Last updated on 4 November 2016

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

IDENTIFICATION

SCIENTIFIC NAME(s)

Loligo duvauceli

SPECIES NAME(s)

Indian squid

COMMON NAMES

Indian squid, squid, Calmar Indien, Habbar, Narsinga, Ranga, Makul, Nala, Ahin della, Calamar índico, حبارة هندية

Indian squid can be found in the Indian Ocean and Western Central Pacific. The stock structure is unknown.


ANALYSIS

Strengths

1) Impacts of heavy fishing pressure may be somewhat ameliorated by biological resiliency of the species. 2) There is a body of research on the biological characteristics of the species and the population dynamics within fisheries, including some estimated biological reference points, albeit not at the level of detail or regularity needed for active management of the species. 3) While it is indicated the species may be overexploited in some regions, it is considered only fully exploited in others. 4)There are non-mechanized fishing sectors in the fishery which are likely to have more minimal environmental impacts relative to the mechanized sectors.

Weaknesses

1) The fishery is open access (no limited entry or permitting requirements). 2) There are no harvest control rules and no clear effort to limit effort or reduce harvest in response to scientific advice. 3) Estimates of optimal biological reference points and limit reference points are limited, and there is no mechanism to require their use for management of the species. 4) There is no recent comprehensive stock assessment for the species throughout the coast. 5) The availability of fishery specific (i.e. gear type, area and species) data on harvest, harvest rates and abundance is sparse or irregular for most geographic locations; reporting of catches including target species and bycatch is weak.

Options

1) A better system to account for levels of harvest, fishery participation, fishery effort is needed in order to improve stock assessment, evaluate fishery impacts and sustainability at the sector level, and to ultimately allow control over the level of exploitation that is occurring. Adoption of a licensing system and monitoring, surveillance and control (MCS) program may be useful steps toward these objectives (Mathew 2009; Pillai and Ganga 2010). Additional recommendations include onboard observer coverage for the multi-gear fishing fleets within and beyond the EEZ in the IOTC region, a mandatory logbook scheme for all industrial purse seine and trawl fleets operating from Indian ports, and checks for reported catches for artisanal fisheries. 2) Movement toward decentralized management and a rights-based fisheries management strategy (see Mathew 2009) could be particularly beneficial for the artisanal fishery sectors.

FISHSOURCE SCORES

Management Quality:

Management Strategy:

< 6

Managers Compliance:

< 6

Fishers Compliance:

< 6

Stock Health:

Current
Health:

≥ 6

Future Health:

≥ 6


RECOMMENDATIONS

RETAILERS & SUPPLY CHAIN
  • Conduct scientific studies to define the stock structure over the full range of the species.
  • Encourage managers to collect and publish detailed fishery data by fishing method (e.g. catch, effort and fleet size,) and biological data (length, sex, maturity, age) to support stock assessment development.
  • Work with managers to design and implement a fishery management plan including a harvest strategy and harvest control rule suitable for short-lived species; ensure the management plan considers impacts of this fishery on the overall ecosystem structure and function.
  • Estimate the scope of illegal fishing and under-reporting, and implement effective monitoring, control, and surveillance measures.
  • Implement data collection programmes to enable evaluation of bycatch, especially of protected or endangered species, and impacts on habitat.
  • Ensure your supply chain is represented in SFP’s Global Squid Supply Chain Roundtable to review improvement needs in this and other similar fisheries, catalyze fishery improvement projects, and monitor progress in improvement efforts.

FIPS

No related FIPs

CERTIFICATIONS

No related MSC fisheries

Fisheries

Within FishSource, the term "fishery" is used to indicate each unique combination of a flag country with a fishing gear, operating within a particular management unit, upon a resource. That resource may have a known biological stock structure and/or may be assessed at another level for practical or jurisdictional reasons. A fishery is the finest scale of resolution captured in FishSource profiles, as it is generally the scale at which sustainability can most fairly and practically be evaluated.

MANAGEMENT UNIT FLAG COUNTRY FISHING GEAR
India India Beach seines
Bottom trawls
Drift gillnets
Midwater trawls
Seine nets
Vertical Lines

Analysis

OVERVIEW

Last updated on 1 June 2014

Strengths

1) Impacts of heavy fishing pressure may be somewhat ameliorated by biological resiliency of the species. 2) There is a body of research on the biological characteristics of the species and the population dynamics within fisheries, including some estimated biological reference points, albeit not at the level of detail or regularity needed for active management of the species. 3) While it is indicated the species may be overexploited in some regions, it is considered only fully exploited in others. 4)There are non-mechanized fishing sectors in the fishery which are likely to have more minimal environmental impacts relative to the mechanized sectors.

