*

Snapper

Chrysophrys auratus

  • Anthony Fowler (South Australian Research and Development Institute)
  • Anna Garland (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Queensland)
  • Gary Jackson (Department of Fisheries, Western Australia)
  • John Stewart (Department of Primary Industries, New South Wales)
  • Paul Hamer (Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, Victoria)

You are currently viewing a report filtered by jurisdiction. View the full report.

Toggle content

Stock Status Overview

Stock status determination
Jurisdiction Stock Fisheries Stock status Indicators
Western Australia Shark Bay Inshore Denham Sound BBRF, SBBSMNMF Sustainable Biomass
Western Australia Shark Bay Inshore Eastern Gulf BBRF Sustainable Biomass
Western Australia Shark Bay Inshore Freycinet Estuary BBRF Sustainable Biomass
Western Australia Shark Bay Oceanic BBRF, GDSMF Transitional-recovering CPUE, biomass
Western Australia South Coast BBRF, JASDGDLMF, SCEMF, SCTMF, WHRLF, WL (SC) Sustainable Catch, fishing mortality
Western Australia West Coast JASDGDLMF, SWTMF, WCDGDLIMF, WCDSIMF Transitional-recovering Catch, fishing mortality
BBRF
Boat Based Recreational Fishery (WA)
GDSMF
Gascoyne Demersal Scalefish Managed Fishery (WA)
JASDGDLMF
Joint Authority Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Managed Fishery (Zone 1 & Zone 2) (WA)
SBBSMNMF
Shark Bay Beach Seine and Mesh Net Managed Fishery (WA)
SCEMF
South Coast Estuarine Managed Fishery (WA)
SCTMF, WHRLF, WL (SC)
South Coast Trawl Managed Fishery, Windy Harbour Rock Lobster Fishery, Open access in the South Coast (WA)
SWTMF, WCDGDLIMF
South West Trawl Managed Fishery, West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Loneline (Interim) Managed Fishery, Open access in the West Coast (WA)
WCDSIMF
West Coast Demersal Scalefish (Interim) Managed Fishery (WA)
Toggle content

Stock Structure

Snapper has a wide distribution in Australia, from the Gascoyne region on the west coast of Western Australia, around the south of the continent, and up to northern Queensland, around Hinchinbrook Island1. Within this broad distribution, the biological stock structure is complex.

 

Snapper on the east coast of Australia, from Proserpine in north Queensland to around Wilsons Promontory (Victoria), show little genetic differentiation and are considered to represent a single genetic stock2. Similarly, in Victoria, little genetic variation has been found for Snapper3. However, tagging and otolith chemistry data have indicated some separation between Snapper to the east of Wilsons Promontory (the East coast biological stock) and to the west, including Port Phillip Bay and Western Port (Western Victorian biological stock) and extending across western Victoria to near the Murray mouth in South Australia4–6.

 

Despite the separation of the Eastern and Western stocks in Victorian waters, Snapper are managed at a state-wide level in Victoria, with management arrangements that govern commercial fishing in specific regions such as bays and inlets, and offshore waters. Bag and size limits for the recreational sector are the same for the Western and Eastern stocks in Victorian waters. Recent changes to commercial fishing in Port Phillip Bay (Western stock) have resulted in removal of most of the fishing effort by net methods, and capping of catches for the remaining hook method operators. The Eastern stock, from Victoria to Queensland, is managed at a state level.

 

Further research has been undertaken to inform the level of stock sharing between Victoria and South Australia.

 

The South Australian fishery was originally divided into six management units, due to uncertainty about the extent of the movement of fish between different regional populations7. However, a recent study evaluated the stock structure and adult movement between regional populations of South Australia and western Victoria8 based on inter-regional comparisons of otolith chemistry and increment widths, as well as demographic features. The study differentiated three stocks. The Western Victorian stock extends from Wilsons Promontory westward into south-eastern South Australia. This stock depends on recruitment into, and subsequent emigration from, Port Phillip Bay in Victoria. As such, this is a cross-jurisdictional stock, although the components from the two states are still assessed and managed independently. The two further stocks are wholly located within South Australia. The Spencer Gulf/West Coast stock depends on recruitment into Northern Spencer Gulf from where fish emigrate to replenish the populations of Southern Spencer Gulf and the west coast of Eyre Peninsula. The third stock is the Gulf St. Vincent stock, which relies on recruitment into, and subsequent emigration from, Northern Gulf St. Vincent.

