L191 Max Age. ?

[FuglyDragon]

Hi all.

Have lost 2 of my full grown L191 Panaques (Dull eyed Royal) in last few months with no obvious cause or reason behind it. I'm not exactly sure of their age but between 9 and 11 years, so I'm wondering if it was just old age. Has anyone any experience of what a reasonable captive life span for these guys might be ?

My Panaque nigrolineatus is coming up on age 9 years in 1 month or so, anyone know a lifespan for them ?

[matthewfaulkner]

This Panaque titan (maybe schaeferi) has supposedly been in aquaria for at least 60 years.

I remember reading about P. cochliodon/suttonorum that was 20 years +, and I personally have had a Pterygoplichthys gibbiceps for 17 years.

[Barbie]

Plecos are known to live more than 20 years. I had one with more frequent flier miles than most people that lived 15 and was only lost to a heater malfunction, not natural causes. Catfish in general tend to be much longer lived than people realize, when properly cared for. I doubt 9 or 11 is going to be lost to natural causes. I would look into figuring out the potential stress factor.

Barbie

[FuglyDragon]

Thanks for that guys.

Yes I have a Pterygoplichthys gibbiceps thats at least 18 possibly 20 years old (don't remember when I got it and old photos don't have dates, real photos not digitals LOL)

[Janne]

Have lost 2 of my full grown L191 Panaques (Dull eyed Royal) in last few months with no obvious cause or reason behind it. I'm not exactly sure of their age but between 9 and 11 years, so I'm wondering if it was just old age. Has anyone any experience of what a reasonable captive life span for these guys might be ?

What size these had when died? If fully grown they should have been +50cm, you can expect this genus to become very old for a fish.

Janne

[FuglyDragon]

Nothing like 50cm, maybe 25cm, my dull eyed royals have never gotten as big as my standard royals, same basic body shape but about half the size at same age.

[dw1305]

Hi all,
You can get a bit of an idea about how long animals can potentially live by their reproductive strategies, and the ecological niche they fill. Ecologists used to talk about "r" and "K" selected species, although the are just "pigeon holes" at either end of a spectrum, "r" species have rapid reproduction etc and are the sparrows, mice and rats of the animal world <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory>. This approach has been replaced by more sophisticated modelling, but it is still useful.

If an animal is large, slow growing, doesn't have a very active life-style, doesn't reach sexual maturity at an early age, has relatively few off-spring, fills a specialized niche with in a stable environment and shows parental care, like a Panaque spp. it lies right at the K end of the spectrum (with Parrots, Whales and Primates), and you can be pretty sure it will be potentially long-lived.

If you use this approach to whether fish collection from the wild is likely to be sustainable for any species, and to me it would strongly suggest that fish like large Panaque spp. are being "strip-mined" from the Amazon basin at unsustainable rates.

cheers Darrel

[Janne]

If you use this approach to whether fish collection from the wild is likely to be sustainable for any species, and to me it would strongly suggest that fish like large Panaque spp. are being "strip-mined" from the Amazon basin at unsustainable rates.

No they are not and they have a very high reproduction in the nature like many other large species of Loricariidae, the most common species in the rivers among large sized Loricariidae is Baryancistrus, Panaque, Scobinancistrus and Pseudacanthicus, it doesn't matter how many that are collected for the ornamental trade, it has 0 affect on the populations. Of these 4 genus the only one that can be collected all year around in higher numbers are Baryancistrus species but only these from Xingu, for example in Tapajos is not possible to collect at all Baryancistrus between end of January until June each year due the natural climate. Of all Loricariidae species, the most collected and exported is B. xanthellus, the high numbers these are exported at has been the same for min 10 years and there are no end in sight that the population have decreased, they are the sparrows, mice and the rats in the family Loricariidae and they fully adult size reach 30-35cm TL. The other 3 genus mentioned are not far behind Baryancistrus when it comes to reproduction, they are something between a rat and a cat. They are natural protected by nature and is only possible to collect under approx 6 months each year, they have also another natural strategy, just before breeding season start they migrate and come together in locations suited for breeding, at that time they can be collected in large sizes quite easy but since the market price is very high for large size of fish due the very high freight cost, very few are collected and exported, we talk between 500-1000 individuals as absolutely maximum. When they start to breed we have a law in Brazil that prohibit collecting these species from the second week in December until end of February each year, is not either possible to collect them due the high water levels. Right after the breeding season in April-May are millions and millions of small youngsters at these locations and they can be collected from this time until end of June, then they spread out and migrate in the rivers and more or less dissapear and season is over for small sizes. End of July and in August they start to show up again in schools but now they are larger, 10-15cm (yes, they grow very fast in the nature), at this size and the fact they are more outspread they are not easy to collect, fishermen can only dive and handpick the fish... so how many can a diver collect per day?

