Benedenia rohdei n. sp. (Monogenea: Capsalidae) from the gills of Lutjanus carponotatus (Perciformes: Lutjanidae) from the Great Barrier Reef, Queensland, Australia, with a description of the oncomiracidium

1994 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian D. Whittington ◽  
Graham C. Kearn ◽  
Mary Beverley-Burton
Keyword(s):  
Great Barrier Reef ◽  
Barrier Reef ◽  
Lutjanus Carponotatus

scholarly journals Wind Conditions on the Great Barrier Reef Influenced the Recruitment of Snapper (Lutjanus carponotatus)

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jodie A. Schlaefer ◽  
Eric Wolanski ◽  
Jonathan Lambrechts ◽  
Michael J. Kingsford
Keyword(s):  
Great Barrier Reef ◽  
Barrier Reef ◽  
Lutjanus Carponotatus

No-take marine reserves increase abundance and biomass of reef fish on inshore fringing reefs of the Great Barrier Reef

2004 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.H. WILLIAMSON ◽  
G.R. RUSS ◽  
A.M. AYLING
Keyword(s):  
Great Barrier Reef ◽  
Size Structure ◽  
Marine Reserve ◽  
Barrier Reef ◽  
Coral Trout ◽  
Quantitative Estimates ◽  
Fringing Reefs ◽  
Lutjanus Carponotatus ◽  
Average Size ◽  
Density And Biomass

The application of no-take marine reserve status to an area is expected to increase abundance and average size of individuals of species targeted by fisheries. The majority of the evidence supporting such expectations still involves comparisons of abundance at the one time of sites with and without marine reserve protection. Very few studies have data on the abundance and size structure of species targeted by fisheries in an area before reserve status is applied. Quantitative estimates of density and biomass of coral trout, Plectropomus spp., the major target of the hook and line fisheries on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), Australia, on inshore fringing reefs of the Palm and Whitsunday Island groups, central GBR, are provided for 3–4 years before (1983–1984), and 12–13 years after (1999–2000) the establishment of no-take reserves in 1987. Quantitative estimates of density and biomass of coral trout in areas open to fishing were also collected in 1999–2000 at these two island groups. Density and biomass of coral trout increased significantly (by factors of 5.9 and 6.3 in the Palm Islands, and 4.0 and 6.2 in the Whitsunday Islands) in the reserve sites, but not the fished sites, between 1983–1984 and 1999–2000. In 1999–2000, density and biomass of coral trout and a secondary target of the fisheries, Lutjanus carponotatus, were significantly higher in the protected zones than in the fished zones at both island groups. The density and biomass of non-target fish species (Labridae, Siganidae and Chaetodontidae) did not differ significantly between reserve and fished zones at either island group. This is the most convincing data to date that the management zoning of the world's largest marine park has been effective, at least for coral trout on inshore reefs.

Hooking mortality of two species of shallow-water reef fish caught by recreational angling methods

1997 ◽  
Vol 48 (6) ◽  
pp. 479 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. K. Diggles ◽  
I. Ernst
Keyword(s):  
Great Barrier Reef ◽  
Total Mortality ◽  
Handling Time ◽  
Body Cavity ◽  
Shallow Waters ◽  
Barrier Reef ◽  
Fish Size ◽  
Recreational Angling ◽  
Lutjanus Carponotatus ◽  
Observation Period

The hooking mortality of two teleosts, the yellow stripey Lutjanus carponotatus (Lutjanidae), and the wire netting cod Epinephelus quoyanus (Serranidae), was examined for fish captured with lures and bait from shallow waters (<2 m) on the Great Barrier Reef. Total mortality for both species (n = 340 fish) over the 48-h observation period was low (1.76%). Baitfishing with single hooks caused a significantly higher post-release mortality rate (5.1%) than did lure fishing with treble or single hooks (0.4%), and was the hooking method most likely to cause bleeding and damage to vital organs. Death of fish was observed only in instances where hooks penetrated the pericardium or body cavity. Handling time was significantly affected by fish size and hooking location, did not vary significantly between fish species, and was significantly reduced when barbless hooks were used in both lure and baitfishing. One specimen of each species, deeply hooked in the gut or oesophagus while baitfishing, was allowed to retain the hook; both fish survived and subsequently regurgitated the hook during the observation period. The relevance of these data to management of line fisheries on the Great Barrier Reef is discussed.

Refuge-Seeking Impairments Mirror Metabolic Recovery Following Fisheries-Related Stressors in the Spanish Flag Snapper (Lutjanus carponotatus) on the Great Barrier Reef

2014 ◽  
Vol 87 (1) ◽  
pp. 136-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven J. Cooke ◽  
Vanessa Messmer ◽  
Andrew J. Tobin ◽  
Morgan S. Pratchett ◽  
Timothy D. Clark
Keyword(s):  
Great Barrier Reef ◽  
Barrier Reef ◽  
Metabolic Recovery ◽  
Lutjanus Carponotatus

Patterns of pisciviory by resident predatory reef fish at One Tree Reef, Great Barrier Reef

1998 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 25 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. D. Connell
Keyword(s):  
Great Barrier Reef ◽  
Abundant Species ◽  
Predatory Fish ◽  
Barrier Reef ◽  
Nocturnal Activity ◽  
Lutjanus Carponotatus ◽  
Thalassoma Lunare ◽  
Predator Abundance ◽  
New Recruits ◽  
Large Predators

Patterns of piscivory were investigated among five abundant species of predatory fish at One Tree Reef, Great Barrier Reef, Australia. The guts of two lutjanids Lutjanus carponotatus and Lutjanus fulviflamma, two labrids Cheilinus diagrammus and Thalassoma lunare, and a serranid Epinephelus quoyanus were examined for type, length, number and volume of prey at two times of the day: sunrise and sunset. Each of these species consumed fish, but only T. lunare and the two lutjanids consumed recruit-sized fish. This information is important because there is often scepticism as to whether large predators (>200 mm TL) such as lutjanids consume new recruits. Only in the lutjanids were there differences in the number and volume of prey present in the gut at sunrise and at sunset; at sunset, few lutjanid specimens contained prey, whereas at sunrise 98% of specimens contained prey. This result, in conjunction with studies of nocturnal activity, suggest that patterns of predation pressure inferred from daylight observations of predator abundance may have little relevance to actual patterns of predation at local scales.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document