Search

Stocking of marine fish into coastal systems to augment natural recruitment is a growing practice adopted by fisheries managers around the world. Releasing fish directly into well‐resourced nursery grounds greatly increases survival and retention of stocked individuals but requires an understanding of juvenile habitat requirements. In eastern Australia, the dusky flathead (Platycephalus fuscus) is a highly regarded recreationally targeted species and the focus of an emerging stock enhancement programme, although little is known of their specific nursery habitat. Using acoustic telemetry, hatchery‐reared juveniles were monitored in Lake Macquarie to quantify habitat use and dispersal. Sandy areas adjacent to edges of seagrass beds were favoured, likely as foraging habitat. Within 5 weeks after release, fish were detected 5 km from the release site, but only at locations containing seagrass beds, so stocked fish likely disperse around estuaries to regions with suitable habitat. Future releases of dusky flathead should target areas containing patchy seagrass‐sand to optimise stocking outcomes. Beyond fisheries enhancement programmes, our findings highlight the importance of structured habitat, such as seagrass beds, for juvenile fish. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Researchers studying animals need to ensure that sampling procedures and the methods they use are as harmless and non-disruptive as possible, particularly when their focal species are threatened or protected. White sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) are Vulnerable under the IUCN Red List, protected globally, and are frequently studied by marine ecologists. Aims: To assess white shark responses to research activities (i.e. tagging and biopsy procedures, and electric deterrent trials) conducted at the Neptune Islands Group Marine Park (South Australia, Australia). Methods: Trends in shark residency following research activities were assessed by comparing shark abundance (number of sharks detected by acoustic receivers and sighted by cage-diving operators) before, during, and after scientific expeditions, and to natural fluctuations in the absence of research activities using 8 years (2013–2021) of acoustic tracking and daily sighting reports from a wildlife tourism industry. Key results: Number of white sharks and residency decreased after sampling. However, changes observed following research activities were similar to natural fluctuations, suggesting that these changes reflected natural variations rather than being due to sharks responding negatively to the research activities. Conclusions: Our study showed that external tagging, biopsies, or deterrent trials do not affect short- and long-term residency or abundance of white sharks, probably owing to the research activities being minimally intrusive and to sharks having efficient immune systems and remarkable ability to heal from injuries. Implications: Re-evaluating study methods forms part of the researcher's responsibilities to ensure best practice and to abide by national and international codes for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes. Researchers studying animals, particularly threatened or protected species, must ensure their activities are as harmless and non-disruptive as possible. We evaluated changes in white shark residency following three types of research activities and found evidence that none of them might have negatively affected these animals. Similar assessments should be performed when working with other species to ensure best practice and abide by codes for the care and use of animals. Photograph by Andrew Fox. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]