*

Murray Cod

Maccullochella peelii

  • Qifeng Ye (South Australian Research and Development Institute)
  • Brenton Zampatti (South Australian Research and Development Institute)
  • Brett Ingram (Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, Victoria)
  • Charles Todd (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Victoria)
  • Dean Gilligan (Department of Primary Industries, New South Wales)
  • Gavin Butler (Department of Primary Industries, New South Wales)
  • George Giatas (South Australian Research and Development Institute)
  • Jamin Forbes (Department of Primary Industries, New South Wales)
  • John Koehn (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Victoria)
  • Mark Lintermans (Institute for Applied Ecology, University of Canberra)
  • Matthew Beitzel (Environment and Planning Directorate, Australian Capital Territory Government)
  • Peter Kind (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Queensland)
  • Steve Brooks (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Queensland)
  • Taylor Hunt (Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, Victoria)
Toggle content

Stock Status Overview

Stock status determination
Jurisdiction Stock Fisheries Stock status Indicators
Australian Capital Territory Australian Capital Territory Undefined Catch, abundance surveys, recreational fishing surveys
New South Wales New South Wales Undefined Catch, CPUE, abundance surveys, recreational fishing surveys
Queensland Queensland Undefined Catch, recreational fishing surveys
South Australia South Australia Undefined Catch, CPUE , age/size composition, abundance surveys, recreational fishing surveys
Victoria Victoria Undefined Catch, abundance surveys, recreational fishing surveys
Toggle content

Stock Structure

Murray Cod is the largest solely freshwater fish in Australia. It occurs throughout most of the Murray–Darling system, except for the upper reaches of some tributaries in Victoria, the Australian Capital Territory and southern New South Wales. Investigation of the genetic structure in the Murray–Darling Basin has demonstrated that, where there is connectivity between catchments, one large genetically panmictic biological stock exists throughout most of its distribution1. However, genetically distinct populations have been identified in the more isolated Lachlan, Macquarie and Gwydir catchments1. This separation appears to be the result of restricted gene flow due to isolated catchments, but may also be influenced by stocking programs1. Although genetic studies suggest the existence of one biological stock, there are differences in management arrangements and available information in the various jurisdictions.

Here, assessment of stock status is presented at the jurisdictional level—Australian Capital Territory, Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia.

Toggle content

Stock Status

Since European settlement, populations have declined in abundance and range as a result of a number of threats, including river regulation, habitat degradation, disease, and exploitation by commercial and recreational fishers2–5. Commercial fishing for this species is currently prohibited in the Murray–Darling Basin, but take by recreational fishers has also been shown to affect population structure6. Consequently, Murray Cod is listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC) and a National Recovery Plan has been developed for this species7. A cross-jurisdictional Murray Cod Fishery Management Group was established in 2010 to improve collaboration on, and alignment of, recreational fisheries management and research for the species across the Basin7. Management strategies, including the closure of commercial fisheries, harvest restrictions, restocking, and seasonal closures to protect spawning populations, have resulted in evidence of recovery in some areas8–12. Nevertheless, recovery is still insufficient to remove this species from EPBC listings.

Australian Capital Territory

Murray Cod have never been commercially harvested in the Australian Capital Territory, but have long been a popular recreational target both in the Murrumbidgee and Molonglo Rivers and in the urban lakes. Murray Cod numbers are generally considered to be much lower than pre-European levels. The species declined considerably before 1980, with major declines occurring in the 1960s13. However, no obvious change in abundance of adult riverine populations has been seen since the 1990s. A biennial fish monitoring program in the Murrumbidgee River from 1994–present found little change in adult abundance, but sampling techniques (net-based) pre-2008 were not particularly appropriate for sampling this species14. Boat electrofishing, employed 2002–present (alongside netting), found higher numbers of Murray Cod. There appear to be good numbers of juvenile Murray Cod captured in recent years, but there is little data to compare this with as juveniles were never targeted in pre-2008 monitoring programs.

Stocking occurs in a number of urban lakes to provide recreational fishing opportunities, as well as to provide an apex predator for these artificial systems15,16. Approximately 723 000 fingerlings have been stocked since the program began in 198015, with an average of approximately 22 000 stocked annually since 2000. Stocking of native fish for recreational purposes is not conducted in riverine environments, and there have been no conservation stockings of the species15. Stocked populations in urban lakes continue to provide localised, but well-regarded recreational fisheries.

