300, Rimouski, QC, G5L 3A1, Canada Report prepared for The Pew Charitable Trusts by the Sea Around Us project December 9, 2011 *Corresponding author: [email protected] Sharks in the seas around us Table of Contents FOREWORD........................................................................................................................................ 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 5 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 7 SHARK BIODIVERSITY IS THREATENED ............................................................................. 10 SHARK-RELATED LEGISLATION ............................................................................................. 13 SHARK FIN TO BODY WEIGHT RATIOS ................................................................................ 14
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Biodiversity of Indian Exclusive Economic Zone K
    ICAR-Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute Fish Biodiversity of Indian Exclusive Economic Zone K. K. Joshi ICAR-Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute [email protected] Introduction Indian fisheries have a long history, starting with Kautilya’s Arthasastra describing fish as a source for consumption and provide evidence that fishery was a well-established industry in India and fish was relished as an article of diet as early as 300 B.C, the ancient Hindus possessed a considerable knowledge on the habit of fishes and the epic on the second pillar of Emperor Ashoka describing the prohibition of consumption of fish during a certain lunar period which can be interpreted as a conservation point of view. Modern scientific studies on Indian fishes could be traced to the initial works done by Linnaeus, Bloch and Schneider, Lacepède, Russell and Hamilton. The mid 1800s contributed much in the history of Indian fish taxonomy since the time of the expeditions was going through. Cuvier and Valenciennes (1828-1849) described 70 nominal species off Puducherry, Skyes (1839), Günther (1860, 1872, 1880) and The Fishes of India by Francis Day (1865-1877) and another book Fauna of British India series in two volumes (1889) describing 1,418 species are the two most indispensable works on Indian fish taxonomy to date. Alcock (1889, 1890) described 162 species new to science from Indian waters. In the 20th century, the basis of intensive studies on the different families and groups of freshwater fishes was done by Chaudhuri along with Hora and his co-workers. Misra published An Aid to Identification of the Commercial Fishes of India and Pakistan and The Fauna of India and Adjacent Countries (Pisces) in 1976.
    [Show full text]
  • Elasmobranch Biodiversity, Conservation and Management Proceedings of the International Seminar and Workshop, Sabah, Malaysia, July 1997
    The IUCN Species Survival Commission Elasmobranch Biodiversity, Conservation and Management Proceedings of the International Seminar and Workshop, Sabah, Malaysia, July 1997 Edited by Sarah L. Fowler, Tim M. Reed and Frances A. Dipper Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 25 IUCN The World Conservation Union Donors to the SSC Conservation Communications Programme and Elasmobranch Biodiversity, Conservation and Management: Proceedings of the International Seminar and Workshop, Sabah, Malaysia, July 1997 The IUCN/Species Survival Commission is committed to communicate important species conservation information to natural resource managers, decision-makers and others whose actions affect the conservation of biodiversity. The SSC's Action Plans, Occasional Papers, newsletter Species and other publications are supported by a wide variety of generous donors including: The Sultanate of Oman established the Peter Scott IUCN/SSC Action Plan Fund in 1990. The Fund supports Action Plan development and implementation. To date, more than 80 grants have been made from the Fund to SSC Specialist Groups. The SSC is grateful to the Sultanate of Oman for its confidence in and support for species conservation worldwide. The Council of Agriculture (COA), Taiwan has awarded major grants to the SSC's Wildlife Trade Programme and Conservation Communications Programme. This support has enabled SSC to continue its valuable technical advisory service to the Parties to CITES as well as to the larger global conservation community. Among other responsibilities, the COA is in charge of matters concerning the designation and management of nature reserves, conservation of wildlife and their habitats, conservation of natural landscapes, coordination of law enforcement efforts as well as promotion of conservation education, research and international cooperation.
