Transcript

2012 Assessment Period - Manta alfredi

Species Information

1. TAXONOMY Provide detail on the species' taxonomy, including whether or not it is conventionally accepted.Kingdom: ANIMALIA Phylum: CHORDATA Class: CHONDRICHTHYES Order: RAJIFORMES Family: MOBULIDAEScientific Name: Manta alfrediCommon Name/s: English – Reef Manta Ray, Coastal Manta Ray, Inshore Manta Ray, Prince Alfred's Ray, Resident Manta Ray (Marshall et al. 2009).

Indigenous Name/s: No known Indigenous Names.Manta alfredi has recently been described (Marshall et al 2009). Prior to this publication, the genus Manta was considered to be monospecific, with M. birostris having a worldwide distribution. This recent taxonomic revision recognised at least two distinct species, M. birostris and M. alfredi, and a putative third species, M. cf. birostris (Marshall et al. 2009). M birostris is also found in Australian waters (reported semi regularly in Western Australia), but in much lower population numbers relative to M. alfredi (XXXX XXXX, unpubl. data; XXXX XXXX, unpubl. data).

2. DESCRIPTIONDescribe the species, including size and/or weight, social structure and dispersion (e.g. solitary/ clumped/ flocks), and give a brief description of its ecological role (e.g. is it a ‘keystone’ or ‘foundation’ species, or does it play a role in ecological processes such as seed dispersal or pollination).Species Description:M. alfredi is a large filter-feeding elasmobranch reaching up to 5000mm disc width (DW) and is circumglobally distributed in tropical and subtropical waters (Figure 1) (Couturier et al., 2012). DW at maturity for the species is estimated to be 2700 – 3000mm for males and 3700-3900mm for females (Clark, 2010; Deakos, 2010; Marshall & Bennett, 2010). Manta rays have two cephalic lobes on the front of their heads that are used to help the water flow into their mouth. Their broad mouth is located at the distal end of the head with a single band of minute teeth within the upper jaw. Their eyes and spiracle valves are located on the side of their heads. They have a single small dorsal fin near the tail, and are lacking a stinging spine. They have five gill openings ventrally located. Their gills are modified into complex sieving plates through which they extract oxygen but also filter their planktonic food from the water. Manta alfredi is an ectothermic species, however, studies have shown that Manta species have a counter current – heat exchanger system, allowing regulation of their internal brain temperature (Alexander 1996).

Social Structure and Dispersion:M. alfredi predictably aggregates at particular locations. These aggregations are associated with seasonal availability of food, the circulation patterns of currents, sea water temperatures, mating behaviour and cleaning station visitation. Reef mantas are regularly present at cleaning stations in shallow reefs and costal feeding grounds during daylight hours and move to deeper, offshore

waters during the night (Anderson et al., 2011; Clark, 2010b; Couturier et al., 2011; ). Maximum movement recorded for Manta alfredi individuals is currently slightly over 500 km (Couturier et al., 2011) .

Ecological role:M. alfredi is a planktivorous species, feeding low down on the food chain (Couturier et al 2012, Jaine et al 2012). Manta rays are an important indicator species in regards to impacts caused by loss of climatic habitat caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, as their planktonic food source is highly sensitive to environmental changes. Climate change influences the abundance, distribution and phylogeny of the plankton (Hays et al. 2005; Richardson, 2008), which most likely directly impact manta ray distribution and behaviour. M. alfredi provide important mid water habitat for many species of fish, including several commercially important species of trevally, black king fish, plus remoras and pilot fish (XXXX XXXX, unpubl. data). Finally they provide a food source for a large range of species – from the cleaner wrasse, moon wrasse and butterfly fish that consume parasites and dead flesh removed from individual manta rays, through to medium to large sharks and orcas which have been observed consuming large bites of flesh through to consuming the entire animal (Fertl et al., 1996; Homma et al., 1999; Ebert, 2003; Visser and Bonoccorso, 2003; Marshall and Bennett 2010; Deakos et al., 2011, Couturier et al., 2012)

3. BIOLOGY Provide information on the species' biology, including its life cycle, generation length, reproductive and feeding characteristics and behaviours.The information available on the biology of M. alfredi is currently limited. Here we present all known and recorded biological data. Detailed information can be found in Couturier et al. 2012.

Life Cycle: M. alfredi has longevity greater than 31 years (Clark, 2010). The species is aplacental viviparous, with embryos developing within the uterus. Embryos initially feed on yolk and are later nourished by uterine milk (Wourms, 1977). The gestation period is between 12 and 13 months, with an occasional resting period of two of more years between pregnancies (Marshall and Bennett 2010a). Males reach sexual maturity between the ages of three to six years (Clark 2010). Female sexual maturity ages are unknown. Females usually give birth to only a single pup, though cases where two pups have been birthed have been infrequently recorded (Clark, 2010; Marshall & Bennett, 2010). Limited data is available regarding generation lengths but is suspected as being 25 years (Marshall et al. 2011a).

Natural Mortality:Natural predation rate on adult M. alfredi is believed to be low. Sharks are suspected as the most common predators, though many attacks are non-fatal (Marshall and Bennett, 2010b; Deakos et al. 2011).

Reproduction:Critical knowledge gaps still exist for M. alfredi reproduction. Manta rays employ internal fertilization to reproduce (Wourms, 1977) and the mating process consists of a complex ritualised

sequence that involves chasing, biting, copulating, post-copulation holding and separation; requiring many kilometres of space to perform these behaviours (Marshall and Bennett 2010a).

Feeding: Manta rays are planktivorous and their modified gills are used to sieve plankton out of the water (Bigalow and Schroeder, 1953; Cortes et al., 2008). The species feed by swimming with an open mouth allowing a water flow through a gill-raker apparatus; a behaviour called ram filter feeding (Sanderson and Wassersug, 1990; 1993, Cortes et al., 2008). Other observed behaviours include chain feeding, where aggregates of individuals follow each other in a circular movement creating cyclonic motions (Law, 2010).

Diet: Based on one stomach content analysis, M. alfredi was confirmed to feed on zooplankton (Whitley, 1936). Seasonal aggregations of other mobulid rays have been recorded as coinciding with the peak abundance of animal prey species ( Whitley 1936; Notarbartolo di Sciara, 1988). 'Loss of climatic habitat caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases' is a listed key threatening process that could impact their seasonal diet (Couturier et al 2012). As oceanic temperatures are expected to warm by 2–3 °C by 2070 (IPCC, 2007), the zooplankton community is likely to respond in terms of changes in abundance, timing and productivity both globally and locally (Edwards & Richardson, 2004; Richardson & Schoeman, 2004). As such, both the feeding grounds and diet of M. alfredi are likely to be affected by loss of climatic habitat caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.

Movement: Although the knowledge on the movement patterns of M. alfredi is still in its infancy, the species is known to migrate relatively long distances, moving between productive areas and aggregating at specific sites (Couturier et al., 2011). Individuals can travel up to 70km in a single day (van Duinkerken, 2010). Photographic Identification studies have shown that seasonal migrations of at least 500km occur between known aggregation sites (Couturier et al., 2011).

4. HABITAT Describe the species’ habitats and what role they play in the species' life cycle. Include whether or not the species is associated with, or if it relies on, a listed threatened ecological community or listed threatened species?M. alfredi is commonly sighted inshore, around coral reefs and rocky reefs in coastal areas. Long-term sighting records suggest that this species is mostly resident to tropical and subtropical waters (Marshall et al 2009; Marshall et al., 2011a). The species has been recorded as being sympatric in some locations and allopatric, with the Giant Manta Ray M. birostris, in others (Kashiwagi et al., 2011).

