Ras Behari’s guide to buying fish seed

Document contains 4 pages.

Ichthyological ecoregions of Argentina

The Argentine Republic is situated in the southernmost portion of the American continent, occupying over 2,785,600 km2 not including the Antarctic territory. The country ranges from subtropical areas (21º46’S) to subantarctic regions (55º03’S), extending latitudinally over about 4,000 km. It possesses significant latitudinal and altitudinal variation (33º of latitudinal range, and heights from Bajo de San Julián in Santa Cruz province at 105 m below sea level, up to Mt. Aconcagua, 6,959 m over sea level), as well as two gradients of physical variability, extending in north-south and east-west directions. Owing to these features, the country presents a wide range of climates and soil types, being one of the countries with greatest diversity of biogeographical units (Lean et al., 1990, In: Bertonatti & Corcuera, 2000). There are four main hydrographic systems: Río de la Plata basin, the Atlantic and Pacific drainages, and several endorrheic systems. Within these basins, the ichthyofaunistic assemblage is well represented, with different magnitude in accordance with the different taxonomic groupings and regions considered. From an ichthyogeographic standpoint, and according to the works of Ringuelet (1975) and Arratia et al. (1983), Argentina is included in the Brasilic and Austral Subregions. The first of these is represented by two domains: the Andean Domain, comprising the southernmost portion of Titicaca Province, and the Paranensean Domain, including part of Alto Paraná and Paranoplatensean Provinces. The Austral Subregion is represented in Argentina by the Subandean-Cuyan and Patagonian Provinces. The present survey indicates that there are about 441 fish species in Argentina, distributed throughout the country; this number represents less than 10% of the total fish species occurring in the Neotropical Region. There is a recognizable trend of faunal impoverishment, both in North-South and East-West direction, reaching its maximum expression in the provinces of Tierra del Fuego (situated at approximately 52º30’S to 55ºS, and 65ºS to 68º50’W) and San Juan (approximately 28º50’S and 67ºW to 70º45’W), which have 4 and 5 fish species respectively. In north-south direction, one of the regional indicators of this phenomenon is the Salado river basin in Buenos Aires province, which constitutes the southern distributional boundary for the majority of the paranoplatensean ichthyofauna; 12 of the families occurring in the Paraná-Plata system are absent from this pauperized paranensean ichthyofaunal assemblage. Most of the continental fish fauna of Argentina belongs to the primary division of Myers (1949), while some elements are included in the secondary division and others in an amphibiotic or ‘marine penetration’ category. This ichthyofaunistic scope encompasses a wide range of morphological, biological, ecological and ethological types (benthic and pelagic, migrating and sedentary, haematophagous or parasites, annual species, inhabitants of plains or heights, estivation-adapted, etc.) inhabiting different regions within the national territory.

What is fish culture?

Document contains 4 pages.

Marketable fish production: seasonal ponds

(4 pp.)

Marketable fish production: perennial ponds

(4pp.)

Recognizing and managing common fish diseases

(4pp.)

Channel Islands marine protected areas first 5 years of monitoring: 2003-2008 [Report produced by the California Department of Fish and Game in collaboration with the Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans (PISCO), Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, and Channel Islands National Park]

The Channel Islands—sometimes called the Galapagos of North America—are known for their great beauty, rich biodiversity, cultural heritage, and recreational opportunities. In 1980, in recognition of the islands’ importance, the United States Congress established a national park encompassing 5 of California’s Channel Islands (Santa Barbara, Anacapa, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San Miguel Islands) and waters within 1 nautical mile of the islands. In the same year, Congress declared a national marine sanctuary around each of these islands, including waters up to 6 nautical miles offshore. Approximately 60,000 people visit the Channel Islands each year for aquatic recreation such as fishing, sailing, kayaking, wildlife watching, surfing, and diving. Another 30,000 people visit the islands for hiking, camping, and sightseeing. Dozens of commercial fishing boats based in Santa Barbara, Ventura, Oxnard, and other ports go to the Channel Islands to catch squid, spiny lobster, sea urchin, rockfish, crab, sheephead, flatfish, and sea cucumber, among other species. In the past few decades, advances in fishing technology and the rising number of fishermen, in conjunction with changing ocean conditions and diseases, have contributed to declines in some marine fishes and invertebrates at the Channel Islands. In 1998, citizens from Santa Barbara and Ventura proposed establishment of no-take marine reserves at the Channel Islands, beginning a 4-year process of public meetings, discussions, and scientific analyses. In 2003, the California Fish and Game Commission designated a network of marine protected areas (MPAs) in state waters around the northern Channel Islands. In 2006 and 2007, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) extended the MPAs into the national marine sanctuary’s deeper, federal waters. To determine if the MPAs are protecting marine species and habitats, scientists are monitoring ecological changes. They are studying changes in habitats; abundance and size of species of interest; the ocean food web and ecosystem; and movement of fish and invertebrates from MPAs to surrounding waters. Additionally, scientists are monitoring human activities such as commercial and recreational fisheries, and compliance with MPA regulations. This booklet describes some results from the first 5 years of monitoring the Channel Islands MPAs. Although 5 years is not long enough to determine if the MPAs will accomplish all of their goals, this booklet offers a glimpse of the changes that are beginning to take place and illustrates the types of information that will eventually be used to assess the MPAs’ effectiveness. (PDF contains 24 pages.)

