Are you interested in any aspect of marine life? Do you want to learn or understand more about the underwater world? Do you want to campaign against the pollution of our oceans and the destruction of reefs and seagrass beds? If so, our Society (MLSSA) caters for people just like you.

Our motto is "--- understanding, enjoying and caring for our oceans ---". These few words summarise our member’s motives. Members seek to understand our ocean, derive enjoyment from observations of marine life and are committed to its protection.

Become a Society member and enjoy contact with others with similar interests. Our members include divers, marine aquarists and naturalists. Our aim is to promote a better understanding of our marine environment.

Our activities include:-

-Studying our local marine environment

-Education

-Scuba diving

-Underwater photography

-Marine aquaria

Established in 1976, MLSSA holds monthly meetings and field trips. We produce various informative and educational publications including a monthly Newsletter and an annual Journal. Our library is a source of helpful information for marine enthusiasts.

Through our affiliation with other organisations (i.e. Conservation Council of SA and the Scuba Divers Federation of SA) we are kept up to date with relevant issues of interest. MLSSA also has close ties with appropriate Government organisations, e.g. various museums, universities and libraries.

Everyone is welcome to attend our General Meetings which are usually held on the third Wednesday of every month (except December) at the Conservation Centre, 120 Wakefield Street, Adelaide.

You can also join our Society. We have subscription levels for students, individuals, families and organisations. We invite you to complete the membership subscription form later in this Journal and send it with your payment to MLSSA.

The postal address of the Society is :-

MLSSA Inc.

120 WAKEFIELD STREET,

ADELAIDE 5000.

The MLSSA logo features a Leafy Seadragon which is unique to southern Australian waters. The Leafy is South Australia's only totally protected fish. Its beauty surpasses that of any creature found in tropical waters and, once seen by divers, is amongst the most remembered of their diving experiences. We believe that the Leafy Seadragon symbolises our Society's involvement in the marine environment.

South Australian Dragon Search Project: Preliminary Bioregional

Summary of Sighting Data April 1996 - August 2000

Inquiries Into The State Of The Marine Environment

The Amazing Giant Cuttle (Sepia apama)

A Footbridge Too Far

Fish Spine Injury and Envenomation

Journal Index

MLSSA Photo Index Update

Welcome to this, the Millennium Edition of the MLSSA Journal. We have a very varied selection for your enjoyment this year.

We begin with a report on the Leafy Seadragon sent to us by Jeremy Gramp of Dragonsearch. Naturally we do not identify where Seadragons are to be found, except in the most general way. The results are very interesting and informative. The graph on page 6 is in colour and thus should be viewed on our Webpage (where this Journal is published) for the full impact of the information.

Steve Reynolds has contributed an excellent summary of the various reports considering the state of the marine environment. Later on you will find an update by him of the Photo Index. This will be out of date though by the time you read it as we are constantly adding to the Index.

Alex Gaut has updated her newsletter article on the Giant Cuttle with a much-expanded and more detailed version.

David Muirhead has supplied a humorous article on the results of assisting a fish in difficulty. Be warned and then read what to do if you get into the same situation. Phill McPeake already knows the answers after a too close encounter with a South Australian Cobbler many years ago under Edithburgh Jetty.

The final section is a summary of the articles that have appeared in all the MARIA and MLSSA Journals. The subjects are varied and certainly bring back memories for the longer-term members. I should mention that the Librarian, Steve Reynolds, holds copies of all Journals in the library and they may be borrowed upon application to him.

At this point I should mention that the publication of future Journals will depend on you, the member. Journals began in October 1979 with what was intended to be a monthly Journal. This lasted for 2 months and then it became an intermittent publication until the final edition in December 1981 and the subsequent demise of MARIA. The Journal was resurrected as the MLSSA Journal with the first edition published in February 1985. The next was published in August 1991 and subsequently we have managed an annual December publication.

The gathering of suitable articles has become more difficult as time goes on and at a recent General Meeting it was decided that Journals would only be published if sufficient longer, quality articles were given to the Editor during the year to make publication worthwhile. It has been the system in the past for the Editor to coerce people into producing such articles. In view of our increasingly busy world it was felt that this is unfair both to the Editor and the contributor. So, from now on, it is up to you dear reader to willingly contribute! If you create a suitable article or hear of a willing contributor in or outside the Society then please contact the Editor.

(i) Bioregional Data: During the Dragon Search program in South Australia, seadragons have been recorded from 7 of this state’s 8 "bioregions" that have been devised by the Commonwealth’s Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia (IMCRA) program. To August 2000, over 620 sightings have been recorded, 81% of which have come from locations in the Gulf St Vincent Bioregion; 11% from the Eyre Bioregion; 3% from the Coorong Bioregion and 2% or less from the Eucla, Murat, Spencer Gulf and Otway Bioregions. Around 58% of the total number of seadragons sighted (2061 to date) have come from locations in the Gulf St Vincent Bioregion, 25% from the Eyre Bioregion, and 13% from the Murat Bioregion, the latter two bioregions including "mass sightings" of beachwashed seadragons. No seadragons have been recorded by Dragon Search from the Upper Spencer Gulf Bioregion, and, to date, there has been only one sighting recorded from the Eucla Bioregion, representing the far west coast of South Australia.

Figure 1 Summarises the bioregional distribution of seadragon sightings recorded during Dragon Search. Note that the exact locations of sightings have not been recorded on the map due to confidentiality reasons. Sightings are denoted by a black line.

To date, 292 sightings of weedy seadragons and 365 sightings of leafy seadragons have been reported, both figures including 33 sightings in which both leafies and weedies were recorded together at single locations. Seventy-five percent of the weedy sightings and 86% of the leafy sightings have been recorded in the Gulf St Vincent Bioregion. In the Eyre Bioregion, 14% of the total number of weedy sightings, and 8% of leafy sightings have been recorded. The graph below summarises for each bioregion the number of leafy and weedy sightings that have been reported to Dragon Search to date.

The preponderance of sightings from the Gulf St Vincent (GSV) Bioregion likely reflects the proximity and popularity of dive sites in the area, compared with more remote parts of the state, as well the large number of repeat sightings from several locations in this bioregion (e.g. Rapid Bay, Encounter Bay, north east Kangaroo Island) that have been recorded in the Dragon Search database. The available data cannot be used to determine whether seadragons are relatively more abundant in the GSV bioregion compared with others. In the Murat Bioregion, the small number of sightings (2% of total), compared with the number of seadragons recorded (13%), particularly of dead beachwashed specimens, indicates that there are sites on the west coast (see section below) where seadragons may be relatively abundant, but dive sightings rarely occur in such areas. Furthermore, it is possible that the oceanographic features of parts of the eastern Great Australian Bight may concentrate beachwashed specimens in this area, in conjunction with conditions that may influence sightings of "mass" dead specimens.

South Australian marine waters have been divided into "biounits" (Edyvane 1999), to assist coastal marine planning, management, and conservation, including the development of an ecologically representative system of marine protected areas. The biounit classification was derived using coastal marine geomorphological and geological data, physiographic features, small spatial scale oceanographic features, and the distribution of major benthic habitats. Nominal biounit boundaries were set at 30m for the gulfs biounits, and 50m for oceanic biounits (Edyvane 1999).

Figure 3 South Australian Marine Biounits

The following graph summarises the number of seadragon sightings that have been recorded in each biounit by Dragon Search to August 2000 (including repeat sightings at the same location). Biounits are arranged in approximate order from the westernmost biounit in which seadragons have been recorded (Wahgunyah, towards the WA border), to the easternmost biounit in which seadragons have been recorded (Nene, in the South East of South Australia).

Figure 4 Number of seadragon sightings recorded in each South Australian Marine Biounit

To August 2000, seadragons have been reported from 24 of South Australia’s 35 biounits. In the southern Fleurieu Peninsula’s Yankalilla Biounit, 31% of all Dragon Search sightings have been recorded, particularly from the Rapid Bay area (at which 72% of the leafy seadragon sightings and 47% of the weedy sightings from that biounit have been recorded). The large number of sightings from popular dive spots, as well as repeat sightings from those specific locations (such as Rapid Bay) has influenced the summary statistics regarding numbers of seadragons sighted per biounit. Therefore, in the Yankalilla Biounit, 26% of the total number of leafy seadragons recorded in the Dragon Search database, and 31% of the total number of weedy seadragons recorded, relate to that biounit.

To date, 17% of Dragon Search sightings have been recorded from sites in the Encounter Biounit, particularly from the eastern end (76% of leafy sightings in that biounit, and 77% of weedy sightings). Of those sightings, 93% of leafy sightings were dive recordings of live seadragons, compared with only 46% of weedy sightings, due to the high number of beachwash sightings of dead weedies.

In the metropolitan area (Clinton Biounit), 16% of all seadragon sightings in South Australia have been recorded. Two thirds of weedy sightings by divers in this biounit have been made on reefs seaward of the metropolitan beach area, and 50% of the leafy seadragon sightings in the Clinton Biounit have come from reefs in the southern end of this biounit. One third of the weedy seadragon sightings in this biounit have been beachwash specimens.

From north-eastern Kangaroo Island (Nepean Biounit), 10% of Dragon Search sightings have been recorded, and 94% of those records represent leafy sightings, mainly of single animals and pairs, reported from one location in that biounit, and including repeat sightings.

To date, 5% of all seadragon sightings have been recorded from sites along eastern Yorke Peninsula (Orontes Biounit), the majority of which comprise leafy sightings from two popular diving locations.

Although only 2% of all sighting have come from the Yanerbie Biounit, these sightings represent 48% of the total number of weedy seadragons and 15% of the total number of leafy seadragons recorded in the Dragon Search database, primarily due to a number of sightings in which large number of dead leafies and weedies were recorded in the beachwash (see section on Beachwashed Seadragons).

Note that relative numbers of seadragons at each location cannot be determined, due to the non-systematic nature of Dragon Search sightings, which are influenced by diver preference regarding choice of dive site; accessibility of dive site; and other factors. Similarly, it is not possible to determine the proportion of sightings per location that are repeat sightings of the same animals or groups of animals.

The relatively small number of records from southern and western areas of the state does not necessarily indicate that seadragons are less abundant at some locations in those areas, compared with more accessible sites. The paucity of sightings in such areas may reflects the smaller number of dives that have taken place in more remote areas compared with popular dive sites in more accessible locations; near large population centres; and/or sites where Dragon Search is more heavily promoted, or known to the diving community.

To date, 65% of weedy seadragon dive sightings and 71% of leafy seadragon dive sightings have been of single animals. However, groups of both types of seadragon have been sighted at several locations across the state.

