*

Snapper (2020)

Chrysophrys auratus

  • Anthony Fowler (South Australian Research and Development Institute)
  • John Stewart (Department of Primary Industries, New South Wales)
  • Victorian Fisheries Authority (Victorian Fisheries Authority)
  • Anthony Roelofs (Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Queensland)
  • Anna Garland (Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Queensland)
  • Gary Jackson (Department of Primary Industries & Regional Development, Western Australia)

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

Toggle content

Summary

Snapper is widely distributed in Australia and managed as twleve stocks. Six are sustainable, one is recovering, four are depleted and one is undefined.

Toggle content

Stock Status Overview

Stock status determination
Jurisdiction Stock Stock status Indicators
Western Australia Shark Bay Inshore Freycinet Estuary Sustainable Catch, estimated biomass
Western Australia West Coast Recovering Catch, fishing mortality rate, spawning potential ratio
Western Australia South Coast Sustainable Catch, fishing mortality rate, spawning potential ratio
Western Australia Shark Bay Oceanic Depleted Catch, CPUE, estimated biomass
Western Australia Shark Bay Inshore Denham Sound Sustainable Catch, estimated biomass
Western Australia Shark Bay Inshore Eastern Gulf Sustainable Catch, estimated biomass
Toggle content

Stock Structure

Snapper has a wide distribution in Australia, from waters off the north coast  of Western Australia, around the south of the continent, and up to northern Queensland around Hinchinbrook Island [Kailola et al. 1993]. Within this broad distribution, the biological stock structure is complex.

Recent genetic studies of Snapper using microsatellite markers have led to a refined understanding of stock structure for the east Australian coast that have indicated greater complexity than previously thought. Snapper from Queensland to central New South Wales show little genetic differentiation and are considered to represent a single genetic stock [Morgan et al. 2019], consistent with earlier studies using allozymes [Sumpton et al. 2008]. This stock is referred to as the East Coast Stock, with the Queensland and New South Wales components managed and assessed at the jurisdictional level. Snapper within the East Coast biological stock are thought to be largely resident; however some individuals do move long distances [Sumpton et al. 2003, Harasti et al. 2015, Stewart et al. 2019]. The majority of commercial landings in New South Wales are thought to consist of fish that recruit from local estuaries [Gillanders 2002]. In addition to the limited mixing within the stock, key biological traits of Snapper (such as the size and age at maturity) vary with latitude [Stewart et al. 2010]. It is therefore appropriate to manage and report on stock status of the East Coast biological stock of Snapper at the jurisdictional level – as Queensland and New South Wales jurisdictional stocks.

Snapper from eastern Victoria are now recognised as genetically differentiated from those that inhabit the southern coast of New South Wales, i.e. north of Eden [Morgan et al. 2019]. As such, Snapper from Wilsons Promontory to southern New South Wales are considered a separate biological stock that is now referred to as the Eastern Victorian stock. Although there is low genetic variation between the eastern and western sides of Wilsons Promontory [Meggs and Austin 2003, Morgan et al. unpublished], separation between these populations has been supported by tagging and otolith chemistry studies [Coutin et al. 2003, Hamer et al. 2011]. Snapper to the west of Wilsons Promontory, including the important fisheries of Port Phillip Bay and Western Port, constitute the Western Victorian biological stock. This stock extends westward from Wilsons Promontory to near the mouth of the Murray River in south eastern South Australia [Sanders 1974, Donnellan and McGlennon 1996, Hamer et al. 2011, Fowler et al. 2017].

The South Australian fishery was originally divided into six management units, due to uncertainty about movement among different regional populations [Fowler et al. 2013]. However, a recent study evaluated the stock structure and adult movement among regional populations within South Australia, and western Victoria [Fowler 2016, Fowler et al. 2017], based on inter-regional comparisons of otolith chemistry and increment widths, as well as population characteristics. The study differentiated three stocks. The Western Victorian stock, which extends westward into south-eastern South Australia, 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 managed independently. The two other stocks are wholly located within South Australia. The Spencer Gulf/West Coast stock depends on recruitment into Northern Spencer Gulf from where some fish eventually 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 Northern Gulf St. Vincent, and subsequent emigration to Southern Gulf St. Vincent and Investigator Strait [Fowler 2016, Fowler et al. 2017].