 

In Western Australia, Snapper is divided into six management units, some at small geographic scales (for example, there are three separate biological stocks located inside Shark Bay) and others that cover greater areas of oceanic waters in the Gascoyne, west and south coast regions9–13. The inshore Shark Bay biological stocks in the inner gulfs are predominantly fished by the recreational and charter sectors.

 

Here, assessment of stock status is presented at the biological stock level—Shark Bay inshore–Eastern Gulf, Shark Bay inshore–Denham Sound, Shark Bay inshore–Freycinet Estuary (Western Australia); East coast, Western Victorian, Spencer Gulf West Coast (South Australia) and Gulf St Vincent Fishery (South Australia); and the management unit level—South coast, Shark Bay oceanic and West coast (Western Australia).

Toggle content

Stock Status

West Coast

Assessments completed in 2007, 2009 and 2014 indicated that fishing mortality in the West coast management unit of Western Australia exceeded the limit reference point of 1.5 times natural mortality14–16. However, the most recent assessment indicated that fishing mortality rates had decreased, providing evidence that stock recovery had begun, following significant changes to the management of the commercial and recreational sectors. Based on agreed decision rules to reduce fishing mortality to a level that would allow the stock to recover, the total catch of Snapper by all sectors had to be reduced by at least 50 per cent, to no more than 163 tonnes (t). Catches of Snapper by the commercial West Coast Demersal Scalefish Interim Managed Fishery in this region were above the acceptable level of 120 t for that fishery for a period of 3 years, but further management action reduced catches in 2015 to around 91 t, a level expected to allow recovery to continue. The above evidence indicates that the stock is likely to be recruitment overfished, but that the current level of fishing mortality should allow the stock to recover.

On the basis of the evidence provided above, the West coast (Western Australia) management unit is classified as a transitional–recovering stock.

South Coast

The first stock assessment of Snapper on the south coast of Western Australia was completed in 201517 using a weight-of-evidence approach to determine the risk profile of this management unit. The most important evidence was derived from catch curve models that estimated fishing mortality (F = 0.103) to be 0.76 of natural mortality (M = 0.135). The models also provided estimates of spawning potential ratio (SPR): traditional SPR = 0.39 and extended SPR = 0.33. All estimates were between target and threshold levels. These estimates, their corresponding confidence levels and all other lines of evidence demonstrated the level of depletion and risk profile to be acceptable.

On the basis of the evidence provided above, the South coast (Western Australia) management unit is classified as sustainable stock.

Shark Bay Oceanic

The most recent integrated model-based stock assessment (unpublished data, Department of Fisheries, Western Australia) that included data up to the 2014–15 season indicated that spawning biomass in 2015 was between 32 and 38 per cent of the unfished level, that is, between the threshold and target level (40 per cent of the unfished level) for this management unit. The spawning biomass is estimated to have been slowly rebuilding since a historical low of around 20 per cent of the unfished level in 2002–03, and is projected to reach the target level around 2020–21. The above evidence indicates that the biomass of this stock is unlikely to be recruitment overfished.

 

The total allowable commercial catch was initially reduced from 564–338 t in 2004 and reduced further to 277 t in 2007 to assist stock rebuilding to the target level. Approximately 230 t of Snapper was caught in 2014–15 (all sectors), and the level of fishing mortality is likely to promote rebuilding of this stock. The above evidence indicates that the current level of fishing pressure is unlikely to cause the stock to become recruitment overfished.

 

On the basis of the evidence provided above, the Shark Bay oceanic (Western Australia) management unit is classified as a transitional–recovering stock.

Shark Bay Inshore Eastern Gulf

The most recent integrated model-based stock assessment (unpublished data, Department of Fisheries, Western Australia) that included data from 2012, indicated that spawning biomass was around 80 per cent of the unfished level; well above the management target of 40 per cent of unfished biomass. The biological stock is therefore not considered to be recruitment overfished.

