Technical ReportPDF Available

Keppel and Magnetic Islands Monitoring Report (12 months after harvest)

Authors:
  • Reef Ecologic
  • Reef Ecologic

Abstract

The red macroalgae Asparagopsis taxiformis (Red Sea Plume) was observed at all locations during this monitoring period. Three monitoring techniques were utilised to assess reef health at three locations containing control and impact sites. Magnetic Island had an average macroalgae cover between 25% and 51.1% and Keppel Island had an average macroalgae cover of between 6% and 29.6%. The macroalgae at Magnetic Island was harvested at depths of 1 m to 3 m and in the Keppel Islands between 8 m to 12 m. It appears that there are more macroalgae at Magnetic Island compared to Keppel Islands. The average number of species observed using the iNaturalist method at Magnetic Island varied from 6 to 25 with an overall average of 18 species. The most observations were Red Sea Plume, Chinese Demoiselle and Goldstripe Butterflyfish. The average number of species observed using the iNaturalist method at Keppel Island varied from 12 to 42 with an overall average of 26 species. The species with the most observations were Longfin Rockcod, Chinese Demoiselle and Red Sea Plume. It appears that there are similar species but more species due to greater water depth, great visibility, location (i.e., further offshore) and/or less macroalgae in the Keppel region. Our interpretation is that macroalgae cover in the treatment locations at both Magnetic and Keppel Island recovered to exceed before-harvest levels at 1 to 3 months. There also appears to be a temporal variation of approximately 15% to 25% percent cover over time at the control sites.
Keppel and Magnec Islands
Monitoring Report for
Asparagopsis Wild Harvest
Project 2022
(6-12 months a"er harvest)
Permit number Queensland Government: 2110 – 25419 SDA
Permit number GBRMPA: G22/47296.1
Data and report by: FutureFeed, Reef Ecologic and CQU
Contacts:
Dr Robert Kinley – robk@futurefeed.com.au
Dr Adam Smith – adam.smith@reefecologic.org 0418726584
Co-authors: Adam Smith, Najeen Rula, Rachelle Brown, Kaysha Kenney
Date: 31 January 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive summary...................................................................................................................... .1
Background....................................................................................................................................1
Methods......................................................................................................................................... 3
Results...........................................................................................................................................6
Middle Reef, Magnetic Island region..........................................................................................6
Keppel region........................................................................................................................... 13
Discussion.................................................................................................................................. . 22
Comparison of macroalgae over time......................................................................................22
Recommendations.......................................................................................................................24
Appendices.................................................................................................................................. 25
Executive summary
The red macroalgae Asparagopsis taxiformis (Red Sea Plume) was observed at all locations
during this monitoring period. Three monitoring techniques were utilised to assess reef health at
three locations containing control and impact sites.
Magnetic Island had an average macroalgae cover between 25% and 51.1% and Keppel Island
had an average macroalgae cover of between 6% and 29.6%. The macroalgae at Magnetic
Island was harvested at depths of 1 m to 3 m and in the Keppel Islands between 8 m to 12 m. It
appears that there are more macroalgae at Magnetic Island compared to Keppel Islands.
The average number of species observed using the iNaturalist method at Magnetic Island varied
from 6 to 25 with an overall average of 18 species. The most observations were Red Sea
Plume, Chinese Demoiselle and Goldstripe Butterflyfish. The average number of species
observed using the iNaturalist method at Keppel Island varied from 12 to 42 with an overall
average of 26 species. The species with the most observations were Longfin Rockcod, Chinese
Demoiselle and Red Sea Plume. It appears that there are similar species but more species due
to greater water depth, great visibility, location (i.e., further offshore) and/or less macroalgae in
the Keppel region.
Our interpretation is that macroalgae cover in the treatment locations at both Magnetic and
Keppel Island recovered to exceed before-harvest levels at 1 to 3 months. There also appears
to be a temporal variation of approximately 15% to 25% percent cover over time at the control
sites.
Background
This research program on the Wild collection of Red Sea plume (Asparagopsis taxiformis) is
approved by GBRMPA research permit G22/47296.1 and Queensland Government SARA
permit 2110-25419 SDA dated 18 March 2022.