M. alfredi predictably aggregates to particular locations such as Lady Elliot Island, North Stradbroke Island and Byron Bay in eastern Australia, for which they display a high degree of site fidelity (i.e. visit the same site over time) and residency (Couturier et al. 2011; XXXX XXXX, unpubl data)). Species residency is also recorded along the Western Australian coast line, with populations recorded in Ningaloo Marine Park (Figure 4) (XXXX XXXX, unpubl. data,). Aggregation sites for M. alfredi in Australia have been identified as feeding areas, cleaning stations, reproductive sites and

potential migratory landmarks (Couturier et al. 2011). As such, aggregation sites are strongly believed to represent critical habitats for this species.

Long term site fidelity has been recorded for M. alfredi in other parts of the world, such as Indonesia (Dewar et al. 2008), Mozambique (Marshall 2009), the Maldives (Kitchen-Wheeler 2012), Hawaii (Deakos et al. 2011) and eastern Australia (XXXX XXXX, unpubl. data).

The migratory nature of M. alfredi is thought to be influenced by local oceanographic conditions (e.g. current dynamics) and related to seasonal productivity (Anderson et al., 2011; Couturier et al., 2011, XXXX XXXX unpubl. data).

Population Size

5. NUMBERS a. What is the total number of mature individuals? How was this figure derived? b. Identify important populations necessary for the species’ long-term survival and recovery.

a. Estimates of total population size for M. alfredi are very difficult to assess due to the migratory nature and global distribution of the species (Couturier et al., 2012). Regional population size estimates using sight-resight data in Mozambique and Hawaii showed that regional populations are small (less than 900 individuals) (Deakos et al., 2011; Marshall et al. 2011b). In contrast, population estimates of M. alfredi at key aggregation sites in the Maldives archipelagos ranges between 181 and 562 individuals, while the population for the entire Maldives, where several protection and conservation acts were enacted to protect the species, was estimated between 9,677 individuals (Kitchen-Wheeler et al. 2011) and 5000 (XXXX XXXX, unpubl data). Minimum numbers of M. alfredi individuals identified are provided in Kashiwagi et al. (2011) for other locations. Apart for the Maldivian population (n=1835; Kitchen-Wheeler et al. 2011), all minimum numbers of individuals are less than 700 individuals per location. To date, no interaction between regional populations has been found and dispersion of individuals is likely to be restricted by bathymetric features and/or regional ocean circulation patterns, isolating the different sub-populations (e.g. Hawaii, Deakos et al 2011).

In eastern Australia, the minimum number of M. alfredi identified between Osprey Reef and South Solitary Island is 620 (XXXX XXXX, unplubl. Data, data collected between 2008-2012).

In Western Australia the metapopulation of M. alfredi is thought to be between 1200 – 1500 individuals, with 560 individuals identified within Ningaloo Marine Park (XXXX XXXX unpubl. data).

b. As the Australian populations are currently unaffected by directed fisheries, we argue that their protection contributes significantly to maintaining the global population. Experts consulted on this application agree that the Australian population, based on current evidence, is currently one of the world’s healthiest and concur that the conservation of this population is not only important for Australia, but globally. However, the authors of this application acknowledge that this is currently speculation, as proper population size

estimates over several years are required to support this statement. Important populations that contribute to the species’ long-term survival and recovery include the Queensland (e.g. Lady Elliot reef, Musgrave Reef, North Stradbroke Island, Osprey Reef), Western Australia (Ningaloo Reef, Coral Bay) and New South Wales (Solitary Islands, Byron Bay) populations.

6. POPULATION TREND a. What is the population trend (PAST to CURRENT) for the entire species? Is the population

trended increasing or decreasing, or is the population static? Provide relevant data sources.b. Is this trend likely to continue, or are there any data which indicate FUTURE changes in

population size? Provide relevant data sources.c. Does the species undergo extreme fluctuations in the number of mature individuals?a) Manta rays are targeted by fisheries in some parts of the world. A such, population reduction appears to be very high in several regions; up to as much as 80% over the last three generations (approximately 75 years), and globally the species is believed to have declined by >30%. In some region, manta ray populations have collapsed due to directed fisheries (e.g. Anon 1997; Alava et al. 2002). The population trend for M. alfredi is stated as ‘decreasing’ by the IUCN Red List. (Marshall et al., 2011a).

b) Manta ray gill rakers are of high value on the international market. The rising demand by Asian market in these manta ray products has led to a considerable rise in unregulated fisheries targeting M. alfredi in several parts of the world (see Couturier et al. 2012). In some regions, over 1500 manta rays can be caught per year, a number that is considered unsustainable due to the conservative life history of the species. Particularly threatening to M. alfredi is the fact that some fisheries harvest individual manta rays in large numbers at critical habitats or aggregation sites (Anon 1997; Marshall et al. 2011a; Couturier et al. 2012). The species is also caught in artisanal fisheries for food, as by catch in large-scale fisheries, shark control programs and bather protection nets (Marshall et al. 2011; Couturier et al. 2012).

c) This species is not recorded as undergoing natural extreme population fluctuations as it is a long-lived, slow-growing, k-selected species (Marshall et al. 2011a). 7. PROBABILITY OF EXTINCTION IN THE WILD Identify and explain any quantitative measures or models that address the probability of the species’ extinction in the wild over a particular timeframe.Sustained pressure from directed fishing and by-catch is likely to cause rapid decline in sub-population abundances and due to the low fecundity and long life span of M. alfredi, sub-populations do not have the capacity to recover from a depleted state (Alava et al., 2002; Mohanraj et al., 2009; Marshall et al. 2011a). The isolation, low immigration rates and reproduction rates of manta rays impend on the population’s capacity to recover from the depleted state imposed by these fisheries (Marshall et al. 2011a; Couturier et al., 2012) . Of particular concern is the fact that fisheries harvest individual manta rays in large numbers at critical habitats or aggregation sites (Anon 1997; Marshall et al. 2011a; Couturier et al. 2012). Although global extension risk of the species cannot be assessed at this stage, M. alfredi is highly vulnerable to regional extinction in areas where the species is fished. A study of an Indigenous community in Indonesia showed numbers of animals caught went from up to 360 per annum, down to zero; essentially a local extinction (Barnes, 2005).

Geographic Distribution

8. GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION Describe the species' known or estimated current and past global distribution (include a map if available). Does the species exist in an EPBC Act listed ecological community?M. alfredi occurs along the coastal area of the following countries (Figure 2):

Australia (West Australian, Northern Territory, New South Wales and Queensland coastal zones); British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago); Cape Verde; Christmas Island; Cocos (Keeling) Islands; Cook Islands (Cook Is.); Djibouti; Egypt (Egypt (African part), Sinai); Fiji; French Polynesia (Society Is., Tuamotu); Guam; India (Andaman Is.); Indonesia (Bali, Irian Jaya, Jawa, Sulawesi); Japan (Nansei-shoto); Madagascar; Malaysia; Maldives; Marshall Islands; Micronesia, Federated States of; Mozambique; New Caledonia; Northern Mariana Islands; Oman; Palau; Papua New Guinea (Bismarck Archipelago, North Solomons, Papua New Guinea (main island group); Philippines; Saudi Arabia; Senegal; Seychelles (Seychelles (main island group); South Africa (KwaZulu-Natal); Spain (Canary Is.); Sudan; Thailand; United States (Hawaiian Is.) and Yemen (Kashiwagi et al. 2011; Marshall et al. 2011a; Couturier et al., 2012).