 

There was no commercial catch of Snapper from the Eastern Gulf biological stock in 2015. The recreational catch was likely to have been minor and within the target range (0–12 t). This level of fishing mortality is unlikely to cause the biological stock to become recruitment overfished.

 

On the basis of the evidence provided above, the Shark Bay inshore–Eastern Gulf (Western Australia) biological stock is classified as a sustainable stock.

Shark Bay Inshore Denham Sound

The most recent integrated model-based stock assessment (unpublished data, Department of Fisheries, Western Australia) that included data from 2012, indicated that spawning biomass was around 75 per cent of the unfished level; well above the management target of 40 per cent of unfished biomass. The biological stock is therefore not considered to be recruitment overfished.

 

The total commercial catch of Snapper in the Denham Sound biological stock was around 1 t in 2015. The recreational catch was likely to have been minor and within the target catch range (0–12 t). This level of fishing mortality is unlikely to cause the biological stock to become recruitment overfished.

 

On the basis of the evidence provided above, the Shark Bay inshore–Denham Sound (Western Australia) biological stock is classified as a sustainable stock.

Shark Bay Inshore Freycinet Estuary

The most recent integrated model-based stock assessment (unpublished data, Department of Fisheries, Western Australia) that included data from 2013, indicated that spawning biomass was between 42 and 57 per cent of the unfished level, that is, above the management target level of 40 per cent of unfished biomass. The biological stock is therefore not considered to be recruitment overfished.

 

There was no commercial catch of Snapper from the Freycinet Estuary biological stock in 2015. The recreational catch was assumed to have been within the target catch range (0–3.8 t) for this sector because of the conservative management regime that has been in place since 2003. This level of fishing mortality is unlikely to cause the biological stock to become recruitment overfished.

 

On the basis of the evidence provided above, the Shark Bay inshore–Freycinet Estuary (Western Australia) biological stock is classified as a sustainable stock

Toggle content

Biology

Biology
Species Longevity / Maximum Size Maturity (50 per cent)
Snapper 30–40 years; 1300 mm TL  2–7 years; 220–560 mm TL

Snapper biology8,10,12,27–29

Toggle content

Distributions

Distribution of reported commercial catch of Snapper

Toggle content

Tables

Fishing methods
Western Australia
Commercial
Unspecified
Various
Recreational
Spearfishing
Hand Line, Hand Reel or Powered Reels
Management methods
Method Western Australia
Commercial
Catch limits
Gear restrictions
Limited entry
Size limit
Spatial closures
Recreational
Bag/boat limits
Catch limits
Gear restrictions
Possession limit
Seasonal closures
Size limit
Spatial closures
Active vessels
Western Australia
8 in CSLPMF, 16 in GDSMF, 21 in JASDGDLMF, 6 in PLF, 7 in SBBSMNMF, 27 in SCEMF, 5 in WCDGDLIMF, 37 in WCDSCMF, 69 in WL (SC)
CSLPMF
Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Managed Fishery (WA)
GDSMF
Gascoyne Demersal Scalefish Managed Fishery (WA)
JASDGDLMF
Joint Authority Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Managed Fishery (Zone 1 & Zone 2) (WA)
PLF
Pilbara Line Fishery (WA)
SBBSMNMF
Shark Bay Beach Seine and Mesh Net Managed Fishery (WA)
SCEMF
South Coast Estuarine Managed Fishery (WA)
WCDGDLIMF
West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline (Interim) Managed Fishery (WA)
WCDSCMF
West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Managed Fishery (WA)
WL (SC)
Open Access in the South Coast (WA)
Catch
Western Australia
Commercial 191.01t in GDSMF, 17.49t in JASDGDLMF, 1.01t in SBBSMNMF, 4.41t in SCEMF, 11.32t in SCTMF, WHRLF, WL (SC), 4.19t in SWTMF, WCDGDLIMF, 83.69t in WCDSIMF
Indigenous Unknown
Recreational 80–100 t (2012–13)
GDSMF
Gascoyne Demersal Scalefish Managed Fishery (WA)
JASDGDLMF
Joint Authority Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Managed Fishery (Zone 1 & Zone 2) (WA)
SBBSMNMF
Shark Bay Beach Seine and Mesh Net Managed Fishery (WA)
SCEMF
South Coast Estuarine Managed Fishery (WA)
SCTMF, WHRLF, WL (SC)
South Coast Trawl Managed Fishery, Windy Harbour Rock Lobster Fishery, Open access in the South Coast (WA)
SWTMF, WCDGDLIMF
South West Trawl Managed Fishery, West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Loneline (Interim) Managed Fishery, Open access in the West Coast (WA)
WCDSIMF
West Coast Demersal Scalefish (Interim) Managed Fishery (WA)