Only people that know real facts should discuss if collecting ornamental fish has affects on natural populations, yes, I know some parts of the world is not the most sustainable places, both when it comes to environmental destruction and how they collect ornamental fish. In South America even if we include illegal collecting etc. both laws and the nature make it sure that ornamental fish are not over collected. The real threats is habitat destruction and commercial food fishing that is a totally different business than ornamental fish.

Adding, Baryancistrus xanthellus reproduce all year around but their peak is under the rain season.

Janne

[matthewfaulkner]

Thank you for your detailed insight, Janne. Your general point is that ornamental collection has little to no affect on populations, are there any studies showing this or is it just your observations? Its just that I'd like to read anything in this area.

[dw1305]

Hi all,
First of all to say that I have absolutely no doubt that habitat destruction (gold mining, forest clearance and dams etc) and commercial fishing are much more damaging than ornamental fish collection, I agree with the idea of "extractive reserves", and that you are a scientist, in Brazil and appreciate the situation on the ground, but I am an ecologist, all be it a plant one. However,

the high numbers these are exported at has been the same for min 10 years and there are no end in sight that the population have decreased

this doesn't prove anything. You would have to have otolith data from differing cohorts to demonstrate that the population wasn't being effected.

You can find loads of examples where we carried on harvesting animals for a long period without any apparent diminution in supply, but only because there was a very large population to start off with. I don't expect that the Maoris ever expected to run out of Moas, or European fisherman Cod in the N. Atlantic, or American settlers Passenger Pigeons in N. America.

Right after the breeding season in April-May are millions and millions of small youngsters at these locations and they can be collected from this time until end of June, then they spread out and migrate in the rivers and more or less dissapear and season is over for small sizes. End of July and in August they start to show up again in schools but now they are larger, 10-15cm (yes, they grow very fast in the nature)

You've got to "show me the money" or I'm going to remain sceptical, it needs demographic data or otherwise how can you show that you aren't pulling in older fish from a wide area? This is really common where you have pest control on shooting estates when large numbers of predators are killed, but demographic studies show that rather than this being indicative of population size, animals are being drawn in from a large surrounding area by the "honey-pot" of an abundance of prey and suitable habitat.

I'm pretty sure we will never find out what effect the ornamental fish trade is having on the numbers of many Loricariids, because the habitat destruction will get there first, but I stick by my guess that, based upon the r and K selection criteria, that the present harvest isn't sustainable over the long term.

cheers Darrel

[Janne]

You can find loads of examples where we carried on harvesting animals for a long period without any apparent diminution in supply, but only because there was a very large population to start off with. I don't expect that the Maoris ever expected to run out of Moas, or European fisherman Cod in the N. Atlantic, or American settlers Passenger Pigeons in N. America.

This don't even come close how wild fish are collected for the ornamental trade, Moas natural population was not millions and milions of individual, they didn't produce thousands of offsprings each year, and the reason they got extinct was because humans hunted them year around for food. Commercial food fishing like in the N. Atlantic and all other oceans with fishing methods and large ships that vacuum clean the oceans and empty the seas is like to compare a tricycle for kids with a big truck, if you are going to compare the methods of how to capture ornamental fish you can compare with you sitting in a boat with a fishing rod. American settlers Passenger Pigeons, could been a better comparision because they was killed for fun, food and protect crops etc. and was seen as a pest, all year around.

You've got to "show me the money" or I'm going to remain sceptical, it needs demographic data or otherwise how can you show that you aren't pulling in older fish from a wide area? This is really common where you have pest control on shooting estates when large numbers of predators are killed, but demographic studies show that rather than this being indicative of population size, animals are being drawn in from a large surrounding area by the "honey-pot" of an abundance of prey and suitable habitat.

First, it's my daily work since 7 years back and I work 6 days per week only with ornamental fish in the heart of where most fish are collected, but to make you little more positive there are projects with focus for such studies initiated and will start this year.

I'm pretty sure we will never find out what effect the ornamental fish trade is having on the numbers of many Loricariids, because the habitat destruction will get there first, but I stick by my guess that, based upon the r and K selection criteria, that the present harvest isn't sustainable over the long term.

This is the problem, you are guessing and you are not alone, even many researchers are guessing too, you have no idea which species of fish that are R or K, I will give you a hint within the Loricariidae family and think now what size these genuses has as an adult, Panaque = R and Ancistrus = K.

Janne

[dw1305]

Hi all,

but to make you little more positive there are projects with focus for such studies initiated and will start this year.

