DOCSLIB.ORG

A Framework for Assessment of Harvested Fish Resources In

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Framework for Assessment of Harvested Fish Resources In Resource Assessment Framework 45 5 DATA FOR RESOURCE ASSESSMENT 5.1 Continuous or Project-Based Data There are two general methods in which data are collected for resource assessment: continuous or project-based. Continuous data are repeatedly collected from a source or sources. The expression “monitoring” is frequently used to describe this type of activity. In contrast, project-based data are obtained for a particular research project and collected to test particular scientific hypotheses. Within resource assessment, continuous data collection methods (for catch, effort, ages and lengths) are frequently used because continuous data contain information about the dynamics18 of a fish population. Dynamic relationships are the basis of assessment models that are required to make quantitative forecasts of managerial decisions. Performance reporting commitments within the FMS are annual. Although there is no stated obligation that the data that are used to compile the reports would be updated every year, there would need to be some system in place that collected up-to-date information for the reports of managerial performance. The continuous data collection programs currently underway (relevant to resource assessment) in the NSW Department of Primary Industries are: the catch-effort reporting system; fishery-independent surveys for abalone; an observer and recruitment index project for rock lobster; the gamefish tournament monitoring program; and, some monitoring of the age and length structure of commercial landings. Project-based data have been collected for particular projects. Once that project is finished and written up, no more data are collected, though the methods are well documented enabling replication of that sampling design. Individual projects can yield information very valuable to resource assessment, particularly biological information such as growth, maturity and vulnerability. Creel surveys are another example of a project that provides a snapshot of recreational harvesting. Project based data are, however, often compromised in their utility within stock assessment because there are no time-series of observations that enable the longer-term dynamics of populations to be measured. Budgetary experience will make public administrators wary of continuous data-collection projects that can develop an expensive life of their own. In contrast, project-based data have clear endpoints and outcomes. Resource assessment requires both types of data. Many of the following types of data for resource assessment could be considered project-based when they are initially planned and researched, but they would become continuous if they were to remain operational in the long term (beyond 5-10 years). The challenge for the NSW Department of Primary Industries is to decide which types of data should be collected continuously and which should be the subject of further research and evaluation. 5.2 The Cost of Data Dollar costs will be the fundamental constraint on data collection (and the entire assessment process in general) because money is the easiest thing to measure and control. The other fundamental constraint is time. For the FMS to “work”, assessments must be completed within a timeframe appropriate for performance reporting. Although it is easy to argue that other components of this system, such as data being fully representative, should be given priority over time and money, this is not likely to be the reality, at least in the short term. The approach suggested here is to identify what can be done with the time and resources available and then continuously improve the representativeness of data over time. If, however, the data collection is so 18 A dynamic relationship describes the change of system state with time. NSW DPI - Fish. Res. Assess. Ser. 15 46 Resource Assessment Framework compromised by time and cost constraints that the data are essentially worthless, then alternative methods for managing and assessing these systems will need to be considered. When costing out the collection of data a “life-cycle” approach should be used where the costs include defining/refining sampling protocols, collecting information, data entry/checking and archival costs. The expenditure on data collection and analysis must be consistent with economic principles within ecological sustainability: all users of the resource could be expected to contribute to the costs of monitoring and assessment. It will be impossible to define a “perfect” data-collection strategy for this assessment strategy from the outset, there are simply too many unknowns. Qualitative cost-benefit analyses of various types of information can be completed quickly (such as table of pros and cons), but full quantitative analyses would be complex and time-consuming. It is beyond the scope of this document to provide accurate cost estimates of various data collection programs for resource assessment, but a general sense of the relative costs of various sources will be indicated. A representation of the approximate cost and value for resource assessment is presented in Figure 5. The exact nature of any particular project and species will, of course, determine the cost and likely benefits for resource assessment. Justifications of the approximate positions of data-sources within this plot are given below. High Fishery Independent Tagging Surveys Programs Creel Surveys t s o Observer Data C (survey-based) e Logbook v i Programs t a l Tournament Re Monitoring Observer Data Sampling (risk-based) at Ports Effort Data Catch Data Low Low Value Within High Resource Assessment Figure 5. A representation of the relative costs and value of various sources of data for resource assessment in NSW. These sources of data are discussed in more detail in the text. Many of these sources of data will have values beyond resource assessment that justify their collection. The relative location of any type of data-source on this plot will depend upon the life-history of the species and the scope of the project that collected that information. 