In recent years range expansion has been observed in the upper Murrumbidgee, with adults and juveniles being regularly recorded upstream of the Australian Capital Territory border14. These fish are possibly the result of stocking by the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries upstream of the Australian Capital Territory since 2008. Recent larval genetic investigations have identified hybridisation between Murray Cod and Trout Cod (Maccullochella macquariensis)17. This hybridisation is more likely to be of conservation concern for stocks of the endangered Trout Cod, than Murray Cod. However, the long-term effects of introgressive hybridisation on both species is unknown.

A recreational fishing survey in 1999–2001 of the Murrumbidgee River in the Australian Capital Territory identified that Murray Cod were the equal highest species targeted, along with Golden Perch (Macquaria ambigua)18. The National Recreational and Indigenous Fishing Survey19 did not report harvest data for the Australian Capital Territory. In a recent survey, Murray Cod were targeted by 63 per cent of anglers, with 29 per cent reporting captures in the past 12 months and only two per cent of anglers reporting harvest20.

Because the majority of ecological knowledge of this species has been derived from studies in lowland habitats21–23, and there was little knowledge of ecology in upland regions, management arrangements and regulations have largely mirrored those in force in surrounding New South Wales. This arrangement has also minimised confusion for cross-border recreational fishers.

In view of the anecdotal and relatively sparse scientific data on abundance compared to historical levels, absence of regular or consistent creel or angler surveys on either the urban lakes or the Murrumbidgee River and uncertainty regarding recovery rates as a result of re-stocking programmes, there is insufficient information available to confidently classify the status of this stock.

On the basis of the evidence provided above, Murray Cod in the Australian Capital Territory is classified as an undefined stock.

Queensland

Anecdotal evidence provided by recreational anglers have described substantial declines in Murray Cod populations in Queensland24. It is generally accepted that native fish populations in the Murray–Darling Basin’s rivers have declined to an estimated 10 per cent of the levels before European settlement4. The decline is thought to have resulted from a combination of flow regulation, habitat degradation, reduced water quality, barriers to movement, introduced species and overexploitation from illegal fishing4.

Approximately 100 000 fingerlings have been stocked each year throughout their range in Queensland since the inception of the Recreational Fishing Enhancement Program in the mid-1980s. A large proportion of these fingerlings are stocked into impounded areas, where natural recruitment levels are low24. The Murray–Darling Basin Authority Sustainable Rivers Audit, fishery-independent monitoring and anecdotal evidence from recreational fishers suggest an increase in numbers in the Border Rivers region, which may be attributed to extensive stocking in this catchment24,25. The audit and other fishery-independent monitoring have been undertaken in several other rivers and catchments in Queensland4,24. However, the lack of consistency in sampling methodologies and the low numbers of Murray Cod recorded during the monitoring makes accurate biomass estimates difficult. This data deficiency needs to be addressed for effective management.

The Queensland area of the Murray–Darling Basin has never supported a commercial fishery, although there is a considerable recreational fishery throughout the northern Murray‒Darling catchment. The species is mostly targeted within the Dumaresq, Macintyre, Moonie, Condamine, Balonne and Warrego Rivers and their tributaries; fish are also occasionally reported from the Paroo River24,26. A survey of recreational participation and catch was conducted in 201427, but harvest estimates for Murray Cod were unreliable. A recent study in the Border Rivers region suggests that harvest of this species remains high, with most fish being removed from the population within a couple of years of reaching legal size25. While this suggests that fishing pressure is high, data are presently too uncertain to use for status determination. Therefore, there is insufficient information available to confidently classify the status of this stock.

On the basis of the evidence provided above, Murray Cod in Queensland is classified as an undefined stock.

New South Wales

The range and abundance of Murray Cod are considered to be much-reduced compared to that of pre-European settlement levels in New South Wales11. Concerns were raised as early as 1880 regarding declines in abundance, based largely on falling catch rates within the commercial fishery5. While fishing effort remained at around the same level, annual commercial catches declined from a high in the mid-1950s of around 140 tonnes (t), to less than 35 t by the mid-1960s, indicating a substantial decline in catch per unit effort5. The annual catch remained below 35 t in the majority of years until the commercial fishery was closed in New South Wales in 20015.

The recreational fishery for Murray Cod has continued to grow in New South Wales. The 2000–01 national survey estimated that around 161 000 Murray Cod were caught annually by recreational anglers across New South Wales, with around 25 per cent of these fish harvested19. A more recent survey in 2013–14, found that angler effort had increased since 2000–01 and that total catch had also increased by around three per cent, to 165 557 fish28. However, harvest had declined considerably, from 26 per cent of the total catch in 2000–01, to 13 per cent in 2013–14. A targeted creel survey undertaken in 2012–13 across 76 km of the Murrumbidgee River estimated annual catches of Murray Cod in this area to be as high as 32 000 fish, but even fewer were harvested, with only around five per cent retained29. The results of these more recent surveys suggest that the recreational sector are increasingly targeting the species, but are also more commonly practicing catch-and-release.

