You are here: Reef Watch > Publications Web > SamsccHome > SamsccBonyFamilies > SamsccSYNGNATHIDAE > SamsccShaggy_Pipefish_-_Prickly_Pipefish
© Baker, J.L. (2009) Marine Species of Conservation Concern in South Australia Full citation


Shaggy Pipefish / Prickly Pipefish

Family Name: Syngnathidae
Scientific Name: Hypselognathus horridus Dawson and Glover, 1982
Recommended Status in S.A: Data Deficient, possibly Endangered B1b(ii)(iii)
Rationale:  The Shaggy Pipefish is included here because (i) it is a species of syngnathid, from a family whose members are considered to have vulnerable population characteristics when exploited (intentionally or as bycatch); (ii) to date, the species is only known from a very limited area (i.e. eastern Great Australian Bight in S.A.), and thus the known geographic range may be narrow; (iii) the species in known to date from a narrow depth range; (iv) little is known of the population sizes, basic biology, critical habits (including full distribution and depth), or population response to bycatch mortality. There is no evidence of population decline (and no research has been undertaken), and more study is needed on this species to accurately determine its conservation status. For example, an assessment is required to determine the vulnerability of Shaggy Pipefish populations to trawl bycatch and mortality, relative to the distribution and relative abundance of this species in its main habitats(s). Pending further assessment, the species may qualify for listing as Endangered (according to the modified IUCN / TSSS criteria used for assessment in S.A.), due to the narrow geographic range (i.e. extent of occurrence may be less than 5000km2); small number of locations where the species has been recorded to date; narrow depth range known to date; strong site association of pipefishes, and the existence of ongoing threatening processes (e.g. prawn trawling).  Current monitoring of the bycatch of shallow water trawls (e.g. for prawns) in the eastern GAB is required to gather more data about this species if possible, whilst methods are devised to reduce the bycatch of such site-associated species of apparent limited geographic distribution and depth range.

Page Contents

Current Conservation Status

All syngnathids are subject to the export controls of the Commonwealth Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 from 1 January 1998.
All syngnathids and solenostomids are listed as marine species under s248 of the EPBC Act 1999
Since January 2006, fishes in the Syngnathidae (seadragons, pipefish, pipehorses) have been formally protected in South Australia, under the Fisheries (General) Variation Regulations 2006 of the South Australian Fisheries Act.
Pogonoski et al. (2002) suggested Data Deficient
Australian Society of Fish Biology 2001 list: Data Deficient
 

Distribution

Hypselognathus horridus is a temperate, endemic Australian pipefish currently known from the eastern part of the Great Australian Bight, South Australia (134o37’E to 133o30’E). Records range from the Anxious Bay area (including Point Weyland, and a site seaward of Venus Bay), westwards to the Ceduna area (e.g. locations south and south-east of Evans Island) (South Australian Museum records, 1981 and 1982; Museum of Victoria record, 1973, cited in OZCAM database, 2007).
The holotype and paratype come from outside of Venus Bay, in Anxious Bay (33.21666 S and 134.55000 E) (S.A. Museum data, 1981; Dawson and Glover, 1982).
The known distribution is largely based on 8 specimens (taken mainly by trawlers) during 1981 and 1982, at depths between 40m and 55m (Dawson, 1985, cited by Pogonoski et al., 2002; OZCAM database, 2007).
The species might be present in the Great Australian Bight Marine Park (Pogonoski et al., 2002), but there are no records known to date from that depth.
 

Habitat

The habitat has not been documented in detail; however, based on collected specimens, the Shaggy Pipefish is known to occur in benthic habitat within parts of the Great Australian Bight, at least at depths of 40m-55m (and possibly over a wider depth range).
 
 
 

Notes on the Biology

Growth

The species grows to at least 28cm SL (Dawson, in Gomon et al., 1994), possibly 29 – 30cm (Dawson, 1985, cited by Pogonoski et al., 2002).
 

Diet

The diet is unknown, but like other members of the family Syngnathidae, this species probably feeds on small crustaceans (Dawson, 1985, cited by Pogonoski et al., 2002).
 

Reproduction

Little is known of the reproduction in this species. The male carries the eggs in a brood pouch which is found under the tail. The brood pouch is developed at about 154mm SL, suggesting that males are probably brooding at this size (Dawson, 1985, cited by Pogonoski et al., 2002). Specimens examined at the S.A. Museum had 20, 60 and 80 eggs, and the smallest brooding male in that sample was 23cm (Browne, 2004). 
 

Other Information

The Prickly Pipefish is considered unusual (Dawson and Glover, 1982), by the presence of spinigerous head and body surfaces, absence of scutella, and presence of caudal fin and caudal brood pouch.