Indigenousa,b,d,e

 

a 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]) are exempt (subject to conditions) from the requirement to hold a recreational fishing licence, and 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 permits to access Snapper.

 

b Under the Fisheries Act 1994 (Qld), Indigenous fishers in Queensland are entitled to use prescribed traditional and non-commercial fishing apparatus in waters open to fishing. Size and possession limits, and seasonal closures do not apply to Indigenous fishers. Further exemptions to fishery regulations may be applied for through permits.

 

c Western Australia – Recreational (management methods) In Western Australia, total recreational catch limits (that is, maximum catch limits) have been applied to stocks of Snapper in inner Shark Bay and the west coast, to aid recovery of stocks.

 

d Aboriginal fishing interim compliance policy (increased bag limits) – allows an Indigenous fisher in New South Wales to take in excess of a recreational bag limit in certain circumstances, for example, if they are doing so to provide fish to other community members who cannot harvest themselves.

e Aboriginal cultural fishing authority - the authority that Indigenous persons can apply to take catches outside the recreational limits under the Fisheries Management Act 1994 (NSW), Section 37 (1)(c1), Aboriginal cultural fishing authority.

Toggle content

Catch Chart

Commercial catch of Snapper

Toggle content

Effects of fishing on the marine environment

  • Most of the fisheries that target adult Snapper use hook and line fishing techniques, which are likely to have little direct impact on benthic habitats. To date, limited research on the effects of fish traps on the benthic environment in New South Wales suggests only a minor influence (unpublished data, Department of Primary Industries, New South Wales).

 

  • Snapper are generalist feeders and normally just one of a number of such species inhabiting continental shelf waters. Effects on the food chain from fishing for Snapper are considered to be low risk. This is supported by a recent study which found no evidence of material changes in finfish community structure over the past 30 years in the three Western Australian Bioregions where Snapper are captured32.
Toggle content

Environmental effects on Snapper

  • A recent Fisheries Research and Development Corporation project identified two potential significant effects of climate change on Snapper populations33. First, there is an optimal temperature range of 18–22°C for the production and survivorship of Snapper larvae. Furthermore, peak spawning times vary with latitude, resulting in peak production corresponding to the optimal temperature range. Warmer projected sea surface temperature regimes in the future will alter the timing and/or length of these optimal conditions for spawning and larval survivorship in different regions. This might restrict opportunities for successful spawning and recruitment in the northern fisheries, but provide enhanced opportunities for some southern fisheries, and the opportunity for establishing new populations and fisheries further south. Such environmental changes might also affect spawning and recruitment for the populations in South Australia’s gulfs and Port Phillip Bay, Victoria.
  • The second possible effect of climate change on Snapper populations is greater variation in recruitment of fish aged 0+ years33. Such variable recruitment already accounts for the population dynamics and variation in fishery productivity for a number of Australia’s southern Snapper fisheries. Variation in recruitment is driven by the survivorship of the larvae. Larval survivorship depends on the overlap of the optimal temperature window with periods of high larval prey concentrations. The latter depends on nutrient input to marine environments. The effects of climate change on the dynamics of nutrient supply in Snapper spawning areas are difficult to predict because the sources of such nutrients vary from place to place. Furthermore, current understanding of nutrient supply and the dynamics of planktonic food chains is limited.
Toggle content