5.3 Role of “Basic Biological” Information in Resource Assessment Basic biological information such as information on growth, maturity, selectivity, movement and mortality is valuable and sometimes crucial when applying input controls such as minimum legal lengths, closed seasons and closed areas. That said, these controls are always somewhat “blunt” and the marginal value of more detailed information may be small. NSW DPI - Fish. Res. Assess. Ser. 15 Resource Assessment Framework 47 Understanding growth, maturity, selectivity, movement and mortality will also improve our interpretation of indicators. For example, understanding variability of length at age improves our interpretation of length data. Knowledge of length and, to a lesser extent, age at maturity is a critical factor in specifying a minimum legal length. Understanding the growth of individuals is crucial when estimating mortality rates from length data. Any system to prioritise species for stock assessment needs to consider the basic life history of the animal. Low growth rate species must be given higher assessment priority than high growth rate species of similar commercial/recreational value, as they are simply higher managerial risk. Such comments are supported by the risk assessments being undertaken in the EIS. There will be some species in NSW where there is insufficient biological information to make such judgments in regard to growth, maturity and mortality. These species have or will be identified and given a high priority for such studies. Obtaining such information is relatively inexpensive. 5.4 Sources of Data for Resource Assessment 5.4.1 Commercial Catch and Effort Data Use of fishery-dependent CPUE data could not be described as international best-practice in higher valued fisheries but would probably be considered acceptable for the lower valued stocks that occur in NSW. There are examples of fisheries that have been well managed with fishery- dependent CPUE data and others that have been badly managed with expensive survey data. An understanding of the behaviour of the fish and the fleet can dramatically improve our ability to understand the relative value and usefulness of CPUE data. Records of commercial landings from LCatch/ComCatch exist for many species but these records do not account for: pre-1984 data; recreational harvesting; discard mortality; or illegal harvesting. There exists within the NSW Department of Primary Industries enough expertise to identify the strengths and weaknesses of this database quite quickly. Pre-1984 data is available in other databases for some species (but not generally at the level of individual fisher activity) and relevant catch-effort information is held by Commonwealth agencies (e.g. AFZIS). As assessment priorities are determined, there will need to be an identification of a credible time- series of effort from 1984-199719 (e.g. mesh netting in the EG fishery) or an acknowledgement that such a time-series is not useful. Similar steps will have to be taken for the post 1997 data, but this should be more straightforward as there was more satisfactory recording of effort data. This latter window will have to be the baseline for many species. If adding effort information degrades the robustness of the indicator of abundance (from the default of using landings data alone) then it will not be used. This degradation will occur if there are systematic biases in the effort data. The catch records database is currently subject to a significant time lag (~6-12 months). Consideration needs to be given to developing mechanisms to update this database more rapidly including the timely arrival of records from fishers. Catch records were an integral part of the value of the property right in these fisheries. Measures should be imposed if individual fishers do not take their responsibility in maintaining accurate records of landings seriously20. It is far more practical to check upon the quality of the catch data than the effort data. The Fish Receiver’s program (ss 117-120) could be used to validate that the total local purchases of a Receiver corroborate with the landings reported by fishers.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Assessment of Interaction Between Giant Crab Trap and Benthic Trawl Fisheries
    Assessment of interaction between giant crab trap and benthic trawl fisheries Rafael León, Caleb Gardner, Klaas Hartmann October 2017 This report was produced by the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS) using data provided by the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (DPIPWE) and the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. The authors do not warrant that the information in this document is free from errors or omissions. The authors do not accept any form of liability, be it contractual, tortious, or otherwise, for the contents of this document or for any consequences arising from its use or any reliance placed upon it. The information, opinions and advice contained in this document may not relate, or be relevant, to a reader’s particular circumstance. Opinions expressed by the authors are the individual opinions expressed by those persons and are not necessarily those of the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS) or the University of Tasmania (UTas). IMAS Fisheries and Aquaculture Private Bag 49 Hobart TAS 7001 Australia Email: [email protected] Ph: 0409 427 366 Fax: 03 6227 8035 © Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania 2017 Copyright protects this publication. Except for purposes permitted by the Copyright Act, reproduction by whatever means is prohibited without the prior written permission of the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies. Contents Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Part I. an Annotated Checklist of Extant Brachyuran Crabs of the World