9. EXTENT OF OCCURRENCE within AustraliaNOTE: The distribution of the species within Australia is assessed in two ways, the EXTENT OF OCCURRENCE and the AREA OF OCCUPANCY. The two concepts are closely related, and often confused. Therefore, before you answer this question, please see the definitions and explanatory material in Attachment A.a. What is the CURRENT extent of occurrence (in km2)? Explain how it was calculated and

provide relevant data sources.b. Has the extent of occurrence changed over time (PAST to CURRENT)? If so, provide evidence.c. Is the extent of occurrence expected to decline in FUTURE? If so, provide evidence.d. Does the species undergo extreme fluctuations in the extent of occurrence? If so, provide

evidence.a. The current extent of occurrence in Australia is calculated as 6,780,364 km2 (Figure 3). They can be found as far south as Albany in Western Australia up and around to Sydney Harbour in New South Wales, from coastal zones stretching through to the continental shelf. This was calculated by using the CSIRO software “image J”, in which the scaled Google Earth image was defined as the “area contained within the shortest continuous imaginary boundary which can be drawn to encompass all the known, inferred or projected sites of present occurrence of a species, excluding cases of vagrancy used as a guide to estimate the area in which the manta rays inhabit”. The known locations were connected in a dot to dot fashion with the outer edge being defined as the shelf edge (the 200m depth bar).

b. There is currently no evidence for change within Australian waters as population numbers are only just being calculated. Without this baseline data, there is no ability to detect changes in extent of occupancy. However, there is genuine concern in Western Australia, as many of the individuals there appear to migrate across international boundaries and into targeted fishing grounds to the north (XXXX XXXX unpubl. data).

c. In the case where the manta rays are protected from commercial fisheries and other human impacts then it is predicted to remain stable. However, the current extent of occurrence in eastern Australia is suggested to be linked with the circulation pattern of the East Australian Current. With climate change predicted to impact on the ocean circulation, the future extent of occurrence of manta rays is likely to be impacted and changed, however, it is not possible to determine to what end.

d. In eastern Australia, M. alfredi mostly occurs within southern aggregation sites (i.e. south of Lady Elliot Island) from spring to early autumn, while the species is seen in high numbers at Lady Elliot Island during late autumn-winter months (Couturier et al. 2011). The seasonal fluctuations in the extent of occurrence is part of the seasonal migration of the species that is likely to be influenced by the East Australian Current circulation patterns (Couturier et al. 2011).

10. AREA OF OCCUPANCY NOTE: The distribution of the species within Australia is assessed in two ways, the EXTENT OF OCCURRENCE and the AREA OF OCCUPANCY. The two concepts are closely related, and often confused. Therefore, before you answer this question, please see the definitions and explanatory material in Attachment A.a. What is the CURRENT area of occupancy (in km2)? Explain how it was calculated and provide

relevant data sources.b. Has the area of occupancy changed over time (PAST to CURRENT)? If so, provide evidence.c. Is the area of occupancy expected to decline in FUTURE? If so, provide evidence.d. Does the species undergo extreme fluctuations in its area of occupancy? If so, provide

evidence.a. The current area of occupancy is calculated at approx 29,458 km2 in eastern Australia

(Figure 4) and 76,012 km2 in Western Australia (Figure 5). These figures were calculated using techniques described above using Image J – however this time drawing an elliptical area around known manta aggregation spots including - Torres Strait Is, Osprey Reef, Capricorn Bunker group (with Heron Is at the centre), Lady Elliot Reef, Wolf Rock, North Stradbroke Island, Byron Bay (around Julian rock), Solitary Islands Marine Park and Sydney Harbour in eastern Australia (Figure 4) plus an additional 16 identified locations in Western Australia (Scott reef, Rowley shoals, Port Headland, Pt Sampson, Dampier Archipelago, Montebellos, Exmouth Gulf, Ningaloo, Monkey Mia, Dirk Hartog, Geraldton, Abrolhous, Cervantes, Jurien Bay, Perth and Albany) (Figure 5). This is based on both publications and unpublished data from acknowledged experts in the field (Couturier et al 2011, XXXX XXXX unpub data, XXXX XXXX unpub data).

b. As mentioned in section 22, baseline surveys have only recently begun for this species, so it is not possible at this stage to provide evidence for change in population over historical time.

c. While several of the recognised manta ray aggregation sites are currently protected within marine park areas, a large portion are not, or are zoned in such a way that little to no protection is credited to the species. Examples of this include Torres Strait Island, North Stradbroke Island and Solitary Islands (in NSW).

d. Yes, the numbers of species fluctuate widely depending on season. For example, very few, to no manta rays are found south of the Capricorn Bunker Group of the GBR during the

Australian late-autumn and winter (May to mid Oct). Conversely, numbers of manta rays sighted at Lady Elliot Reef during that same time considerably increases (Couturier et al 2011, Jaine et al in press).

11. PRECARIOUSNESS a. Is the species' geographic distribution severely fragmented, or known to exist at a limited

number of locations?b. Is the area, extent and/or quality of the species' habitat in continuing decline (observed /

inferred / projected)?c. Is the number of locations or subpopulations in continuing decline (observed / inferred /

projected)?d. Are there extreme fluctuations in the number of locations or subpopulations of this species?a. It has been identified that regional populations of manta rays are likely to be isolated from each other due to bathymetric features and oceanic circulation patterns. It is probable that the manta population from east Australia and west Australia are distinct from each other with little connectivity. While oceanic species such as M. alfredi are not subject to the same degree of fragmentation as terrestrial species, the species has site preferences where they can aggregate in numbers (Couturier et al, 2011).

b. Manta ray habitats are in a continuing state of degradation. Coral reefs are well documented as being impacted by loss of climatic habitat caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, bleaching, crown of thorn outbreaks, fresh water run off carrying pollutants, anchor damage from boating and ocean acidification (Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999; Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007; Hughes et al., 2003; Selkoe et al., 2009). These issues effect not only corals, but also impact most trophic webs, such as the planktonic food source of M. alfredi (Hays et al., 2005; Richardson & Schoeman, 2004).

Unmanaged tourism is also identified as a factor for manta ray habitats’ decline (e.g. Anderson et al 2010). For example in the Maldives, a large number of tourists and boats are impacting critical habitat of manta rays and can be the cause of high stress to the local population. As the diving industry is flourishing, with more and more divers wishing to encounter this species (see Australia Government 2008), aggregation sites and critical habitats of manta ray could quickly be impacted by the influx of boats and divers to these locations if access to these sites is not regulated for recreational activities.

c. The rate of population reduction appears to be high in several regions, up to as much as 80% over the last three generations (approximately 75 years), and globally a decline of >30% is strongly suspected (Marshall et al a). No information is currently available on the population trend of manta rays in Australia. The M. alfredi population in Australia is probably one of the healthiest worldwide as there are no direct fishing pressures in this area (XXXX XXXX, pers. comm.). However, it is possible that part of the Australian populations migrates to targeted fishing areas and thus be impacted by these activities (XXXX XXXX, unpub. data).

d. Unless a directed-fishery for M. alfredi within Australian waters is created, the species is not likely to undergo extreme population changes (Couturier et al., 2012).

12. PROTECTED AREASIs the species protected within the reserve system (e.g. national parks, Indigenous Protected Areas, or other conservation estates, private land covenants, etc.)? If so, which populations? Which reserves are actively managed for this species? Give details.Western Australia: Only M. birostris is explicitly protected from any fishing and disturbance or harassment and then, only within marine parks (The Government of Western Australia, 1994). As the species classifications are out of date, the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 does not recognise the two distinct manta ray species, as such M. alfredi is not protected (The Government of Western Australia, 1995). Marine parks in WA cover only a small percentage (<10%) of total known manta ray habitats.

Queensland: M. alfredi occurs with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and thus parts of its habitat are covered under the GBR Marine Park Act and the EPBC section on World Heritage areas, although there is no active management for the species.

Threats

13. KNOWN THREATS Identify any KNOWN threats to the species, and state clearly whether these are past, current or future threats.