References

  1. 1 Kailola, PJ, Williams, MJ, Stewart, PC, Reichelt, RE, McNee, A and Grieve, C 1993, Australian fisheries resources, Bureau of Resource Sciences, Department of Primary Industries and Energy and Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.
  2. 2 Sumpton, WD, Ovenden, JR, Keenan CP and Street, R 2008, Evidence for a stock discontinuity of Snapper (Pagrus auratus) on the east coast of Australia, Fisheries Research, 94(1): 92–98.
  3. 3 Meggs, LB and Austin CM 2003, Low allozyme variation in Snapper, Pagrus auratus, in Victoria, Australia, Fisheries Management and Ecology, 10: 155–162.
  4. 4 Donnellan, SC and McGlennon D 1996, Stock identification and discrimination in Snapper (Pagrus auratus) in southern Australia, final report to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, project 94/168, South Australian Research and Development Institute, Adelaide.
  5. 5 Hamer, PA, Acevedo, S, Jenkins, GP and Newman, A 2011, Connectivity of a large embayment and coastal fishery: spawning aggregations in one bay source local and broad-scale fishery replenishment, Journal of Fish Biology, 78: 1090–1109.
  6. 6 Sanders, MJ 1974, Tagging study indicates two stocks of Snapper (Chrysophrys auratus) off south east Australia, Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 8: 371–374.
  7. 7 Fowler, AJ, McGarvey, R, Burch, P, Feenstra, JE, Jackson, WB and Lloyd MT 2013, Snapper (Chrysophrys auratus) fishery, Fishery assessment report to Primary Industries and Regions South Australia (Fisheries and Aquaculture), South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences) publication F2007/000523-3, SARDI research report series 713, SARDI, Adelaide.
  8. 8 Fowler, AJ 2016, The influence of fish movement on regional fishery production and stock structure for South Australia’s Snapper (Chrysophrys auratus) fishery. Final Report to FRDC (Project No. 2012/020). 181 pp.
  9. 9 Edmonds, JS, Steckis, RA, Moran, MJ, Caputi, N and Morita, M 1999, Stock delineation of Pink Snapper Pagrus auratus and Tailor Pomatomus saltatrix from Western Australia by analysis of stable isotope and strontium/calcium ratios in otolith carbonate, Journal of Fish Biology, 55: 243–259.
  10. 10 Jackson G 2007, Fisheries biology and management of Pink Snapper, Pagrus auratus, in the inner gulfs of Shark Bay, Western Australia, PhD thesis, Murdoch University, Perth.
  11. 11 Johnson, MS, Creagh, S and Moran, M 1986, Genetic subdivision of stocks of Snapper, Chrysophrys unicolor, in Shark Bay, Western Australia, Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 37: 337–345.
  12. 12 Lenanton, R, St John, J, Keay, I, Wakefield, C, Jackson, G, Wise, B and Gaughan, D (eds) 2009, Spatial scales of exploitation among populations of demersal scalefish: implications for management, part 2, Stock structure and biology of two indicator species, West Australian Dhufish (Glaucosoma hebraicum) and Pink Snapper (Pagrus auratus), in the West Coast Bioregion, Fisheries research report 174, Western Australian Department of Fisheries, Perth.
  13. 13 Moran, M, Burton, C and Jenke, J 2003, Long-term movement patterns of continental shelf and inner gulf Snapper (Pagrus auratus, Sparidae) from tagging in the Shark Bay region of Western Australia, Marine and Freshwater Research, 54: 913–922.
  14. 14 Fairclough, D, Johnson C and Lai, E 2009, West Coast Demersal Scalefish Fishery, in WJ Fletcher and K Santoro (eds) 2009, State of the fisheries report 2008/09, Western Australian Department of Fisheries, Perth.
  15. 15 Fairclough, DV, Molony, BW, Crisafulli, BM, Keay, IS, Hesp, SA and Marriott, RJ 2014, Status of demersal finfish stocks on the west coast of Australia, Fisheries research report 253, Western Australian Department of Fisheries, Perth.
  16. 16 Wise, BS, St John, J and Lenanton, RC (eds) 2007, Spatial scales of exploitation among populations of demersal scalefish: implications for management, part 1, Stock status of the key indicator species for the demersal scalefish fishery in the West Coast Bioregion, Fisheries research report 163, Western Australian Department of Fisheries, Perth.