This is the problem, you are guessing and you are not alone, even many researchers are guessing too, you have no idea which species of fish that are R or K, I will give you a hint within the Loricariidae family and think now what size these genuses has as an adult, Panaque = R and Ancistrus = K.

Interesting, I'll definitely be interested in any results, as you say it is just "informed/uninformed guess", until you have some rigorous scientific data.

Partially what made me reply to the original poster was that I've been seeing a larger range of "L" numbers for sale locally (Bath/Bristol in the UK), and extrapolating from that (to a world wide scale), and building in ?50% mortality during capture and transit it made me wonder what is the total catch per annum is, and whether it can be sustainable.

I understand that Hypancistrus, Panaqolos spp. etc are bred in captivity by hobbiests, but for the larger, more territorial fish, like Panaque and Baryancistrus spp. I don't think this is going to be an option, although I could see that, if the economics were right, production by commercial aquaculture might be more successful.

cheers Darrel

[Janne]

Partially what made me reply to the original poster was that I've been seeing a larger range of "L" numbers for sale locally (Bath/Bristol in the UK), and extrapolating from that (to a world wide scale), and building in ?50% mortality during capture and transit it made me wonder what is the total catch per annum is, and whether it can be sustainable.

I have no idea what you talk about, it's very obvious that you don't know anything about capture fish in the wild for the ornamental trade, this kind of statements is bullshit, this business would be dead a long time ago if you was correct. For me you seam to be an amateur knowing nothing about fish, I don't even understand why you discuss this matter, do you want to learn or do you have your own ideas how it works in the real life?

I understand that Hypancistrus, Panaqolos spp. etc are bred in captivity by hobbiests, but for the larger, more territorial fish, like Panaque and Baryancistrus spp. I don't think this is going to be an option, although I could see that, if the economics were right, production by commercial aquaculture might be more successful.

I don't follow you, what you really mean?

Janne

[dw1305]

Hi all,
Janne, just so we have no misunderstanding, I'm a plant ecologist, I've never visited S. America, and I have no practical experience of commercial fish collection.

I now look after a small IT lab at one of the UK's newer Universities and I'm always keen to know more.

I've been seeing a larger range of "L" numbers for sale locally (Bath/Bristol in the UK)

This is an observation, no more than that.

..... and extrapolating from that (to a world wide scale), and building in ?50% mortality during capture and transit it made me wonder what is the total catch per annum is, and whether it can be sustainable

I think these are questions that still need answering, and I'd be interested in any relevant scientific references. This is where my mortality estimate comes from.

"International Trade in Aquatic Ornamental Species - SRG 42/8//a Prepared for the European Commission Directorate General E - Environment ENV.E.2. – Development and Environment by the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre 2007"
<http://www.ornamental-fish-int.org/uplo ... P-WCMC.pdf> page 61, sects 3.2.3 & 3.2.4:

3.2.3. Mortality
Ornamental fish caught in the Amazon suffer high mortality rates, with one estimate suggesting an 80% mortality rate during catch, transport, quarantine time etc (Junk,1984b). Chao (1992) estimated that a 30% mortality rate was suffered during the export process in Brazil. Moreau & Coomes (2007)suggested that substantial mortality rates might be suffered in holding facilities in Peru, due to the rudimentary export facilities. Mortality rates for fresh water ornamental fish of up to 85% were reported by Brummet (2005)in the Lower Guinean rainforest.

3.2.4.Vulnerability to exploitation: biological factors
The life cycles of most fish (and other exploited aquatic organisms such as crustaceans and molluscs) are complex, involving a number of morphologically distinct, free-living, live stages such as eggs , larvae, juveniles and adults (Cowx et al., 2004).

Important life history characteristics for fish populations and their risk of extinction, include maximum size, growth rate, size at maturity, fecundity and migratory behaviour. Although many species can readily adapt to a changing environment, others cannot (Cowx et al., 2004, page 28).

Species which congregate for spawning or migration are particularly vulnerable as entire breeding cohorts can be captured. Olden et al. (2007) found that commercial fishing activities disproportionately threaten large-bodied marine and freshwater species, whereas habitat degradation and loss threaten smaller-bodied marine fishes....

Andrews (1990) noted the arguments that, in the Peruvian Amazon, certain life history traits including short life span and high egg production, coupled with a relatively low-impact method of collection and limitations caused by seasonal extremes in rainfall, could in theory minimize the vulnerability of species to over exploitation. However, in practice this is often not the case and area s that were subject to a relatively high fishing intensity experienced negative impacts (although moderate levels of fishing did not appear to negatively affect some aquarium fish populations) (Gerstner et al., 2006).