Weaknesses

1) The fishery is open access (no limited entry or permitting requirements). 2) There are no harvest control rules and no clear effort to limit effort or reduce harvest in response to scientific advice. 3) Estimates of optimal biological reference points and limit reference points are limited, and there is no mechanism to require their use for management of the species. 4) There is no recent comprehensive stock assessment for the species throughout the coast. 5) The availability of fishery specific (i.e. gear type, area and species) data on harvest, harvest rates and abundance is sparse or irregular for most geographic locations; reporting of catches including target species and bycatch is weak.

Options

1) A better system to account for levels of harvest, fishery participation, fishery effort is needed in order to improve stock assessment, evaluate fishery impacts and sustainability at the sector level, and to ultimately allow control over the level of exploitation that is occurring. Adoption of a licensing system and monitoring, surveillance and control (MCS) program may be useful steps toward these objectives (Mathew 2009; Pillai and Ganga 2010). Additional recommendations include onboard observer coverage for the multi-gear fishing fleets within and beyond the EEZ in the IOTC region, a mandatory logbook scheme for all industrial purse seine and trawl fleets operating from Indian ports, and checks for reported catches for artisanal fisheries. 2) Movement toward decentralized management and a rights-based fisheries management strategy (see Mathew 2009) could be particularly beneficial for the artisanal fishery sectors.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Last updated on 15 October 2018

Recommendations to Retailers & Supply Chain
  • Conduct scientific studies to define the stock structure over the full range of the species.
  • Encourage managers to collect and publish detailed fishery data by fishing method (e.g. catch, effort and fleet size,) and biological data (length, sex, maturity, age) to support stock assessment development.
  • Work with managers to design and implement a fishery management plan including a harvest strategy and harvest control rule suitable for short-lived species; ensure the management plan considers impacts of this fishery on the overall ecosystem structure and function.
  • Estimate the scope of illegal fishing and under-reporting, and implement effective monitoring, control, and surveillance measures.
  • Implement data collection programmes to enable evaluation of bycatch, especially of protected or endangered species, and impacts on habitat.
  • Ensure your supply chain is represented in SFP’s Global Squid Supply Chain Roundtable to review improvement needs in this and other similar fisheries, catalyze fishery improvement projects, and monitor progress in improvement efforts.

1.STOCK STATUS

STOCK ASSESSMENT

Last updated on 21 July 2008

From 1950-1980, the Indian squid was mostly caught as bycatch in the trawl fisheries, but recently it has also been targeted off-bottom high opening trawls along west coast of India (Mohamed et al., 2007).

A detailed stock assessment for the whole stock was conducted by Meiyappan et al., (1993).

Several gaps exist in the reported catches, as the system relies on catches reported by fishing boats at landing centres. Other issues include under-reporting from artisanal fisheries in the gillnet fisheries; actual catches of each trip not collected regularly at landing centres etc. (Pramod 2010).A detailed stock assessment of catches in the Indian EEZ is lacking for the last 10 years.

SCIENTIFIC ADVICE

Last updated on 18 June 2012

There are no formally adopted targets or limits for cephalopod harvests in India, and no management measures in place for squid stocks in the Indian EEZ.There are various forms of stock assessment research conducted by the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI) at the state and regional scale.However these studies are somewhat ad hoc; biological parameters are not estimated with regularity and consistency, and any reference points that are developed are not directly used to manage harvests. Historically, it has been suggested that commercial exploitation of cephalopods is best managed by limiting fishing effort (Devarag and Vivekanandan 1999; Meiyappan et al. 2000), and levels of effort needed to achieve sustainable harvests are recommended variously (Mohamed and Rao 1997; Sasikumar and Mohamed 2012). Most statistics and parameter estimates are specific to trawl fisheries and we found very minimal data for non-mechanized fisheries.

The last published full stock assessment by the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI) (Meiyappan et al. 1993) indicated that the exploitation rate on Indian Squid harvested on both coasts of India was at optimum levels. Since the 1993 stock assessment, the CMFRI and other research bodies have conducted a number of studies on population dynamics of Indian Squid in specific regions along the west coast of India (Mohamed 1996; Mohamed and Rao 1997; Karnik et al. 2003; Thomas and Kizhakudan 2006; Sasikumar and Mohamed 2012). Scientific advice from these studies has recommended that harvest rates on Indian Squid should be reduced.There are exceptions to this trend in certain states and some years, even in the recent decade: results from a study of Indian Squid off the southwest Indian coast suggested that fishing pressure on local stocks was not heavy (Mohan 2007).