In Western Australia, Snapper is currently divided into six management units. At the smaller geographic scale inside Shark Bay within the Gascoyne bioregion, genetically-related but biologically separate stocks have been identified in the Eastern Gulf, Denham Sound and Freycinet Estuary based on otolith microchemistry, tagging and egg/larval dispersal modelling [Johnson et al. 1986, Edmonds et al. 1999, Bastow et al. 2002, Moran et al. 2003, Nahas et al. 2003, Norriss et al. 2012, Gardner et al. 2017]. At the larger  scale, Snapper in oceanic waters off the Western Australian coast that comprise the three remaining management units, i.e. Shark Bay Oceanic, West Coast and South Coast, show low levels of genetic differentiation (microsatellites) over hundreds of kilometres consistent with a semi-continuous genetic stock where gene flow is primarily limited by geographic distance [Gardner and Chaplin 2011, Gardner et al. 2017]. Otolith microchemistry has indicated residency of adult Snapper in the Gascoyne, West and South Coast bioregions, but with recruitment likely coming from multiple nursery areas [Wakefield et al. 2011, Fairclough et al. 2013]. Tagging studies support these findings with the majority of adults tagged at the key spawning locations in the Gascoyne and West Coast bioregions recaptured within 100 km, as well as philopatry of adults that aggregate to spawn in embayments on the west coast [Moran et al. 2003, Wakefield et al. 2011, Crisafulli et al. 2019] A current FRDC project is using genomics, otolith microchemistry and ocean circulation modelling to better understand Snapper stock connectivity in oceanic waters off the Gascoyne and West Coast.

Here, assessment of stock status for Snapper is presented at the biological stock level—Shark Bay inshore Eastern Gulf, Shark Bay inshore Denham Sound, Shark Bay inshore Freycinet Estuary (Western Australia); Eastern Victoria (Victoria), Western Victoria (Victoria and South Australia), Gulf St Vincent, Spencer Gulf/West Coast (South Australia); the management unit level—South Coast, Shark Bay Oceanic and West Coast (Western Australia); and the jurisdictional level–Queensland and New South Wales.

Toggle content

Stock Status

Shark Bay Inshore Denham Sound

The most recent integrated model-based stock assessment (completed in 2015) that included data to 2012, indicated that spawning biomass at that time was well above the management target of 40 per cent of unfished biomass [Jackson et al. 2015]. More recently (2020), a Catch-MSY analysis using catch data (all sectors) for the period 1980-2019 produced an MSY-estimate of 12.87 t (95% CLs 10.15-15.36) (DPIRD unpublished data). Given the very conservative management arrangements that have been in effect since 2003, and the corresponding low level of catches against the target ranges (see below), the biological stock is not considered to be recruitment impaired.

The commercial catch of Snapper from the Denham Sound biological stock was < 1 t in 2019, well within the target range of < 4 t. The recreational catch (including charter sector) in 2018/19 was around 6 t, well within the target range of < 12 t. This level of fishing mortality is unlikely to cause the biological stock to become recruitment impaired.

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 Eastern Gulf

The most recent integrated model-based stock assessment (completed in 2015) that included data to 2012, indicated that spawning biomass at that time was well above the management target of 40 per cent of unfished biomass [Jackson et al. 2015]. More recently (2020), a Catch-MSY analysis using catch data (all sectors) for the period 1980-2019 produced an MSY-estimate of 24.50 t (95% CLs 17.18-35.12) (DPIRD unpublished data). Given the very conservative management arrangements that have been in effect since 2003, and the corresponding low level of catches against the target ranges (see below), the biological stock is not considered to be recruitment impaired.

The commercial catch of Snapper from the Eastern Gulf biological stock was nil in 2019 (target range of < 4 t). The recreational catch (including charter sector) in 2018/19 was around 2 t, well within the target range of < 12 t. This level of fishing mortality is unlikely to cause the biological stock to become recruitment impaired.