For purposes of data collation, "groups" are nominally described as comprising more than two animals. Groups of between 3 and 12 (and in some cases more) weedy seadragons have been recorded in the following biounits:

(i) Whidbey (from sites around southern Eyre Peninsula bays);

(ii) Clinton (mainly from reefs seaward of the metropolitan beach area);

(iii) Yankalilla (particularly Rapid Bay, but also including reefs off the coast in the northern end of the biounit);

(iv) Cassini (northwestern Kangaroo Island);

(v) Encounter (mostly at sites around the eastern end of the biounit);

(vi) Nene (Carpenters Rocks to Port Macdonnell area).

Leafy groups (3 to 12 or more animals) have been recorded in the following biounits:

(i) Orontes (from several bays and ports along eastern Yorke Peninsula);

(ii) Clinton (from two reefs, seaward of the metropolitan beach area);

(iii) Yankalilla (mainly from Rapid Bay, where sightings of up to 16 animals have been recorded during the summer of 2000, but also including other southern Fleurieu sites);

(iv) Nepean (north eastern Kangaroo Island);

(v) Gambier (from an island in the Gambier Islands Conservation Park);

(vi) Encounter (eastern end of biounit, including older pre-Dragon Search records of 12 leafies sighted together; 20 leafies sighted together; and a more recent record from 1994 of 100 leafies together);

(vii) Nene (Carpenters Rocks to Port Macdonnell area).

In the Encounter Biounit, the leafy groups recorded in the Dragon Search database are mainly older pre-Dragon Search sightings, recorded between 1979 and 1991. However, one record from 1994 of 100 leafies in the eastern end of the biounit was reported. This is the single largest number of live seadragons recorded for the Dragon Search records, from a single site.

To date, 16 sightings of brooding male weedy seadragons have been recorded in the Gulf St Vincent Bioregion; 4 from the Eyre Bioregion, and 1 from the Coorong Bioregion. For leafies, brooding males have been recorded in the Gulf St Vincent Bioregion (27 sightings, representing 39 brooding males) and Eyre Bioregion (6 sightings).

To date, these sightings represent 25 brooding male weedy seadragons, and 48 brooding male leafy seadragons. A total of 11 weedy brood male seadragons have been recorded in the Encounter Biounit (eastern end of the biounit); 4 from the Yankalilla Biounit (Rapid Bay area), 3 from the Clinton Biounit (metropolitan area); 2 from the Douglas Biounit (southwestern Eyre Peninsula), and 1 each from three other west coast biounits (Whidbey, Sheringa, Flinders); the Coorong, and north western Kangaroo Island (Cassini Biounit).

Fifty two percent (25 animals) of the recorded number of brooding male leafies have come from the Yankalilla Biounit (mainly Rapid Bay); 9 animals from the Encounter Biounit (eastern end of the biounit); 4 from islands off Port Lincoln area (Jussieu Biounit); 3 from an island in the Gambier Islands Conservation Park (Gambier Biounit); 2 from the Douglas Biounit; 2 from reefs off southern metropolitan beaches (Clinton Biounit); 2 from north western Kangaroo Island (Cassini Biounit), and 1 from northeastern Kangaroo Island (Nepean Biounit).

The majority (80% for leafies, 86% for weedies) of brood male sightings have been of a single male with eggs. However there have been several records of more than one brood male sighted swimming or hovering together in the same location. A group of 3 brooding male weedies was recorded in October 1998 at one of the islands in Encounter Bay. The database also includes an older (pre-Dragon Search) record of a pair each of brooding leafies and brooding weedies sighted together in the Douglas Biounit, in the spring of 1985. More recently, at Rapid Bay, a group of 5 brooding male leafies, as well as pairs of brooding male leafies, have been recorded (December 1999 and January 2000). From the eastern end of the Encounter Biounit, 6 brooding male leafies have been sighted together in one instance (spring of 1991), and 3 brooding male leafies were recorded together in the summer of 1995 at an island in the Gambier Islands Conservation Park.

Brooding males of both leafy and weedy species were most commonly sited during late spring to summer (Figure 5). For example, at a statewide level, with data pooled for all years, 19 individual sightings of brooding leafy males were made between the months of October and January. The largest number of weedy brood male sightings occurred between October and November (13 sightings). Little can be inferred from the relatively low number of weedy brood male sightings in December, due to the unstandardised and opportunistic nature of Dragon Search record collection. No brooding males of either species were observed during March to July in any year. Brood males of both species have been observed at sites in Gulf St Vincent, from September to January. From Encounter Bay sites, leafy brood males have been recorded between October to December, and weedy brood males from August to February.

Figure 5: Seasonal distribution of brood male seadragon sightings (all years combined)

Weedy and leafy groups of adults and juveniles swimming or hovering together have been recorded in the Yankalilla Biounit at Rapid Bay (e.g. 4 adult and 12 juvenile weedies; 6 adult and 4 juvenile leafies). Another large "family" group of leafies (of 8 adults and 5 juveniles) was recorded at a site in the southern region of the Orontes Biounit (Yorke Peninsula) in 1994.

At Rapid Bay, Dragon Search volunteers have apparently recorded juvenile leafies from November to March during the past 5 years, although single sightings have also been recorded in May and August. There have been a number of sightings of juvenile leafies in the southern part of the Orontes Biounit, and other locations off Yorke Peninsula. Juvenile weedies have been recorded at Rapid Bay in January, March, April, June and August. Juvenile weedies and leafies have also been recorded during the Dragon Search program at other southern Gulf St Vincent locations and at metropolitan locations.

There appears to be no seasonal pattern to the sighting of juveniles. To date, juvenile weedies have been sighted throughout the year, except May, July and October. Juvenile leafies have apparently been sighted in all months of the year, except June, July and September. A size of less than 20cm was stated on the Dragon Search Seadragon Sighting Form as a guide to identifying juvenile seadragons. However, some of the records may be of small adults or young adults, and some might include misjudgments of size by recorders, which might explain the lack of seasonality of the juvenile sightings. Due to the opportunistic nature of the Dragon Search sightings, and the lack of standardisation between months regarding the distribution and frequency of recordings, available data cannot be used to determine in which season juveniles are more abundant.

To August 2000, beachwashed seadragons have been recorded from approximately 62 different areas along the South Australian coastline, comprising 157 sightings, and a total of 988 specimens. In the Encounter Biounit, 25% of the weedy beachwash sightings from S.A. have been recorded, with 16% of weedy beachwash sightings from the metropolitan Clinton Biounit, 16% from the Yankalilla Biounit (southern Fleurieu Peninsula); 11% from the Gantheaume Biounit (southern Kangaroo Island), and 6% from the Coorong Biounit. For leafies, 24% of beachwash sightings were recorded in the metropolitan Clinton Biounit; 12% each from the Yankalilla and Encounter Biounits; and 7% each from Yanerbie Biounit (west coast); Douglas and Whidbey Biounits (both southwestern Eyre Peninsula); Gantheaume (southern Kangaroo Island); and Coorong Biounits.

In the Yankalilla Biounit, beachwash specimens have been recorded from four beaches. To date, the only recording of a large number of dead seadragons sighted in one location within the Yankalilla Biounit, has been from a beach at the northern end of the biounit (30 dead weedies). In the Encounter Biounit, 53% of all weedy seadragon sightings from that biounit have been dead beachwashed specimens. Sightings of large numbers of dead weedies (e.g. 15 animals; 40 animals) were recorded in the Encounter Biounit during spring to summer in 1997 and 1998. Along southern Kangaroo Island (Gantheaume Biounit), 3% of all seadragon sightings have been recorded, primarily beachwashed specimens from the two bays, and sites on the south eastern side of Kangaroo Island. A "mass sighting" of 29 dead weedies was recorded from southern Kangaroo Island (Gantheaume Biounit) in the summer of 1999. Other records of beachwashed specimens are known from southern Kangaroo Island, but these records are not available for collation in the Dragon Search database.

Figure 6 Seasonality of sighting of juvenile seadragons

Sightings of "mass" beachwashed leafy and weedy seadragons have been recorded in the Yanerbie Biounit on the west coast, particularly from the Anxious Bay and Corvisart Bay areas, where up to 250 beachwashed weedy specimens have been recorded in one instance. Four of these "mass sightings" occurred during the period in which one of the two "pilchard kill" events* from the late 1990s in South Australia was recorded on the west coast. It is possible that some of the conditions that precipitate mass fish kills, such as oxygen depletion of near surface waters following algal blooms, might also be partly responsible for the mass sightings of dead seadragons observed. Other sightings of large numbers of dead seadragons (e.g. up to 100 leafies and weedies) were recorded in the Yanerbie Biounit during the late 1980s and early 1990s.

*Large numbers of dead seadragons were recorded during the "pilchard kill" events of mid 1996 and the summer of 1998/99. Beachwashed seadragons were found amongst dead pilchards over most of the coastal area of South Australia, from Yalata on the far west coast to as far east as Goolwa

Forty-six percent of all sightings occurred during the summer months, 21% during autumn, 11% during winter, and 22% during the spring months. To November 1999, there had been 72 sightings of "freshly dead" seadragons, and 46% of those sightings occurred during the months of January to March

Unsurprisingly, more records of both species were made during summer (38% of weedy sightings and 46% of leafy sightings), when diving conditions are more amenable, compared with other seasons. For both species, 12% to 13% of sightings were made during winter, and between 20% and 25% of sightings occurred during spring and autumn. Neither relative frequency nor seasonal abundance of seadragons per sighting location can be meaningfully discussed due to the non-standardised nature of the recording, which are affected by a number of factors. These include (i) uneven distribution of recordings over space and time; (ii) individual preferences in the locations and seasons in which recorders chose to dive or beach-walk, (iii) weather and/or sea conditions, and (iv) other opportunistic and/or uncontrollable aspects of the recordings.

To date, 82% of leafy seadragon sightings have been recorded by SCUBA divers, 15% have been records of dead leafies sighted by beachcombers, and 1% each of sightings have been recorded by snorkellers and fishers/boaters. The number of SCUBA records of live seadragons is lower for weedies (58%), reflecting the relatively high number of beach-washed records of dead animals (40%), particularly during the pilchard kill event of summer 1998/1999 (see below).