If climate change is an important threat to the nominated species it is important that you provide referenced information on exactly how climate change might significantly increase the nominated species’ vulnerability to extinction. For guidance refer to the Guidelines for assessing climate change as a threat to native species (Attachment B; Part B2).

Directed fishing M. alfredi is targeted by fisheries around the world. The increase in demand for manta ray product by the Asian Market (mostly for gill raker) has led to the creation of new and highly specialised fisheries. Manta gill rakers are particularly sought for and valued; the trade for this manta product has become more lucrative than the shark-fin trade (Heinrichs et al., 2011; Marshall et al. 2011; Couturier et al. 2012). Individuals are captured and killed by various fishing methods, such as harpooning, netting and trawling (Couturier et al., 2012). Some fisheries target manta rays at aggregation sites using gillnets and can therefore harvest a large number of individuals with relatively small effort (Anon 1997). In artisanal fisheries the species is captured using traditional techniques such as harpoons, hand spears and hooks and lines (Alava et al., 2002).

Direct fisheries have significantly reduced the population abundance of several regions. In Indonesia, over 1500 manta rays are captured each year (Dewar et al. 2002, White et al., 2006). In several fished regions, manta ray populations have fully collapsed, demonstrated by dramatic reductions in catch (Alava et al. 2002; Barnes 2005). In eastern Indonesia, the number of animals caught by local indigenous villagers decreased significantly, dropping from up to 360 per annum, down to zero (Barnes, 2005). The villagers reported that the dramatic decrease in manta catch was due to the appearance of commercial fishing boats in the area (Barnes 2005). The fishing effort for mobulid rays has increased internationally, but the annual landing in many areas is declining

(Dewar, 2002; Nair, 2003; White et al., 2006; Couturier et al., 2012). Major fisheries impacting the species were also identified in Indian waters where over 70000 t of elasmobranchs are caught each year (Banerjee et al., 2008). Mobulid rays can represent over 11% of the daily catch in some regions (Zacharia & Kandan 2010). It is important to note that most manta ray fisheries around the world remain unreported and illegal capture of these rays occurs even in protected areas. It is highly probable that local and regional extinctions will occur in heavily fished areas.

Although no data is currently available, the manta population in WA is likely to swim across international boundaries into the highly pressured Indonesian region and be exposed to local directed fisheries. Figure 6 shows how known aggregation areas in WA and Indonesia are ~500Kms apart. Given the ability of the species to migrate at least 500Kms it is likely that the Australian populations migrate into Indonesian waters. The M. alfredi population in Australia is probably one of the healthiest populations worldwide as there are no direct fishing pressures in this area. However, it is possible that part of the Australian populations migrates to targeted fishing areas and thus is impacted by these activities, as proposed by Couturier et al (2011).

Incidental capture as by-catchManta rays and other mobulids are regularly caught as by-catch in purse seine, trawl and net fisheries throughout their distribution (Couturier et al., 2012). Tuna purse seine fisheries are a major contributor to by-catch, with mobulid species caught in relatively large numbers in most oceans (Romanov, 2002; Couturier et al., 2012). Long line fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean are also regularly land mobulid species (Beerkircher et al., 2002; Beerkircher et al., 2008; Rey & Muñoz-Chápuli, 1992).

M. alfredi individuals are regularly caught in shark control nets off Australian and South African coasts (Sumpton et al., 2011; Young, 2001). In Queensland, 93 mobulid rays were caught in shark control nets between 1992 and 2008 with a mortality rate of 41% for manta rays (Sumpton et al., 2011).

Other ThreatsOther threats such as entanglement in marine debris, boat strikes, water pollution, habitat degradation, and irresponsible tourism practises impact this species ( Marshall et al. 2011a; Couturier et al., 2012 ).

Manta rays become entangled in marine debris such as mooring lines and lost fishing lines (Deakos et al., 2011; Marshall & Bennett, 2010), including in Australian waters (XXXX XXXX unpub. data). In Maui, Hawaii 10% of the M. alfredi population have amputated or non-functioning cephalic fins likely caused by monofilament fishing line entanglement (Deakos et al. 2011). These injuries are likely to impend on the overall fitness and survival. This issue directly relates to the Key Threatening Process within the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act: “Injury and fatality to vertebrate marine life caused by ingestion of, or entanglement in, harmful marine debris” (Commonwealth of Australia, 1999).

High concentrations of heavy metals such as platinum, mercury and arsenic are present in manta ray tissues (Essumang, 2009; Essumang, 2010). The effects of the heavy metals on the health of the species remain unknown (Couturier et al., 2012).

While tourism can be beneficial for sustainable use of M. alfredi, rapid and unmanaged growth can be detrimental to the health and behaviour of individuals (Anderson et al., 2011; Deakos et al., 2011; Marshall et al.2011). The presence of a large number of divers in the water can have a negative effect on individual’s behaviour (Anderson et al., 2011), and fitness (i.e. collision with divers, touching by divers, disruption of normal feeding and cleaning behaviours). In addition, the potential for boat strikes is more frequent when numerous boats, needed to carry divers and snorkelers, are occurring in the same area. Manta rays in the Maldives have been observed carrying injuries resulting from boat interaction, although the number of fatalities remains unknown (Anderson et al., 2011; XXXX XXXX Pers. comm).

14. POTENTIAL THREATS Identify any POTENTIAL threats to the species.The ingestion of plastic debris by marine species has been well documented as causing fatalities, ulcerations, intestinal blockages, malnutrition and internal perforation (Boerger et al., 2010; Mascarenhas et al., 2004). Micro-plastic debris is of particular concern as it is of a similar size to the zooplankton, and can weigh up to six times more (Moore et al., 2001). Manta rays are filter-feeders and are most likely unable to discriminate between marine debris and zooplankton before ingestion. The effect of ingested micro-plastic on manta rays remains unknown. This threat is related to the listed key threatening process within the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act: “Injury and fatality to vertebrate marine life caused by ingestion of, or entanglement in, harmful marine debris” (Commonwealth of Australia, 1999).

Climate Change: M. alfredi are likely to be significantly impacted by loss of climatic habitat caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, due to the predicted impact this phenomenon will have on the manta ray food source, the zooplankton (Hays et al., 2005). As oceanic temperatures are expected to warm by 2–3 °C by 2070 (IPCC, 2007; Poloczanska et al., 2007), the zooplankton community is likely to respond both globally and locally in terms of changes in abundance, timing and productivity. The migration paths and timing of the species is likely to change as the seasonal hotspots of zooplankton are altered (Couturier et al., 2012). Searching for new feeding ground is likely to impact on the fitness of manta rays as individuals may have to swim larger distances, or in random movement to find new productive areas.

15. THREAT ABATEMENT Give an overview of recovery and threat abatement/mitigation actions that are underway and/or proposed.

Potential threat abatement:Heinrichs et al. (2011) suggest the following actions could be taken in order to provide threat abatement for Manta spp. including M. alfredi:

1. Trade Moratoriums – Fisheries are notoriously difficult to regulate and enforce regulations on (Akiba, 1997; Uozumi, 2003). Research suggests that the most effective, single measure to reduce pressure on mobulids would be an international moratorium on the import and sale of gill rakers (Heinrichs et al., 2011). The majority of trade takes place within the Guangzhou region of China and has an estimated economic value of USD$11 Million per

annum (Hilton, 2011). It is also suggested that other governments considering legislation to protect sharks, including shark fin trade bans, should include manta and mobula rays in these bills.

2. Consumer Education – Consumer education campaigns could support the call for a moratorium. Campaigns could inform consumers “of the unproven nature of gill raker tonic claims, the extreme vulnerability of these animals, and the long-term sustainable value of keeping them alive” (Heinrichs et al., 2011).