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 Freycinet Estuary

The most recent integrated model-based stock assessment (completed in 2015) that included data to 2013, indicated that spawning biomass was well above the management target of 40 per cent of unfished biomass [Jackson et al. 2015]. More recently (2020), a Catch-MSY analysis using catch data (all sectors) for the period 1980-2019 produced an MSY-estimate of 13.86 t (95% CLs 10.83-16.86) (DPIRD unpublished data). Given the very conservative management arrangements that have been in effect since 2003, and the corresponding low level of catches against the target ranges (see below) for much of the period since then, the biological stock is not considered to be recruitment impaired.

The commercial catch of Snapper from the Freycinet Estuary biological stock was nil in 2019 (target range around 1 t). The recreational catch (including charter sector) in 2018/19 was around 13 t, considerably higher than the target range of < 4  t. This level of fishing mortality however is around the estimated mean Catch-MSY and is unlikely to cause the biological stock to become recruitment impaired.

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

Shark Bay Oceanic

The most recent integrated model-based stock assessment (completed in 2017) that included data to the 2015/16 season indicated that spawning biomass in 2015 was around the management limit level of 20 per cent of the unfished biomass [Jackson et al. 2020]. The stock is considered to be recruitment impaired.  Management action was taken in 2018 to reduce fishing mortality (TACC reduced to 51 t) and protect spawning aggregations (northern Bernier Island closed area June-August inclusive).

The commercial catch of Snapper from the Shark Bay Oceanic management unit in the 2018–19 season was 45 t which is  below the TACC (51 t).  The recreational catch (includes charter) in 2017/18 was around 25 t. This level of fishing mortality where total catch is reduced to 20-25% of the pre-2007 level is expected to assist the stock recovering from its recruitment impaired state. The model-based stock assessment will be updated in 2022 and will include catch and biological data to the 2020/21 season.

On the basis of the evidence provided above, Shark Bay Oceanic (Western Australia) management unit is classified as a depleted stock.

South Coast

The most recent (completed in 2015) stock assessment of Snapper on the south coast of Western Australia [Norriss et al. 2016] that included data to 2014 indicated that estimates of fishing mortality rate and spawning potential ratio were between the management target and threshold levels. The stock is not considered to be recruitment impaired.

The total commercial catch of Snapper from the South Coast management unit in 2019 was 38 t. The recreational catch in 2017/18 was around 10 t. While there are no formal catch limits in place, under the current catch levels that are well within the historic range, the level of fishing mortality, estimated to be above the reference level (i.e. F=M), is unlikely to cause the stock to become recruitment impaired.

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

West Coast

Four assessments completed between  2007 and 2017, based on catch curve analyses of age composition data, indicated that fishing mortality rate (F) in the West Coast management unit of Western Australia exceeded the limit reference point of 1.5 times the natural mortality rate [Wise et al. 2007,Fairclough et al. 2014 ]. Significant changes were made to the management of the commercial and recreational sectors between 2007 and 2010 to recover stocks, in response to the high fishing mortality rates. To reduce fishing mortality to a level that would allow the stock to recover, the total retained catch of Snapper by all sectors had to be reduced by at least 50 per cent, to no more than 163 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 the commercial fishery between 2011 and 2014. Catches of Snapper by the recreational sector recently exceeded the acceptable level of 37 t [Fairclough et al. 2020]. Further management action was taken, which reduced annual commercial catches to less than 90 t [Fairclough et al. 2020], a level expected to allow recovery to continue. Unit entitlements were also reduced for the WCDGDLIMF to limit commercial Snapper catches. Retained catches of Snapper by the recreational sector have exceeded the acceptable level of 37 t since 2011/12 and high releases rates (71% of fish caught in 2017/18) may be resulting in additional fishing mortality (Ryan et al. 2019, Fairclough et al. 2020).

An assessment in 2017 (based on age structure data from 2012–14) indicated that F was above the limit and spawning potential ratio (SPR) was between the limit and threshold reference points of SPR = 0.2–0.3. However, F had decreased from that derived from the previous period of age structure data in 2009–11 [Fairclough et al. 2020]. Additional estimates of F were derived from the same age structures using a method that allows for a change in fishing mortality, i.e. for cohorts that have recruited to the fishery pre- and post- management changes commencing in 2008 [Fisher 2013]. This demonstrated that F estimates were lower for age classes recruited to the fishery after management changes vs those that had recruited before, i.e. F = 0.14 vs 0.27, demonstrating that there was a reduction in recent fishing mortality. The above evidence indicates that current fishing mortality is constrained by management to a level that should allow the stock to recover from its recruitment impaired state.