To date, habitat type has been specified for 96 weedy sightings and 109 leafy sightings. Although there appears to be some lack of standardisation between divers in recording habitat details, notable results to date include:

• the low incidence of seadragon sightings on bare sand and/or rubble (2% of weedy sightings and 3% of leafy sightings), which might reflect less food availability in waters over bare substrate, and/or seadragons' habitat preference for vegetation as a means of camouflage;
• the similar incidence of sightings over seagrass, for both weedies and leafies (27% and 30% respectively of sightings);
• the higher incidence (51% for weedies and 47% for leafies) of sightings over reef (including the two categories: macroalgal-dominated reef and reef of unspecified cover);
• records of both leafy and weedy seadragons observed feeding over seagrass beds and macroalgal reefs.

Divers are more likely to dive over seagrass beds and reefs, rather than bare substrate, and therefore the low incidence of sightings in the latter habitat cannot be used as conclusive evidence of habitat preference for vegetated sites. However, we can infer from these data that both leafies and weedies utilise both macroalgal-dominated reef and seagrass habitats.

To November 1999, 352 weedies had been recorded during Dragon Search and related sightings. Of these animals sighted, 23% have been recorded as hovering, 10% were recorded as swimming, 9% feeding, and 7% were recorded as being engaged in other behaviours/activities. There was no recording of behaviour for 51% of weedies sighted. To November 1999, 473 leafy seadragons had been sighted, including one unusual record of a group of 100 leafies sighted together. Hovering was listed as the observed behaviour for 46% percent of the leafy seadragons sighted. Four percent of leafies sighted were feeding, 3 % were swimming, and 2% were listed as being engaged in other behaviours/activities. Behaviour was not recorded for 45% of the leafies sighted.

Figure 7 displays the range of depth recordings per month, for leafies and weedies, to November 1999. Figure 7 indicates that the maximum sighting depth per month is, on average, higher for weedies than for leafies. However, little else can be inferred about seasonal depth variations in seadragon distribution from these data. Several reasons include the fact that

(i) the number of sightings recorded per month is opportunistic, according to diver preferences; therefore, the number of records is higher in warmer months (pleasant diving conditions), and winter sightings are underrepresented;

(ii) the survey was not standardised: i.e. seadragons were not searched for, at specific depths, in every month; and can be inferred about seasonal depth variations in seadragon distribution from these data. Several reasons include the fact that

(i) the number of sightings recorded per month is opportunistic, according to diver preferences; therefore, the number of records is higher in warmer months (pleasant diving conditions), and winter sightings are underrepresented;

(ii) the survey was not standardised: i.e. seadragons were not searched for, at specific depths, in every month; and

(iii) the uneven numbers of records between months influences the depth range of the sightings that are recorded in each month (for some months, seadragons may be found at other depths that have not recorded here due to the small number of records available for those months).

Other influences include possible depth gauge inaccuracies on divers’ watches, and the fact that in some parts of the state, sighting depths are influenced by the depth of features at preferred dive locations, such as depth of seagrass patch, reef or "bommie". That is, sea dragons may be found at other depths in the vicinity, but such depths were not surveyed because they did not contain the feature of dive interest.

Similar caveats apply to the interpretation of temperature recorded during seadragon sightings, particularly due to the prevalence of summer diving relative to other times of the year. However, one notable result from these data is the recorded temperature range for sightings, which, to date, has ranged from 10^oC to 24^oC for both species.

Figure 7 Summary of depth range of sightings per month, from Dragon Search records

Edyvane, K. S. (1999). Conserving Marine Biodiversity in South Australia - Part 2 - Identification of areas of high conservation value in South Australia. (SARDI Research Report Series No. 39).

by Steve Reynolds

There have been many inquiries into the state of the marine environment in recent years. We have details about a few of them in our Society library. A discussion paper about a 1990 inquiry into protection of the coastal environment listed seven earlier reviews concerning coastal matters. Although each review probably had their differences, some of them probably covered the same topics. There was probably a degree of duplication along the way and there is some doubt whether much was ever achieved as a result of the reviews.

The seven reviews were all held inside a twenty year period (1970-1989). That works out to about one every three years. In 1986 a Society member attended the National Coastal Management Conference held at Coff’s Harbour, New South Wales. A report on the conference featured in our November 1986 Newsletter (No.112).

According to the 1997 report on Marine and Coastal Pollution, the "Australia:State of the Environment 1996" report said that "Almost 60 government reports and inquiries have examined Australia’s coastal zone since 1960".

"Marine and Coastal Pollution" itself said that "Australia’s coasts and its waters have been the subject of a number of reports and policy initiatives in recent years. However, many of those making submissions or giving evidence to the Committee referred to the number of earlier reports and commented on the lack of effective, coordinated action taken as a result.

Little has changed in the past ten years with reviews and inquiries being held regularly. Here are some examples:-

I will start off with the 1990 Inquiry Into The Protection Of The Coastal Environment. The inquiry was held by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts (ERA).

Our Society received a copy of the discussion paper on the inquiry when a member of the ERA committee was the guest speaker at one of our meetings. MP Chris Gallus was the guest speaker at our January 1991 General Meeting. Her talk was titled (something like) "The Coast and the Commonwealth". Her visit was reported in our February 1991 Newsletter (No.163).

Chris gave us all a copy of the discussion paper about the Inquiry into the Protection of the Coastal Environment at that meeting. A copy of the paper is filed in our library (MLSSA No.2021).

A report on the inquiry was published in 1991 under the title "The Injured Coastline". It contained 12 recommendations and, according to an Oceans Policy paper, action was apparently taken to implement many of them.

Our July 1991 Newsletter (No.168) featured a report on "The Injured Coastline". The article finished by saying that the report said "The absence of a national perspective towards the entire Australian coastline could lead to national interests being undervalued or even lost for future generations. There is a pressing need for improved coordination at all levels of government."

The inquiry committee (ERA) recommended that the Commonwealth Government provide State and local governments with national policy guidance and practical support and also financial assistance based on fulfillment of certain performance criteria.

In 1993 the Resource Assessment Commission held an inquiry regarding the coastal zone. According to an Oceans Policy paper, It was "the most comprehensive investigation into this matter yet undertaken in Australia".

In its final report the Commission said "If no action is taken to change the way in which coastal resources are used, there is a very considerable risk that eco-systems will be destroyed, the recreational amenity of the coast will be degraded, and economic growth and employment opportunities will be lost; in short, the collective benefits provided by the coastal zone will cease to be available to Australians."

The Oceans Policy paper says that "Most of the recommendations have been accepted and partially implemented".

In February 1995 the Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories Ocean Rescue Program published a report on the State of the Marine Environment Report for Australia (SOMER). The report was titled "Our Sea, Our Future". Our Society received a copy of both the major findings of the report and the summary of it. They are both filed in our library (MLSSA Nos.2088 & 2089 respectively). According to the major findings publication, "SOMER is the first comprehensive description of Australia’s marine environment, its uses and values, the issues and threats affecting it, and its management".

The Technical Summary of SOMER identified declining water quality, loss of marine and coastal habitats, unsustainable use of marine and coastal resources, lack of marine science policy and of long term research and monitoring of the marine environment.

In 1995 the Senate referred the management of water and biological nutrients in Australia, with particular emphasis on their loss from the terrestrial environment and the problems caused in the marine and coastal environment to the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts References Committee (ERCA).

In September 1995 ERCA sent us an information booklet about the inquiry and asked us to make a submission. "Marine Pollution Inquiry - Inquiry Information Booklet" is filed in our library (MLSSA No.1028A). It contains the following terms of reference for the inquiry.

The full terms of reference for the inquiry were:- "The management of water and biological nutrients in Australia, with particular emphasis on their loss from the terrestrial environment and the problems that this loss into the marine and coastal environment within Australia’s economic zone causes by way of pollution from land run-off, stormwater and sewage outfalls including:

Our Society subsequently made a submission to the inquiry and details were published in our July 1996 Newsletter (No.224).

A report on the inquiry titled "Marine and Coastal Pollution" was published in October 1997 and our Society received a copy. The report is filed in our Society library (MLSSA Nos. 1028B). It concerned the whole of Australia and a total of twentynine recommendations were made.

In 1996 an Independent Reference Group undertook a Review of the Management of Adelaide’s Metropolitan Beaches. It all started with the Minister for the Environment. Submissions were called for and then the Minister’s Reference Committee consulted with the community. A Community Working Group was then established for a Coastal Management Study.

As part of the above review Hassell Pty Ltd then conducted a Northern Beaches Coastal Management Study - a study of environmental management options for the coastal zone between Semaphore and Outer Harbor. I was involved in this study a little and there is a folder titled "Coastal Management Study" filed in our library (MLSSA No.3001). I gave reports about the review in our July and August 1996 Newsletters (Nos.224 & 225).

In September 1997 the SA State Government’s Department of Environment and Natural Resources published a report titled "Protecting Gulf St Vincent - A statement on its health and future". It was all about SA’s commitment to protecting the Gulf. Our Society received several copies and our name was mentioned in the report. A copy of the report is filed in our library (MLSSA No. 2145).

In the foreword section of the report Premier John Olsen called for ideas and input so that his Government could put measures in place to ensure that the Gulf is looked after. He said that any feedback would assist the development of a Marine and Estuarine Strategy for SA.

In 1997 the State Government held community workshops for community participation in a Marine and Estuarine Strategy. The Conservation Council of SA was very involved in the consultation process and a Steering Committee was established.

The end result was the publishing of a report titled "Our Seas & Coasts" in August 1998. This report is filed in a Marine and Estuarine Strategy folder in our library (MLSSA No.3015).

I gave reports about the strategy in our March and April 1997 Newsletters (Nos.231 & 232). The March issue said that "The strategy will provide a framework for addressing a range of issues pertinent to their management and provide a guide for decision making into the future."

The April issue reported that a Society member had attended a workshop to develop a framework for the strategy and presented us with a copy of the "Summary of Deliberations" which was added to our library file.

The Environment Protection Agency claimed that the "Our Seas & Coasts" report "demonstrates that a more strategic approach to managing the coastal environment is being taken". "It provides general strategies for sustainable use, improved management and conservation of SA’s marine & estuarine environment".

We were told that the strategy establishes a framework for protecting marine habitats and their biodiversity. It embraces five major commitments:- clean & healthy seas, sustainable use, conserving biodiversity & heritage, working together and better understanding.

Clean, healthy seas - to address wastewater, stormwater, ballast water and coastal processes.

Sustainable use - to ensure that the principles of ecologically sustainable development underpin all uses of the marine environment.

Conserving biodiversity & heritage - to ensure protection of the marine habitat and species therein.

Working together - the community has a right to be involved in decisions on use and resource allocation.

Better understanding - acquiring the knowledge that will provide the basis for conserving and managing the natural heritage and resource base.