A number of management actions have been implemented to facilitate population recovery across New South Wales. This has included restocking, with over five million hatchery-reared fry and fingerlings released into many of the state’s impoundments and rivers since the late-1970’s. Until recently, little was known of the efficacy of these stockings, and it was largely assumed that they were a primary contributor to the recovery of the species in many river systems. An assessment of stocking success was recently undertaken in two rivers in the southern Murray–Darling Basin and one impoundment in north-western New South Wales30. There was a comparatively low proportion of stocked Murray Cod among those sampled in the Murray (seven per cent) and Murrumbidgee (15 per cent) Rivers30. In contrast, stocked Murray Cod comprised almost the entire population in Copeton Dam (94 per cent)30. These data suggest that while stocking is helping to enhance Murray Cod populations in impoundments, natural recruitment, potentially driven by other management actions such as closed seasons, size-and-bag regulations and habitat rehabilitation, are also likely contributing to population recovery in rivers. Recently, in line with Victoria, new fisheries regulations have been implemented to manage the Murray Cod recreational fishery. In December 2014, a state-wide slot limit of 550–750 mm was introduced, with the daily bag limit of two and possession limit of four, remaining the same.

Anecdotal reports and scientific surveys suggest that Murray cod numbers are increasing in at least some New South Wales rivers8,31. Based on a long-term monitoring program over 17 years at 27 sites across New South Wales, it has been suggested these increases could be as high as 740 per cent in some areas31. However, to-date there has been insufficient research undertaken to validate these estimates, and there has been no attempt to estimate total abundance or biomass across the state as a whole. There is also an absence of time-series data to provide a measure of recruitment and fishing mortality. As such, at this time there is insufficient information available to confidently classify the status of this stock.

On the basis of the evidence provided above, Murray Cod in New South Wales is classified as an undefined stock.

Victoria

In Victoria, Murray Cod numbers are considered to be much lower than pre-European levels32. During the 19th century Murray Cod were considered abundant in the Loddon, Campaspe and Goulburn Rivers33. However, by the middle of the 20th century, populations of Murray Cod had declined in these rivers34. In Victoria, commercial catches were highest between 1954–55 and 1960–61, at approximately 10–15 t per year but reduced to approximately 1.5 t per year on average over the next 10 years and were negligible thereafter35. Management actions such as the prohibition of commercial netting, introduction of strict recreational bag and size limits, restrictions on fishing methods such as set lines and hatchery stocking have likely resulted in the recovery observed in some populations by the 1990s. However, no long-term estimates of harvest by anglers or population abundances have been recorded for Victoria.

Hatchery-reared Murray Cod have been stocked in Victoria since 1979 and anecdotal information suggests that recreational catch has significantly increased in waters where stocking has occurred. For example, in the Nagambie Lakes anglers commonly catch Murray Cod, suggesting the fish stocking program is making a significant contribution since its commencement in 2009. This contribution is likely to increase as more fish recruit into the fishery36. In 2015, approximately 580 000 Murray Cod were stocked into 28 waters across Victoria and the number is expected to increase in coming years as part of a government initiative (Target One Million) to grow recreational fishing in the state. Surveys in 2014 of some stocked waters indicated that the contribution of Murray Cod from stocking was highly variable (11–100 per cent)35. Other surveys, such as the Murray‒Darling Basin Authority Sustainable Rivers Audit9, indicate that fish biomass appears to have increased in some catchments (Ovens, Goulburn and Loddon Rivers) and declined in others (Broken and Kiewa Rivers)10.

The last state-wide estimate of recreational catch was measured as part of the National Recreational and Indigenous Fishing Survey in 2001–0119. This survey estimated that 11 943 Murray Cod were harvested by Victorian recreational fishers, equating to around 27 469 kg of biomass. Between 2006 and 2008, recreational fishing creel surveys have been conducted on selected river reaches in Victoria, including the Goulburn, Ovens, Loddon and Murray Rivers37. Total Murray Cod catch within these river reaches was estimated at more than 98 000 fish, of which just over 6500 were harvested. However, there is insufficient data available to determine the current biomass or fishing mortality on Murray Cod. In the absence of a state-wide recreational fishing survey and/or fishery-independent data, there is insufficient information available to confidently classify the status of this stock.

On the basis of the evidence provided above, Murray Cod in Victoria is classified as an undefined stock.