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of Shark Utilisation in the Coral Triangle Region (PDF, 550
    WORKING TOGETHER FOR SUSTAINABLE SHARK FISHERIES AN OVERVIEW OF SHARK UTILISATION IN THE CORAL TRIANGLE REGION Written by Mary Lack Director, Shellack Pty Ltd Glenn Sant Fisheries Programme Leader, TRAFFIC & Senior Fellow, ANCORS Published in September 2012 This report can be downloaded from wwf.panda.org/coraltriangle Citation Lack M. and Sant G. (2012). An overview of shark utilisation in the Coral Triangle region. TRAFFIC &WWF. Photo cover © naturepl.com / Jeff Rotman / WWF-Canon Thanks to the Rufford Lang Foundation for supporting the development of this publication 2 An Overview Of Shark Utilisation In The Coral Triangle Region ACRONYMS ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations BFAR Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (the Philippines) CCSBT Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora CMM Conservation and Management Measure CMS Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals CNP Co-operating Non-Contracting party COFI Committee on Fisheries (of FAO) CoP Conference of the Parties (to CITES) EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations IOTC Indian Ocean Tuna Commission IPOA-Sharks International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (fishing) MoU Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks (CMS) nei Not elsewhere included NPOA-Sharks National Plan of Action for the Conservation and
    [Show full text]
  • Feeding Habits of Blacktip Sharks, Carcharhinus Limbatus, and Atlantic
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2002 Feeding habits of blacktip sharks, Carcharhinus limbatus, and Atlantic sharpnose sharks, Rhizoprionodon terraenovae, in Louisiana coastal waters Kevin Patrick Barry Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the Oceanography and Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology Commons Recommended Citation Barry, Kevin Patrick, "Feeding habits of blacktip sharks, Carcharhinus limbatus, and Atlantic sharpnose sharks, Rhizoprionodon terraenovae, in Louisiana coastal waters" (2002). LSU Master's Theses. 66. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/66 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FEEDING HABITS OF BLACKTIP SHARKS, CARCHARHINUS LIMBATUS, AND ATLANTIC SHARPNOSE SHARKS, RHIZOPRIONODON TERRAENOVAE, IN LOUISIANA COASTAL WATERS A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College In partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Master of Science in The Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences by Kevin P. Barry B.S., University of South Alabama, 1996 August 2002 AKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to first and foremost thank my major professor, Dr. Richard Condrey, for giving me the opportunity to pursue this graduate degree. His willingness to accompany me during sampling trips, his enthusiasm and interest in my research topic, and his guidance throughout my time here has forged more than a major professor/graduate student relationship; it has formed a friendship as well.
    [Show full text]
  • Polydactylus Macrophthalmus (Bleeker, 1858), with Designation of a Lectotype and Notes on Distributional Implications
    Redescription of a rare threadfin (Perciformes: Polynemidae), Polydactylus macrophthalmus (Bleeker, 1858), with designation of a lectotype and notes on distributional implications Hiroyuki Motomura1*, Martien J. P. van Oijen2, Isaäc J. H. Isbrücker3, and Yukio Iwatsuki4 1 Miyazaki University, The United Graduate School of Agricultural Sciences, Kagoshima University, 1-1 Gakuen-kibanadai-nishi, Miyazaki 889-2192, Japan (e-mail: [email protected]) 2 National Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands (e-mail: [email protected]) 3 Zoölogisch Museum Amsterdam, Universiteit van Amsterdam, P.O. Box 94766, 1090 GT Amsterdam, The Netherlands (e-mail: [email protected]) 4 Division of Fisheries Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Miyazaki University, 1-1 Gakuen-kibanadai-nishi, Miyazaki 889-2192, Japan (e-mail: [email protected]) Received: November 1, 2000 / Revised: March 2, 2001 / Accepted: March 15, 2001 Abstract A rare threadfin, Polydactylus macrophthalmus (Bleeker, 1858), having long Ichthyological been included in the genus Polynemus, is redescribed on the basis of 9 specimens and a lectotype designated. Polydactylus macrophthalmus is characterized by the following com- Research bination of characters: 7 pectoral filaments, upper 3 filaments extending beyond posterior ©The Ichthyological Society of Japan 2001 margin of hypural; 13 or 14 pectoral fin rays; 87–94 pored lateral line scales; 11 scales above lateral line, 15 or 16 below; 10–12 upper series gill rakers, 15 or 16 lower, 26 or 27 total; Ichthyol Res (2001) 48: 289–294 occipital profile concave in adults; second spine of first dorsal fin very strong; pectoral fin rays long (mean 24% [range 24–26%] of SL).