The EPA were concentrating on the pollution control aspects of the strategy. A part of the Commonwealth Coasts and Clean Seas Program was the Coastal and Marine Planning Program. The State Government apparently sought funding to carry out a planning strategy for both our gulfs and the Kangaroo Island area. The Senate Committee supported this approach which led to Recommendation 8 - that the Commonwealth provide funding through the Coastal and Marine Planning Program for the EPA to develop a planning strategy for Gulf St Vincent.

In 1997 the Commonwealth Government started to develop "a comprehensive and integrated Oceans Policy for Australia under Coasts and Clean Seas". The Policy would "provide the strategic framework for the planning, management and ecologically sustainable development of our fisheries, shipping, petroleum, gas and seabed resources, while ensuring the conservation and protection of the marine environment". It would "complement existing and planned programs and policies".

We heard a great deal about Australia’s Oceans Policy through organisations such as the Conservation Council of SA and the Marine and Coastal Community Network. We also received copies of lots of publications about the Policy and these are filed in our library (MLSSA Nos.2100-13 & 2127-8).

One of the publications that we received was Background Paper 4 - Reviews & Recommendations (MLSSA No.2106). This paper’s full title is "Analysis of Marine and Coastal Reviews and their Recommendations in relation to Development of an Oceans Policy for Australia".

This paper commented on past inquiries. It says that "The Resource Assessment Commission in 1993 found that there had been around 30 previous government inquiries or reports on coastal and marine environmental issues and that many of these were duplicatory in nature. Since then there have been another 25 comprehensive reports on coastal and marine management issues by Commonwealth agencies and national non-government organisations (NGOs), and innumerable other reports by other spheres of government and NGOs on specific issues and areas".

It went on to say that "Although there is considerable duplication in these reports, they do provide many findings and recommendations relevant to the development of an Oceans Policy".

Under the heading "A Review of Reviews" the paper says "To provide background information for the Oceans Policy forum, this review summarises the major findings of recent inquiries and reports that may be relevant to the development of an Oceans Policy".

The paper lists 34 reports, including the top ten of them. Twenty-six of them are summarised and the status of many of them at that time (1997) is given.

Late in 1999 SA Senator Nick Bolkus called upon the Senate to hold an inquiry into the environmental state of Gulf St Vincent. Senator Bolkus was the environment spokesman for the Opposition.

His call for an inquiry won the Senate’s support. The Senate decided to form a committee and advertise for submissions to the inquiry that would look at the effects of pollution in the gulf.

In explaining the inquiry, Senator Bolkus said "We need to do this overall assessment and have an overall plan for the future." He went on to say "We’ll be talking to the State Government, councils, the fishing industry, conservation groups and the shipping industry. We will be looking at the pollution of the gulf and the sustainability of the gulf and its coastline. I would be happy if we were to come out of the inquiry with an acceptance by the Federal Government that there needs to be more serious attention paid to the impacts on the gulf."

The Australian Senate committee that held the inquiry was the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee.

The Senate referred the inquiry to the committee on 26^th August 1999. They were given the following three terms of reference for the inquiry:-

In October 1999 our Society received an invitation from the committee to lodge a submission to the inquiry. We had to move fast to be able to lodge a submission by the deadline. As our Secretary I was asked to send a reply to the inquiry committee.

In our letter to the inquiry I was able to say that there had already been innumerable studies and inquiries but nothing much had ever been done as a result of them. I added that the same committee had already reported on an inquiry into marine and coastal pollution in October 1997. That report was the result of some two years’ work.

I also pointed out that the SA Government Department of Environment and Natural Resources had published a report in 1997 titled "Protecting Gulf St Vincent - A statement on its health and future". That publication covered most of the major issues concerning the gulf.

Using that publication as a guide I was able to express concerns about issues such as the state of the Port River, its dolphins & mangroves, oil & chemical spills, sand dune loss, sand drift, seagrass dieback, stormwater run-off, effluent discharges and fishing practices.

I suggested that the Port River would suffer under developments such as the Pelican Point Power Station, the proposed shipbreaking yard and new sewer outlet.

I said that the Port River dolphins and mangroves deserved greater consideration than they are presently receiving. Mercury and PCB levels are too high in the dolphins, suggesting that there are problems in the area already.

I also said that the establishment of proposed rubbish dumps north of Adelaide would threaten the gulf unnecessarily and a shipbreaking yard would see the establishment of more unwanted introduced species that would threaten the ecosystem of our gulf.

I pointed out that we are having too many oil and chemical spills, losing too many sand dunes, suffering too much sand drift and seagrass dieback.

I also said that the gulf is subject to too much pollution, stormwater run-off and effluent. I suggested tertiary treatment of effluent, more re-use of water and a reduction of the effects of fishing practices.

Our submission, along with other correspondence, information and newspaper cuttings is filed in our library (MLSSA No.2144).

The State Opposition made a number of recommendations to the inquiry. One recommendation called for an independent scientific review into the dumping of waste in Gulf St Vincent. The Opposition was concerned that SA had fallen behind the rest of the country in environmental protection and that the gulf was being polluted by nutrients, fecal waste, heavy metals, litter, chemicals, process waste and hydrocarbons.

A report on the results of the inquiry was published in June 2000 and we received a copy in July. Our copy of the report is filed in our library (MLSSA No.1039). The report makes a good companion (matching book) to the 1997 report "Marine and Coastal Pollution".

Reading through the report I found that the committee had drawn up 15 recommendations which focused on things such as increased resources & funding, enhanced statutory powers, overhauling legislation, extending monitoring, sponsoring more scholarships, holding more meetings & improved liaison between organisations.

I studied the report in detail, searching for direct responses to my comments. One of the first things that I noticed was that the foreword section mentioned that no less than 13 studies between 1991 and 1994 identified the clear correlation between sewage disposal and ecosystem degradation around the Gulf’s wastewater treatment plants. Further studies indicate the Gulf has already lost more than 6000 hectares of its seagrass beds.

This seemed to back my statement that there have been innumerable studies and inquiries but nothing much is ever done as a result of them. More about this later.

The foreword section also said that there are many water quality problems impacting on the gulf and that the solutions are already well known. The section went on to say that the State Government needs "to be driving the process and committing to specific tangible outcomes". Co-ordinated public education, statutory planning, agency agreements, capital works and enforcement programs were the sort of things put to the State Government.

The foreword section also said that "The Commonwealth has approved $1.9 million in funding for rehabilitation projects in the Gulf Region over the past three years" and went on to say that it "should continue to support on-ground works . . and see that the Coasts and Clean Seas, Living Cities, the Urban Stormwater Initiative and other Commonwealth programs are available to specifically support capital works".

Page 1 of the report starts with a list of the fifteen recommendations made by the committee. These were:-

The recommendations were not set out in numerical order as listed above. They may have been set out in some kind of order of importance. Recommendation 1 was listed last even though it must have been the first one made and the easiest to make. Recommendation 15 was listed first even though it must have been the last one made and the hardest to make.

The report mainly consists of four chapters. Chapter 1 is a one-page introduction about the inquiry. Chapter 2 gives background information about the Gulf, Port River and marine reserves. Chapter 3 details the many threats to the environment of the Gulf. Chapter 4 details the various responses to the problem.

Major headings for Chapter 3 (Threats To The Environment Of Gulf St Vincent) are Pollution, Habitat Damage and Destruction, Overharvesting of Living Marine Organisms, Introduced Marine Pests, Future Impacts and Regional Areas.

Major headings for Chapter 4 (Responses To The Problem) are Adelaide Coastal Waters Study, Marine and Estuarine Strategy, Call for action, Federal Programs, State Legislation, Reuse schemes, Catchment Water Management Boards, Local Government, Monitoring programs, Education and awareness raising programs and Tourism potential of dolphins.

I searched through the four chapters of the report looking for direct responses to my comments in our submission.

One of the statements that I had made had been about concern over issues such as the state of the Port River and proposed developments such as the power station, the shipbreaking yard and new sewer outlet.

Threats to the Barker Inlet and Port River Estuary were discussed in Chapter 3 under many of the points between 3.20 and 3.38. They were also discussed in many other points in Chapter 3. For example, the Pelican Point Power Station was particularly discussed in points 3.123 to 3.132.

The result of those discussions was Recommendation 5 which suggested that the licence to be issued to the power station be made conditional on measures being taken to prevent thermal pollution.

The Port Adelaide Waste Water Treatment Plant upgrade was discussed in points 3.133 to 3.143. The result of those discussions was Recommendation 6 that suggested that the SA Government consider off-budget construction options for the upgrading of the plant utilising land-based disposal of sewage effluent.

My next statement in our submission had been that the Port River dolphins and mangroves deserved greater consideration.

The tourism potential of dolphins was discussed in Chapter 4 under points 4.89 to 4.93. In point 4.90 Dr Mike Bossley of the Australian Dolphin Research Foundation (ADRF) was quoted as saying that the narrowness of the Port River provides a unique opportunity for shore-based tourists to view the dolphins in a totally non-intrusive manner. The next point (4.91) said that Dr Bossley believes that there is a substantial opportunity for a dolphin-based eco-tourism operation to be developed. In point 4.93 the committee said that it supports this type of development but it would depend upon the success of the clean-up programs in order to ensure the continued existence of the resident dolphins.

Threats to the mangroves were discussed in Chapter 3 under points 3.50 to 3.57. The last point (3.57) said that "Mangroves are under threat from small scale coastal urban developments including boat ramps, marinas and land reclamation. Saltmarsh too is being degraded and removed due to agricultural, industrial and urban use and developments".

My next statement in our submission had been that mercury and PCB levels are too high in the Port River dolphins. Points 3.25 & 3.26 in Chapter 3 discussed heavy metals and organochlorines in marine life including dolphins. Point 3.26 mentioned the high levels of mercury found in one of the dolphins. Dr Bossley had stated that the mercury levels were the highest recorded in the world. The SA Environment Protection Agency (EPA), however, did not agree with this claim.

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) recently published its latest report on marine pollution "You’re Swimming In It Two!". The report says that industrial sources and seepage of pollutants from industrial sites have lead to high pollution levels.

The report comments on the mercury levels found in the Port River dolphin. It says that the mercury is likely to have come from industrial sources along the Port River. One time Society member Tony Bazeley has called for the source of the mercury (& PCBs) to be determined. He also recommended setting pollution levels in the river lower than those in the sea due to the restricted circulation in the river.

My next statement in our submission concerned the proposed establishment of rubbish dumps north of Adelaide. Points 3.151 to 3.162 discussed landfills in the Dublin and Inkerman areas. Point 3.162 concludes by saying that the evidence given by the EPA suggests that there is no risk of contamination from the proposed landfills.