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

Toggle content

Biology

Snapper biology [Jackson et al. 2010, Stewart et al. 2010, Wakefield et al. 2015, Fowler et al. 2016, Wakefield et al. 2016]

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

Distributions

Distribution of reported commercial catch of Snapper
Toggle content

Tables

Fishing methods
Western Australia
Commercial
Hand Line, Hand Reel or Powered Reels
Line
Dropline
Gillnet
Beach Seine
Haul Seine
Fish Trap
Longline (Unspecified)
Charter
Spearfishing
Rod and reel
Recreational
Hook and Line
Indigenous
Unspecified
Management methods
Method Western Australia
Charter
Licence
Commercial
Catch limits
Gear restrictions
Limited entry
Size limit
Spatial closures
Recreational
Bag and boat limits
Catch limits
Gear restrictions
Licence
Possession limit
Seasonal closures
Size limit
Spatial closures
Catch
Western Australia
Commercial 140.61t
Charter 22 t
Indigenous Unknown
Recreational 77 t (2017/18)

Western Australia - Recreational (Catch) Ryan et al. 2017.

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.

Queensland – Indigenous (management methods) for more information see https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/business-priorities/fisheries/traditional-fishing

New South Wales – Recreational (Catch) Murphy et al. [2020].

New South Wales – Indigenous (management methods) (https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fishing/aboriginal-fishing.

Victoria – Indigenous (Management Methods) A person who identifies as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander is exempt from the need to obtain a Victorian recreational fishing licence, provided they comply with all other rules that apply to recreational fishers, including rules on equipment, catch limits, size limits and restricted areas. Traditional (non-commercial) fishing activities that are carried out by members of a traditional owner group entity under an agreement pursuant to Victoria’s Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 are also exempt from the need to hold a recreational fishing licence, subject to any conditions outlined in the agreement. Native title holders are also exempt from the need to obtain a recreational fishing licence under the provisions of the Commonwealth’s Native Title Act 1993.

South Australia – Recreational (Catch) Giri and Hall 2015.