The monitoring program must include the following monitoring events:
(i) Prior to collection: same day as collection;
(ii) On completion of collection: same day as collection;
(iii) Once within one to three months post collection;
(iv) Once within six to twelve months post collection;
Data on dates, volume and weight of Red Sea plume (Asparagopsis taxiformis) is in Appendix
1.
The Reef Ecologic team was contracted by the firm Future Feed to conduct regulatory
monitoring under the GBRMPA and SARA permit conditions. Monitoring surveys were done at
1
three times: before and post-collection, 3 months post collection and 6-12 months post
collection using three methods: a 10-minute timed iNaturalist survey, the Rapid Monitoring
(Eye on the Reef) timed swim and the Reef Health Impact Surveys (RHIS).
The Queensland Government permit condition 13(e):
The monitoring reports must:
(i) include results and any recommended mitigation of impacts to, and restoration of,
fisheries habitat;
(ii) include details of the alert-to-action that is to be developed during the study with the
information collected from the study;
(iii) include the information described in Item 3 of Email: Final further information 2110-
25419 SDA, prepared by Adam Smith, dated 9 February 2022, reference 2:09PM
(Amended in red by SARA)
(iv) state this permit number (2110-25419 SDA)
The GBRMPA reporting and notification conditions:
24. The Permit Holder must submit a research report annually from the date of issue of the
permit and at any other time within 21 days of request. Report submission must be done
through the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s Permits Online Portal, unless
otherwise approved.
ITEM 3
Action
We propose a 4-step hierarchical monitoring protocol at each site during each major field trip
1. iNaturalist- we will take photographs and identify the key species of fauna
2. Eye of the Reef Sightings Network - we will use this app to report sightings of turtles, sharks,
protected fish
3. Eye on the Reef Rapid Monitoring survey - we will undertake a 10-minute swim on SCUBA\snorkel
and record the key species of fauna
4. Reef Health Impact Survey- this technique is focused on habitat and benthos. We will undertake
between 1 and 3 RHIS surveys at each site
Furthermore, FutureFeed and Central Queensland University (Gladstone) under the Elevate
programme will oversee the restoration, the PhD student under a project collection will access recovery
and shift in faunal assemblages at different sites and will be a key part of the PhD student studies, and
these sites will complement smaller manipulative removals (under the same permit) that the student will
undertake, but be larger sites and removal carried out in a standardised way. The PhD student will
provide monitoring data for the development permit. If the student is absent at any time CQU research
officers will support restoration reporting.
2
Methods
For the Middle Reef, Magnetic Island we defined six areas of interest with three impact and
three control locations (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Map of Middle Reef, Magnetic Island indicating the impact (green) and control (red)
sites and the GPS points for monitoring.
For the Keppel Region, each of the seven sites of interest has been indicated on maps,
namely, the Southeast side of Keppel Island (Figure 2) and Humpy Island (Figure 3).
3
Figure 2. Map of Humpy (Bur-ye Bur-ye) island with sites where surveys were conducted 12
months post-harvest
Figure 3. Map of Great Keppel (Woppa) island and the sites where the surveys were conducted
12 months post-harvest
4
The four monitoring events as required by the permit conditions were conducted over a 13-
month period between August 2022 and September 2023 (Table 1).
Table 1. Dates of surveys at four times and two regions between 2022 and 2023.
Magnetic Island Keppel Islands
Before 12/09/2022 17-18/10/2022
Post-harvest 13-23/09/2022 17-18/10/2022
1-3 months 29/11/2023 30-31/01/2023
6-12 months 5/10/2023 14/10/2023
A team of four people from Reef Ecologic and Central Queensland University conducted a
monitoring process involving three techniques at all sites:
1. iNaturalist time survey (10 minutes) to document the biodiversity of the sites.
2. Rapid Monitoring (Eye on the Reef) survey (10 minutes) to quantify categories of
potential indicator species and species of commercial, recreation and conservation
importance.