My next statement in our submission was that a shipbreaking yard would see the establishment of more unwanted introduced species that would threaten the ecosystem of our gulf. Threats from introduced marine pests are discussed in Chapter 3 under points 3.88 to 3.92. Point 3.92 concludes by saying that, given the devastating effects that introduced marine pests can have on the Gulf waters and its environment, more should be done by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) to monitor and control the extent of the problem.

The result of those discussions was Recommendation 4 which suggested that AQIS take an active role in monitoring the possible introduction of marine pests from visiting vessels in the Gulf St Vincent area and that it take appropriate action to minimise the problem.

My next statement in our submission was about having too many oil and chemical spills. Threats from oil and chemical spills were both discussed in Chapter 3 under points 3.21 to 3.26. Antifoulants were discussed under points 3.37 to 3.39. Antifoulants contain Tributyl tin, a highly toxic chemical.

Recommendation 1 was the result of those discussions. It suggested that the SA Government prohibit the use of Tributyl tin (TBT) on small craft.

My next statement in our submission was about losing too many sand dunes. Threats to sand dunes were discussed in Chapter 3 under points 3.43 to 3.46 (Habitat Damage & Destruction). Point 3.43 says, "Urban development of the foreshore has had a significant effect on coastal processes. The . . section . . from Marino to Outer Harbor was originally backed by sand dunes".

My next statement in our submission concerned suffering too much sand drift and seagrass dieback. The threat of sand drift was discussed in Chapter 3 under points 3.58 to 3.73 (Beach Erosion). Point 3.58 says that "It has reached the stage . . where the replenishing sand (used previously) is now too fine and an alternative supply is required".

The only recommendation to come from those discussions was Recommendation 2 which suggested an embargo on pumping from wells or bores on coastal dunes and adjacent regions until an investigation into the groundwater reservoirs has been undertaken.

Threats to seagrass were discussed in Chapter 3 under points 3.7 to 3.13. Point 3.7 says that "There is (recent) evidence . . of regrowth and recolonisation of seagrass in previously denuded areas near Glenelg. This regrowth is attributed to the closure of the Semaphore sludge outfall in 1993. In general, however, seagrass beds do not readily regenerate".

My next statement in our submission was about the gulf being subject to too much pollution, stormwater run-off and effluent. The threat of pollution was discussed under many points already mentioned plus points 3.19 to 3.20 in Chapter 3. These two points discussed litter and thermal pollution. The threat of stormwater was discussed in Chapter 3 under points 3.14 to 3.18 (stormwater runoff) and 3.40 to 3.42 (sedimentation). Point 3.42 said that Reef Watch workers had noted problems with sedimentation and reef smothering in the mid-coast area. It also said, "The Conservation Council suggests that this type of impact is probably a regular occurrence in parts of the Gulf but it goes largely unnoticed and unattended by regulatory authorities".

I had suggested tertiary treatment of effluent in our submission. The threat of sewage outfalls were discussed in Chapter 3 under points 3.4 to 3.6 and the Port Adelaide Waste Water Treatment Plant was discussed in the same chapter under points 3.133 to 3.143. Those discussions resulted in the previously mentioned Recommendation 6, which suggested that the SA Government consider utilising land-based disposal of sewage effluent.

My next statement in our submission suggested more re-use of water. This was discussed in Chapter 4 under points 4.36 to 4.39 (Reuse schemes). Point 4.37 said that "It is hoped that the waste water treatment plant upgrades and reuse schemes will limit the decline in water quality in Gulf St Vincent and that seagrass beds will regenerate".

My final suggestion in our submission was that the effects of fishing practices be reduced. Threats from fishing and prawn trawling were discussed in Chapter 3 under points 3.74 to 3.87 (Prawn Trawling & Overharvesting of Living Marine Organisms) and 3.95 to 3.103 (Fishing).

The discussions about prawn fishing resulted in Recommendation 3 which suggested an independant assessment of the effects and future potential of prawn fishing in the Gulf St Vincent area be carried out.

It may be left to groups such as the Marine Life Society, Scuba Divers Federation and Conservation Council to ensure that there is some kind of follow-up over the 15 recommendations made.

I have tried to analyse the recommendations and I found that most, if not all, of the recommendations are made to areas of government. Most of them seem to be made to our State Government and several of them are made to two or more levels of government.

The Commonwealth Government (or Commonwealth agencies) was the sole focus of three particular recommendations (4, 7 & 8). These concerned monitoring the possible introduction of marine pests and taking appropriate action to minimise the problem, the provision of additional funding for the Adelaide Coastal Waters Study and provision of funding for the EPA to develop a planning strategy for the gulf.

Two of the recommendations focused on both the Commonwealth and State Governments (9 & 14). These concerned an increased sponsoring of scholarships in the field of environmental science and the provision of increased funding for the monitoring and evaluation of programs aimed at cleaning up the waters and environment of the gulf.

Just one recommendation was aimed at all levels of government. It was number 15 which called for an increased level of funding for raising awareness of the environmental threats to the gulf and for community education programs about possible solutions to some of the pollution and degradation problems.

Two of the recommendations were aimed at both the State and local Government (12 & 13). These recommended improved mechanisms for liaison between State and local government agencies in relation to the management of gulf waters and the coastal environment of the gulf and meetings at regular intervals to discuss and implement an integrated approach to programs aimed at improving water quality and the general environment of the gulf.

Some seven recommendations appear to be aimed solely at the State Government. They are numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10 and 11.

Recommendation 1

This was that the SA Government prohibits the use of Tributyl tin on small craft.

The focus of recommendations 2, 3 & 5 was not quite so clear. Recommendation 2 concerned an embargo on pumping from wells or bores on coastal dunes and adjacent regions until an investigation into the groundwater reservoirs has been undertaken. Recommendation 3 concerned an independent assessment of the effects and future potential of prawn fishing in the Gulf St Vincent area. Recommendation 5 was that the licence to be issued to the Pelican Point Power Station be made conditional on measures being taken to prevent thermal pollution.

The focus of recommendations 6, 10 & 11 was clearer. Number 6 recommended that the SA Government consider off-budget construction options for the upgrading of the Port Adelaide Waste Water Treatment Plant utilising land-based disposal of sewage effluent. Number 10 was that the SA Government give enhanced statutory powers and greater flexibility and independence to the SA Environment Protection Agency to take action to protect the environment more effectively.

(Point 4.17 under the heading "Call for action" in Chapter 4 included the comments that "the Committee is of the view that the EPA could achieve more positive results if it was given enhanced powers to act independently of government in environmental matters". It was these comments that led to Recommendation 10.)

Number 11 recommended that the SA Government consider an overhaul of the current coastal protection legislation with the introduction of a new Coastal and Marine Planning Management Act.

Another part of the report under the heading "Call for action" (Chapter 4, point 4.14) said that the committee received a number of submissions which "expressed frustration that there have been far too many inquiries into the gulf without any concrete results". This too backed up my comments that there have been innumerable studies and inquiries but nothing much is ever done as a result of them.

I like to think that our letter (submission) had some sort of influence on the Senate Inquiry. There is no doubt, however, that many other campaigners had a large impact on the inquiry - people like James Brook & Michelle Grady (Conservation Council), Tony Flaherty (Marine & Coastal Community Network), Mike Bossley (Australian Dolphin Research Foundation), Pat Harbison (Barker Inlet Port Estuary Committee), Jim Douglas (Henley & Grange Residents Association), Jon Emmett (Catchment to Coast Project Officer City of Port Adelaide Enfield), Tony Bazeley & David Case (Port Adelaide Residents Environment Protection Group), Gwen Moore & Anni Telford (Community Action For Port & Peninsula). My thanks to all of these people for their efforts.

If we (members of our Society) agree with many (or any) of the 15 recommendations, we could (or should) lobby the relevant government to act accordingly.

Members could also help by taking steps of their own. They could, for example, voluntarily ban the use of the highly toxic chemical Tributyl tin (TBT), which is used in boat antifoulants. Toxic compounds leach slowly from antifouling paint. They then accumulate in the food chain and contamination may be a health hazard for humans. Commercial boatyards and slips are not allowed to use antifouling paints containing TBT with a release greater than 5 micrograms per centimetre per square per day. Many countries have now prohibited the use of TBT on small craft and such a prohibition is finally being recommended for SA (Shouldn’t it be on a national level?). It seems, however, that antifoulants still going to be used on aquaculture farming equipment.

In August I noticed a newspaper report about State Government funding that may have occurred as a result of Recommendation 9 - "that both the Federal and State Governments give consideration to sponsoring an increased number of scholarships in the field of environmental science". The report said that an additional $55,000 was being provided to the Don Dunstan Foundation to go towards scholarships at the University of Adelaide.

"Marine Pollution Inquiry - Inquiry Information Booklet" - the information booklet about the Senate Inquiry into marine & coastal pollution, published by the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, July 1995 (MLSSA No.1028A).

"Marine and Coastal Pollution" - the report from the Senate Inquiry into marine & coastal pollution, published by the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, October 1997 (MLSSA No. 1028B).

"Inquiry into Gulf St Vincent" - the report from the Senate Inquiry into Gulf St Vincent, published by the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, June 2000 (MLSSA No.1039).

"Protecting Gulf St Vincent - A statement on its health and future" published by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, September 1997 (MLSSA No.2145).

"Inquiry into Protection of the Coastal Environment", a discussion paper published in 1990 (MLSSA No.2021).

"Our Sea, Our Future - Major findings of the State of the Marine Environment Report for Australia" - SOMER (MLSSA No.2088) and the summary of the same report (MLSSA No.2089).

Australia’s Oceans Policy (AOP)- Report of the Ministerial Group on Oceans Policy (March 1998) (MLSSA No.2100).

AOP - An Issues Paper (For public comment) May 1998 (MLSSA No.2101).

Australia’s Marine Science & Technology Plan - Draft for consultation (June 1998) (MLSSA No.2102).

AOP Background Paper 1 - Oceans Facts & Figures (A Primer on Australia’s Oceans and Exclusive Economic Zone) (MLSSA No.2103).

AOP Background Paper 2 - International Agreements (Review of International Agreements, Conventions, Obligations and Other Instruments Influencing Use and Management of Australia’s Marine Environment) October 1997 (MLSSA No.2104).

AOP Background Paper 3 - Submissions (Analysis of Submissions to the Oceans Policy Consultation Paper) (MLSSA No.2105).

AOP Background Paper 4 - Reviews & Recommendations (Analysis of Marine and Coastal Reviews and their Recommendations in relation to Development of an Oceans Policy for Australia) (MLSSA No.2106).