3. International Protections – It is suggested that all range state countries of Mobulids (M. alfredi included), should propose their listing under either appendices of Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (Heinrichs et al., 2011). A CITES listing would be a highly effective conservation measure. This was considered in 2010 by the US CITES delegation, but wasn’t enacted due to a lack of data on fisheries and trade.

Additionally, it is suggested that all Regional Fishery Management Organizations (RFMO’s) enact “no retention” policies for all mobulids taken as bycatch (Heinrichs et al., 2011). Currently no RFMOs utilise policies that protect manta and mobula rays.

4. Range State Protections – Range state regulations prohibiting the killing and trade of mobulids must be pursued (Heinrichs et al., 2011). Protection initiatives should be initially focuses on the largest fisheries where mobulids occur, including Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India and Peru, as well as Mozambique and other African countries. Protection of critical habitats is suggested, along with regulations based on seasonal aggregations.

5. Eco-Tourism and Other Economic Alternatives – Vital to conservation initiatives is poverty alleviation and economic alternatives (Adams et al., 2004). There is a great potential for long-term sustainable income, for areas where mobulids are hunted, in managed and responsible eco-tourism (Brightsmith et al., 2008). These initiatives can provide local community links to species conservation and protection.

6. Enforcement – It is important that enforcement strategies for conservation activities are enacted and that they are developed with local stakeholders in order to mitigate against illegal poaching activities (Hilborn et al., 2006).

Existing Conservation Efforts:Some nations and nation states (table 1.) have passed laws that prohibit the harvest of mobulids (including M. alfredi). At the last Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), M. birostris was added to the treaty, requiring all party states where the species occurs to provide immediate protection. This addition to the treaty points out the burgeoning international recognition of the threats to mobulid species and is the first international agreement to protect any manta ray species (CMS, 2012; Heinrichs et al., 2011).

United States: In 2009, the Governor of Hawaii signed House Bill 366 creating Act 092(09) establishing criminal penalties and administrative fines for knowingly killing or capturing manta rays within State waters (Heinrichs et al., 2011; State of Hawaii, 2009).

Pacific Island States: The sale, trade and distribution of ray parts are prohibited by legislation enacted in Guam in 2011 (Heinrichs et al., 2011; The Federated States of Micronesia, 2011). This legislation applies to the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands an area of over 4.5 million square kilometres. Republic of Maldives: There has been an export ban on all ray species and their parts since 1995 in the Republic of Maldives (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2012b). Additionally the Maldivian Government created two Marine Protected Areas (MPA) for the specific protection of critical Manta Ray habitat of both species in 2009.

Philippines: Due to focused fishing in the Philippines, Manta Rays have become a rare species (Marshall et al., 2011a). Due to this the Philippines Government banned the fishing of Manta Rays in 2003.

Yap: A ~13,000 square kilometre MPA was created in Yap in 2008, specifically for the protection of Manta Rays (Heinrichs et al., 2011; International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2012b).

Western Australia: Only M. birostris is explicitly protected from any fishing and disturbance or harassment and then, only within marine parks (The Government of Western Australia, 1994). As the species classifications are out of date, the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 does not recognise the two distinct manta ray species, as such M. alfredi are not protected (The Government of Western Australia, 1995).

Surveys and Monitoring

16. DISTINCTIVENESSGive details of the distinctiveness of the species.

Is this species taxonomically distinct? Taxonomic distinctiveness is a measure of how unique a species is relative to other species.

How distinct is this species in its appearance from other species? How likely is it to be misidentified?Until recently, the genus Manta was described as monspecific. The genus has now been re-described with two distinct species the Reef Manta Ray (M. alfredi) and the Giant Manta Ray (M. birostris) (Marshall et al. 2009), this was further confirmed by genetic evidence (Kashiwagi et al., in press). Both species occur worldwide, with some regional populations being sympatric and other allopatric (Kashiwagi et al., 2011).

Due to the taxonomic confusion prior to 2009, historical data can lead to misidentification of the species referred to where adequate descriptions and photographs are absent (Marshall et al., 2009). Given this, care should be taken when using historical data to ensure that records are not referring to M. birostris. Two colour morphs occur in both species; melanistic (black) and leucistic (white) (Marshall et al., 2009). This can contribute to further difficulty in differentiating between

the species where close examination is not possible and may continue to be a source of error in future studies and surveys (Marshall et al., 2009).

Additionally, manta rays can often be confused with Mobula species (commonly called devil rays) due to close morphological resemblance and similar life history aspects, such as planktonic feeding, reproduction rate and mode, size and circumglobal habitation (White et al., 2006). Figure 6 shows the similarities between the distinct species. Care must be taken to ensure that reports and surveys are of the correct genus and professional advice should be sought when identifying individuals (Marshall et al., 2011a). 17. DETECTABILITYGive details of the detectability of the species.

Provide information on how easy the species is to detect and the ease in which it has/can be surveyed. If relevant, provide information on when and how surveys should be conducted, for example:

o Recommended methodso Season, time of day, weather conditionso Length, intensity and pattern of search efforto Limitations and whether or not the method is accepted by expertso Survey-effort guideo Methods for detecting the species.

Manta rays have a great eco-tourism potential, due to their charismatic nature. This is especially relevant in coastal and developing countries where their presence can be used to generate substantial economic gains (Anderson et al., 2010). As the species tend to aggregate with predictability, they can be easy to find and approach by tourists and tourism operators. The popularity of these species has contributed to an increase in field research at aggregation sites. An important feature of the species, an individual pigmentation pattern on their ventral surface, allows for photographic identification of individuals. This method of identification has provided high quality information regarding the species ecology and biology (Kashiwagi et al., 2010, 2011; Marshall & Bennett, 2010a, b; Couturier et al., 2011; Deakos et al., 2011; Marshall et al., 2011c).

Methods of detection (Couturier et al., 2012): Photographic-Identification and citizen science:Continuous effort by the diving community and research project currently exist to survey and monitor the populations of manta ray around Australia. Professional and recreational divers are able to submit their photos and sighting records of manta rays to the current manta ray research project and contribute to the data collection. This method is recognised by the scientific community and has been used by other manta research programs around the world and provided key information on manta ray biology and ecology (Kashiwagi et al., 2010, 2011; Marshall & Bennett, 2010a, b; Couturier et al., 2011; Deakos et al., 2011; Marshall et al., 2011c). Photographic evidence is analysed after being gathered by divers, including professionals, amateurs and tourists. The online global manta ray data base ECOCEAN MantaMatcher allows for sighting reports of manta rays with photographic evidence around the world (ECOCEAN Manta Matcher, 2012).

Limitations: Most photo-ID databases are limited to a particular aggregation area, and thus only have a limited capacity to answer questions associated with the large-scale movements of manta

rays (Couturier et al., 2012).

Acoustic telemetry (Couturier et al., 2012):This technique allows us to understand the habitat use of a particular site by manta rays. In eastern Australia arrays of receivers are placed all along the coast by several research projects (e.g. AATAMS), allowing the monitoring of tagged manta ray movements along the coast. Limitation: only a small number of individuals (i.e. number of individual equipped with acoustic tags) can be monitored. The tag attachments generally only last up to 1 year, thus, regular tagging campaigns must be undertaken to maintain the flow of data on the population.This method is widely used by experts within the field of animal tracking with numerous publications are available (e.g. Heupel et al. 2006). Two studies using this technique on M. alfredi are available in the scientific literature (Dewar et al., 2008; van Dukiken 2010).