    [Show full text]
  • Fish I.D. Guide
    mississippi department of wildlife, fisheries, and parks FRESHWATER FISHES COMMON TO MISSISSIPPI a fish identification guide MDWFP • 1505 EASTOVER DRIVE • JACKSON, MS 39211 • WWW.MDWFP.COM Table of Contents Contents Page Number • White Crappie . 4 • Black Crappie. 5 • Magnolia Crappie . 6 • Largemouth Bass. 7 • Spotted Bass . 8 • Smallmouth Bass. 9 • Redear. 10 • Bluegill . 11 • Warmouth . 12 • Green sunfish. 13 • Longear sunfish . 14 • White Bass . 15 • Striped Bass. 16 • Hybrid Striped Bass . 17 • Yellow Bass. 18 • Walleye . 19 • Pickerel . 20 • Channel Catfish . 21 • Blue Catfish. 22 • Flathead Catfish . 23 • Black Bullhead. 24 • Yellow Bullhead . 25 • Shortnose Gar . 26 • Spotted Gar. 27 • Longnose Gar . 28 • Alligator Gar. 29 • Paddlefish. 30 • Bowfin. 31 • Freshwater Drum . 32 • Common Carp. 33 • Bigmouth Buffalo . 34 • Smallmouth Buffalo. 35 • Gizzard Shad. 36 • Threadfin Shad. 37 • Shovelnose Sturgeon. 38 • American Eel. 39 • Grass Carp . 40 • Bighead Carp. 41 • Silver Carp . 42 White Crappie (Pomoxis annularis) Other Names including reservoirs, oxbow lakes, and rivers. Like other White perch, Sac-a-lait, Slab, and Papermouth. members of the sunfish family, white crappie are nest builders. They produce many eggs, which can cause Description overpopulation, slow growth, and small sizes in small White crappie are deep-bodied and silvery in color, lakes and ponds. White crappie spawn from March ranging from silvery-white on the belly to a silvery-green through May when water temperatures are between or dark green on the back with possible blue reflections. 58ºF and 65ºF. White crappie can tolerate muddier There are several dark vertical bars on the sides. Males water than black crappie. develop dark coloration on the throat and head during the spring spawning season, which can cause them to be State Record mistaken for black crappie.
    [Show full text]
  • Training Manual Series No.15/2018
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by CMFRI Digital Repository DBTR-H D Indian Council of Agricultural Research Ministry of Science and Technology Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute Department of Biotechnology CMFRI Training Manual Series No.15/2018 Training Manual In the frame work of the project: DBT sponsored Three Months National Training in Molecular Biology and Biotechnology for Fisheries Professionals 2015-18 Training Manual In the frame work of the project: DBT sponsored Three Months National Training in Molecular Biology and Biotechnology for Fisheries Professionals 2015-18 Training Manual This is a limited edition of the CMFRI Training Manual provided to participants of the “DBT sponsored Three Months National Training in Molecular Biology and Biotechnology for Fisheries Professionals” organized by the Marine Biotechnology Division of Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI), from 2nd February 2015 - 31st March 2018. Principal Investigator Dr. P. Vijayagopal Compiled & Edited by Dr. P. Vijayagopal Dr. Reynold Peter Assisted by Aditya Prabhakar Swetha Dhamodharan P V ISBN 978-93-82263-24-1 CMFRI Training Manual Series No.15/2018 Published by Dr A Gopalakrishnan Director, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (ICAR-CMFRI) Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute PB.No:1603, Ernakulam North P.O, Kochi-682018, India. 2 Foreword Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI), Kochi along with CIFE, Mumbai and CIFA, Bhubaneswar within the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and Department of Biotechnology of Government of India organized a series of training programs entitled “DBT sponsored Three Months National Training in Molecular Biology and Biotechnology for Fisheries Professionals”.
    [Show full text]