    THE RAFFLES BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGY 2008 17: 1–286 Date of Publication: 31 Jan.2008 © National University of Singapore SYSTEMA BRACHYURORUM: PART I. AN ANNOTATED CHECKLIST OF EXTANT BRACHYURAN CRABS OF THE WORLD Peter K. L. Ng Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research, Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge, Singapore 119260, Republic of Singapore Email: [email protected] Danièle Guinot Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Département Milieux et peuplements aquatiques, 61 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France Email: [email protected] Peter J. F. Davie Queensland Museum, PO Box 3300, South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT. – An annotated checklist of the extant brachyuran crabs of the world is presented for the first time. Over 10,500 names are treated including 6,793 valid species and subspecies (with 1,907 primary synonyms), 1,271 genera and subgenera (with 393 primary synonyms), 93 families and 38 superfamilies. Nomenclatural and taxonomic problems are reviewed in detail, and many resolved. Detailed notes and references are provided where necessary. The constitution of a large number of families and superfamilies is discussed in detail, with the positions of some taxa rearranged in an attempt to form a stable base for future taxonomic studies. This is the first time the nomenclature of any large group of decapod crustaceans has been examined in such detail. KEY WORDS. – Annotated checklist, crabs of the world, Brachyura, systematics, nomenclature. CONTENTS Preamble .................................................................................. 3 Family Cymonomidae .......................................... 32 Caveats and acknowledgements ............................................... 5 Family Phyllotymolinidae .................................... 32 Introduction .............................................................................. 6 Superfamily DROMIOIDEA ..................................... 33 The higher classification of the Brachyura ........................
    [Show full text]
  • The Esd Assessment Manual for Wild Capture Fisheries
    THE ESD ASSESSMENT MANUAL FOR WILD CAPTURE FISHERIES Version 1 October 2003 FRDC Project 2002/086 This ‘ESD Assessment Manual’ is part of an on-going process to develop a framework for the reporting and assessment of ESD for fisheries within Australia. This edition is the first version, changes are expected to be made at regular intervals when further information indicates that significant improvements can be made. The material may be copied for use in completing assessments and reports as long as appropriate acknowledgement of the source is given. Whilst this project was originally conducted under the auspices of the SCFA, and is now a project endorsed by the Marine and Coastal Committee of the Natural Resources Management Committee (NRMC), it should not be taken as being the policy of any individual fisheries management agency. © FRDC 2002/086 Project Team Version 1 October 2003 ISBN: 1 877098 37 X Project Team Rick Fletcher (Principal Investigator) Department of Fisheries, WA Jean Chesson Bureau of Rural Science Melanie Fisher Bureau of Rural Science Keith Sainsbury CSIRO Tor Hundloe University of Queensland Correct Citation Fletcher, W.J., Chesson, J., Sainsbury, K.J., Hundloe, T., Fisher M., (2003) National ESD Reporting Framework for Australian Fisheries: The ESD Assessment Manual for Wild Capture Fisheries. FRDC Project 2002/086, Canberra, Australia. This report forms Publication No. 4 of the FRDC - ESD Reporting and Assessment Subprogram. The latest version of this report and other material related to the ESD Subprogram may be
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of International Fisheries Management Regimes
    Cefas contract report C7372 A review of international fisheries management regimes Authors: Stuart A. Reeves, James B. Bell, Giulia Cambiè, Sarah L. Davie, Paul Dolder, Kieran Hyder, Hugo Pontalier, Zachary Radford & Duncan Vaughan Issue date: 02/08/2018 Cefas Document Control Title: A Review of International Fisheries Management Submitted to: Georgina Karlsson/Charlotte Wicker Date submitted: 02/08/18 Project Manager: Stuart A. Reeves Report compiled by: SAR Quality control by: Defra various & Kieran Hyder Approved by & Kieran Hyder, 8/1/2018 date: Version: 3.5a Version Control History Author Date Comment Version SAR et al. 20/06/17 Compiled from individual 2 chapters SAR et al. 19/07/17 Working version for comment 2.1 SAR et al. 1/09/17 Complete draft for comment 2.2 SAR et al. 21/11/17 Revised to take account of 3.1 comments SAR et al. 12/12/2017 Further revisions in response to 3.2 comments SAR et al. 12/12/2017 Revised structure inc. MRF 3.3 chapter SAR et al. 24/1/2018 Further corrections & enhanced 3.4 exec summary. SAR et al. 26/2/2018 Minor corrections 3.4a SAR et al. 27/7/18 Pre-publication corrections & 3.5 formatting SAR et al. 02/08/18 Fixing minor typos & formatting 3.5a A review of international fisheries management regimes Page i A review of international fisheries management regimes Page ii An international review of fisheries management regimes Authors: Stuart A. Reeves, James B. Bell, Giulia Cambiè, Sarah L. Davie, Paul Dolder, Kieran Hyder, Hugo Pontalier, Zachary Radford and Duncan Vaughan1 Issue date: 02/08/2018 Head office Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk NR33 0HT, UK Tel +44 (0) 1502 56 2244 Fax +44 (0) 1502 51 3865 www.cefas.defra.gov.uk Cefas is an executive agency of Defra 1 Contact Address: c/o Natural England, Suite D, Unex House, Bourges Boulevard, Peterborough, PE1 1NG.