Satellite telemetry (Couturier et al., 2012):Satellite tags are attached to manta rays for about 3 months before they automatically detach. Data collected by these tags includes: swimming depth, light intensity, surrounding temperature and geo-location. This technique provides information on the depth at which the species is likely to occur during the day and at night. What temperature the animal has been exposed to and what route the individual has been swimming to go from one point to another. Several studies of M. alfredi movement ecology using this technique are underway (XXXX XXXX unpubl. data).Limitations: Only a limited number of tags can be deployed (limited by cost of the tag and number of individual available during tagging campaign). The tag is only deployed for a short period of time on the animal.18. SURVEYS Provide information on survey effort to date, and any ongoing/proposed monitoring programs.In eastern Australia: Surveys of the manta ray population in this area involved both researchers and the diving-community since 2007 (Couturier et al. 2011; XXXX XXXX unpub.data). This effort will continue in the future and increase with the rise of public awareness on manta ray research through documentaries, public talks and researcher- directly engaging with the community. In Western Australia: surveys of the manta population at this location have existed since 2004. Both researchers and the public are involved in the data collection. Global Surveys: Table 2 lists studies that have occurred both nationally and internationally, from Kashiwagi et al. 2011.While M. alfredi has a circumglobal distribution, recorded surveys of the species are not common (Couturier et al., 2011). Table 2 lists studies that have occurred both nationally and internationally. Note that many of these study started prior to the species split in 2009 (Marshall and Bennett, 2009) and it is now recognised that they are monitoring either M. alfredi, M. birostris or in some locations, both species.

Indigenous Values

19. INDIGENOUS CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCEIs the species known to have cultural significance for Indigenous groups within Australia? If so, to which groups? Provide information on the nature of this significance if publicly available.There is little information available about the cultural significance of manta rays to Indigenous Australians. However it is known that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders do harvest the species for consumption and use biological indicators to select which individuals are fit for consumption (reefED, 2012).

20. FURTHER INFORMATIONIdentify relevant studies or management documentation that might relate to the species (e.g. research projects, national park management plans, recovery plans, conservation plans, threat abatement plans, etc.).Research projects within Australian waters: Mike Bennett et al – ARC Linkage project: LP1110712: “An integrated examination of the drivers of movements of large filter-feeding organisms of high ecotourism value: a case study” – The University of Queensland Kathy Townsend et al – Earthwatch research project; “Project Manta” – The University of QueenslandLydie Couturier_ PhD thesis due by end 2012: “Population ecology and biology of Manta alfredi in eastern Australia” – The University of Queensland Fabrice Jaine – PhD Project due by end 2012: “Movements of planktivorous marine megafauna and ocean dynamics: A case study of east Australian manta rays” – The University of QueenslandNathalie Verlinden – Honours project – “Seasonal variation of zooplankton nutritional quality in manta ray (Manta alfredi) aggregation areas” – The University of QueenslandFrazer McGregor – PhD Thesis: “Ecology and movements of manta rays of Western Australia” - Murdoch University Richard Fitzpatrick – research project – “Caitlin Seaview Survey - The Mega-Fauna Survey team” – The University of Queensland

21. REFERENCE LISTPlease list key references/documentation you have referred to in your nomination.Adams, WM, Aveling, R, Brockington, D, Dickson, B, Elliott, J, Hutton, J, Roe, D, Vira, B & Wolmer,

W 2004, 'Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty' Science, vol. 306, no. 5699, pp. 1146.

Akiba, O 1997, 'Policy issues, and challenges in Canadian management of the Atlantic fisheries' Environmental Conservation, vol. 24, no. 02, pp. 159-167.

Alava, MNR, Dolumbaló, ERZ, Yaptinchay, AA & Trono, RB 2002 Fishery and trade of whale sharks and manta rays in the Bohol Sea, Philippines. In Elasmobranch Biodiversity, Conservation and Management: Proceedings of the International Seminar and Workshop. Sabah, Malaysia, International Union for Conservation of Nature.

Alexander, R. L. 1996. Evidence of brain-warming in the mobulid rays, Mobula tarapacana and Manta birostris (Chondrichthyes: Elasmobranchii: Batoidea: Myliobatiformes). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 118, 151-164.

Anderson, RC, Adam, MS & Goes, JI 2011, 'From monsoons to mantas: seasonal distribution of Manta alfredi in the Maldives' Fisheries Oceanography, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 104-113.

Australian Government (2009). The direct value of sharks to the marine tourism industry. Available at http://www.rrrc.org.au/publications/downloads/value_of_sharks.pdf [Accessed 22 March 2012].

Banerjee, K, Ghosh, R, Chowdhury, M, Ghosh, S, Homechaudhuri, S & Mitra, A 2008, 'Spatial and temporal variation of elasmobranchs in and around Indian sundarbans' Zoological Research in Human Welfare, vol. na, no. na, pp. 117-125.

Barnes, RH 2005, 'Indigenous use and management of whales and other marine resources in east flores and lembata, Indonesia' Senri Ethnological Studies, vol. 67, no. na, pp. 77-85.

Beerkircher, LR, Cortes, E & Shivji, M 2002, 'Characteristics of shark bycatch observed on pelagic longlines off the Southeastern United States, 1992-2000' Marine Fisheries Review, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 40-49.

Beerkircher, LR, Cortés, E & Shivji, MS 2008, 'Case study: Elasmobranch bycatch in the pelagic longline fishery off the southeastern United States, 1992–1997' Sharks of the Open Ocean, vol. na, no. na, pp. 242-246.

Boerger, CM, Lattin, GL, Moore, SL & Moore, CJ 2010, 'Plastic ingestion by planktivorous fishes in the North Pacific Central Gyre' Marine pollution bulletin, vol. 60, no. 12, pp. 2275-2278.

Brightsmith, DJ, Stronza, A & Holle, K 2008, 'Ecotourism, conservation biology, and volunteer tourism: A mutually beneficial triumvirate' Biological Conservation, vol. 141, no. 11, pp. 2832-2842.

Clark, TB 2010a, Abundance, home range, and movement patterns of manta rays (Manta alfredi, M. birostris) in Hawai'i, University of Hawai'i, Mãnoa.

Cliff, G, Dudley, SFJ, Ryan, PG & Singleton, N 2002, 'Large sharks and plastic debris in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa' Marine and Freshwater Research, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 575-581.

CMS 2012, Convention on Migratory Species, viewed 29 February, 2012, http://www.cms.int/.

Commonwealth of Australia 1999, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Commonwealth of Australia,

Couturier, LIE, Jaine, FRA, Townsend, KA, Weeks, SJ, Richardson, AJ & Bennett, MB 2011, 'Distribution, site affinity and regional movements of the manta ray, Manta alfredi (Krefft, 1868), along the east coast of Australia' Marine and Freshwater Research, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 628-637.

De Rosemont, M 2008 Observation and sighting description of the Manta birostris, in BoraBora Island (French Polynesia – South Pacific). IN Donnelly, M (Ed.) Joint Meeting of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists. Montreal, Canada.

Deakos, M. H. 2010a. Paired-laser photogrammetry as a simple and accurate system for measuring the body size of free-ranging manta rays Manta alfredi. Aquatic Biology 10, 1–10.

Deakos, MH, Baker, JD & Bejder, L 2011, 'Characteristics of a manta ray Manta alfredi population off Maui, Hawaii, and implications for management' Marine Ecology-Progress Series, vol. 429, no. pp. 245-260.

Dewar, H 2002, Preliminary report: Manta harvest in Lamakera, Pfleger Institue of Environmental Research and the Nature Conservancy, Oceanside.

Dewar, H, Mous, P, Domeier, M, Muljadi, A, Pet, J & Whitty, J 2008, 'Movements and site fidelity of the giant manta ray, Manta birostris, in the Komodo Marine Park, Indonesia' Marine Biology, vol. 155, no. 2, pp. 121-133.

Ebert, D. A. (2003). Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.ECOCEAN Manta Matcher 2012, Overview, viewed 7 March, 2012, http://www.mantamatcher.org/.