South Australia

In South Australia, previous stock assessments in the Murray River and Lower Lakes noted a significant decline in annual commercial landings from 140 t in the late-1950s, to less than 10 t in the 1970s–80s38,39. Following a moratorium on commercial and recreational fishing from January 1990–December 1993, combined with high flows in the early-1990s, annual catch increased gradually to 28.5 t in 2001–02. The Murray Cod commercial fishery ceased in the South Australian Murray River in July 2003 following restructuring of inland native fisheries. Although Murray Cod is still a ‘permitted species’ to be taken in the commercial Lakes and Coorong Fishery, there is currently a temporary closure (implemented in 2010 under the Fisheries Management Act 2007 [SA]) that prohibits commercial harvest. Unlike other states/jurisdictions, Murray Cod had not historically been stocked in the South Australian reaches of the Murray River40. In 2016, however, the Department of Primary Industries and Regions, South Australia, released 100 000 fingerlings into two river reaches in the South Australian lower Murray.

In the absence of a commercial fishery, or dedicated fishery-independent monitoring programs, the most recent assessment of the population dynamics was conducted using data from three long-term (8–11-year) fish assemblage monitoring projects in the lower Murray River from 2002–1341. During this period, catch per unit effort data from electrofishing and drum netting indicated that relative abundance was low, but reasonably constant. Length-frequency distributions indicated that fish collected in main channel habitats of the lower Murray River were predominantly large (more than 800 mm total length), and represented a broad range of age classes (8–46 years). Murray Cod recruitment was minimal in the predominantly still-water main channel habitats during the drought in 2001–10. Nevertheless, some juvenile fish (less than 500 mm total length) were collected in main channel habitats in years following increases in river flow (for example, 2010–11 and 2011–12)41. Additionally, in 2014–15, an age 0+ cohort was detected in the main channel of the lower Murray River42. Consistent recruitment was evident in the flowing water habitats of the Chowilla anabranch system in 2002–1341. These data provide some indication of a fairly stable adult population, and periodic successful recruitment, but there is insufficient information available to confidently determine the biomass of Murray Cod in the South Australian reaches of the Murray River.

The 2007–08 South Australian Recreational Fishing Survey estimated that 507 Murray Cod (around 2.1 t) were harvested from the lower Murray River43. No Murray Cod were reported as caught in the Lower Lakes region. There was little change in the total number of fish caught since the 2000–01 survey19, but release rates increased from 16 per cent in 2000–01 to 73 per cent in 2007–08, potentially reducing recreational fishing mortality. The 2007–08 figures should only be considered as indicative because the precision levels of all estimates were low as a result of low numbers of participants reporting Murray Cod catch, as well as low numbers of Murray Cod harvested. There was a moratorium on recreational fishing for Murray Cod in South Australia in 2009 and 2010. Since 2011, a catch-and-release fishery has been permitted for this species in the South Australian Murray River during the open season, except for a closure area in Chowilla. The most recent South Australian Recreational Fishing Survey in 2013–1444 did not report any catch of this species in the lower Murray River and there remains uncertainty regarding the catch, level of fishing effort and overall post-release mortality associated with the catch-and-release fishery. There is therefore insufficient information available to confidently classify the status of this stock.

On the basis of the evidence provided above, Murray Cod in South Australia is classified as an undefined stock.

Toggle content

Biology

Murray Cod biology22,45–51

Biology
Species Longevity / Maximum Size Maturity (50 per cent)
Murray Cod At least 48 years; ~1800 mm TL , 83 kg First maturity at ~4–5 years; ~450–600 mm TL for both sexes Variable across geographic regions
Toggle content

Distributions

Distribution of Murray Cod based on reported catch

Toggle content

Tables

Fishing methods
Australian Capital Territory Queensland New South Wales Victoria South Australia
Commercial
Line
Indigenous
Hand Line, Hand Reel or Powered Reels
Traditional apparatus
Recreational
Hand Line, Hand Reel or Powered Reels
Management methods
Method Australian Capital Territory Queensland New South Wales Victoria South Australia
Indigenous
Bag limits
Size limit
Recreational
Area closures
Bag limits
Seasonal closures
Size limit
Catch
Australian Capital Territory Queensland New South Wales Victoria South Australia
Indigenous Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
Recreational Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

a Commercial (management methods) Murray Cod captured by the Lakes and Coorong Fishery are currently protected under South Australian fishing regulations.
b Indigenous (management methods) Indigenous fishers who can satisfy the requirements of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) in relation to their connection to the specific area or waters may take sufficient Murray Cod to satisfy their customary, non-commercial domestic needs in South Australia and Queensland. Indigenous fishers who do not satisfy these requirements are subject to the standard recreational bag limits, size limits and closures.
c Victoria - Indigenous (management methods) In Victoria, regulations for managing recreational fishing are also applied to fishing activities by Indigenous people. Recognised Traditional Owners (groups that hold native title or have agreements under the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 [Vic]) can apply for permits under the Fisheries Act 1995 (Vic) that authorise customary fishing (for example, different catch and size limits, or equipment). The Indigenous category in Table 3 refers to customary fishing undertaken by recognised Traditional Owners. In 2012–13, there were no applications for customary fishing permits to access Murray Cod.