AOP Issues Paper 1 - Oceans Planning & Management (Multiple Use Management in the Australian Marine Environment: Principles, Definitions and Elements) June 1997 (MLSSA No.2107).

AOP Issues Paper 2 - Oceans Planning & Management (Management Instruments for Marine Resource Allocation and Use) September 1997 (MLSSA No.2108).

AOP Issues Paper 3 - Oceans Planning & Management (Best Practice Mechanisms for Marine Use Planning) September 1997 (MLSSA No.2109).

AOP Issues Paper 4 - Socio-cultural Considerations (Caring for the Commons - Socio-cultural Considerations in Oceans Policy Development and Implementation) October 1997 (MLSSA No.2110).

AOP Issues Paper 5 - Socio-cultural Considerations (Expanding the Role of Collaborative Management and Stewardship in the Conservation Management of Australia’s Marine and Coastal Resources) October 1997 (MLSSA No.2111).

AOP Issues Paper 6 - Socio-cultural Considerations (Socio-cultural - Saltwater Country Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Interest in Ocean Policy Development and Implementation) October 1997 (MLSSA No.2112).

AOP Issues Paper 7 - Biodiversity Conservation (November 1997) (MLSSA No.2113).

"Australia’s Oceans Policy No.1" (MLSSA No.2127).

"Australia’s Oceans Policy No.2 - Specific Sectorial Measures" (MLSSA No.2128).

"Our Seas & Coasts - Marine & Estuary Strategy for SA" (MLSSA Nos.2177 & 2136).

"Marine & Estuary Strategy information" (MLSSA No.3015).

"Coastal Management Study", environment options for the coastal zone between Semaphore and Outer Harbor. The Coastal Review Reference Group review of the management of Adelaide’s metropolitan beaches. Topics include sea grasses, dune management and structure, community involvement, sand accretion and flora and fauna (MLSSA No.3001).

The Amazing Giant Cuttle (Sepia apama)

by Alex Gaut

When diving in southern Australian waters, there are few creatures more stunningly beautiful AND intelligent than the cephalopods. The entire family has the ability to rapidly change colours to camouflage, court and communicate, and they have the largest brains of any known marine invertebrate group. They exhibit a wide range of behaviours that indicate intelligence including learning and curiosity, and they are, above all, utterly charming.

Before I launch into how glorious S. apama is, how unique their winter spawning aggregation is and how little we actually know about this animal, I will outline some basic cephalopod biology because they are incredible creatures and should be appreciated for all their amazing adaptations.

Cuttles belong to the group of cephalopods which have reduced and internalised, or lost, their shells, as opposed to the ancient Nautilus. The group is known as the coleoid cephalopods. The modified shell inside cuttles, known as cuttlebone or a ‘sepion’ and made of calcium carbonate, allows cuttles to live in the water column like a fish, able to accurately and quickly control their buoyancy by changing the quantity of gas in the tiny chambers of the sepion.

Cuttles have two modes of swimming: finning and jet propulsion. The lateral fins can be used for hovering and swimming. Jet propulsion is achieved by sucking water into the body cavity and then expelling it at high speed through a funnel underneath the body. The funnel can turn to direct the movement away from a threat coming from any direction. To further aid escape from predators, cuttles, like squid, can squirt a cloud of black ink to shield their escape and confuse the predator.

Cuttles have eight arms and two longer tentacles. The two tentacles are usually kept tucked in two pockets under the eyes, and are used to ambush prey. After sneaking up on a suitable prey item, the tentacles are shot out at high speed to seize the prey before it can escape. Cuttles consume a wide variety of animals including crustaceans. To get at the yummy flesh inside the hard exoskeleton, cuttles have a parrot-like, keratinous beak that is large and strong.

One of the most endearing and stunning features of cuttles is their ability to rapidly change colour and skin texture. Any divers reading this who have surprised, confronted or played with a cuttle will have experienced this remarkable ability and been amazed by it. To enhance their colour-changing ability cuttles have muscular ‘papillae’ in their skin that they can raise so they look wrinkly and blend in superbly with surrounding algae or rocks.

Layers of different cells – chromatophores, iridophores and leucocytes (Fig. 1), produce colour patterns. Chromatophores are muscular pigment-containing cells, which when contracted, expose a large surface area of pigment, and when relaxed show no pigment. Chromatophores come in three colour types: yellow/orange, red/orange and brown/black. They are under the direct nervous control of the brain. Lying under the chromatophores are the iridophores, mirror-like crystalline structures that reflect blue and green. Under these are the leucocytes, responsible for producing white.

The large and complex eyes of cephalopods correspond to large optical lobes in the brain. Despite their ability to produce an astonishing range of colour, it is widely believed by scientists that most cephalopods are colour-blind. It is proposed that instead of responding to the wavelengths of the colours in their environment, they respond to the contrast between the colours. There is evidence to support this theory. Of the 24 cephalopod species whose retinas have been examined, 23 contained only one visual pigment – rhodopsin (wavelength maximum ~480nm, depending on species). The other species, a type of squid, has 3 visual pigments, indicating that it may well see in colour. With a single visual pigment it may still be possible to distinguish colour wavelengths if the retina contains multiple banks of receptors, such as the double layers of rods found in some deep-sea fish. Light reaching the second layer is different from light entering the eye because it has already passed through the first layer of receptors and some has been absorbed. This arrangement has only been found in the same species of squid that also has the 3 visual pigments. (See Marshall & Messenger (1996) for a detailed colour-blindness experiment on a cuttle species.)

Back to Sepia apama. It ranks as one of the largest cuttle species in the world. However, we must be careful: when talking about size, many journalists are tempted to say that S. apama measure over a metre, however this measurement includes the arms and tentacles, which can stretch out to almost double the length of the animal. Correct scientific measurement uses the dorsal mantle length (ML, Fig. 2), i.e. from the front of the mantle between the eyes to the posterior tip of the mantle. The largest animals measured in SA had mantle lengths up to ~40 cm, but in New South Wales they have been measured up to ~60 cm and weigh over 5 kgs. There is no explanation for this size difference, it could be different environmental conditions, or possibly different species, but the research has not yet been done to confirm or deny either of these possibilities. The largest males are always larger than the largest females.

In South Australia, the giant cuttle is best known for its unique spawning aggregation that takes place every winter around an area known as Black Point, near Whyalla. Thousands of cuttles congregate over shallow inshore rocky reef. So shallow in fact that it is possible to enjoy this unique event simply by snorkeling, thus making it accessible to non-divers. Nowhere else in Australia has this type of behaviour been observed and in fact has never been recorded in any other cuttle species.

Around the end of April, beginning of May the numbers start to build up, then during August they disappear. Nobody knows where they come from, how they get there or where they go to when it’s over. SARDI scientists recently recorded densities as high as 70 cuttles per 100 m2 during the height of the season. It is not known what brings the cuttles to Whyalla each year. One suggestion is that the females need to attach their eggs to some form of hard substrate, however at this stage scientists can only guess at the reason.

In other areas of their distribution the giant cuttle has been described by recreational divers as being solitary animals, inhabiting caves and overhangs. The males appear to be very territorial and fiercely protect dens in order to attract females searching for a place to lay eggs. This kind of den-guarding behaviour has even been observed in Edithburgh. This makes the spawning aggregation at Black Point even more unique. Instead of guarding territory, males fiercely guard a chosen female. Having mated, the male aggressively fends off other males attempting to approach the female for mating, in this way he will ensure that his is the only sperm to fertilise the female’s eggs. In the meantime the female, having chosen an appropriate position for her eggs, will begin laying with great effort, apparently oblivious to the intense competition surrounding her.

There are two alternative possible explanations for this different behaviour: 1) there are very few distinct caves or overhangs for cuttles to occupy in the area, or 2) the high numbers of cuttles in one small area might prevent the majority of animals from claiming and maintaining a territory.

Competition for females is intense at Black Point with males outnumbering females 4-8:1, depending on the time during the season, and usually only the largest males could successfully court and mate. The majority of males are small sneaker or satellite males, who without a female, seek out a loosely-guarded female and attempt to mate while the ‘owner’ is distracted (this behaviour is sometimes called ‘sneaky sex’ and is seen in many other animal groups).

There are several different behaviour types that can be seen during this winter spawning time and it can often be difficult to distinguish males and females unless females are laying eggs. Even the animals themselves cannot distinguish male and female unless they display to one another. Because of the large number of males at Black Point during winter, there are many males displaying to one another to see if they are male or female and to compete with one another for a solitary, unguarded female, these are called agonistic bouts.

When males of approximately equal size approach one another, there are ‘flamboyant’ body displays, they align their bodies side by side and stretch and flare out their arms, displaying the familiar moving zebra pattern, in this way they can ‘size-up’ one another – this is the first stage of the bout. In this way they can assess if they are both male, and which is the bigger. Usually the smaller of the two will give in and move away.

If the bout continues, the next stage is called ‘flare-to-bite’. The larger male will turn to the smaller one and flare out his fourth arms as a warning to the smaller male. If the smaller male still does not back down, the larger male may move in and attempt to grab the smaller male, who will then roll out of the arms to escape.

These displays also occurred between males who already possess a female each. If approached by a very small male attempting to steal his female, a large male will merely brush the contender aside aggressively. However, the constant attention needed to guard a female from up to 6-8 other males, means that sometimes a small male may get the opportunity for sneaky sex, while the guarding male is busy displaying to another big male.

Displaying to a female is very short and subtle. The males use a small patch on the side of the body to display a very subtle version of the zebra pattern to the female, this is also used in sex recognition. It is completely up to the female whether she chooses to mate with a particular male or not. Mating takes place head to head for several minutes, while the male deposits, with his fourth arms, sacks of sperm (spermatophores) into a receptacle under the beak of the female. Some males if mating with a previously mated female, may flush out a previous male’s sperm from the female using his funnel. A female may mate with more than one male or repeatedly with the same male before laying eggs. Some females were ‘stolen’ from their male while mating or laying eggs, and were immediately mated.

Having completed mating, the female starts to search for a suitable place to hang her eggs. This appears to be a very strenuous process. The eggs are removed from the body cavity through the funnel, down the arms and stuck under a rock. They are fertilised one at a time inside the body. Anyone who has witnessed a female laying eggs will have seen the intense white appearance of her head and arms as they all scrunch up near the head, it looks like an incredible effort, the way that your knuckles go white when crunched in a fist.

Many cuttle species are thought to be ‘big bang’ spawners, i.e. they lay all their eggs in one go and then die, this is called semelparous. However, it appears that female S. apama may be able to lay more than one batch of eggs, with new eggs produced in the ovaries as each previous batch are laid. It is not known how many batches a female can lay during the season.