    [Show full text]
  • Targeted Review of Biological and Ecological Information from Fisheries Research in the South East Marine Region
    TARGETED REVIEW OF BIOLOGICAL AND ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION FROM FISHERIES RESEARCH IN THE SOUTH EAST MARINE REGION FINAL REPORT B. D. Bruce, R. Bradford, R. Daley, M. Green and K. Phillips December 2002 Client: National Oceans Office Targeted review of biological and ecological information from fisheries research in the South East Marine Region Final Report B. D. Bruce, R. Bradford, R. Daley M. Green and K. Phillips* CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart * National Oceans Office December 2002 2 Table of Contents: Table of Contents:...................................................................................................................................3 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................5 Objective of review.............................................................................................................................5 Structure of review..............................................................................................................................5 Format.................................................................................................................................................6 General ecological/biological issues and uncertainties for the South East Marine Region ....................9 Specific fishery and key species accounts ............................................................................................10 South East Fishery (SEF) including the South East Trawl
    [Show full text]
  • Associate Professor Caleb Gardner
    Curriculum Vitae A ssoci ate Prof essor Caleb Gardner Contents 1. Summary 2 2. Personal Details 2 3. Qualifications 2 4. Current Employment 3 5. External Grants 3 6. Current Committee Membership 7 7. Refereed Publications 8 8. Research and Management Reports 14 9. Students 20 Caleb Gardner 16/12/2013 Page 1 Summary I have qualifications in both economics and biology which interact in research on commercial fisheries. I currently hold two positions. My main role is as the Director, Sustainable Marine Research Collaboration Agreement (SMRCA), Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, UTAS in South East Australia. This role involves supervision and resourcing of over 60 staff and 38 PhD students operating across around 150 projects. Research is mainly on the larger marine industries of farmed Atlantic salmon and wild harvest blacklip abalone and southern rock lobster. However activities also span many other operations including recreational fisheries, scalefish, crabs, scallops and oyster culture. In addition to my role as Director SMRCA, I lead several research projects dealing with wild fisheries species, generally with the objective of improving harvest strategies. I also have a smaller role in leading research activities on wild harvest fisheries at the Australian Seafood Cooperative Research Centre. Projects in this organisation are mainly related to improving economic yield and reducing ecosystem impacts through better management. Projects involve partnerships between research organisations around Australia and industry organisations including western rock lobster, southern rock lobster, abalone, finfish and prawn fisheries. Personal Details Name: Associate Professor Caleb Gardner Address: 2 Jersey St, Sandy Bay, 7005 Phone: H- +61 (03) 6224 8417 W- +61 (03) 6227 7233 Mob- 0409 427 366 Fax- +61 (03) 6227 8035 Email: [email protected] Qualifications • Bachelor of Science.
    [Show full text]
  • Systema Brachyurorum: Part I
    THE RAFFLES BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGY 2008 17: 1–286 Date of Publication: 31 Jan.2008 © National University of Singapore SYSTEMA BRACHYURORUM: PART I. AN ANNOTATED CHECKLIST OF EXTANT BRACHYURAN CRABS OF THE WORLD Peter K. L. Ng Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research, Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge, Singapore 119260, Republic of Singapore Email: [email protected] Danièle Guinot Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Département Milieux et peuplements aquatiques, 61 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France Email: [email protected] Peter J. F. Davie Queensland Museum, PO Box 3300, South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT. – An annotated checklist of the extant brachyuran crabs of the world is presented for the first time. Over 10,500 names are treated including 6,793 valid species and subspecies (with 1,907 primary synonyms), 1,271 genera and subgenera (with 393 primary synonyms), 93 families and 38 superfamilies. Nomenclatural and taxonomic problems are reviewed in detail, and many resolved. Detailed notes and references are provided where necessary. The constitution of a large number of families and superfamilies is discussed in detail, with the positions of some taxa rearranged in an attempt to form a stable base for future taxonomic studies. This is the first time the nomenclature of any large group of decapod crustaceans has been examined in such detail. KEY WORDS. – Annotated checklist, crabs of the world, Brachyura, systematics, nomenclature. CONTENTS Preamble .................................................................................. 3 Family Cymonomidae .......................................... 32 Caveats and acknowledgements ............................................... 5 Family Phyllotymolinidae .................................... 32 Introduction .............................................................................. 6 Superfamily DROMIOIDEA ..................................... 33 The higher classification of the Brachyura ........................