Toggle content

Effects of fishing on the marine environment

  • Although Murray Cod is no longer targeted by commercial fishing, it is a highly prized catch for recreational fishers. Release rates are very high for this species because of catch-and-release practices or specific fishing regulations19, which differ considerably between jurisdictions. Studies have investigated the post-release mortality of Murray Cod and found it to be between two and 15 per cent52,53.
  • Recreational fishers targeting Murray Cod often make incidental catches of other native species, such as Golden Perch (Macquaria ambigua) and the threatened Trout Cod (Maccullochella macquariensis). The recreational catch of these other species is also controlled under state and territory recreational fishing regulations, but there may be post-release mortalities for these species.
  • While the recreational fishing take and stocking of Murray Cod impacts their populations6, the potential effects of changes in the abundance of this top order predator on the freshwater ecosystem (for example, trophic dynamics) are unknown. Implications of disease and other potential environmental risks also need to be considered40. In addition, use of live organisms as bait is considered risky because of its potential to introduce and spread disease or noxious species, and the negative impacts that this may have on ecosystems54.
Toggle content

Environmental effects on Murray Cod

  • Like many freshwater fish in the Murray–Darling Basin, Murray Cod populations have declined in abundance since the early-1900s as a result of anthropogenic impacts, such as altered natural flow regimes, habitat loss, barriers to movement, cold-water releases from dams, interactions with alien species and overharvesting3. Murray Cod prefer structurally complex habitats (for example, coarse wood and overhanging vegetation) in the main channel of the river and anabranches around which they maintain home sites55–58. Habitat alteration, such as removal of snags from the main channel and anabranches, will decrease habitat availability and potentially reduce Murray Cod abundance. In addition, fast-flowing lotic habitats are considered to be important for survival of Murray Cod larvae, and as a habitat for juveniles and adults41. Alteration to these conditions through anthropogenic (river regulation and water extraction) or natural (floods and drought) factors are likely to affect stocks.
  • Enhanced recruitment of Murray Cod in lowland areas has been linked to increased river flow or flooding22,39. The exact mechanism driving recruitment is unknown, but it is likely to be linked to an increase in food resources for larvae and juveniles following floodplain inundation22.
  • In lowland rivers, adult Murray Cod can undertake small- to large-scale movements (up to 120 km) from their home sites within the main river channel and anabranches, and between these habitats58–60. Lateral and longitudinal disconnection (for example, by structures or reduced flow) will alter the movement patterns of the species. In upland rivers, movements are likely to be limited by natural barriers such as gorges and waterfalls.
  • Cold-water pollution, due to low-level releases from dams, has been deemed responsible for the loss of Murray Cod populations downstream of a number of impoundments61,62.
  • Anoxic blackwater events in lowland environments that may occur as a result of flooding after prolonged periods of low flow, and other poor water quality events, can result in considerable mortality of Murray Cod59,63.
Toggle content

