PRESENT STATUS of Silky shark, Thresher sharks, Mobulid rays and Banggai cardinafish in Indonesia

Transcription

1 Regional Experts Mee1ng on Commercially- Exploited Aqua1c Species: Sharks May 2016, Bangkok, Thailand PRESENT STATUS of Silky shark, Thresher sharks, Mobulid rays and Banggai cardinafish in Indonesia Dharmadi Center for Fisheries Research and Development, Agency of Marine and Fisheries Research and Development, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries. Jl. Pasir Putih II, Ancol Timur Jakarta Indonesia dharmadi.shark.gmail.com

2 Introduction Indonesia as a nation is home to more shark and ray fishing activities than any other and is one of the highest volume exporters of sharks fins in the world (Blaber et al., 2009). Over the past several decades, national shark production in particular has declined by 28,30%, from 63,366 tons in 2000 to tonnes in 2014 (DGCF, 2016). (Source : DGCF, 2016) Production (t)

3 Trend production of sharks based on shark group in Productioni (t) Thresher sharks Requiem sharks Mackerel sharks Hammerhead sharks Dogfish sharks (Source : DGCF, 2016)

4 Trend production of Thresher sharks in Production (t) (Source : DGCF, 2016)

5 Species composition of sharks landed at Cilacap (2015) C. falciformis was known as the second most abundant in terms of numbers recorded during study in Indonesia from 2001 to 2006 (White 2007) Pelagic sharks are known as one of bycatches in tuna gillnet fishery, with A. pelagicus, A. superciliosus and C. falciformis as the most common shark species caught by this type of fishing gear (Fahmi and Dharmadi 2013) 1 Alopias pelagicus Pelagic Thresher Alopias superciliosus Bigeye Thresher Isurus oxyrinchus Shortfin Mako Isurus paucus Longfin Mako Carcharhinus falciformis Silky Shark Carcharhinus sorrah Spot-tail Shark Carcharhinus brevipinna Spinner Shark Carcharhinus Graceful Shark amblyrhynchoides 9 Carcharhinus plumbeus Sandbar Shark Carcharhinus leucas Bull Shark Prionace glauca Blue Shark Galeocerdo cuvier Tiger Shark Negaprion acutidens Sicklefin Lemon Shark Carcharhinus Silvertip Shark albimarginatus 15 Sphyrna lewini Scalloped Hammerhead Sphyrna mokkaran Great Hammerhead Mustelus cf manazo Sparse-spotted Smoothhound Lago garricki Longnose Smoothound Heptranchias perlo Sharpnose Sevengill Shark Hexanchus griseus Bluntnose Sixgill Shark Squalus sp. 1 Indonesian Greeneye Spurdog Squalus sp. 3 Indonesian Shortnose Spurdog 23 Squalus sp. E Western Longnose Shark Deanica f calcea Birdbeak Shark Centrophorus squamosus Leafscale Gulfer Shark Centrophorus moluccensis Smallfin Gulfer Shark Squatina sp. 1 Indonesian Angel Shark Hidrolagus lamures Indonesian Ghost Shark

6 Thresher sharks Shark LL 22% Tuna LL 3% Tuna GN 75% 300 GN & LL Tuna Alopias superciliosus Alopias pelagicus 298 unit 250 Catch (t) Shark LL 25% Tuna LL 17% Tuna GN 58% 21 unit 324 unit unit of boats PPS Cilacap, 2016

7 Species composition (by ind) of sharks landed at Tanjung Luar (January-November 2015) Triaenodon obesus Prionace glauca Negaprion acutidens Galeocerdo cuvier Carcharhinus sorrah Carcharhinus obscurus Carcharhinus melanopterus Carcharhinus limbatus Carcharhinus falciformis Carcharhinus brevipinna Carcharhinus albimarginatus Carcharhinidae 53%

8 (a) Numbers of each of the five species of mobulid ray recorded at each of the four main landing sites between April 2001 and October (b) in each month at Tanjung Luar (Lombok) between April 2001 and October 2005 (c) Estimated numbers of each species that would have been landed at Tanjung Luar in each month, assuming that rays were landed daily (White et al., 2006)