Toggle content

Catch Chart

Commercial catch of Snapper - note confidential catch not shown
Toggle content

References

  1. Bastow, TP, Jackson, G, Edmonds, JS 2002, Elevated salinity and isotopic composition of fish otolith carbonate: stock delineation of snapper, Pagrus auratus, in Shark Bay, Western Australia. Marine Biology 141: 801–806.
  2. Bessell-Browne, P, Prosser, AJ, and Garland, A 2020, Pre-recruitment abundance indices for eastern king prawn, blue swimmer crab and snapper in south-eastern Queensland, Technical Report, State of Queensland.
  3. Conron, SD, Bell, JD, Ingram, BA and Gorfine, HK 2020, Review of key Victorian fish stocks — 2019, Victorian Fisheries Authority Science Report Series No. 15, First Edition, November 2020. VFA: Queenscliff. 176pp.
  4. Coutin, PC, Cashmore, S, and Sivakumuran, KP, 2003, Assessment of the snapper fishery in Victoria. Final report to Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Australia. Project No 97/127., p. 210.
  5. Crisafulli, BM, Fairclough, DV, Keay, IS, Lewis, P, How, JR, Ryan, KL, Taylor, SM and Wakefield, CB in press, Does a spatio-temporal closure to fishing Chrysophrys auratus (Sparidae) spawning aggregations also protect individuals during migration? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 76, 1171-1185.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Fairclough, D and Walters, S, 2020, West coast demersal scalefish resource status report 2020, in DJ Gaughan and K Santoro (eds), Status reports of the fisheries and aquatic resources of Western Australia 2019/20: The State of the Fisheries, Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, Western Australia, Perth.
  9. Fairclough, DV, Edmonds, JS, Jackson, G, Lenanton, RCJ, Kemp, J, Molony, BW, Keay, IS, Crisafulli, BM, and Wakefield, CB 2013, A comparison of the stock structures of two exploited demersal teleosts, employing complementary methods of otolith element analysis. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 439: 181–195
  10. 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.
  11. Fisher, E 2013, Tools for assessing data-limited fisheries and communicating stock status information, PhD thesis, Murdoch University, Perth.
  12. Fowler, A, Jackson, G, Stewart, J, Hamer, P and Roelofs, A, Snapper Chrysophrys auratus, in Carolyn Stewardson, James Andrews, Crispian Ashby, Malcolm Haddon, Klaas Hartmann, Patrick Hone, Peter Horvat, Stephen Mayfield, Anthony Roelofs, Keith Sainsbury, Thor Saunders, John Stewart, Simon Nicol and Brent Wise (eds) 2018, Status of Australian fish stocks reports 2018, Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.
  13. 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.
  14. Fowler, AJ, Hamer, PA and Kemp J 2017, Age-related otolith chemistry profiles help resolve demographics and meta-population structure of a widely-dispersed, coastal fishery species. Fisheries Research 189: 77–94.
  15. 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.
  16. 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), Adelaide. F2007/000523-4. SARDI Research Report Series No. 930. 82 pp.
  17. Fowler, AJ, Smart, J, McGarvey, R, Feenstra, J, Bailleul, F, Buss, JJ, Drew, M, Matthews, D, Matthews, J, Rogers, T 2020, Snapper (Chrysophrys auratus) Fishery. Fishery Assessment Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture, South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. F2007/000523-6. SARDI Research Report No. 1072. 111 pp.
  18. Fowler, AJ, Steer, MA, McGarvey, R, Smart, J 2019, Snapper (Chrysophrys auratus) Fishery. Fishery Assessment Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture, South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. F2007/000523-5. SARDI Research Report Series No. 1031. 64 pp.
  19. Gardner, MJ and Chaplin, JA 2011, Genetic (microsatellite) determination of the stock structures of the Baldchin grouper (Choerodon rubescens) and Pink snapper (Pagrus auratus) in Western Australian waters, including an assessment of stock boundaries, recruitment sinks and sources and environmental influences on gene flow. Final Report, WAMSI Sub-project 4.4.2-b. Murdoch University, Perth.
  20. Gardner, MJ, Chaplin, JA, Potter, I, Fairclough, DV and Jackson, G 2017, The genetic structure of a marine teleost, Chrysophrys auratus, in a large, heterogeneous marine embayment. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 1411–1425.
  21. Gillanders, BM 2002, Connectivity between juvenile and adult fish populations: do adults remain near their recruitment estuaries? Marine Ecology Progress Series, 240:215–223.
  22. Giri, K, and Hall, K, 2015, South Australian Recreational Fishing Survey. Fisheries Victoria Internal report Series No. 62.
  23. 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.
  24. Harasti, D, Lee, KA, Gallen, C, Hughes, JM and Stewart, J 2015, Movements, home range and site fidelity of snapper (Chrysophrys auratus) within a no-take marine protected area. PLoS One 10(11): e0142454
  25. Jackson G, Denham A, Hesp A, Hall N, Fisher E, Stephenson P (2020) Gascoyne Demersal Scalefish Resource, Resource Assessment Report No 9, Department of Primary Industries & Regional Development, Western Australia, Perth. 93 pp.