References

  1. 1 Rourke, ML, McPartlan, HC, Ingram, BA and Taylor, AC 2011, Variable stocking effect and endemic population genetic structure in Murray cod Maccullochella peelii, Journal of Fish Biology, 79: 155–177.
  2. 2 Koehn, J 2005, Threats to Murray cod, in M Lintermans and B Phillips (eds), Management of Murray cod in the Murray–Darling Basin: statement, recommendations and supporting papers, proceedings of a workshop held in Canberra, 3–4 June 2003, Murray–Darling Basin Commission, Canberra.
  3. 3 Lintermans, M and Phillips, B 2005, Management of Murray cod in the Murray–Darling Basin: statement, recommendations and supporting papers, proceedings of a workshop held in Canberra, 3–4 June 2003, Murray– Darling Basin Commission, Canberra.
  4. 4 Murray–Darling Basin Commission 2004, Native fish strategy for the Murray–Darling Basin 2003–2013, publication 25/04, Murray– Darling Basin Commission, Canberra.
  5. 5 Rowland, SJ 1989, Aspects of the history and fishery of the Murray cod, Maccullochella peelii (Mitchell) (Perciththyidae), Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, 111: 201–213.
  6. 6 Nicol, S, Todd, C, Koehn, J and Lieschke, J 2004, How can recreational angling regulations help meet the multiple objectives for the management of Murray Cod populations?, in M Lintermans and B Phillips (eds), Management of Murray cod in the Murray–Darling Basin: statement, recommendations and supporting papers, proceedings of a workshop held in Canberra, 3–4 June 2003, Murray–Darling Basin Commission, Canberra.
  7. 7 National Murray Cod Recovery Team 2010, National Murray Cod Recovery Plan for the Murray Cod Maccullochella peelii peelii, Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.
  8. 8 Barwick, MJ, Koehn, JD, Crook, DA, Todd, CR, Westaway, C and Trueman, W 2014, The future for managing recreational fisheries in the Murray–Darling Basin, Ecological Management and Restoration, 15: 75–81.
  9. 9 Davies, PE, Harris, JH, Hillman, TJ and Walker, KF 2008, Sustainable Rivers Audit Report 1: A Report on the ecological health of rivers in the Murray–Darling Basin, 2004–2007, prepared by the Independent Sustainable Rivers Audit Group for the Murray–Darling Basin Ministerial Council, Murray–Darling Basin Commission, Canberra.
  10. 10 Davies, PE, Stewardson, MJ, Hillman, TJ, Roberts, JR and Thoms, MC 2012, Sustainable Rivers Audit 2: The ecological health of rivers in the Murray–Darling Basin at the end of the Millennium Drought (2008–2010), volume 1, prepared by the Independent Sustainable Rivers Audit Group for the Murray–Darling Basin, Murray–Darling Basin Authority, Canberra.
  11. 11 Harris, J and Gehrke P 1997, Fish and rivers in stress: The NSW rivers survey, New South Wales Fisheries Office of Conservation and Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology, in association with New South Wales Resource and Conservation Assessment Council, Cronulla.
  12. 12 Lintermans, M, Rowland, SJ, Koehn, JD, Butler, GL, Simpson, B and Wooden, I 2005, The status, threats and management of freshwater cod species Maccullochella spp. in Australia, in M Lintermans and B Phillips (eds), Management of Murray cod in the Murray–Darling Basin: statement, recommendations and supporting papers, proceedings of a workshop held in Canberra, 3–4 June 2003, Murray–Darling Basin Commission, Canberra.
  13. 13 Greenham, P 1981, Murrumbidgee River aquatic ecology study, report to the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of Territories and Local Government, Canberra College of Advanced Education, Canberra.
  14. 14 Australian Capital Territory Government, unpublished data.
  15. 15 Australian Capital Territory Government 2015, Fish stocking plan for the Australian Capital Territory 2015–2020, Environment and Planning Directorate, Canberra.
  16. 16 Lintermans, M 2000, The Status of Fish in the Australian Capital Territory: A Review of Current Knowledge and Management Requirements, Technical Report 15, Environment Australian Capital Territory, Canberra.
  17. 17 Couch, AJ, Unmack, PJ, Dyer, FJ and Lintermans, M 2016, Who’s your mama? Riverine hybridisation of threatened freshwater Trout Cod and Murray Cod, PeerJ Preprints 4:e2593, DOI 10.7717/peerj.2593.
  18. 18 McGovern, A and Lintermans, M 2003, A creel survey of fish in the Murrumbidgee River, Australian Capital Territory, final report to Fisheries Action Program, Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.
  19. 19 Henry, GW and Lyle, JM 2003, The National Recreational and Indigenous Fishing Survey, Fisheries Research and Development Corporation project 00/158, Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.
  20. 20 Schirmer, J and Mylek, M 2016, Water quality and the community: Understanding the views, values and actions of residents of the ACT and Surrounding Region, Report to ACT Government, University of Canberra, Canberra.
  21. 21 Humphries, P 2005, Spawning time and early life history of Murray cod, Maccullochella peelii (Mitchell) in an Australian river, Environmental Biology of Fishes, 72: 393–407.