    [Show full text]
  • Tasmanian Giant Crab Fishery 2006-07
    FISHERY ASSESSMENT REPORT TASMANIAN GIANT CRAB FISHERY - 2006/07 Philippe E. Ziegler, Malcolm Haddon and Caleb Gardner February 2008 This assessment of the Tasmanian giant crab fishery is produced by the Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute (TAFI) and uses input from the Crustacean Assessment Working Group (CAWG). CAWG met on 9 October 2007 to consider the draft assessment report and provide input into the assessment. The Working Group participants were: Dr Jeremy Lyle TAFI (chair) Dr Caleb Gardner TAFI Assoc. Prof. Malcolm Haddon TAFI Dr Philippe Ziegler TAFI Hilary Revill Fishery manager DPIW James Parkinson Fishery manager DPIW Rodney Treloggen Commercial sector (TRLFA) Neil Stump Commercial sector (TFIC) Charles Wessing Commercial sector Miroslav Hanek Recreational sector (RecFAC) Brett Cleary Recreational sector (TARFish) TAFI Marine Research Laboratories, Private Bag 49, Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]. Ph. (03) 6227 7277, Fax (03) 6227 8035 © The Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, University of Tasmania 2008. Copyright protects this publication. Except for purposes permitted by the Copyright Act, reproduction by whatever means is prohibited without the prior written permission of the Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute. Giant Crab Fishery Assessment: 2006/07 Executive summary The assessment of the Tasmanian giant crab fishery 2006/07 updates the annual assessment for the period from 1 March 2006 to 28 February 2007, and provides forecasts of the likely response of the fishery to the total allowable commercial catch (TACC) set at a range of values. Total catch reported in logbooks for the 2006/07 season was 57.1 tonnes, representing 92% of the 62.1 tonne TACC1.
    [Show full text]
  • Crabs, Holothurians, Sharks, Batoid Fishes, Chimaeras, Bony Fishes, Estuarine Crocodiles, Sea Turtles, Sea Snakes, and Marine Mammals
    FAOSPECIESIDENTIFICATIONGUIDEFOR FISHERYPURPOSES ISSN1020-6868 THELIVINGMARINERESOURCES OF THE WESTERNCENTRAL PACIFIC Volume2.Cephalopods,crustaceans,holothuriansandsharks FAO SPECIES IDENTIFICATION GUIDE FOR FISHERY PURPOSES THE LIVING MARINE RESOURCES OF THE WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC VOLUME 2 Cephalopods, crustaceans, holothurians and sharks edited by Kent E. Carpenter Department of Biological Sciences Old Dominion University Norfolk, Virginia, USA and Volker H. Niem Marine Resources Service Species Identification and Data Programme FAO Fisheries Department with the support of the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) and the Norwegian Agency for International Development (NORAD) FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Rome, 1998 ii The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers and boundaries. M-40 ISBN 92-5-104051-6 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced by any means without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Applications for such permissions, with a statement of the purpose and extent of the reproduction, should be addressed to the Director, Publications Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, via delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy. © FAO 1998 iii Carpenter, K.E.; Niem, V.H. (eds) FAO species identification guide for fishery purposes. The living marine resources of the Western Central Pacific. Volume 2. Cephalopods, crustaceans, holothuri- ans and sharks. Rome, FAO. 1998. 687-1396 p.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 196/Thursday, October 8, 2020
    Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 196 / Thursday, October 8, 2020 / Notices 63527 Dated: October 5, 2020. rule established conditions for (bycatch) of marine mammals in excess Tracey L. Thompson, evaluating a harvesting nation’s of United States standards (16 U.S.C. Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable regulatory programs to address 1371(a)(2)). NMFS published Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. incidental and intentional mortality and regulations implementing these [FR Doc. 2020–22300 Filed 10–7–20; 8:45 am] serious injury of marine mammals in its statutory requirements of the MMPA in BILLING CODE 3510–22–P fisheries producing fish and fish August 2016 (81 FR 54390; August 15, products exported to the United States. 2016) (MMPA Import Provisions Rule). Specifically, fish or fish products cannot The regulations apply to any foreign DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE be imported into the United States from nation with fisheries exporting fish and commercial fishing operations that fish products to the United States, either National Oceanic and Atmospheric result in the incidental mortality or directly or through an intermediary Administration serious injury of marine mammals in nation.1 excess of United States standards. The The LOFF lists foreign commercial [Docket No. 201001–0262; RTID 0648– fisheries that export fish and fish XA338] MMPA Import Provisions Rule established an initial five-year products to the United States and that Fish and Fish Product Import exemption period during which the have been classified as either ‘‘export’’ Provisions of the Marine Mammal import prohibitions do not apply. The or ‘‘exempt’’ based on the frequency and Protection Act; Final 2020 List of exemption period allows time for likelihood of interactions or incidental Foreign Fisheries harvesting nations to develop regulatory mortality and serious injury of a marine programs to mitigate marine mammal mammal.
