Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Barrier Reef Marine Park (barrier + reef_marine_park)
Kinds of Barrier Reef Marine Park Selected AbstractsSpatial distribution and environmental correlates of Australian snubfin and Indo-Pacific humpback dolphinsECOGRAPHY, Issue 3 2006Guido J. Parra We present data on the spatial distribution of Australian snubfin and humpback dolphins using boat-based line transect surveys in three adjacent bays located in the Far Northern Section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, northeast Queensland. We used Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and both randomization and Mantel tests to examine the relationship between the spatial distribution of the dolphins and three simple, readily quantified, environmental variables: distance to land, distance to river mouth, and water depth. Mantel tests allowed us to make clear inferences about the correlation of the species' distributions with environmental variables, while taking into account spatial autocorrelation and intercorrelation among variables. Randomization tests indicated snubfin and humpback dolphins occur closer to land than would be expected at random. Two-sample randomization tests indicated snubfin dolphins were found closer to river mouths than were humpback dolphins. Taking spatial autocorrelation into account, Mantel tests indicated all environmental variables were correlated with the spatial distribution of snubfin and humpback dolphins. Interspecific differences in spatial distribution appeared to be related to proximity to river mouths. Preference by snubfin and humpback dolphins for nearshore, estuarine waters is likely related to the productivity of these tropical coastal areas. This spatial analysis suggests that existing protected areas in this region may not include the most critical habitats for snubfin and humpback dolphins. The techniques used here shown relationships between the spatial distribution of the dolphins and environmental features that should facilitate their management and conservation. [source] Losing ,Nemo': bleaching and collection appear to reduce inshore populations of anemonefishesJOURNAL OF FISH BIOLOGY, Issue 3 2008A. M. Jones Surveys of anemonefishes (Amphiprioninae) were conducted on reefs in two regions of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park with contrasting histories of disturbance to determine the degree to which spatial variation might be explained by bleaching or management status. Densities of anemonefishes were lower on reefs in the bleaching-impacted Keppel Islands than on reefs in Far North Queensland. No anemonefishes or anemones were found on or near bleached corals in the Keppel Islands. Furthermore, the highest densities of fishes were found on reefs closed to fishing and aquarium collecting in both the Keppel Islands and Far North Queensland, which suggests that collecting is compounding the effects of bleaching. These results emphasize the importance of understanding the interaction between bleaching events and anthropogenic disturbance upon commercially exploited species. [source] Implications of recreational fishing for elasmobranch conservation in the Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkAQUATIC CONSERVATION: MARINE AND FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS, Issue 3 2010Ann-Maree J. Lynch Abstract 1.309 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park recreational fishers were surveyed to examine recreational catch and harvest of elasmobranchs and to explore recreational fishers' handling behaviour and attitudes. 2.Elasmobranchs represented 6% of fishers' total catch of all fish (including released individuals), and 0.8% of fishers' total harvest (i.e. retained individuals) across all survey days. The majority of elasmobranchs caught by fishers were released, primarily because they were perceived as being inedible. 3.Recreational fishers' self-reported handling and release behaviour for elasmobranchs is largely consistent with ,best practice' guidelines except that fishers had low use of circle hooks and barbless hooks, and a significant proportion (33%) reported using stainless steel hooks. 4.Most fishers had positive attitudes towards elasmobranchs, placing high importance on releasing sharks and rays in good condition (86%), high value on their existence (84%), and low value on catching them (63%). 5.Results indicate that post-release mortality is probably the largest source of recreational fishing mortality of elasmobranchs in the Great Barrier Reef. Future research should be targeted at obtaining better estimates of species-specific post-release mortality levels, understanding how post-release survival can be increased by changing fishing techniques or fisher behaviour, and developing more effective methods of engaging fishers in elasmobranch conservation. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Differences in benthic cover inside and outside marine protected areas on the Great Barrier Reef: influence of protection or disturbance history?AQUATIC CONSERVATION: MARINE AND FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS, Issue 7 2009Monique R. Myers Abstract 1.Marine protected areas (MPAs) are being used increasingly to manage and protect marine resources. Most studies of MPAs have focused on fish. In this study, the influence of MPA protection on coral reef benthic organisms on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) was investigated. In addition, the interaction between protection and natural disturbance history was examined. 2.Differences in benthic cover inside and outside MPAs were assessed at 15 pairs of Protected and General Use reefs on the GBR using annual monitoring data from the Australian Institute of Marine Science's Long-Term Monitoring Programme (LTMP). At each reef, benthic cover was determined using a benthic video survey at three sites, with each site consisting of five 50,m transect lines separated by at least 250,m running parallel to the reef crest at 6,9,m depth. 3.Benthic cover was related to both protection status and disturbance history, but natural perturbations exerted a stronger influence on benthic cover than did protection status. The influence of natural perturbation was most noticeable for hard coral. 4.Most reefs where no natural disturbance events had occurred (,undisturbed reefs') had higher hard coral cover and lower soft coral cover than General Use reefs. While the high levels of hard coral on Protected reefs may be a result of protection status, it might also have resulted from selection bias that occurred during the initial zoning of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (i.e. managers may have given protection status to reefs with high coral cover). 5.These results are likely influenced by the relatively low intensity of human use, both on the Great Barrier Reef in general and at the particular monitoring sites studied. Over time, as local populations and tourism increase, the effect of protection may become more evident at LTMP sites. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Effects of Great Barrier Reef degradation on recreational reef-trip demand: a contingent behaviour approach,AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL & RESOURCE ECONOMICS, Issue 2 2009Marit E. Kragt There is a growing concern that increased nutrient and sediment runoff from river catchments are a potential source of coral reef degradation. Degradation of reefs may affect the number of tourists visiting the reef and, consequently, the economic sectors that rely on healthy reefs for their income generation. This study uses a contingent behaviour approach to estimate the effect of reef degradation on demand for recreational dive and snorkel trips, for a case study of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. Results from a negative binomial random effects panel model show that the consumer surplus current reef visitors derive from a diving or snorkelling trip is approximately A$185 per trip. Furthermore, results indicate that reef trips by divers and snorkellers could go down by as much as 80 per cent given a hypothetical decrease in coral and fish biodiversity. This corresponds to a decrease in tourism expenditure by divers and snorkellers on full-day reef trips in the Cairns management area of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park of about A$103 million per year. [source] | ||||||||||