  22. 22 King, AJ, Tonkin, Z and Mahoney, J 2009, Environmental flow enhances native fish spawning and recruitment in the Murray River, Australia, River Research and Applications, 25: 1205–1218.
  23. 23 Rowland, SJ 1998, Aspects of the reproductive biology of Murray Cod, Maccullochella peelii peelii, Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, 120: 147–162.
  24. 24 Steven Brooks, Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, personal communication.
  25. 25 Gavin Butler, Steven Brooks and Daniel Smith, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, and Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, unpublished data.
  26. 26 Taylor, S, Webley, J and McInnes, K 2012, 2010 Statewide Recreational Fishing Survey, Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Brisbane.
  27. 27 Webley, J, McInnes, K, Teixeira, D, Lawson, A and Quinn, R 2015, Statewide Recreational Fishing Survey 2013-14, State of Queensland, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Brisbane.
  28. 28 West, LD, Stark, KE, Murphy, JJ, Lyle, JM and Ochwada-Doyle, FA 2016, Survey of Recreational Fishing in New South Wales and the ACT, 2013/14, Fisheries Final Report Series No. 149, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Woolongong.
  29. 29 Forbes, JP, Watts, RJ, Robinson, WA, Baumgartner, LJ, Steffe, AS and Murphy, JJ 2015, Recreational Fishing Effort, Catch, and Harvest for Murray Cod and Golden Perch in the Murrumbidgee River, Australia, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 35: 649–658.
  30. 30 Forbes, J, Watts, RJ, Robinson, WA, Baumgartner, LJ, McGuffie, P, Cameron, LM and Crook, DA 2015, Assessment of stocking effectiveness for Murray cod (Maccullochella peelii) and golden perch (Macquaria ambigua) in rivers and impoundments of south-eastern Australia, Marine and Freshwater Research, 67: 1410–1419.
  31. 31 Rowland, SJ 2013, Hatchery production for conservation and stock enhancement: the case of Australian freshwater fish, in G Allan and G Burnell (eds), Advances in aquaculture hatchery technology, Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, England.
  32. 32 Cadwallader, PL and Gooley, GJ, 1984, Past and present distributions and translocations of Murray cod Maccullochella peelii and trout cod M. macquariensis (Pisces: Percichthyidae) in Victoria, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria, 96: 33–43.
  33. 33 Wilson, E 1857, On the Murray River Cod, with particulars of experiments instituted for introducing this fish into the River Yarra-Yarra, Transactions of the Philosophical Institute of Victoria, 2: 23–34.
  34. 34 Cadwallader, PL 1977, JO Langtry’s 1949–50 Murray River investigations, Fisheries and Wildlife Paper, Victoria, 13: 1–70.
  35. 35 Ingram, BA and De Silva, SS 2004, Development of intensive commercial aquaculture production technology for Murray Cod, Primary Industries Research Victoria, Marine and Freshwater Systems, Department of Primary Industries, Queenscliff.
  36. 36 Hunt, TL and Giri, K 2015, Estimating the economic benefits of recreational fishing in the Nagambie Lakes System, Fisheries Victoria Science Report Series No. 7, Fisheries Victoria, Queenscliff.
  37. 37 Fulton, W 2011, Sustainability of recreational fisheries for Murray Cod in the Murray–Darling Basin, final report to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, project 2006/053, Victorian Department of Primary Industries, Queenscliff.
  38. 38 Ye, Q, Jones, K and Pierce, B 2000, Murray cod (Maccullochella peelii peelii), Fishery assessment report to Primary Industries and Resources South Australia for the Inland Waters Fishery Management Committee, South Australian fisheries assessment series 2000/17, South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide.
  39. 39 Ye, Q and Zampatti, B 2007, Murray cod stock status: the Lower River Murray, South Australia, Stock status report to Primary Industries and Resources South Australia (Fisheries), South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), SARDI publication F2007-000211-1, SARDI research report series 208, SARDI, Adelaide.
  40. 40 Gillanders, BM and Ye, Q 2011, Ecological risk assessment of stocking Murray Cod in South Australia, report to Primary Industries and Resources South Australia (Fisheries and Aquaculture), School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide, and South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), SARDI publication F2011/000299-1, SARDI research report series 571, SARDI, Adelaide.
  41. 41 Zampatti, BP, Bice, CM, Wilson, PJ and Ye, Q 2014, Population dynamics of Murray Cod (Maccullochella peelii) in the South Australian reaches of the River Murray: a synthesis of data from 2002–2013, report to Primary Industries and Regions South Australia (Fisheries and Aquaculture), South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), SARDI publication F2014/000089-1, SARDI research report series 761, SARDI, Adelaide.