Edwards, M & Richardson, AJ 2004, 'Impact of climate change on marine pelagic phenology and trophic mismatch' Nature, vol. 430, no. 7002, pp. 881-4.

Essumang, DK 2009, 'Analysis and Human Health Risk Assessment of Arsenic, Cadmium, and Mercury in Manta Birostris (Manta Ray) Caught Along the Ghanaian Coastline' Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 985-998.

Essumang, DK 2010, 'First Determination of the Levels of Platinum Group Metals in Manta birostris (Manta Ray) Caught Along the Ghanaian Coastline' Bulletin of environmental contamination and toxicology, vol. 84, no. 6, pp. 720-725.Fertl, D., Acevedo-Gutierrez, A. & Darby, F. L. (1996). A report of killer whales (Orcinus orca) feeding on a carcharhinid shark in Costa Rica. Marine Mammal Science 12, 606–611.

Graham, R, Hickerson, E, Castellanos, D & Nuttall, M. 2008 Site fidelity and movements of juvenile manta rays in the Gulf of Mexico. IN Donnelly, M (Ed.) Joint Meeting of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists. Montreal, Canada.

Hays, GC, Richardson, AJ & Robinson, C 2005, 'Climate change and marine plankton' Trends in Ecology & Evolution, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 337-344.

Heinrichs, S, O’Malley, M, Medd, H & Hilton, P 2011, The Global threat to Manta and Mobula Rays, New York.

Hilborn, R, Arcese, P, Borner, M, Hando, J, Hopcraft, G, Loibooki, M, Mduma, S & Sinclair, ARE 2006, 'Effective Enforcement in a Conservation Area' Science, vol. 314, no. 5803, pp. 1266.

Hilton, P 2011, East Asia Market Investigation - Manta Ray of Hope, Hoegh-Guldberg, O 1999, 'Climate change, coral bleaching and the future of the world's coral

reefs' Marine and Freshwater Research, vol. 50, no. 8, pp. 839-866.

Hoegh-Guldberg, O, Mumby, PJ, Hooten, AJ, Steneck, RS, Greenfield, P, Gomez, E, Harvell, CD, Sale, PF, Edwards, AJ & Caldeira, K 2007, 'Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification' Science, vol. 318, no. 5857, pp. 1737.

Homma, K, Maruyama, T, Itoh, T, Ishihara, H & Uchida, S 1997 Biology of the manta ray, Manta birostris Walbaum, in the Indo-Pacific. 5th Indo-Pacific Fish Conference. Noumea, France: Ichthyological Society of France.

Hughes, TP, Baird, AH, Bellwood, DR, Card, M, Connolly, SR, Folke, C, Grosberg, R, Hoegh-Guldberg, O, Jackson, JBC & Kleypas, J 2003, 'Climate change, human impacts, and the resilience of

coral reefs' Science, vol. 301, no. 5635, pp. 929.

International Union for Conservation of Nature 2012a, IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, viewed February 23, 2012, http://www.iucnredlist.org/.

International Union for Conservation of Nature 2012b, Manta alfredi, viewed February 23, 2012, http://www.iucnredlist.org/.

IPCC 2007, Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva.

Ishihara, H & Homma, K 1995, 'Manta rays in the Yaeyama Islands' Shark News, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. Kashiwagi, T, Marshall, A & Bennett, M 2008, DNA evidence for cryptic species boundaries within

Manta birostris?, Montreal.

Kashiwagi, T., Ito, T., Ovenden, J., Bennett, M., 2008. Population characteristics of Manta birostris observed in Yaeyama, Okinawa, Japan, 1987 - 2006. . Abstracts of Joint Meeting of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, Montreal, Quebec, 2008 235-236.

Kashiwagi, T., Ito, T., Sato, F., 2010. Occurences of reef manta ray, Manta alfredi, and giant manta ray, M. birostris, in Japan, examined by photographic records. Report of Japanese Society for Elasmobranch Studies 46, 20-27.

Kashiwagi, T, Marshall, AD, Bennett, MB & Ovenden, JR 2011, 'Habitat segregation and mosaic sympatry of the two species of manta ray in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, Manta alfredi and M. birostris.' Marine Biodiversity Records, vol. 4, no. pp. e53.

Kazunari, Y, Fumihiko, S & Tomoko, T 1999, 'Observations of mating behavior of the manta ray,Manta birostris,at the Ogasawara Islands,Japan' Ichthyological research, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 289-296.

Kitchen-Wheeler, AM 2010, 'Visual identification of individual manta ray (Manta alfredi) in the Maldives Islands, Western Indian Ocean' Marine Biology Research, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 351-363.

Law, M 2010 The twister of mantas. Ocean Geographic. Ocean Geographic Society.

Luiz, OJ, Balboni, AP, Kodja, G, Andrade, M & Marum, H 2009, 'Seasonal occurrences of Manta birostris (Chondrichthyes: Mobulidae) in southeastern Brazil' Ichthyological research, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 96-99.

Manta ID Palau, 2012, Biology and Behavior, viewed 21 March, 2012, http://www.mantaidpalau.org/biology-behavior.html.

Marshall, A., Kashiwagi, T., Bennett, M. B., Deakos, M. H., Stevens, G., McGregor, F., Clark, T., Ishihara, H. & Sato, K. 2011a. Manta alfredi. In IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011. 1. Available at www.iucnlist.org (accessed 3 February 2011).

Marshall, A, Dudgeon, C & Bennett, M 2011b, 'Size and structure of a photographically identified population of manta rays Manta alfredi in southern Mozambique' Marine Biology, vol. 158, no. 5, pp. 1111-1124.

Marshall, AD & Bennett, MB 2010a, " Reproductive ecology of the reef manta ray Manta alfredi in southern Mozambique". Journal of Fish Biology 77, 169–190.

Marshall, AD & Bennett, MB 2010b, 'The frequency and effect of shark-inflicted bite injuries to the reef manta ray Manta alfredi' African Journal of Marine Science, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 573-580.

Marshall, AD, Compagno, LJV & Bennett, MB 2009, 'Redescription of the genus Manta with resurrection of Manta alfredi (Krefft, 1868)(Chondrichthyes; Myliobatoidei; Mobulidae)' Zootaxa, vol. 2301, pp. 1-28.

Mascarenhas, R, Santos, R & Zeppelini, D 2004, 'Plastic debris ingestion by sea turtle in Paraiba, Brazil' Marine pollution bulletin, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 354-355.

McGregor, F 2012 Known manta sighting areas along WA coast. IN Althor, G (Ed.).

McGregor, F, Van Keulen, M, Waite, A & Meekan, M 2008 Foraging Ecology and Population Dynamics of the Manta Ray, Manta birostris in Lagoonal Waters of Ningaloo Reef, Western Australia. Joint Meeting of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, Montreal, Canada.

Mohanraj, G, Rajapackiam, S, Mohan, S, Batcha, H & Gomathy, S 2009, 'Status of elasmobranchs fishery in Chennai, India' Asian Fisheries Science, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 607-615.

Moore, CJ, Moore, SL, Leecaster, MK & Weisberg, SB 2001, 'A comparison of plastic and plankton in the North Pacific central gyre' Marine pollution bulletin, vol. 42, no. 12, pp. 1297-1300.

Murphy, G 1995 Yap's magnificent mantas!: Up close and personal. Skin Diver. Los Angeles, United States, Los Angeles, Petersen Publishing Company.

Nair, RJ 2003, 'Targeted shark fishery in Kerala' Marine Fisheries Information Service Technical and Extension Series, vol. 176, no. na, pp. 8-9.

Notarbartolo di Sciara, G 1988, 'Natural history of the rays of the genus Mobula in the Gulf of California' U S Fish and Wildlife Service Fishery Bulletin, vol. 86, no. na, pp. 45-66.