Moreau & Coomes (2007) suggested that this argument has not been studied and that it was unlikely to apply to species with restricted geographic ranges or to those biologically unsuited to heavy exploitation. In the Amazon, many headwater species have restricted distributions and are therefore particularly vulnerable to large-scale environmental degradation (Junk et al. 2007)

I don't follow you, what you really mean?

I'm working on the assumption that large Panaque spp. won't be produced in any numbers by either the aquaculture trade or hobbiests, and that the vast proportion of them will continue to be wild collected.

cheers Darrel

[Janne]

I have read through most pages in "DRAFT CONSULTATION PAPER" and there are many wrong facts, they need to make a new one 2014 and use the correct reference. I even found a reference that was cought for illegal activities involved in the business. If we go back some years part of what is written was true but no longer, the business work much better today and companies has just not afford to have this kind of losses, they don't survive and most of them is gone. However, it's necessary to have a better regulation and for me I would want to see some kind of international certificate for exporters, they need to fulfill some criteria to be able to export wild collect fish, even if most companies today work seriously there are always some that don't and new opportunists shows up each year and disappear next year etc.

I'm working on the assumption that large Panaque spp. won't be produced in any numbers by either the aquaculture trade or hobbiests, and that the vast proportion of them will continue to be wild collected.

My first question is, what kind of breeding is the most sustainable and environment friendly, that the fish reproduce them self in the wild without humans adding any energy or humans breed them in breeding facilities? If we let the fish handle their own reproduction in the wild and with a good wild fish management the impact by humans on the nature would be extremely low compared to breed the fish in facilities. This question is difficult for most people to understand, most people think if we breed something the less impact we would have on the nature when it's exactly the opposit.

Large placo's are already bred in Asia and in Brazil too, it's only a matter of time when the ornamental trade will start to offer bred Panaque spp. but that is not a long term solution to decrease human impacts on our nature.

Janne

[dw1305]

Hi all,

However, it's necessary to have a better regulation and for me I would want to see some kind of international certificate for exporters, they need to fulfill some criteria to be able to export wild collect fish,

I think this would be an excellent idea, if it is possible in practice.

what kind of breeding is the most sustainable and environment friendly, that the fish reproduce them self in the wild without humans adding any energy or humans breed them in breeding facilities? If we let the fish handle their own reproduction in the wild and with a good wild fish management the impact by humans on the nature would be extremely low compared to breed the fish in facilities. This question is difficult for most people to understand, most people think if we breed something the less impact we would have on the nature when it's exactly the opposite.

No I can see exactly where you are coming from, and that a situation where fish are wild collected in a sustainable manner from intact habitats is the best possible option, in terms of providing income for local people (including Brazil Nut collectors and wild rubber tappers etc.), reducing the environmental foot-print and protecting the environment.

This is the "extractive reserves" option, described here "Extractive Reserves in Brazilian Amazonia, an opportunity to maintain tropical rain forest under sustainable use" <http://www.ibcperu.org/doc/isis/mas/9663.pdf>?

At the moment I have reservations about buying wild caught fish, but if there was a regulatory framework where fish were from sustainable populations and handled in an ethical manner, these would disappear.

cheers Darrel

[Janne]

However, it's necessary to have a better regulation and for me I would want to see some kind of international certificate for exporters, they need to fulfill some criteria to be able to export wild collect fish,
I think this would be an excellent idea, if it is possible in practice.

It is, WWF and TRAFFIC are working on a certification for wild collect fish, I initiated this idea already 2003.

At the moment I have reservations about buying wild caught fish, but if there was a regulatory framework where fish were from sustainable populations and handled in an ethical manner, these would disappear.

You should not avoid to buy wild collect fish because that works against the correct development, most of the wild collected fish are collected in a sustainable way but there are some exceptions and it's these exceptions you should not buy, for example species that is illegal to collect in the nature, people that offer species smuggled out from origin country prevent and make it very difficult to develop and is a threat to the whole business and the nature itself, they may not understand this, but they can be the reason that we never will have a sustainable harvest of wild fish from the nature in the future.
We talked about the real threats earlier, like mining, dam's, agriculture and deforestation, why this exist in such high grade is because people don't understand the high value they have of renewable nature resources, for example ornamental fish, for 99% of all decision makers a fish is a fish and that we eat, they don't know that 1 ornamental fish has an economical value between 10 too 1000 times higher then if the same fish was used as food. It's not only fish, but if the decision makers knew and had a much higher knowledge the situation would look little different. Don't stop to buy wild collect fish, both nature and the people living there depend on you, just be careful and use your common sense.

Janne