3. Reef Health Impact Survey (RHIS) to quantify the proportion of benthos and additional
information on macroalgae morphology and coral morphology (Figure 4).
In addition, the GBRMPA Eye of the Reef Sightings Network was used to report opportunistic
sightings of turtles, sharks and protected fish.
5
Figure 4. The three monitoring methods used to quantify species, key species at habitats.
These techniques were applied to Magnetic Island and Keppel Islands.
Results
This report is the third and final monitoring report for the Asparagopsis Wild Harvest Project
2022. This is in compliance with the condition of monitoring once within six to twelve months
post-collection.
Middle Reef, Magnetic Island region
For this monitoring period (October 2023), the monitoring team conducted surveys at 6 sites in
Middle Reef, between 1 m to 2 m in depth. The surveys were conducted within one day at both
control and impact sites from where Asparagopsis taxiformis was removed in August 2022.
6
The average number of species observed using the iNaturalist method at Magnetic Island varied
from 6 to 25 with an overall average of 18 species. The average for impact sites was 15 species
and for control sites was 20 species (See Figure 5). The most observed species were Red Sea
Plume, Chinese Demoiselle and Goldstripe Butterflyfish (Figure 6)
The number of species observed during Eye of the Reef varied from 0 to 1 and the abundance
from 0 to 8 (Table 2) so these are not graphed in this report.
7
Figure 5. Average number of species identified at each site in the Middle Reef region by iNaturalist methodology during the initial
removal during August 2022, the 3 months post removal in November 2022 and 12 months post removal during October 2023
8
Table
RHIS consists of
three surveys at each site.
Date Time Site Lat Long Impact/
Control BACI iNaturalist
Observer
iNaturalist
species
Rapid
Surveyor
Rapid
Species
Rapid
Numbers
RHIS
Surveyor
RHIS
number
5/10/2023 8:57 1A -19.19714 146.81650 Impact
6-12
months
after
Rachelle 15 Kaysha 1 2 Adam 3
5/10/2023 9:16 1B -19.19798 146.81616 Control
6-12
months
after
Rachelle 18 Kaysha 0 0 Adam 3
5/10/2023 10:05 2A -19.19756 146.81456 Control
6-12
months
after
Kaysha 8Adam 0 0 Rachelle 3
5/10/2023 9:34 2B -19.19699 146.81563 Impact
6-12
months
after
Kaysha 20 Adam 1 1 Rachelle 3
5/10/2023 11:02 3A -19.19724 146.81333 Impact
6-12
months
after
Adam 21 Rachelle 1 8 Kaysha 3
5/10/2023 10:35 3B -19.19683 146.81429 Control
6-12
months
after
Adam 21 Rachelle 1 6 Kaysha 3
9
2. iNaturalist, Rapid monitoring, and Reef Health Impact Survey (RHIS) were conducted at collection sites (before and
after algae collections) and at control sites 30 m from collection sites. Site refers to the North or Southwest side of the
location island, Impact sites have monitoring conducted both before and after collection (BACI- Before After Control
Impact). iNaturalist and Rapid monitoring record the total number of species observed, Rapid numbers refer to the
total individuals observed, and
Figure 6. Representative photos of the most common species/genus identified at Middle Reef
(Magnetic Islands)
10
Table 3. Reef Health and Impact Survey data from 5 October 2023 at Middle Reef, Magnetic Island
Surveyor RM RM AS AS RM RM
Location MR MR MR MR MR MR
Treatment or
Control T C T C T C
Before/After 6-12 months after 6-12 months after 6-12 months after 6-12 months after 6-12 months after 6-12 months after
Survey # 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Lat -19.19714 -19.19798 -19.19699 -19.19756 -19.19683 -19.19724
