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