Poloczanska, ES, Babcock, RC, Butler, A., Hobday, AJ, Hoegh-Guldberg, O, Kunz, TJ, Matear, R, Milton, D, Okey, TA & Richardson, AJ 2007, 'Climate change and Australian marine life' Oceanography and Marine Biology, vol. 45, no. pp. 407.

ReefED, 2012, Cultural Connections, viewed 21 March, 2012, http://www.reefed.edu.au/home/students/web_quest/save_our_sharks/cultural_connections.

Rey, JC & Muñoz-Chápuli, R 1992, 'Intra and interspecific association of large pelagic fishes inferred from catch data of surface longline' Environmental biology of fishes, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 95-103.

Richardson, AJ & Schoeman, DS 2004, 'Climate Impact on Plankton Ecosystems in the Northeast Atlantic' Science, vol. 305, no. 5690, pp. 1609-1612.

Romanov, EV 2002, 'By-catch in the tuna purse-seine fisheries of the western Indian Ocean.' Fishery Bulletin, vol. 100, no. na, pp. 90-105.

Selkoe, KA, Halpern, BS, Ebert, CM, Franklin, EC, Selig, ER, Casey, KS, Bruno, J & Toonen, RJ 2009, 'A map of human impacts to a “pristine” coral reef ecosystem, the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument' Coral Reefs, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 635-650.

State of Hawaii 2009 Act 092. IN Representatives, Ho (Ed.) A bill for an Act. Hawaii, State of Hawaii.

Sumpton, WD, Taylor, SM, Gribble, NA, McPherson, G. & Ham, T. 2011, 'Gear selectivity of large-mesh nets and drumlines used to catch sharks in the Queensland Shark Control Program'

African Journal of Marine Science, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 37-43.

The Federated States of Micronesia 2011, A resolution on the 15th Micronesian Executive Cheifs Summit, The Federated States of Micronesia, Palikir.

The Government of Western Australia 1994, Fish Resources Management Act 1994, The Government of Western Australia.

The Government of Wester Australia 1995, Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995, The Government of Western Australia.

Uozumi, Y 2003, 'Historical perspective of global billfish stock assessment' Marine and Freshwater Research, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 555-565.

van Duinkerken, D. I. (2010). Movements and site fidelity of the reef manta ray, Manta alfredi, along the coast of southern Mozambique. Master Thesis, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Visser, I 2003, 'New observations and a review of killer whales (Orcinus orca) sightings in Papua New Guinea waters' Aquatic Mammals, vol. 29, no. 1, pp 150-172.

Webster, C 2009, 'J.E.P. Cyrino, D.P. Bureau, B.G. Kapour (eds): Feeding and digestive functions of fishes' Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 261-263.

White, WT, Clark, TB, Smith, WD & Bizzarro, JJ 2006. Mobula japanica. In IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. Available at www.iucnlist.org (accessed 21 March 2011).

White, WT, Giles, J, Dharmadi, Potter IC 2006, 'Data on the bycatch fishery and reproductive biology of mobulid rays (Myliobatiformes) in Indonesia' Fisheries Research, vol. 82, no. 1-3, pp. 65-73.

Whitley, GP 1936. The Australian devil ray, Daemomanta alfredi (Krefft), with remarks on the Superfamily Mobuloidae (Order Batoidei). Australian Zoologist 8, 164-188.

Wourms, JP 1977, 'Reproduction and Development in Chondrichthyan Fishes' American Zoologist, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 379-410.

Yano, K, Sato, F & Takahashi, T 1999, 'Observations of mating behavior of the manta ray, Manta birostris, at the Ogasawara Islands, Japan' Ichthyological research, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 289-296.

Young, N 2001 An analysis of the trends in by-catch of turtle species, angelsharks and batoid species in the protective gillnets off KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Reading, University of Reading.

Zeeberg, JJ, Corten, AHM & de Graaf, E 2006, 'By-catch and release of pelagic megafauna in industrial fisheries off Northwest Africa' Fisheries Research, vol. 78, no. na, pp. 185-196.

22. APPENDIXPlease place here any figures, tables or maps that you have referred to within your nomination. Alternatively, you can provide them as an attachment.

Figure deleted due to copyrightFigure 1 – M. alfredi is a large conspicuous, elasmobranch fish (Couturier et al., 2011).

Figure deleted due to copyrightFigure 2 –Known distributions of both Manta species. M.alfredi (in orange), Manta birostris (in blue) and both species (in green) (Couturier et al., 2012).

Figure deleted due to copyrightFigure 3 –Map of known extent of occurrence for Manta alfredi within Australian waters stretching from Albany in WA, around to Sydney Harbour in NSW. A total of 6,780,364 km2. Paie blue line indicates areas of occurrence based on current information.

Figure deleted due to copyrightFigure 4 –Area of occupancy pf Manta alfredi along the East Australian coastline and the locations used to calculate the estimated area of Manta alfredi distribution using measuring CSIRO software “ImageJ” (adapted from: Couturier et al., 2011)

Figure deleted due to copyrightFigure 5 –Manta ray sightings and population estimates along the Western Australian coastline and the locations used to calculate the estimated area of Manta alfredi distribution using measuring CSIRO software “ImageJ”. Green markings are sightings of M. birostris and blue markings are M. alfredi (McGregor, 2012).

Figure deleted due to copyrightFigure 6 – The known aggregation sites for M. alfredi in WA and Indonesia are similar to known migration distances of the species. It is likely that the species migrates into Indonesian waters where they are threatened by directed fishing activities. Red line = 500km, the current known distance migrated for this species (Couturier et al 2011)

Figure deleted due to copyrightFigure 7 – Manta rays share similar morphologies and life histories with Devil Rays. As such, professional advice should be sought when making an identification of an individual (Adapted from Manta ID Palau, 2012)

TablesTable 1 - International Manta Ray Conservation Measures (adapted from: Heinrichs et al., 2011)

LOCATION SPECIES LEGISLATION / CONSERVATION MEASUREAustralia (Western) Mantas Fishing; harassment prohibited in marine parksEcuador Mantas

/MobulasEcuador Official Policy 093, 2010

Guam, USA Territory

Mantas Bill 44-31 prohibiting sale/trade in ray parts 2011

Honduras All elasmobranches

Full ban on fishing elasmobranches 2010

Indonesia – Raja Ampat

Mantas /Mobulas

Regency Bupati Decree October 2010

Maldives Mantas Exports of all ray products banned 1995Mexico Manta/mobula

spp.NOM-029-PESC-2006 Prohibits harvest and sale

Philippines Mantas FAO 193 1998 Whale Shark and Manta Ray Ban

Revillagigedo Islands

Mantas Marine Protected Area

USA – Florida Mantas FL Admin Code 68B-44.008 – no harvestUSA - Flower Garden Banks

Mantas US Dept of Commerce 2010

USA – Hawaii Mantas H.B. 366 2009 – no harvest or tradeYaeyama Islands, Japan

Mantas Marine Protected Area

Yap (FSM) Mantas Manta Ray Sanctuary and Protection Act 2008

Table 2 – Recorded surveys of Manta Rays locally and globally (adapted from Kashiwagi et al., 2011).

LOCATION ASSOCIATED LITERATUREEast Australian Coast (Couturier et al., 2011)West Australian Coast (McGregor et al., 2008)Hawaii (Clark, 2010a; Deakos et al., 2011)Japan (Homma et al., 1997; Ishihara & Homma, 1995;

Yano et al., 1999; Kashiwagi et al., 2010)Tahiti (De Rosemont, 2008)Mozambique (Marshall et al., 2011)the Maldives (Kitchen-Wheeler, 2010)Indonesia (Dewar et al., 2008)Mexico (Graham et al., 2008)Brazil (Luiz et al., 2009)


Top Related