Long 146.8165 146.81616 146.81563 146.19756 146.81429 146.81333
Date 510/2023 510/2023 510/2023 510/2023 510/2023 510/2023
Time 8:50 9.16 9:34 10:05 10:35 11:02
Depth (m) 1.2 1.4 1.1 2 1 1.3
Tide low low low low low low
Water Temp
(°C) 25 25 25 25 25 25
Benthos Composition (%)
Macroalgae 60 50 30 30 30 15 25 65 15 5 15 10 20 50 50 50 30 20
Live Coral 40 20 60 20 30 70 65 20 50 30 25 40 70 40 20 20 40 10
Recently Dead
Coral 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 30 30 30 70
Live Coral
Rock 0 10 10 0 0 0 10 15 35 45 60 40 5 5 0 0 0 0
Coral Rubble 0 20 0 30 30 10 0 0 0 20 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sand 0 0 0 20 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Macroalgae Type Distribution (%)
Slime 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entangled/Mat
Like 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 20 0 0 65 75 0 30 10 0 0 10
Filamentous 10 10 10 0 30 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
Leafy/Fleshy 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 10 60 60 10 20 100 70 90 90 100 70
11
Tree/Bush Like 90 90 70 100 70 60 70 70 40 40 25 5 0 0 0 10 0 10
Coral Type Distribution (%)
Soft 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 5 0 0 10 15 10 0 10 0 0 0
Branching 0 0 20 10 10 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 5 15 0 0 0
Bushy 10 0 0 10 20 5 10 15 10 25 20 10 0 0 15 0 0 10
Plate/Table 90 90 70 10 50 15 20 15 50 0 0 30 50 75 40 70 80 80
Vase/Foliose 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 15 0 25 30 10 30 5 0 0 0 0
Encrusting 0 0 10 0 0 0 40 15 40 20 10 25 0 10 10 10 0 0
Mushroom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Massive 0 10 0 70 20 80 10 35 0 15 30 10 10 5 10 20 20 10
.
12
Keppel region
Overall, the monitoring team conducted surveys at 7 sites, between 8 m to 13 m in depth in the
Keppel Region (Table 4). The surveys were conducted within one day at both control and impact
sites from where the seaweed Asparagopsis taxiformis was removed in October 2022. The data
collection was conducted safely under the Reef Ecologic dive regulations and guidelines with 7
successful dives.
For this monitoring, the iNaturalist project data included 289 observations, with 104 new species,
and from a people perspective, 3 observers and 25 identifiers (Figure 7). The three most observed
species are Red Sea Plume (a seaweed), Longfin Rockcod (a fish), and Chinese Demoiselle (a fish).
Interesting observations and citizen science community favourites include the Tasselled
Wobbegong, Stingfishes, Ward’s Damsel, and Bowerbank’s Cup Coral. Fish currently comprise
41.23% of the observed species, followed by molluscs and other animals. Reptiles comprise the
smallest group (at 0.32%).
The Reef Health Impact Survey (RHIS) and Rapid data demonstrated a diverse range of habitats,
with a wide range of algae and coral types recorded (Table 5). The “Tree/Bushy'' type of
macroalgae, represented by Asparagopsis taxiformis, was found to be the most significantly
abundant algae type throughout all the sites monitored. The branching or Acropora corals were the
most abundant coral type recorded throughout. These data were also supported by the iNaturalist
observations at these sites.
Raw data showed that most of the sites (GKIN, HSW, and HS) showed a higher average number of
species/iNaturalist observations one year after harvest compared to those recorded during harvest
(Figure 8).
13
Table
RHIS consists of
three surveys at each site.