The biology of squid and the nature of the fisheries in which they are exploited make for a challenging management puzzle. The squid life history is characterized by rapid growth and a short life span.Each cohort will likely be vulnerable to the fishery only once, which makes predicting future abundance difficult (Asokan, 2000). The multispecies composition of the major fisheries in which most squid are harvested (Mohamed and Rao 1997) is an impediment to setting management guidelines exclusively for cephalopods, particularly since are rarely the target catch (Meyappan and Mohamed 2003). Further, continual expansion of trawl fishing grounds is noted as a challenge to the development of relevant and useful limit reference points (Mohamed and Rao 1997; Sasikumar and Mohamed 2012).

Reference Points

Last updated on 18 Jun 2012

Formally adopted limit reference points are not used to manage Loligo duvauceli, and there has not been a full stock assessment for Indian squid in Indian waters since 1993 (Meiyappan et al. 1993). However, state and regional stock assessment and population dynamic research is conducted and numerous studies have estimated biological parameters and in some cases limit reference points for the species on these scales (Mohamed 1996; Mohamed and Rao 1997; Karnik et al. 2002; Thomas and Kizhakudan 2006; Sasikumar and Mohamed 2012). In addition, the CMFRI publishes a variety of fishery science information for cephalopods in its annual report series (CMFRI 1978-2013), and this can include estimates of stock and spawning stock biomass, sustainable yield, and limit reference points, as well as exploitation and natural mortality rates. Harvest data and biological estimates are generally summarized by states or regions, but they are not reported consistently each year and in each location, and not always at the species level. A sampling of most recently available reference points, abundance and harvest statistics for different areas is provided in Table 1 below.

CURRENT STATUS

Last updated on 21 July 2008

There is very little reporting on the stock status of Indian squid, and biomass estimates for the species throughout Indian coastal waters were last reported in 1993 (Meiyappan et al. 1993).  Cephalopod resources in India generally are considered to be between fully and over-exploited (FAO 2011), a level indicating there is no room for further expansion of the fishery. There is indication that Loligo duvauceli have been or are exploited in excess of optimal levels in many states, including Andhra Pradesh (Abdussamad and Somayajulu 2004), Kerala (Asokan 2000), Karnataka (Mohamed 1996; Mohamed and Rao 1997) and Gujarat (Thomas and Kizhakkudan 2006). Squid are thought to have a high capacity to withstand heavy fishing pressure due to biological characteristics they possess (rapid growth and short life cycle) (Devarag and Vivekanandan 1999). Conversely, the Loligo duvauceli species is not highly fecund, and it is possible for overfishing to offset their natural resiliency (Asokan 2000). Over-exploitation of undersized individuals (growth overfishing) is a particular concern (Asokan 2000; Mohamed et al. 2009).

Trends

Last updated on 21 Jul 2008

Trawl fisheries are the main sector catching Indian squid in the Indian EEZ.

Total annual catches of Cephalopods increased steadily since the start of the fishery in late fifties, reaching the 100,000 t level in 1995 and peaking at 117,624 t in 1997. Total annual catches averaged 290,341 t over the period 2006 to 2009. The 2000 catch was 96,408 t and subsequent decline was noticed in catches to 73,571 tonnes in 2007, and 68,913 t in 2009. During the 1950-70 period, catches of indian squids increased as population of predatory fishes declined with increase in trawling.

Loligo species constitute 48% of the total cephalopod catches in Indian waters, with 49% of the catches landed coming from west coast (Arabian Sea) and 24% from east coast (i.e. Bay of Bengal) (Meiyappan and Mohamed 2003). Using the above estimate catches for Loligo Duvauceli from cephalopod catches reveal that catches were below the 21,000 t level upto 1987, and increasing since then largely due to increase in number of trawlers and use of new gears to target demersal species. Catches in 2000 were around 33,780 t, and declining trend since then to 28,359 t in 2006 and 24,146 t in 2009.

The location of the fishery has changed little since 1950, although expansion to deeper waters has been seen since late eighties. The Indian squid is the most common species fished throughout the year in Indian Ocean, with the majority of the catch being taken in Arabian Sea (Kerala, Karnataka and Gujarat) waters. In recent years, some of the deep-water stocks of Loligo duvauceli have also been exploited off Gujarat and Karnataka coast leading to further decline of CPUE.

2.MANAGEMENT QUALITY

MANAGEMENT

Last updated on 21 July 2008

Coastal Indian fisheries are open access (no limits to participation) and there are no harvest control rules for most species, including cephalopods (Devarag and Vivekanandan 1999; Mathew 2009; FAO 2011). Seasonal fishing bans are implemented in certain areas to avoid impacts during spawning; however, these are aimed at the trawl fisheries and are not enforced as broadly as recommended (Meiyappan et al. 2000; Meiyappan and Mohamed 2003).