  26. Jackson, G, Brown, J and Zilles, H. 2015, Inner Shark Bay Scalefish Fishery Status Report, in Fletcher, WJ and Santoro , K (eds), Status reports of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western Australia 2014/15: The State of the Fisheries, Department of Fisheries, Western Australia, Perth.
  27. Jackson, G, Norriss JV, Mackie MC and Hall NG 2010, Spatial variation in life history characteristics of snapper (Pagrus auratus) within Shark Bay, Western Australia. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 44: 1–15
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. Meggs, LB and Austin CM 2003, Low allozyme variation in Snapper, Pagrus auratus, in Victoria, Australia, Fisheries Management and Ecology, 10: 155–162.
  31. 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.
  32. Morgan, JA, Sumpton, W, Jones, A, Campbell, AB, Stewart, J, Hamer, P, and Ovenden JR 2018, Assessment of genetic structure among Australian east coast populations of snapper, Chrysophrys auratus (Sparidae). Marine and Freshwater Research, 70(7), pp.964-976.
  33. Murphy, JJ, Ochwada-Doyle, FA, West, LD, Stark, KE and Hughes, JM 2020, The NSW Recreational Fisheries Monitoring Program - survey of recreational fishing, 2017/18. NSW DPI - Fisheries Final Report Series No. 158.
  34. Nahas EL, Jackson G, Pattiaratchi CB and Ivey GN (2003) Hydrodynamic modelling of snapper (Pagrus auratus) egg and larval dispersal in Shark Bay, Western Australia: reproductive isolation at a fine spatial scale. Marine Ecology Progress Series 265: 213-226
  35. Norriss, J, Moran, M and Jackson, G 2012 Tagging studies reveal restricted movement of snapper (Pagrus auratus) within Shark Bay, supporting fine scale fisheries management Marine and Freshwater Research, 63: 1191–1199
  36. Norriss, JV, Fisher, EA, Hesp, SA, Jackson, G, Coulson, PG, Leary, T and Thomson AW 2016, Status of inshore demersal scalefish stocks on the South Coast of Western Australia Fisheries Research Report 276, Western Australian Department of Fisheries, Perth.
  37. QFish, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, www.qfish.gov.au
  38. Ryan, KL, Hall, NG, Lai, EK, Smallwood, CB, Tate, A, Taylor, SM and Wise BS 2019. Statewide survey of boat-based recreational fishing in Western Australia 2017/18. Fisheries Research Report No. 297, Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, Western Australia.
  39. 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.
  40. Stewart, J 2020. Status of Australian Fish Stocks 2020 – NSW Stock status summary – Snapper (Chrysophrys auratus).
  41. Stewart, J, Pidd, A, Fowler, AM and Sumpton, W, 2019. Latitudinal variation in growth rates and limited movement patterns revealed for east-coast snapper Chrysophrys auratus through long-term cooperative-tagging programs. Marine and Freshwater Research. 71, 653-661.
  42. Stewart, J, Rowling, K, Hegarty, A-M and Nuttall, A 2010, Size and age at sexual maturity of snapper Pagrus auratus in New South Wales 2008/09. Industry and Investment NSW – Fisheries Research Report Series No. 27. 38pp.
  43. 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.
  44. Sumpton, WD, Sawynok, B, Carstens, N 2003, Localised movement of snapper (Pagrus auratus, Sparidae) in a large subtropical marine embayment. Marine and Freshwater Research 54:923–930
  45. Taylor, S, Webley, J and McInnes K 2012, 2012 Statewide recreational Fishing Survey, Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, Queensland.
  46. Teixeira, D, Janes, R, and Webley, J 2021, 2019/20 Statewide Recreational Fishing Survey Key Results. Project Report. State of Queensland, Brisbane
  47. Wakefield, CB, Fairclough, DV, Lenanton, RCJ and Potter, IC 2011, Spawning and nursery habitat partitioning and movement patterns of Pagrus auratus (Sparidae) on the lower west coast of Australia, Fisheries Research 109: 243–251
  48. Wakefield, CB, Potter, IC, Hall NG, Lenanton RCJ, and Hesp SA 2015, Marked variations in reproductive characteristics of snapper (Chrysophrys auratus, Sparidae) and their relationship with temperature over a wide latitudinal range. ICES Journal of Marine Science 70: 2341–2349
  49. Wakefield, CB, Potter, IC, Hall NG, Lenanton RCJ, and Hesp SA 2016, Timing of growth zone formations in otoliths of snapper, Chrysophrys auratus, in subtropical and temperate waters differ and growth follows a parabolic relationship with latitude, ICES Journal of Marine Science 74: 180–192
  50. Webley, J, McInnes, K, Teixeira, D, Lawson, A and Quinn, R 2015, Statewide Recreational Fishing Survey 2013–14, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Queensland.
  51. West, LD, Stark, KE, Murphy, JJ, Lyle, JM and Ochwada-Doyle, FA 2015, Survey of recreational fishing in New South wales and the ACT, 2013–14, Fisheries Final Report Series 149, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Sydney.
  52. 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.
  53. Wortmann, J 2020, Queensland rocky reef finfish harvest and catch rates, Project Report, The State of Queensland.
  54. Wortmann, J, O’Neill, MF, Sumpton, W and Stewart, J 2018, Stock assessment of Australian east coast snapper, Chrysophrys auratus. Predictions of stock status and reference points for 2016. Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries

Downloadable reports

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