Forecasting Climate Impacts on Future Production of Commercially Exploited Fish and Shellfish

Foreword [pdf, < 0.1 MB] Acknowledgements PHASE 1 [pdf, 0.2 MB] Summary of the PICES/NPRB Workshop on Forecasting Climate Impacts on Future Production of Commercially Exploited Fish and Shellfish (July 19–20, 2007, Seattle, U.S.A.) Background Links to Other Programs Workshop Format Session I. Status of climate change scenarios in the PICES region Session II. What are the expected impacts of climate change on regional oceanography and what are some scenarios for these drivers for the next 10 years? Session III. Recruitment forecasting Session IV. What models are out there? How is climate linked to the model? Session V. Assumptions regarding future fishing scenarios and enhancement activities Session VI Where do we go from here? References Appendix 1.1 List of Participants PHASE 2 [pdf, 0.7 MB] Summary of the PICES/NPRB Workshop on Forecasting Climate Impacts on Future Production of Commercially Exploited Fish and Shellfish (October 30, 2007, Victoria, Canada) Background Workshop Agenda Forecast Feasibility Format of Information Modeling Approaches Coupled bio-physical models Stock assessment projection models Comparative approaches Similarities in Data Requests Opportunities for Coordination with Other PICES Groups and International Efforts BACKGROUND REPORTS PREPARED FOR THE PHASE 2 WORKSHOP Northern California Current (U.S.) groundfish production by Melissa Haltuch Changes in sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) recruitment in relation to oceanographic conditions by Michael J. Schirripa Northern California Current (British Columbia) Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) production by Caihong Fu and Richard Beamish Northern California Current (British Columbia) sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) production by Richard Beamish Northern California Current (British Columbia) pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and chum (O. keta) salmon production by Richard Beamish Northern California Current (British Columbia) ocean shrimp (Pandalus jordani) production by Caihong Fu Alaska salmon production by Anne Hollowed U.S. walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) production in the eastern Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska by Kevin Bailey and Anne Hollowed U.S. groundfish production in the eastern Bering Sea by Tom Wilderbuer U.S. crab production in the eastern Bering Sea by Gordon H. Kruse Forecasting Japanese commercially exploited species by Shin-ichi Ito, Kazuaki Tadokoro and Yasuhiro Yamanka Russian fish production in the Japan/East Sea by Yury Zuenko, Vladimir Nuzhdin and Natalia Dolganova Chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) production in Korea by Sukyung Kang, Suam Kim and Hyunju Seo Jack mackerel (Trachurus japonicus) production in Korea by Jae Bong Lee and Chang-Ik Zhang Chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) production in Korea by Jae Bong Lee, Sukyung Kang, Suam Kim, Chang-Ik Zhang and Jin Yeong Kim References Appendix 2.1 List of Participants PHASE 3 [pdf, < 0.1 MB] Summary of the PICES Workshop on Linking Global Climate Model Output to (a) Trends in Commercial Species Productivity and (b) Changes in Broader Biological Communities in the World’s Oceans (May 18, 2008, Gijón, Spain) Appendix 3.1 List of Participants Appendix 3.2 Workshop Agenda (Document contains 101 pages)

Temporal and spatial changes in milfoil distribution and biomass associated with weevils in Fish Lake, WI

During the course of an eight year monitoring effort, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources documented a significant decline in milfoil biomass and distribution in Fish Lake, Wisconsin. Average milfoil biomass declined by 40- 50% from 374-524 g dw m -2 during 1991-93 to 265 g dw m -2 during both 1994 and 1995. Milfoil recovered fully in 1996- 98 to 446- 564 g dw m -2 . The size of the milfoil bed, as discerned from aerial photographs, shrank from a maximum coverage of 40 ha in 1991 to less than 20 ha during 1995. During the “crash” of 1994-95, milfoil plants exhibited typical signs of weevil-induced damage, including darkened, brittle, hollowed-out growing tips, and the arching and collapse of stems associated with loss of buoyancy. Monitoring of weevils and stem damage during 1995-98 showed highest densities and heaviest damage occurred near shore and subsequently fanned out into deeper water from core infestation sites each spring. The extent of milfoil stem damage was positively correlated with weevil densities (monthly sampling). However, weevil densities and stem damage were lower during 1995 (when milfoil biomass was in decline) than during 1996-98 (when milfoil biomass was fully recovered).

New fish populations as evidence of climate chage in former dry areas of the Pampa Region ( Southern South America).

Water bodies located at 34º 58' S, 62º 58' W formed after 1980 by 30 % increasing rainfall during the last half century, were colonized by ten fish species which are a subset of the commonest species living in the pampasic lagunas. These new populations imply a displacement of the West of Pampasian fishes to areas of the western basins previously lacking fish.

