20.10.2014 Views

2012. Review of Significant Trade - Cites

2012. Review of Significant Trade - Cites

2012. Review of Significant Trade - Cites

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Huso huso<br />

THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN<br />

Distribution in range State: It has been suggested that the species may no longer spawn<br />

naturally in Iranian waters (Kottelat and Freyh<strong>of</strong>, 2007), however, the CITES SA <strong>of</strong> Iran<br />

(M. Pourkazemi, in litt. to UNEP-WCMC, 2011) confirmed that H. huso entered large rivers<br />

such as the Sefidrud and Gorganrud rivers to spawn.<br />

Population trends and status: Between 1904 and 1913, H. huso accounted for about 40 per<br />

cent <strong>of</strong> the sturgeon catch, whereas by 2004 it accounted for no more than 10 per cent<br />

(Abdolhay, 2004). Estimates <strong>of</strong> catch per unit effort for H. huso from gillnets were reported to<br />

have declined from 0.501 in 1998 to 0.157 in 2008 (M. Pourkazemi in litt. to UNEP-WCMC,<br />

2011).<br />

Since 2002, Iran has conducted sturgeon stock assessments using trawl surveys (Table 12) to<br />

estimate abundance and biomass, although concern has been expressed about the<br />

methodology used including: H. huso is a pelagic fish whereas trawls collect samples from<br />

along the bottom; the bottom trawl method is not appropriate for large fish; and surveys are<br />

currently conducted in summer whereas H. huso migrates to the south Caspian Sea in early<br />

spring (M. Pourkazemi in litt. to UNEP-WCMC, 2011). The absence <strong>of</strong> large and adult<br />

specimens in the catch composition was attributed to the inappropriate fishing gear and<br />

timing <strong>of</strong> the survey.<br />

Table 12. Number <strong>of</strong> specimens, catch per unit effort (CPUE), abundance and biomass <strong>of</strong> H. huso<br />

caught using bottom trawls in the marine stock assessment surveys from 2002 through 2005.<br />

(Source: M. Pourkazemi in litt. to UNEP-WCMC, 2011).<br />

Season<br />

No. <strong>of</strong><br />

Abundance<br />

Biomass<br />

specimens CPUE (thousand<br />

(tons)<br />

caught*<br />

specimens)<br />

Spring 2002 1 0.01 52 1300<br />

Autumn 2003 2 0.03 192.3 10767.2<br />

Summer 2004 4 0.05 297.146 5824.232<br />

Winter 2005 3 0.04 350.151 7916.232<br />

* No H. huso specimens were caught during the winter surveys <strong>of</strong> 2003 and 2004, summer survey <strong>of</strong><br />

2005 and the winter and summer surveys <strong>of</strong> 2008 and 2010.<br />

Mean length and mean weight <strong>of</strong> specimens caught in research studies and catch data<br />

indicate that the average size <strong>of</strong> specimens caught may have increased slightly in recent<br />

years (Table 13).<br />

Table 13. Mean fork length and weight <strong>of</strong> H. huso from the Islamic Republic <strong>of</strong> Iran 1998-2010.<br />

(Source: M. Pourkazemi in litt. to UNEP-WCMC, 2011).<br />

Mean weight (kg) Mean fork length (cm) Year<br />

108.7 212.5 1998<br />

92.8 200.8 1999<br />

85.2 196.2 2000<br />

92.2 203.7 2001<br />

98.8 208 2002<br />

116.2 216.2 2003<br />

104.6 205.7 2004<br />

106.2 210.1 2005<br />

120.3 215.1 2006<br />

109.0 210.5 2007<br />

120.5 217.4 2008<br />

132.4 223.6 2009<br />

146.6 228.9 2010<br />

76

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!