Regional Experts Mee1ng on Commercially-‐Exploited Aqua1c Species: Sharks
16-‐17 May 2016 , Bangkok, Thailand
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
14430 Indonesia • Email: dharmadi.shark.gmail.com
PRESENT STATUS of Silky shark, Thresher sharks, Mobulid rays and Banggai
cardinafish in Indonesia
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 68 366 tonnes in 2014 (DGCF, 2016).
- 10 000 20 000 30 000 40 000 50 000 60 000 70 000 80 000
76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14
Prod
uctio
n (t
)
(Source : DGCF, 2016)
-
10 000
20 000
30 000
40 000
50 000
60 000
70 000
02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14
Thresher sharks Requiem sharks Mackerel sharks Hammerhead sharks Dogfish sharks
Prod
uctio
ni (t
)
Trend production of sharks based on shark group in 2002-2014.
(Source : DGCF, 2016)
Trend production of Thresher sharks in 200-2014
-
10 000
20 000
30 000
40 000
50 000
60 000
70 000
Prod
uctio
n (t)
02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14
(Source : DGCF, 2016)
1 Alopias pelagicus Pelagic Thresher 967 25.03 2 Alopias superciliosus Bigeye Thresher 674 17.45 3 Isurus oxyrinchus Shortfin Mako 62 1.60 4 Isurus paucus Longfin Mako 36 0.93 5 Carcharhinus falciformis Silky Shark 312 8.08 6 Carcharhinus sorrah Spot-tail Shark 780 20.19 7 Carcharhinus brevipinna Spinner Shark 27 0.70 8 Carcharhinus amblyrhynchoides Graceful Shark 17 0.44
9 Carcharhinus plumbeus Sandbar Shark 14 0.36 10 Carcharhinus leucas Bull Shark 1 0.03 11 Prionace glauca Blue Shark 115 2.98 12 Galeocerdo cuvier Tiger Shark 6 0.16 13 Negaprion acutidens Sicklefin Lemon Shark 1 0.03 14 Carcharhinus albimarginatus Silvertip Shark 1 0.03
15 Sphyrna lewini Scalloped Hammerhead 47 1.22 16 Sphyrna mokkaran Great Hammerhead 1 0.03 17 Mustelus cf manazo Sparse-spotted Smoothhound 133 3.44 18 Lago garricki Longnose Smoothound 5 0.13 19 Heptranchias perlo Sharpnose Sevengill Shark 228 5.90 20 Hexanchus griseus Bluntnose Sixgill Shark 1 0.03 21 Squalus sp. 1 Indonesian Greeneye Spurdog 88 2.28 22 Squalus sp. 3 Indonesian Shortnose
Spurdog 309 8.00
23 Squalus sp. E Western Longnose Shark 11 0.28 24 Deanica f calcea Birdbeak Shark 4 0.10 25 Centrophorus squamosus Leafscale Gulfer Shark 1 0.03 26 Centrophorus moluccensis Smallfin Gulfer Shark 1 0.03 27 Squatina sp. 1 Indonesian Angel Shark 19 0.49 28 Hidrolagus lamures Indonesian Ghost Shark 2 0.05
Species composition of sharks landed at Cilacap (2015)
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)
C. falciformis was known as the second most abundant in terms of numbers recorded during study in Indonesia from 2001 to 2006 (White 2007)
Thresher sharks
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Alopias superciliosus Alopias pelagicus GN & LL Tuna
21 unit
19 unit of boats
Cat
ch (t
)
324 unit
298 unit
PPS Cilacap, 2016
Tuna LL 3%
Tuna GN 75%
Shark LL 22%
Tuna GN 58%
Tuna LL 17%
Shark LL 25%
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Carcharhinus albimarginatus Carcharhinus brevipinna Carcharhinus falciformis
Carcharhinus limbatus Carcharhinus melanopterus
Carcharhinus obscurus Carcharhinus sorrah Galeocerdo cuvier
Negaprion acutidens Prionace glauca
Triaenodon obesus Carcharhinidae
Species composition (by ind) of sharks landed at Tanjung Luar (January-November 2015)
53%
(White et al., 2006)
(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 2005.
(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
0 50
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Tota
l len
gth
(cm
)
Max Average Min
Length distribution of sharks landed at East Java in 2015
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Tota
l len
gth
(cm
)
Max Average Min
Length distribution of sharks landed at Kedonganan-Bali in 2015
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Tota
l len
gth
(cm
)
Max Average Min
Length distribution of sharks landed at Tanjung Luar in 2015
Mobulidae
Manta (M. birostris, M. alfredi) (Fully protected (Men KP, 4/2014) Mobula japanica M. tarapaca M. kuhlii M. thurstoni
Manta birostris Manta alfredi
Manta species
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
2. Mobula tarapacana – sickle-fin devil ray¤ Up to 3 meters in width¤ Olive-green dorsal surface
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
Mobula japanica 4. Mobula kuhlii3.1 m width, white shading extends above eye, spine.
1.2 m width, white shading does not extend above eye, no spine.
Frequency and production of Mobulidae caught by tuna gillnet in the Indian ocean-South of Java in 2014
Freq
uenc
y (in
d)
Production (ton) Weight (t)
Total Mobulidae (ind)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Agust'15 Sept'15 Okt'15 Nop'15 Des'15 Jan'16 Feb'16
Num
ber
of
indi
vidu
M.japanica
M.tarapacana
M.thurstoni
n=674 ind
Monthly catch fluctua1on of Mobula spp landed at Cilacap-‐Central Java
0 100 200 300 400 500
M.japanica
M.tarapacana
M.thurstoni M F n=674 ind
Number of individu
Catch composition based on individu of Mobula spp (male and female) landed at Cilacap in 2015
Average Estimated Annual Mobulid Landings 2001-15
2002-6 2007-12 2013-14 Change 2001-5 vs 2013-14
Mobulids 931 352 229 -75% Manta spp. 605 229 149 -75% Mobula spp. 326 123 80 -75%
2001-5 2007-12 2013-14 Change 2001-5 vs 2013-14
Mobulids 2,150 1,003 103 -95% Manta spp. 272 120 14 -95% Mobula spp. 1,023 883 66 -94% M. tarapacana 337 3 -99% M. japanica 518 20 -96%
Tanjung Luar
2001-5 2006-13 2014 2015
Change 2001-5 vs 2013-15
Mobulids 2,065 924 750 -64% Manta spp. 53 15 -71% Mobula spp. 1,006 367 -63% M. tarapacana 212 48 -77% M. japanica 635 320 155 -75% M. thurstoni 106 0
0 -100%
M. kuhlii 53 0 -100%
Cilacap
Lamakera
BANGGAI CARDINALFISH
Distribution
(Yahya et al., 2012) which showed that density of recruits and adult tend to decrease between 2009-2011, whereas for the juveniles more abundant in 2012 compared to 2009. 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.
Population
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.
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 2011. Moore et al., (2012) mentioned that annual harvest had reached 600,000-700,000 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).
Harvest:
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
Conclusion for Banggai cardinalfish