Date Time Site Lat Long Impact/
Control BACI iNaturalist
Observer
iNaturalist
species
Rapid
Surveyor
Rapid
Species
Rapid
Numbers
RHIS
Surveyor
RHIS
number
14/10/2023 8:50 SE GKI -23.17533 150.99294 Control
6-12
months
after
Rachelle 38 Rachelle 3 6 Rory 3
14/10/2023 8:25 SE GKI -23.17593 150.99221 Impact
6-12
months
after
Rachelle 34 Rachelle 1 1 Rory 3
14/10/2023 9:50 HN -23.20606 150.97248 Control
6-12
months
after
Kaysha 14 Kaysha 1 1 Adam 3
14/10/2023 10:10 HN -23.20572 150.97168 Impact
6-12
months
after
Kaysha 12 Kaysha 0 0 Adam 3
14/10/2023 11:10 HS -23.21751 150.96810 Impact
6-12
months
after
Rachelle 29 Rachelle 2 4 Rory 3
14/10/2023 10:50 HS -23.21757 150.96684 Control
6-12
months
after
Rachelle 34 Rachelle 3 7 Rory 3
14/10/2023 11:30 HSW -23.21777 150.96837 Impact 2
6-12
months
after
Adam 27 Adam 2 4 Kaysha 3
14
4. iNaturalist, Rapid monitoring, and Reef Health Impact Survey (RHIS) were conducted at collection sites (before and
after algae collections) and at control sites 30m from collection sites. Site refers to the North or Southwest side of the
location island, Impact sites have monitoring conducted both before and after collection (BACI- Before After Control
Impact). iNaturalist and Rapid monitoring record the total number of species observed, Rapid numbers refer to the
total individuals observed, and
Figure 7. Representative photos of the most common species/genus identified at Woppa Al-li
(the Keppel Islands) during this project from 14/10/2022 to 19/11/2023 (Species tab on
iNaturalist database). To view the full reel of species photos taken at Woppa Al-li on these
dates, look in the ‘Observations’ tab on the iNaturalist database
15
Table 5. Reef Health and Impact Survey data from the 30th of January to the 31st of January at North Humpy Island (HN), Southeast
Great Keppel Island (SE GKI) and Southwest Humpy Island (HSW)
Surveyor RM RM AS AS RM RM KK
Location SE GKI SE GKI HN HN HSW HS HS
Treatment or Control C T C T C T T
Before/After 6-12 months after 6-12 months after 6-12 months after 6-12 months after 6-12 months after 6-12 months after 6-12 months after
Survey # 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Lat -23.17533 -23.17593 -23.20606 -23.20572 -23.21757 -23.21751 -23.21777
Long 150.99294 150.99221 150.97248 150.97168 150.96684 150.96810 150.96837
Date 14/10/2023 14/10/2023 14/10/2023 14/10/2023 14/10/2023 14/10/2023 14/10/2023
Time 8:50 8:25 9:50 10:10 10:50 11:10 11:30
Depth (m) 13 13 11 14 11 11 11
Tide high high high high high high high
Water Temp (°C)
Benthos Composition (%)
Macroalgae 10 30 5 65 45 30 30 75 60 60 60 60 2 0 0 5 10 10 0 0 10
Live Coral 15 30 60 10 5 10 5 5 5 1 90 90 95 90 85 40 35 30 70
Recently Dead Coral 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 50
Live Coral Rock 0 0 30 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 8 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0
Coral Rubble 5 25 10 20 15 10 10 5 2 19 10 0 0 0 0 0 40 20 10 10
Sand 70 15 5 83 20 35 45 10 30 38 20 10 0 5 0 0 0 10 40 10 10
Macroalgae Type Distribution (%)
Slime 5 10 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entangled/Mat Like 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Filamentous 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
Leafy/Fleshy 5 5 5 15 20 30 20 50 40 50 50 50 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 10
Tree/Bush Like 90 85 80 80 80 70 80 50 60 50 50 50 100 100 100 100 95 95 100 100 80
Coral Type Distribution (%)
Soft 5 10 10 5 10 15 0 0 5 20 80 5 10 10 0 5 5 0 15 10
16
Branching 15 20 15 20 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 60 30 90 85 90 90 60 80
Bushy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Plate/Table 0 30 35 0 0 0 10 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 0
Vase/Foliose 40 5 10 60 0 60 30 0 20 80 80 10 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0
Encrusting 40 35 30 0 30 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 30 20 10 10 5 0 0 0
Mushroom 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Massive 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 100 70 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 15 10
17
The number of species from iNaturalist observations was higher for Humpy South and
Southeast GKI in the recent monitoring (12 months post-harvest), which was similar to the
previous monitoring (3 months post-harvest) although more pronounced (Figure 8). More
species were observed in two control sites in Oct 2022, one control site during January 2023,
and in all control sites in October 2023 compared to the impact sites. More species were
generally observed in the current monitoring compared to October 2022 for all sites except
Humpy North. Overall, more species were observed during January 2023 (between 24 and 42)
compared with October 2022 (between 15 and 26) and October 2023 (between 12 to 38).