Cruise Report 69-S-3: Pelagic fish and trawling survey of Santa Barbara oil spill

(PDF contains 5 pages)

The mechanical effects of water flow on fish eggs and larvae

The impact of mechanical stresses upon ichthyoplankton entrained in power plant cooling systems has long been considered negligible. Arguments and evidence exist, however, to show that such a supposition is not universally true, especially in nuclear power plants. The mechanisms of mechanical damage can be detailed in terms of pressure change, acceleration, and shear stress with in the fluid flow field. Laboratory efforts to quantify the effects of mechanical stress have been very sparse. A well-planned bioassay is urgently needed. (PDF has 11 pages.)

Cruise Report 70-S-5: Big Game Fish

(PDF contains 4 pages)

International trade in live, ornamental "fish" in the US & Florida

The importance of international markets as a source of live, ornamental “fish” supply is growing due to more stringent wild-harvest regulations in Florida. In addition, foreign markets are increasing in importance as a source of demand for Florida purveyors of live, ornamental “fish”. Florida plays an important role in this growing international market. Trends in imports and exports of live, ornamental “fish” are described for two primary data sets: U.S. Customs and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These trends are described primarily for the 1994-98 period for Florida and the United States. Florida imports and exports are described for the two major ports: Miami and Tampa. The most important trading countries are also described. This information will help Florida purveyors of live, ornamental “fish” better understand the international markets upon which they have become more dependent. (PDF has 18 pages)

An Integrated Assessment of the Introduction of Lionfish (Pterois volitans/miles complex) to the Western Atlantic Ocean.

Lionfish (Pterois volitans/miles complex) are venomous coral reef fishes from the Indian and western Pacific oceans that are now found in the western Atlantic Ocean. Adult lionfish have been observed from Miami, Florida to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and juvenile lionfish have been observed off North Carolina, New York, and Bermuda. The large number of adults observed and the occurrence of juveniles indicate that lionfish are established and reproducing along the southeast United States coast. Introductions of marine species occur in many ways. Ballast water discharge, a very common method of introduction for marine invertebrates, is responsible for many freshwater fish introductions. In contrast, most marine fish introductions result from intentional stocking for fishery purposes. Lionfish, however, likely were introduced via unintentional or intentional aquarium releases, and the introduction of lionfish into United States waters should lead to an assessment of the threat posed by the aquarium trade as a vector for fish introductions. Currently, no management actions are being taken to limit the effect of lionfish on the southeast United States continental shelf ecosystem. Further, only limited funds have been made available for research. Nevertheless, the extent of the introduction has been documented and a forecast of the maximum potential spread of lionfish is being developed. Under a scenario of no management actions and limited research, three predictions are made: ● With no action, the lionfish population will continue to grow along the southeast United States shelf. ● Effects on the marine ecosystem of the southeast United States will become more noticeable as the lionfish population grows. ● There will be incidents of lionfish envenomations of divers and/or fishers along the east coast of the United States. Removing lionfish from the southeast United States continental shelf ecosystem would be expensive and likely impossible. A bounty could be established that would encourage the removal of fish and provide specimens for research. However, the bounty would need to be lower than the price of fish in the aquarium trade (~$25-$50 each) to ensure that captured specimens were from the wild. Such a low bounty may not provide enough incentive for capturing lionfish in the wild. Further, such action would only increase the interaction between the public and lionfish, increasing the risk of lionfish envenomations. As the introduction of lionfish is very likely irreversible, future actions should focus on five areas. 1) The population of lionfish should be tracked. 2) Research should be conducted so that scientists can make better predictions regarding the status of the invasion and the effects on native species, ecosystem function, and ecosystem services. 3) Outreach and education efforts must be increased, both specifically toward lionfish and more generally toward the aquarium trade as a method of fish introductions. 4) Additional regulation should be considered to reduce the frequency of marine fish introduction into U.S. waters. However, the issue is more complicated than simply limiting the import of non-native species, and these complexities need to be considered simultaneously. 5) Health care providers along the east coast of the United States need to be notified that a venomous fish is now resident along the southeast United States. The introduction and spread of lionfish illustrates the difficulty inherent in managing introduced species in marine systems. Introduced species often spread via natural mechanisms after the initial introduction. Efforts to control the introduction of marine fish will fail if managers do not consider the natural dispersal of a species following an introduction. Thus, management strategies limiting marine fish introductions need to be applied over the scale of natural ecological dispersal to be effective, pointing to the need for a regional management approach defined by natural processes not by political boundaries. The introduction and success of lionfish along the east coast should change the long-held perception that marine fish invasions are a minimal threat to marine ecosystems. Research is needed to determine the effects of specific invasive fish species in specific ecosystems. More broadly, a cohesive plan is needed to manage, mitigate and minimize the effects of marine invasive fish species on ecosystems that are already compromised by other human activities. Presently, the magnitude of marine fish introductions as a stressor on marine ecosystems cannot be quantified, but can no longer be dismissed as negligible. (PDF contains 31 pages)