Age, growth, and intrinsic sensitivity of Endangered Spinetail Devil Ray () and Bentfin Devil Ray () in the Indian Ocean.

Ellen Barrowclift, Andrew J Temple, Sebastián A Pardo, Alexander M A Khan, Shoaib Abdul Razzaque, Nina Wambiji, Mochamad Rudyansyah Ismail, Lantun Paradhita Dewanti, Per Berggren
Author Information
  1. Ellen Barrowclift: School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK. ORCID
  2. Andrew J Temple: King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, Saudi Arabia. ORCID
  3. Sebastián A Pardo: Pacific Biological Station, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Nanaimo, BC Canada. ORCID
  4. Alexander M A Khan: Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Sciences, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia. ORCID
  5. Shoaib Abdul Razzaque: WWF Pakistan, Karachi, Pakistan. ORCID
  6. Nina Wambiji: Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute, Mombasa, Kenya. ORCID
  7. Mochamad Rudyansyah Ismail: Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Sciences, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia. ORCID
  8. Lantun Paradhita Dewanti: Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Sciences, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia. ORCID
  9. Per Berggren: School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK. ORCID

Abstract

Devil rays ( spp.) are caught in fisheries across the Indian Ocean, with reports of significant recent declines in catch and sightings. Globally, the few populations studied have extremely low population growth rates due to low fecundity and long reproductive cycles, making them highly vulnerable to overfishing. To allow for assessment of the current sustainability of devil ray catch in the Indian Ocean, we provide estimates of age using the caudal vertebrae; somatic growth using a Bayesian, multi-model approach; maximum intrinsic rate of population increase ( ); and fishing mortality for Endangered Spinetail Devil Ray () and Bentfin Devil Ray () sampled from small-scale fisheries catch in Indonesia, Kenya, and Pakistan. The oldest individuals of Spinetail Devil Ray ( = 79) and Bentfin Devil Ray ( = 59) were 17.5 and six years, respectively. Both species had relatively low growth coefficients ( = 0.05 and  = 0.19 year, respectively), with the von Bertalanffy and logistic models providing the best fitting growth models, and low (0.109 and 0.107 year, respectively) indicating that they are highly sensitive to overexploitation. Fishing mortality estimates (0.16 and 0.18 year, respectively) were higher than and exploitation ratio (0.77 and 0.80, respectively) were higher than an optimum value of 0.5 for biological sustainability for both species, suggesting that the fisheries catches of the species are unsustainable. We demonstrate an approach to assess data-poor species and apply this to two Indian Ocean devil ray species. The results highlight the urgent need for better management actions to reduce the catch of all devil rays to prevent species extinction and aid in population recovery.
Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00227-024-04564-6.

Keywords

References

  1. PLoS One. 2021 Feb 8;16(2):e0246734 [PMID: 33556124]
  2. J Fish Biol. 2012 Apr;80(5):1075-119 [PMID: 22497374]
  3. PLoS One. 2016 Feb 09;11(2):e0148770 [PMID: 26859577]
  4. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Jul;22(1):85-93 [PMID: 12858311]
  5. PLoS One. 2018 Oct 31;13(10):e0206581 [PMID: 30379918]
  6. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999 Jun;8(2):135-60 [PMID: 10501650]
  7. Proc Biol Sci. 2004 Aug 7;271(1548):1625-31 [PMID: 15306310]
  8. PeerJ. 2014 May 27;2:e400 [PMID: 24918029]
  9. J Fish Biol. 2010 Jul;77(1):169-90 [PMID: 20646146]
  10. Heredity (Edinb). 2021 Feb;126(2):308-319 [PMID: 33005043]
  11. Ecol Lett. 2006 Oct;9(10):1115-26 [PMID: 16972875]
  12. Proc Biol Sci. 2008 Jan 7;275(1630):83-9 [PMID: 17956843]
  13. Nat Ecol Evol. 2024 Jun;8(6):1118-1128 [PMID: 38769434]
  14. Ecol Evol. 2016 Feb 28;6(7):2125-38 [PMID: 27069573]
  15. Conserv Biol. 2024 Dec;38(6):e14292 [PMID: 38752470]
  16. Mol Ecol. 2025 Feb;34(4):e17220 [PMID: 37994168]
  17. J Fish Biol. 2017 Mar;90(3):1142-1148 [PMID: 28105677]
  18. Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Nov 7;269(1506):2229-37 [PMID: 12427316]
  19. Proc Biol Sci. 2005 Nov 22;272(1579):2337-44 [PMID: 16243696]
  20. PeerJ. 2021 Sep 08;9:e11994 [PMID: 34589295]
  21. J Fish Biol. 2023 Aug;103(2):305-323 [PMID: 37158279]
  22. J Theor Biol. 2006 Sep 7;242(1):90-100 [PMID: 16545843]
  23. Mol Ecol. 2020 Dec;29(24):4783-4796 [PMID: 33164287]
  24. Sci Rep. 2016 Sep 23;6:33745 [PMID: 27658342]
  25. Curr Biol. 2021 Nov 8;31(21):4773-4787.e8 [PMID: 34492229]
  26. J Fish Biol. 2020 Sep;97(3):708-719 [PMID: 32524614]
  27. PLoS One. 2013 Sep 11;8(9):e74835 [PMID: 24040348]
  28. J Fish Biol. 2010 Dec;77(10):2405-22 [PMID: 21155791]
  29. PeerJ. 2017 Mar 14;5:e3027 [PMID: 28316882]
  30. Nat Commun. 2016 Jan 19;7:10244 [PMID: 26784963]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0Devil0RayspeciesgrowthrespectivelyfisheriesIndianOceancatchlowpopulationdevilSpinetailBentfinrayshighlysustainabilityrayestimatesusingBayesianapproachintrinsicmortalityEndangered5 = 0modelsyearhighersppcaughtacrossreportssignificantrecentdeclinessightingsGloballypopulationsstudiedextremelyratesduefecunditylongreproductivecyclesmakingvulnerableoverfishingallowassessmentcurrentprovideagecaudalvertebraesomaticmulti-modelmaximumrateincreasefishingsampledsmall-scaleIndonesiaKenyaPakistanoldestindividuals = 79 = 5917sixyearsrelativelycoefficients0519 yearvonBertalanffylogisticprovidingbestfitting109107indicatingsensitiveoverexploitationFishing1618exploitationratio7780optimumvaluebiologicalsuggestingcatchesunsustainabledemonstrateassessdata-poorapplytworesultshighlighturgentneedbettermanagementactionsreducepreventextinctionaidrecoverySupplementaryInformation:onlineversioncontainssupplementarymaterialavailable101007/s00227-024-04564-6AgesensitivityBatoidsDemographyElasmobranchLifehistorySmall-scale

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.