  17. 17 Norriss, JV, Fisher, EA, Hesp, SA, Jackson, G, Coulson, PG, Leary, T and Thomson AW (in press) Status of inshore demersal scalefish stocks on the South Coast of Western Australia Fisheries Research Report, Western Australian Department of Fisheries, Perth.
  18. 18 Stewart, J, Hegarty, A, Young, C, Fowler, AM and Craig, J 2015, Status of Fisheries Resources in NSW 2013-14, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Mosman: 391pp.
  19. 19 West, L.D, Stark, KE, Murphy, JJ, Lyle JM and Doyle, FA 2015, Survey of recreational fishing in New South Wales and the ACT, 2013/14. Fisheries Final Report Series
  20. 20 Campbell, AB, O’Neill, MF, Sumpton, W, Kirkwood, J and Wesche, S 2009, Stock assessment summary of the Queensland Snapper fishery (Australia) and management strategies for improving sustainability, Queensland Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, Brisbane.
  21. 21 Henry, GW and Lyle, JM 2003, The National Recreational and Indigenous Fishing Survey, Fisheries Research and Development Corporation project 99/158, Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.
  22. 22 Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 2016, Queensland Stock Status Assessment Workshop 2016, 14–15 June 2016, Brisbane, Queensland DAF, Brisbane.
  23. 23 Taylor, S, Webley, J and McInnes, K 2012, 2010-11 Statewide Recreational Fishing Survey, Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Brisbane.
  24. 24 Webley, J, McInnes, K, Teixeira, D, Lawson, A and Quinn, R 2015, 2013-14 Statewide Recreational Fishing Survey, Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Brisbane.
  25. 25 Hamer, P and Conron, S 2016, Snapper stock assessment 2016, Fisheries Victoria Science Report Series 10, Fisheries Victoria, Queenscliff.
  26. 26 Fowler, AJ, McGarvey, R, Carroll, J, Feenstra, JE, Jackson, WB and Lloyd MT 2016, Snapper (Chrysophrys auratus) fishery, Fishery assessment report to Primary Industries and Regions South Australia (Fisheries and Aquaculture), South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences) in preparation.
  27. 27 Coutin, PC, Cashmore, S and Sivakumuran, KP 2003, Assessment of the Snapper fishery in Victoria, Fisheries Research and Development Corporation final report, project 97/128, Victorian Department of Primary Industries, Melbourne.
  28. 28 Stewart, J, Rowling, K, Hegarty, AM and Nuttall, A 2010, Size and age at sexual maturity of Snapper (Pagrus auratus) in New South Wales 2008/09, Fisheries research report series 27, Industry and Investment New South Wales, Cronulla.
  29. 29 Wakefield, CB 2006, Latitudinal and temporal comparisons of the reproductive biology and growth of Snapper, Pagrus auratus, in Western Australia, PhD thesis, Murdoch University, Perth.
  30. 30 Ryan, KL, Morison, AK and Conron, S 2009, Evaluating methods of obtaining total catch estimates for individual Victorian bay and inlet recreational fisheries, Fisheries Research and Development Corporation final report 2003/047, Department of Primary Industries, Victoria
  31. 31 Giri, K, and Hall, K, 2015, South Australian Recreational Fishing Survey. Fisheries Victoria Internal report Series No. 62.
  32. 32 Hall, NG and Wise, BS 2011, Development of an ecosystem approach to the monitoring and management of Western Australian fisheries, Fisheries Research and Development Corporation report 2005/063, Fisheries research report 215, Western Australian Department of Fisheries, Perth.
  33. 33 Pecl, G, Ward, T, Briceno, F, Fowler, A, Frusher, S, Gardner, C, Hamer, P, Hartmann, K, Hartog, J, Hobday, A, Hoshino, E, Jennings, S, Le Bouhellec, B, Linnane, A, Marzloff, M, Mayfield, S, Mundy, C, Ogier, E, Sullivan, A, Tracey, S, Tuck, G and Wayte, S 2014, Preparing fisheries for climate change: identifying adaptation options for four key fisheries in south eastern Australia, draft final report to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, project 2011/039.

Archived reports

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nunc vel ornare magna, nec viverra ante. Ut in ipsum tellus.