Eggs are laid individually within protective casings and attached to the underside of flat rocks in tight spaces. This provides some degree of protection from predators like fish, however, it appears that urchins may be eating the eggs. Several urchins have been caught ‘red-handed’ with partially consumed eggs in their mouths. Many urchins also had eggs caught on their spines. There are high densities of urchins in the area, but their predation rate and impact on cuttle eggs is unknown.

The rate of embryonic development is temperature dependent and is quicker with higher water temperature, thus those laid later in the season will mature quicker, due to increasing water temperatures in September, than those laid at the beginning of the season. Hatchlings are first observed breaking out of their cases in early September. They are approximately 1 cm (ML) but are virtually miniature adults capable of most functions including squirting ink and changing colours. Hatchlings immediately go to the substrate and hide, easily camouflaged.

After these months of fervent activity, adults begin to disappear during August. It is not known if they die after spawning, or if they return to summer feeding grounds to return to Black Point the next year. Sick-looking animals have been observed around Black Point towards the end of the spawning season. Some have been observed with the posterior tip of the sepion protruding through the mantle, causing the head and arms to droop. Once in this moribund state, the animals are incapable of withstanding rough weather and are often found washed up after storms.

There are many unanswered questions, some of them fairly simple:

• How old are the adults?
• How long do they live?
• How often do they reproduce?
• Where do the young cuttles live?
• How fast do they grow?
• Are the cuttles in SA related to those in WA or NSW?

To answer these question SARDI Aquatic Sciences and the University of Adelaide initiated a three-year research project to try to answer some of these questions. There is an urgency behind the research resulting from concerns raised over the lack of management of harvesting of cuttles at Black Point. Appropriate management protocols must be based on biological information, but despite its large size and common occurrence, S. apama has been little researched prior to now.

SARDI are undertaking a number of projects aimed at gaining some basic information: population surveys, tagging studies, reproductive studies and so on. The tagging studies will hopefully reveal whether the same animals are returning each year and how long each animal remains in the area. It may be that on animal may only stay a few days and move on, with a continuous cycle of animals throughout the season. However, the cuttles do not always approve of the blue plastic strip that has been inserted through its mantle and there are anecdotes that they have been observed removing the strips with their arms! Wouldn’t you?

Many divers and other concerned groups are lobbying to have the Black Point area made into a Marine Protected Area, or some kind of other sanctuary to prevent excessive harvesting in the future. If this species only mates and spawns once in its life then it is prone to population decline due to unmanaged fishing. Fortunately the SA Government created a closed area during the spawning season last year and again this year. The Whyalla City Council, in conjunction with the Whyalla Dive Club, are also looking into the steps required to have the spawning grounds listed as a World Heritage site. For further information regarding the "Cuttlefish Capital" visit the website: http://www.cuttlefishcapital.com.au

I hope you can now appreciate a little more about these beguiling creatures and just how lucky we are to have this unique spectacle on our South Australian doorstep.

Many thanks to Karina Hall (of SARDI and Adelaide Uni.) for putting up with my incessant questions, for letting me photocopy everything and for reading and editing this article.

by Dr David Muirhead

I always prefer a melodramatic title and this personal account of an Estuary Catfish envenomation surely deserves one.

Okay, it was really a minor incident, one experienced often by fishermen, waders and boaties all around our coasts (though few would set themselves up for punishment as foolishly as I did!). But in my usual self-serving way I will henceforth overlook this inconvenient truth and dwell on my pain and suffering to hopefully emerge (are you yet convinced?) the gracious loser in a mighty battle between fish and man.

Enough, enough!

Its Easter Monday (24/4/00), late afternoon, incoming tide with clear seawater flooding into the Onkaparinga Estuary at Southport Beach, Noarlunga.

After a quick swim in the sea with the Southern Sea Garfish (Hyporhamphus melanochir) I see Black Bream (Acanthopagrus butcheri) and Tommy Roughs (Arripis georgiana) milling around the fishers’ baits under the foot-bridge several hundred metres inland and looking good in the clean water. I decide to grab my snorkelling gear and have a lazy drift snorkel to finish a relaxing day.

Right at the mouth there is a nice 2 metre deep gutter in against the low cliff with plenty of the above fish active from surface to seafloor. As I skim over shallow clear sand, carried along by the 2 knot current, I pass healthy schools of big Yellow-eye Mullet (Aldrichetta forsteri) with occasional smallish Tommy Roughs.

Further upstream the bottom has low patches of rock and some areas of filamentous green algal turf and here a tightly packed school of at least 100 Striped Perch (Pelates octolineatus), better known to fishers as Trumpeter, moves past me swimming strongly towards the sea.

There is the odd adult Silver Whiting (Sillago bassensis) moving around on the bottom in twos and threes and even one pair of juvenile King George Whiting (Sillaginodes punctata), about 15cm long, near the footbridge. A few juvenile Zebrafish (Girella zebra) shelter among the slightly larger rocks in the main channel, and I see an unusual long thin fish, about 25cm long which I’ve never seen before, moving quickly past me into the current, right on the bottom. I later identify it as a Beaked Salmon (Gonorynchus greyi) – not a species we hear a lot about, but quite distinctive in profile. It is also known as Sandfish, Sand Eel and Sharkwhiting.

I congratulate myself on my decision to embark on this snorkel, as I am really enjoying myself and wondering what I might see if I drift further up the estuary on the still incoming tide past the footbridge.

So far the only hazards have been fishing lines and by staying midstream and scanning the banks ahead on either side to spot the fishermen I’d easily avoided their hooks. But then I came upon a large Estuary Catfish (Cnidoglanis macrocephalus) resting on the sandy bottom in the middle of the channel in waist-deep water, its broad head facing into the tide. They grow to 60cm and this one was about 50cm.

I became curious when it showed no inclination to flee but I soon saw why – it had a hook in its mouth and was dragging a heavy sinker on a 20cm trace, hard work for a fish this size.

I had no way of telling how long it had carried this burden, but I knew that its survival prospects were poor. I also knew that this species is good eating, but has venomous spines and must be handled with respect when caught.

Thinking I had the advantage over this unfortunate fish I decided to kill two birds with one stone – save it from a probably slow death by starvation, and catch myself a tasty dinner.

I reasoned that I could grab the sinker and quickly stand up, suspending the fish out of the water at arm’s length where it would dangle harmlessly on the trace.

It would then be easy to carry it to the bank, or if it was too animated I could fling it there, and then despatch it humanely with a rock. But too late I was reminded that our best-laid plans often go astray. .

As soon as I grabbed the sinker with my left hand the catfish swam right at me and skilfully managed to jab me in the right forearm with one of its pectoral fin spines.

I was partially protected by a 3mm neoprene surf suit, and I’d probably otherwise not have tried this stunt. I felt almost immediate burning, aching pain of moderate intensity throughout the whole arm diffusely up to my shoulder, and promptly let go the sinker. After sizing up the situation for half a minute and realising with relief that I had no discernible systemic symptoms such as weakness, light headedness, palpitations, breathlessness, tongue swelling or chest tightness, I began to feel quite hostile towards this clever if desperate creature, and I moved towards it again as it resumed its position on the sand. But it too was in a foul mood and albeit instinctively it then surprised me by repeatedly swimming upward towards me making passes in which it was clearly trying to repeat its first and only successful defensive strike (perhaps the fisherman responsible for this fish’s predicament had cut the line after receiving similar treatment!).

At first I thought I was becoming paranoid but each time I moved towards it, it repeated the same threatening action.

Although the pain was not getting worse I now decided, slow learner that I am, to make discretion the better part of valour and left the water, sans captive catfish, with seemingly no one on the banks or footbridge any the wiser concerning my ignominious retreat.

I ruefully walked back to our friends’ nearby holiday accommodation overlooking the river mouth, and after getting out of my wetsuit in a hot shower I obtained virtually immediate pain relief by immersing my arm in a bucket of very hot water. It is the well-documented first aid for most mild-moderate fish spine or barb envenomations, including stingray barbs.

Within seconds of removing my arm from the bucket the pain would return at the same intensity and there was an increasingly unpleasant additional component involving a burning sensation exacerbated by touching or rubbing the forearm.

So I spent 2 hours sitting in front of the T.V., thanking various attendants (initially fascinated, but later bored!) for their boiled-kettle deliveries and occasional bucket-decanting manoeuvres so necessary to top up the bucket and maintain adequate water temperature.

There was a seemingly trivial puncture wound in the back of my forearm, but the skin of the forearm had a generalised mottling which lasted about 24 hours, localised mild swelling to a diameter of about 8 cm, and generalised but mild forearm swelling lasting about 48 hours.

I was slightly feverish and ‘weak and wobbly’ on the Tuesday (Anzac Day) but by Wednesday, when I returned to work I felt well apart from minor tiredness which however was not easily explained by my modest activity levels over Easter. This had resolved in another day or so.

Minor local swelling (2mm elevation, diameter 2cm) has persisted till today (15/5/2000), i.e. some 3 weeks but apart from very slight tenderness directly over the puncture site there has been no real pain since Day One – only a mild ache which didn’t limit use of the arm or hand at all.

However the tiny (1-2mm diameter) puncture wound, which bled only weakly during the first few hours and only ever looked mildly inflamed, took about a week to develop a dry scab and was very itchy from about Day 7 to Day 14.

It is now only occasionally itchy but retains a tiny, slightly depressed scab and so has not yet completely healed.

Despite this event I can recommend this snorkel site as being refreshingly different (and although I didn’t know it then, Phillip Hall and other MLSSA members have also snorkelled here) and I hope to repeat it next summer or autumn, possibly with a camera.

The treatment of non-venomous fish spine injuries is usually straightforward, following basic 1^st aid principles. This includes pain relief measures (eg Paracetemol) to prevent infection (mainly ensuring current tetanus cover, topical antiseptics and sometimes oral antibacterials). Always ensuring that the spine or part thereof has not broken off to become an embedded foreign body – in which case knowledge of the local anatomy becomes essential i.e. a medical or surgical opinion becomes necessary.

In practice, the larger the spine, the less likely it is to break leaving a foreign body in the wound. Very small superficial spine fragments may be left to discharge to the exterior following dermal abscess formation (due to foreign body ‘reaction’ by the immune system) but larger ones actually require removal under local anaesthetic.

Venomous fish spine puncture wounds should be managed along similar principles, but with the greater emphasis on prompt pain relief – the gold standard being immersion of the affected part (fortunately this is almost always a limb, commonly a foot) in a bucket or similar container of hot water.