9 Length distribution of sharks landed at East Java in 2015 Total length (cm) Max Average Min

10 Length distribution of sharks landed at Kedonganan-Bali in 2015 Total length (cm) Max Average Min

11 Length distribution of sharks landed at Tanjung Luar in 2015 Total length (cm) Max Average Min

12 Mobulidae Manta (M. birostris, M. alfredi) (Fully protected (Men KP, 4/2014) Mobula japanica M. tarapaca M. kuhlii M. thurstoni

13 Manta birostris Manta species Manta alfredi

14 1. Mobula japanica spine-tail devil ray Up to 3.1 meters in width White ventral surface Deep-blue to black dorsal surface Spine at tail base

15 2. Mobula tarapacana sickle-fin devil ray Up to 3 meters in width Olive-green dorsal surface

16 3. Mobula thurstoni bent-fin devil ray Up to 2.2 meters in width Ventral surface is mostly white, with dark shading along anterior margin double curvature Deep blue-black dorsal surface

17 Mobula japanica 4. Mobula kuhlii 3.1 m width, white shading extends above eye, spine. 1.2 m width, white shading does not extend above eye, no spine.

18 Frequency and production of Mobulidae caught by tuna gillnet in the Indian ocean-south of Java in 2014 Frequency (ind) Weight (t) Total Mobulidae (ind) Production (ton)

19 n=674 ind Number of individu M.japanica M.tarapacana M.thurstoni Agust'15 Sept'15 Okt'15 Nop'15 Des'15 Jan'16 Feb'16 Monthly catch fluctua1on of Mobula spp landed at Cilacap- Central Java

20 M.thurstoni M F n=674 ind M.tarapacana M.japanica Number of individu Catch composition based on individu of Mobula spp (male and female) landed at Cilacap in 2015

21 Average Estimated Annual Mobulid Landings Lamakera Change vs Mobulids % Manta spp % Mobula spp % Change vs Mobulids 2,150 1, % Manta spp % Mobula spp. 1, % M. tarapacana % M. japanica % Tanjung Luar Cilacap Change vs Mobulids 2, % Manta spp % Mobula spp. 1, % M. tarapacana % M. japanica % M. thurstoni %

22 BANGGAI CARDINALFISH

23 Distribution

24 Population (Yahya et al., 2012) which showed that density of recruits and adult tend to decrease between , whereas for the juveniles more abundant in 2012 compared to Another study was also carried out in 2010 (Kasim et al., 2014) of which result indicated that the population tend to decrease due to heavy collection for trade and microhabitat loss as the local community and also collect other shallow water marine species for consumption (sea urchin and sea anemone). Its population in Banggai Islands was reported at 1.4 million individuals in 2015, of which number is assumed as a result of 42% reduction compared to the population in 2004 (Vagelli, in prep.). The cause of this decline is reported mostly due to heavy collection for aquarium trade.

25 BCF is relatively easy to adapt in other environment that resemble its known original habitat in Banggai. For example, a population in Ambon, reported being introduced in late November 2014, found grow well and expand to a fairly huge number a year after. However, current habitat exploitation practices in Banggai Islands do not support its sustainability. In a normal condition of a wild habitat, this species breed every month in a year, provided its juvenile microhabitat, with acceptable presentation of sea urchin and sea anemone is maintained (Hartati et al 2012; Erdy, pers com). Effective control and monitoring for BCF collection in this native habitat is needed, as well as local communities education, especially on the issue of correct fishery practice to avoid habitat destruction and maintain the microhabitat of this species related to their own sustainability livelihood.

26 Harvest: Yahya et al, (2012) the harvest data from one site in Banggai, i.e Bone Baru, showed that the number was 99,898 and 99,719 individuals in 2010 and Moore et al., (2012) mentioned that annual harvest had reached 600, ,000 individual/year. Tumbak (Manado), Kendari and Luwuk with the number of individuals per month was 10,000, 20,000 and 5,000 respectively (CV. Cahaya Baru, pers.com). In 2015, the harvest of aquaculture in Ambon annually at 19,953 fish with approximate production is 1,600 fish/month. Bali at 20,000 fish per month. The LINI Aquaculture and Training Centre had harvested and sent its first live production to Great Britain in early March this year at a number of 400 individual fishes (Sertori, 2016).

27 Conclusion for Banggai cardinalfish Banggai Cardinal fish is naturally easy to adapt, breed every month in a year, currently found almost everywhere around the country, and fairly easy to produce in a farm. The population depletion in its (considered) native habitat is more due to local community s ignorance and their lack of understanding on the importance of habitat and microhabitat for the sustainable utilization of this species