    [Show full text]
  • The First Record of Larvae of the Giant Crab Pseudocarcinus Gigas in the Plankton
    Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, Volume 132, 1998 47 THE FIRST RECORD OF LARVAE OF THE GIANT CRAB PSEUDOCARCINUS GIGAS IN THE PLANKTON by Caleb Gardner (with one table) GARDNER, c., 1998 (31:xii): The first record oflarvae of the giant crab Pseudocarcinus gigas in the plankton. Pap. Proc. R. Soc Tasm. 132: 47-48. ISSN 0080-4703. Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, GPO Box 252-49, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia 700 1. This note reports the first collection of Pseudocarcinus gigas zoeas from the plankton. Plankton samples were collected in November 1992 from oceanic waters on the edge of the continental slope near Pedra Branca, southern Tasmania (longitude 14r09' 32 "E to 147°28' 30"E, latitude 44°11 '23"S to 44°12'30"S). Although samples were collected during the period when P. gigas larvae would be expected to be abundant, only three stage-2 P. gigas zoeas were captured from a total of342 Brachyuran larvae. All three zoe as were captured in the upper 100 m of water and were from different samples taken during both day and night. Keywords: plankton, zoeas, Pseudocarcinus gigas. INTRODUCTION depth ranged from 965 to 1584 m and sampling of plankton tows was at 100 m intervals, from 10 to 900 m depth. The Giant crabs are the basis of a small, high-value fishery in volume of water filtered at each sampling depth ranged Tasmania, which developed in 1991, mainly around the between 1650 and 550 m3 and averaged 1140 m3. Sampling northeast and northwest of the State.
    [Show full text]
  • Submission 16
    Fisheries and Aquaculture www.imas.edu.au SUBMISSION TO PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION INQUIRY INTO REGULATION OF AUSTRALIAN MARINE FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE SECTORS Submission is from Professor Caleb Gardner and Dr Emily Ogier, IMAS. This submission is not intended to represent the wider views of IMAS or the University of Tasmania. Are fish stocks allocated and managed in a way so as to ensure a viable and sustainable fishing sector both now and into the future? Australian fisheries in general are sustainable, which is evident from national and jurisdictional status reporting. It is however also clear that most fisheries are not optimally managed - there is a performance gap between their current status and the management that provides greatest community benefit. While overall status of stocks is good, there are nonetheless some overfished stocks. These are typically small volume, data poor species. More significantly in terms of national productivity, most of our larger fisheries have substantial scope for improvement (Ridge Partners 2009). Ridge Partners (2009) Evaluating the Performance of Australian Marine Capture Fisheries: A Report to the Fisheries R&D Corporation - Resource Working Group. How should the value of recreational fishing and Indigenous customary fishing be measured and so better inform access allocation decisions? Fisheries stakeholders have resisted measuring the value of recreational and indigenous fishing to date and this has led to decisions on resource sharing that fail to maximise the community benefit. A barrier to valuation has been naivety around valuing these sectors. Two common mistakes are made: (i) the assumption that only commercial fisheries can be valued and that this is revealed by gross value of product; (ii) that expenditure of recreational fishing represents the economic value of that sector.
    [Show full text]