The water should be as hot as the victim can tolerate, usually 45-50 ºC and almost universally gives pain relief within seconds. Conventional wisdom is that this is due to the fish spine toxin being heat labile and therefore inactivated by hot water. The affected limb may however need to be immersed for at least 30 minutes and often longer to achieve sustained relief, as premature removal from the hot water can lead to rapid recurrence of pain.

Although more severe envenomation, including that by tropical stonefish and larger stingrays, can lead to major systemic symptoms such as dangerously high or low blood pressure, chest pain, breathlessness and loss of consciousness, such reactions are fortunately uncommon in South Australia. The major risks here probably relate to acute blood loss from laceration to major arteries by stingray spines rather than the toxin itself. However, an individual rendered susceptible by (for example) heart disease, or a child or elderly person would be at particular risk.

The management of more severe fish spine envenomation is beyond the scope of this article although mention must be made of the importance of lying the victim down, giving oxygen if available and seeking prompt medical help. The ‘take-home’ message for all but the most severe fish spine envenomation is:

Put the affected limb in hot water and maintain the water at or near maximum tolerated temperature (you don’t need a thermometer – just rely on the victims feedback or test with your own hand) for as long as required.

Believe me, it does work!

Following is a list of the major articles that have appeared in the MARIA and MLSSA Journals since they started in October 1979 up to the December 1999 edition. Copies are held in the MLSSA Library and may be borrowed.

"Report on the Wreck Moorara" Evan John

"Transection at Victor Harbor" Nigel Holmes

"The Electric Organs in Fishes" Wolfgang Flachsenberger

"The Shape of Seashells" Chris Illert

"Venomous Marine Invertebrates

Lethally Dangerous to Man" Wolfgang Flachsenberger

"The Size of Scallops" L.F. & P.G.Gilbert

"Murex Shell Growth" Chris Illert

"Symbiotic Algae in Clam Mantle

Tissue" Evan John

"Stingose - A Treatment for Bites and

Stings" Robyn Easton

"First Aid for Jellyfish Stings" Geoff Mower

"Relief of Pain From the Box Jelly

Carybdea rastoni Found in

South Australian Waters" Evan John

"Notes on Keeping Some Temperate

Marine Fish" Denise Warren

"Review of the Article - "Marine

Reserves in South

Australia - Proposals"" Peter Gilbert

"Victor Harbor, The Bluff, Flora and

Fauna Surveys 1980" N.J.C. Holmes & K.L.Gowlett

"The Colour of Fish" Steve Reynolds

"The Life Cycle of the Seagrass

Amphibolus antarctica" Karen Gowlett

"The Higher Molluscs" Heather Smith

"The Blue Ringed Octopus" Evan John

"Asteroids (starfish) in South Australia Denise Warren

"Fish Profile - The Ornate Cowfish" Evan John

"The Redcliffe Issue" Australian Fishing Industry Council

"Mapping the Bottom Communities

of Upper Spencer Gulf" S.A.Shepherd

"Water Flow Patterns Through an

Undergravel Filter Substrate Bed" G.A.Mower, L.F. & P.G.Gilbert

"Effects of Air Flow and Tube

Dimensions on Water Flow Through

Air-powered Uplift Pipes" G.A.Mower, L.F. & P.G.Gilbert

"Preliminary Experiments in Water

Movement Through

Air-powered Aquarium Uplifts" G.A.Mower, L.F. & P.G.Gilbert

"A Mathematical Model for the

Destruction of Seagrass by Freshwater

and Effluent" C.Illert

"Close-up Photography of Marine Life

in the Aquarium, with a Still Camera" Harry Simon

"Fish Profile - The Old Wife" Evan John

"Key to Some Common Sea Stars" J.H. Smith, E. W. John

"Marine Aquaria: A Source of Enquiry

in Science Education" Tony Isaacson

"The Impact of Oil on the Marine

Environment" Denise Warren

"The Artificial Reefs of South Australia" Philip Hall

"Seahorses" Steve Reynolds

"A Pictorial Guide to Some Common

Caulerpa Species" Evan John

"Mathematical Model of Sandpatch

Formation Due to Effluent Discharge" Josephine Jackson

"Biscuit Stars in the Aquarium" Ian Kirwan

"Maintaining an Ecological Balance

in an Aquarium" Denise Warren

"Fish Profile - The South Australian

Cobbler" Evan John

"The Seacliff Wave Recorder" B. McPeake, P. John & S. Reynolds

"The Lateral Lines of Fish" Steve Reynolds

"Hermit Crabs" Andrew McDowell

"Fish Profile - The Smooth Toadfish" Evan John

"The Leafy Seadragon" Steve Reynolds

"Seadragon Sightings" Steve Reynolds

"Notes On Parental Care, Hatching

and Raising of Seadragons" Rudie Kuiter

"Our Society’s Concern Over the Effects of

Oil Spills" Steve Reynolds

"The Occurrence of Chemical and

Oil Spills in Upper Spencer Gulf

in 1992" Steve Reynolds

"Upper Spencer Gulf Marine Life" Steve Reynolds

"Fish Species Sighted in the Upper

Spencer Gulf" Steve Reynolds

"Information on Oil and Oil Spills" Steve Reynolds

"Glenelg-Port Adelaide-Bolivar Sewage

sludge Pipeline Opened" Steve Reynolds

"The Sea Daisy" Ian Healy

"The Breeding of Sharks, Stingrays

and Skates" Steve Reynolds

"The Aftermath of Oil Spills" Steve Reynolds

"Petrol Lead Levels and Sewage

Nutrients" Steve Reynolds

"Propeller of the Port River" Steve Reynolds

"The Latest Events Concerning

Sewage and Stormwater Discharge" Steve Reynolds

"More on Seadragon Sightings" Steve Reynolds

"Seadragon Monitoring" Steve Reynolds

"Science and Environmental Education

Based on Beach Studies" Philip Hall

"Fish Sightings At Port Noarlunga Reef" Steve Reynolds

"The Origins of Names Associated With

Victor Harbor" Steve Reynolds

"Marine Life Studies At Victor Harbor" Steve Reynolds

"The Plants and Animals of the

Screwpile Jetty" Mike Harmon

"Seadragon Sightings at Victor Harbor" Steve Reynolds

"Seadragon Reference List" Steve Reynolds

"Special Habitat Supplement - ACF" Tim Allen & Tim O’Hara

"Ghost Pipefish" Steve Reynolds

"Northern Pacific Seastar" Steve Reynolds

"Seagrass Study" Dr Rod Connolly

"Ecology of Toxic Algae in the

Port River" Jean A. Cannon

"Fish Profile - The Moonlighter" Evan John

"Biological Filtration Experiment" Michelle Forrest

"Marine Reserves" Tony Flaherty & Dr Bill Ballantine

"Seahorses" S. Reynolds & Ralph Richardson

"MLSSA Photo Index" Steve Reynolds

"The Paper and Chambered Nautilus" Philip Hall

"Marine Biodiversity and Endemism

in South Australia" Dr Karen Eddyvane

"Growth of Alexandrium minutum

in the Port River" Jean Cannon

"Diversity Within the Fish Order

Scorpaeniformes" Sharon Drabsch

"Fish Profile - The Dusky Morwong" Evan John

"Photo Index Update" Steve Reynolds

"Exploitations of Marine Flora

and Fauna" Tony Flaherty

"Fish use of the Port River - Barker Inlet

estuary" R. Connolly, D. Bass & A. Dalton

"A Public Showcase for South Australian

Marine Life" Brent Williams

"Sea Spiders" Philip Hall

"What’s Happening to Our Sharks?" Brianna Lavender

"Sea Grasses" Brianna Lavender

"Mediterranean Sea Worms" Emma Fogarty

"The Occurrence Of Oil And Chemical

Spills In S. A’s Marine Waters" Steve Reynolds

"Determining the effects of an oil spill

on fish communities in a

mangrove-seagrass ecosystem in

southern Australia" Rod Connolly

"Marine Protected Areas" Erin McDonald

"The Banded Morwong - Moving

West?" Dr David S. Muirhead

"Research and Education on Whales and

Dolphins at the

South Australian Museum" Dr Catherine Kemper

"Script on the Preservation of

Mangroves" Anon

"Dragon Search Update" Tony Flaherty & Janine Baker

"Photo Index Update" Steve Reynolds

"Spotted Handfish" Philip Hall

"A Stingaree Tale" David Muirhead

"The Port River Dolphins and their

Environment" Mike Bossley

"Stromatolites" Steve Reynolds

"Beachwatch" Philip Hall

"The Impact Of Bottom Trawling On

The Benthic Macroinfauna

Of Gulf St Vincent, South Australia" Sharon Drabsch

"The Effects of Trawling In South

Australia’s Gulfs" Ralph Richardson

"MLSSA Photo Index Update" Steve Reynolds

"Marine Fossils in the Flinders Ranges" Steve Reynolds

"Eco-Logical Alter-Natives for Adelaide

Coastal Plantings" David Muirhead

"From SA to SA Or Does that mean

I’ve been going around in circles?" Voronica Whitney-Robinson

Photo Index Officer 2000-2001

Progress on our Photo Index this past year has been a little slow. At the time of writing, we now have a total of 302 slides in the Index, an increase of just 34 since our last Journal.

We now have 191 fish slides, 105 invertebrates and 6 algae ones. The number of fish slides has increased by only 11. The algae slides increased in number by only two. The biggest increase was with the invertebrates. They increased by 21 slides.

During the past year the details for many of the slides has changed. Some species have undergone name changes and the identification of some species has changed.

Much of the year was spent preparing the 2001 calendar, identifying some of the existing slides and selecting all of the preferred slides. Our six algae slides still need to be identified to any reasonable level.

Looking through our 105 invertebrate slides I see that there are no slides of chitons or octopus whatsoever. We only have one slide each of anemone and jellyfish. There is one hard coral and one soft coral. We only have three slides of shells. Surprisingly, worms and bryozoans fare better with four and five slides respectively.

Let’s see if we can get slides of chitons and octopus and more of anemone, jellyfish, corals and shells in 2001.

The Index was ‘used’ on several occasions this year, including a two-page feature spread written by Lance Campbell for a Messenger paper.

Many thanks must go to David Muirhead for continuing to provide the bulk of the slides. David’s friend Paul Fitzgerald has provided three of the invertebrate slides (2110, 2702 & 2703) and three of the fish ones (see list).

With so many changes to the Index details this year, we now present the complete list of fish and invertebrates.

In order to fit the invertebrate list in we have omitted to name the Photographer, who was

David Muirhead for almost the entire list. The few he did not take are anonymous contributions.