Using the Rapid Monitoring technique, the total number of individuals (Figure 9) and species
counts (Figure 10) were determined at each site (Table 4). Fewer individuals were generally
observed in the recent survey compared to that during the 3-months post-harvest survey. More
individuals were observed in the control sites of Southeast GKI and Humpy South, as well as in
the impact area in Humpy Southwest, during the current monitoring compared with those in the
same sites during the initial removal. More individuals were observed in the control sites than in
the impact sites in the recent monitoring. No individuals were observed in the impact site in
Humpy North during the recent monitoring. No individuals were observed at the control site of
Site 1 (SE GKI) at the time of harvest, but 6 were observed 3 months post-harvest and 12
months post-harvest (Figure 9).
The number of species observed at all sites using the Rapid Monitoring technique was between
0 and 3, with control sites on average having more species 12 months post-harvest and at the
time of algal harvest. This is in contrast to the 3-month post-harvest survey, where the impact
sites had more or as many species as control sites. No species were observed in the impact site
of Humpy North during the 12-month post-harvest survey. No species were also observed at
Site 1 (SE GKI) at the control site at the time of harvest (Figure 10).
18
Figure 8. Average number of species identified at each site in the Keppel region by iNaturalist methodology during the initial removal
during October 2022, the 3 months post removal in January 2023 and 12 months post removal during October 2023
19
Figure 9. Average number of individuals identified at each site during the initial removal, the 3 months post-removal, and the 12
months post-removal surveys using Rapid Monitoring.
20
Figure 10. Average number of species identified at each site during the initial removal (A), the 3 months post-removal (B), and 12
months post-removal (C) surveys using Rapid Monitoring.
21
Discussion
Comparison of macroalgae over time
We compared the percentage cover of macroalgae at Magnetic Island and Keppel Islands using
Reef Health Impact Survey methodology over four times between control and treatment
locations to note any decreases or increases in macroalgae cover as a result of harvest over
time (Figure 11).
The reason we created these graphs is the Queensland Government permit condition 13b:
Where Asparagopsis taxiformis has not recovered to pre- collection area of cover and percent
density within 12 months after harvesting, the monitoring program described in a) must also
include the following additional monitoring events:
(i) 1 year post collection;
(ii) 2 years post-collection;
(iii) 3 years post-collection;
(iv) 4 years post-collection; and
(v) 5 years post-collection
22
Figure 11. A comparison of macroalgae cover at Magnetic Island (top) and Keppel Islands
(below) in all control locations (no harvest) compared to treatment locations (Asparagopsis
harvest) over time
23
Our interpretation is that macroalgae cover in the treatment locations at both Magnetic and
Keppel Island recovered to exceed before-harvest levels at 1-3 months. There also appears to
be a temporal variation of approximately 15% to 25% percent cover over time at the control
sites.
Further detailed analysis will occur on the potential changes in the number of species over time
at Magnetic and Keppel Island to determine if there are any secondary impacts associated with
the wild harvest of algae.
Recommendations
Based on a Before-After-Control-Impact study of small-scale wild harvest of the Red Sea Plume
it appears that there are no long-term impacts on macroalgae and it recovers within 1 to 3
months. It is recommended that further analysis of potential impacts on species is undertaken. If
there are no significant negative impacts, it is recommended that a small-scale wild harvest
fishery is developed in a partnership between industry and traditional owners.
24
Appendices
Appendix 1. Collection data
Date Location Volume (l) Wet weight (kg)
23 09 2022 Middle Reef 1 210 90
12 09 2022 Middle Reef 330 135.9
19 09 2022 Middle Reef 3 350 144.05
13 09 2022 Middle Reef 200 78.6
20 09 2022 Middle Reef 310 131.5
Total 1400
14 10 2022 Humpy Island, Keppels 100
14 10 2022 Humpy Island, Keppels 50
SE Great Keppel Is 80
Humpy Island, Keppels 100
Total 330
25
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.