Vulnerable Characteristics of the Species, and Threatening Processes

Many of the life history characteristics of syngnathids make them susceptible to impacts, and vulnerable to population decline. Such characteristics include low population densities; strong habitat association; small home range sizes and low mobility; possible low rates of natural adult mortality (due to low levels of predation, hence human-induced mortality may disrupt population dynamics); monogamy and localised reproduction; aggregation (in some species) for feeding and/or breeding; small brood sizes, and strong association between adults and young.
Due to the limited number and geographic range of specimens recorded to date, the full distribution and depth range are not known, but it appears that the Shaggy Pipefish may be endemic within South Australia. The species may have a limited depth range, and specific habitat requirements. Pogonoski et al. (2002) considered that benthic habitats within parts of the Great Australian Bight , at least in depths of 40m-55m (but possibly a wider depth range) might be important to the survival of this species.
Due to its restricted distribution, any commercial fishing methods (e.g. trawling) that catch this species are considered potentially threatening to its survival, within its limited known distribution (Pogonoski et al., 2002). Data are lacking on the specific effects of trawling on Shaggy Pipefish populations and individuals, but it is noted that another syngnathid from a similar known depth in that area (Robust Pipehorse) is reported to suffer prolapse when caught, and hence survival of trawl-caught specimens may be low (K. Graham, cited by Pogonoski et al., 2002). Of particular concern may be prawn trawling in the eastern Great Australian Bight, which operates over the known geographic and depth range of this species. However, it is noted that in the GAB Trawl Fishery, a recent ecological risk assessment (Daley et al., 2006) ranked this species as being at low risk of population impacts from the operation of that fishery, likely due to the low frequency of capture at the depths in which the GAB trawls operate. In similar risk assessment for species in the South East Trawl and Danish Seine Fishery (SETF) (Wayte et al., 2004), and the Gillnet, Hook and Trap Fishery (GHAT) (Webb et al., 2004), H. horridus was listed as being at “medium risk” of population impacts from the operation of both of those fisheries, yet the species is not known to have been caught, to date, in either the SETF bycatch (Wayte et al., 2004) or the GHAT bycatch (Webb et al., 2004).
 

Research Requirements

The distributional range, abundance, habitat requirements, biology and ecology of this species all require further investigation (Pogonoski et al., 2002), which will assist in determining the conservation status of this species.
When captured in the West Coast Prawn Trawl fishery in South Australia, all specimens, with corresponding collecting details, should be provided to the South Australian Museum.
More generally, bycatch of Shaggy Pipefish in all coastal fisheries should be recorded, over space and time. 
 

Management Requirements

In S.A., a system should be developed for the ongoing collection and monitoring of bycatch data from the West Coast Prawn Fishery (as currently occurs in the Spencer Gulf Prawn Trawl Fishery), sufficient to enable identification of long-term trends in bycatch (Australian Government DEH, 2004b; Dixon et al., 2005). In the West Coast prawn trawl fishery in S.A., methods (such as gear improvements) to reduce bycatch of syngnathid fishes should be adopted, where possible. It is noted that prawn fisheries in southern Australia have made significant efforts during the past decades to reduce the bycatch of bony fishes. Examples for Spencer Gulf and Gulf St Vincent include the spatial and temporal organisation and “real time” management of the fishing fleet in some areas (e.g. Spencer Gulf) to minimise capture of undersized prawns and bycatch species, and developments in gear design to reduce bycatch, such as square-mesh cod-ends, bycatch chutes, hopper/conveyor systems, and the fitting of exclusion devices (e.g. MacDonald, 1998; Carrick, 1997; Broadhurst et al., 1999; South Australian Prawn Industry Association web site, 2000; PIRSA, 2003).
Measures (such as improvements in net design) to reduce the bycatch of benthic fish species in all trawl fisheries are recommended.
Although the main part of this species’ range is likely to be in waters shallower than those worked by Commonwealth-managed fisheries, bycatch should be monitored for the presence of Shaggy Pipefish, in fisheries such as the otter trawl and Danish seine of the SETF; GAB Trawl Fishery, and the Gillnet, Hook and Trap Fishery (Southern Shark fishery and South-East Non-Trawl Fishery).
The designation of suitable non-trawl protected areas within the range of the Shaggy Pipefish may assist the survival of populations over the long term.
 

Other Information

The species might occur in the Great Australian Bight Marine Park (S.A. waters component) (Pogonoski et al., 2002; Commonwealth of Australia and Government of South Australia, 2004).
There is no known trade for this species (Pogonoski et al., 2002).
 
Support for S.A. Listing: Graham Edgar (University of Tasmania), and Barry Hutchins (WA Museum), both recommending Data Deficient category.
 
 

r2 - 21 Jun 2008 - 06:44:43 - JanineBaker









 
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platformCopyright © 1997 - 2012 Reef Watch and contributing authors. All material on this site is the property of Reef Watch and its contributing authors.
Reef Watch is a project of the Conservation Council of South Australia inc. Ideas, requests, problems regarding Reef Watch? Send feedback