  42. 42 Ye, Q, Giatas, G, Aldridge, K, Busch, B, Gibbs, M, Hipsey, M, Lorenz, Z, Oliver, R, Shiel, R and Zampatti, B 2016, Long-Term Intervention Monitoring for the Ecological Responses to Commonwealth Environmental Water Delivered to the Lower Murray River Selected Area in 2014/15: A report prepared for the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office, South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide.
  43. 43 Jones, K 2009, South Australian Recreational Fishing Survey 2007/08, South Australian fisheries management series 54, Primary Industries and Resources South Australia, Adelaide.
  44. 44 Giri, K and Hall, K 2015, South Australian Recreational Fishing Survey 2013/14, Fisheries Victoria Internal Report Series No. 62, Fisheries Victoria, Queenscliff.
  45. 45 Anderson, JR, Morison, AK and Ray, DJ 1992, Age and growth of Murray Cod, Maccullochella peelii (Perciformes: Percichthyidae), in the lower Murray–Darling Basin, from thin-sectioned otoliths, Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 43: 983–1013.
  46. 46 Gooley, GJ, Anderson, TA and Appleford, P 1995, Aspects of the reproductive cycle and gonadal development of Murray Cod, Maccullochella peelii peelii (Michell) (Percichthyidae), in Lake Charlegrark and adjacent farm ponds, Victoria, Australia, Marine and Freshwater Research, 46: 723–728.
  47. 47 Lake, JS 1967, Principal fishes of the Murray–Darling River system, in AH Weatherley (ed.), Australian inland waters and their fauna: eleven studies, Australian National University, Canberra.
  48. 48 Pollard, J 1966, The scream of the reel: Deep sea, beach, estuary and inland angling in Australian and New Zealand waters, A.H. & A.W. Reed, Wellington.
  49. 49 Rowland, SJ 1985, Aspects of the biology and artificial breeding of the Murray Cod, Maccullochella peelii and the Eastern Freshwater Cod M. ikei sp. nov. (Pisces: Percichthyidae), PhD Thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney.
  50. 50 Rowland, SJ 1998, Age and growth of the Australian freshwater fish Murray Cod, Maccullochella peelii peelii, Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, 120: 163–179.
  51. 51 Whitley, GP 1955, The largest (and the smallest) Australian fishes, Australian Museum Magazine, 11: 329–332.
  52. 52 Douglas, J, Brown, P, Hunt, T, Rogers, M and Allen, M 2010, Evaluating relative impacts of recreational harvest and discard mortality on Murray Cod (Maccullochella peelii peelii), Fisheries Research, 106: 18–21.
  53. 53 Hall, K, Broadhurst, MK and Butcher, PA 2012, Post-release mortality of angled Golden Perch Macquaria ambigua and Murray Cod Maccullochella peelii, Fisheries Management and Ecology, 19: 10–21.
  54. 54 Phillips, B 2003, Managing fish translocation and stocking in the Murray–Darling Basin, workshop held in Canberra, 25–26 September 2002: Statement, recommendations and supporting papers, World Wildlife Fund, Sydney.
  55. 55 Boys, CA and Thoms, MC 2006, A large-scale, hierarchical approach for assessing habitat associations of fish assemblages in large dryland rivers, Hydrobiologia, 572: 11–31.
  56. 56 Koehn, JD 2009, Multi-scale habitat selection by Murray Cod (Maccullochella peelii peelii) in two lowland rivers, Journal of Fish Biology, 75: 113–129.
  57. 57 Koehn, JD and Nicol, SJ 2014, Comparative habitat use by large riverine fishes, Marine and Freshwater Research, 65: 164–174.
  58. 58 Koehn, JD, McKenzie, JA, O’Mahony, DJ, Nicol, SJ, O’Connor, JP and O’Connor, WG 2009, Movements of Murray Cod (Maccullochella peelii peelii) in a large Australian lowland river, Ecology of Freshwater Fish, 18: 594–602.
  59. 59 Leigh, SJ and Zampatti, BP 2013, Movement and mortality of Murray Cod (Maccullochella peelii) during overbank flows in the lower River Murray, Australia, Australian Journal of Zoology, 61: 160–169.
  60. 60 Koehn, JD and Nicol, SJ 2016, Comparative movements of four large fish species in a lowland river, Journal of Fish Biology, 88: 1350–1368.
  61. 61 Sherman, B, Todd, CR, Koehn, JD and Ryan, T 2007, Modelling the impact and its potential mitigation of cold water pollution on Murray Cod populations downstream of Hume Dam, Australia, Rivers Research and Applications, 23: 377–389.
  62. 62 Todd, CR, Ryan, T, Nicol, SJ and Bearlin, AR 2005, The impact of cold water releases on the critical period of post-spawning survival and its implications for Murray cod (Maccullochella peelii peelii): a case study of the Mitta Mitta River, southeastern Australia, River Research and Applications, 21: 1035–1052.
  63. 63 Koehn, J 2005, The loss of valuable Murray Cod in fish kills: a science and management perspective, in M Lintermans and B Phillips (eds), Management of Murray Cod in the Murray–Darling Basin: statement, recommendations and supporting papers, proceedings of a workshop held in Canberra, 3–4 June 2003, Murray–Darling Basin Commission, Canberra.

Archived reports

Click the links below to view reports from other years for this fish.