Subsequent cephalopod harvests after the 1993 stock assessment continued on an upward trend through 2001 (FAO 2006 and 2011).Over the past decade, statistics (available for the Eastern Indian Ocean only) show that cephalopod catches have maintained at slightly below peak levels (FAO 2011), though not all of the reported harvest reflected in these statistics is from India. Sreeja and Bijukumar (2013) reported that cephalopod harvests in India have increased steadily over a period of 40 years through 2010. Declines in catch per unit effort for cephalopods along the Karnataka coast have been observed since the early 1990’s (Sasikumar and Mohamed, 2012), and along the Kakinada coast since 1995 (Abdussamad and Somayajulu 2004). However, there is generally a paucity of publically available information from which to observe trends of abundance and exploitation rates and the amount of harvest from year to year, particularly at the species and gear-specific, coast-wide level. As such it is difficult to assess management efficacy or intent.It is also not clear that management responds to scientific advice, particularly with regard to limiting fishing effort.

Recovery Plans

Last updated on 21 Jul 2008

No TAC, catch limits, or recovery plans are not in place for squid stocks in Indian fisheries due to the open access nature of India's commercial fisheries; there appear to be no standard provisions to guide designation of depleted status or implementation of stock rebuilding plans (Mohamed et al. 2010). 

COMPLIANCE

Last updated on 1 June 2014

The stock is not managed to achieve a total allowable catch (TAC) limit or any other harvest control rule.Illegal fishing and unreported harvests and discards are considered to be significant sustainability concerns in Indian fisheries (Mathew 2009). There is known illegal fishing associated with high seas fishing in the Indian Ocean, and particularly for tuna (Devarag and Vivekanandan 1999; FAO 2011). In the EEZ poaching by foreign trawl vessels is also a problem (Pramod 2010).Other potential violations include fishing without permission or out of season; using outlawed types of fishing gear; and non-reporting or underreporting of catch, etc. The degree to which these issues are significant in non-trawl fisheries is unclear, particularly for the handline sector. Enforcement of regulations appears generally weak.

There is significant discarding of juvenile Indian squids in the trawl fisheries, particularly during the post-monsoon months from September to December. During 1997-2001, juveniles constituted 12.8% and 23% of the total catch on the west (Arabian Sea) and East coasts (Bay of Bengal) of India (Mohamed et al. 2009).

3.ENVIRONMENT AND BIODIVERSITY

BYCATCH
ETP Species

Last updated on 21 July 2008

Marine mammals encountered in Indian waters include the Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin, Spinner dolphins, Long-beaked common dolphin, Indo-Pacific humpbacked dolphin and sperm whale. Vivekananadan et al (2010) state that incidental kills of marine mammals are not monitored in Indian waters, especially for cetaceans which have been the most affected by proliferation of trawling over the last 5 decades.

Interactions between marine mammals and fishing gear in Indian waters reveal a disturbing trend of high strandings and mortalities throughout the year. Silas et al., (1984) reported that around 1% of total landings at Cochin were dolphins.Kumaran (2002) recorded 1452 strandings in Indian coastline over the last 200 years. Yousuf et al., (2008)report that around 9000-10,000 dolphins are caught and killed in gillnets every year along the Indian coast. Pelagic gillnets (varying in size from 0.5 to 2 km) targeting tuna and seer fish were the most destructive gear with 68.9% of dolphins caught in these gears (Species caught included spinner dolphin Stenella longirostris, bottlenose dolphin Tursiops aduncus, Risso’s dolphin Grampus griseus, long-beaked common dolphin Delphinus capensis and Indo-Pacific humpbacked dolphin Sousa chinensis).Vivekanadan et al., (2010) also report large incidental catch of finless porpoise Neophocaena phocaenoides in the purse seine fishery off Mangalore.

Other Species

Last updated on 21 July 2008

Trawl fisheries has been reported to catch turtles and marine mammals off the Indian coast. Recruitment overfishing of squids and fishes has also been reported due to decline in mesh size over the years from 25-30 mm in nineties to as low as 15-20 mm in recent years (Indian fisheries laws require a minimum cod-end mesh size of 35 mm), but it is seldom enforced – Pramod (2010).

HABITAT

Last updated on 21 July 2008

The impact of this fishery on the habitat is very high as trawlers are reported to trawl in inshore waters during the monsoon and post-monsoon season damaging spawning areas in inshore beds. Among the gears trawl and purse seines are likely to have the most impact on Indian squid stocks as they indiscriminately catch juveniles and mature individuals coming inshore for spawning. The damage is likely to be more in Kerala and Gujarat waters where large–scale capture of juveniles less than 5 cm has been reported (Thangavelu et al 2010). Trawlers and purse seines have also targeted spawning aggregations in inshore waters from September to October in Kerala and Karnataka waters.

Although, the squid is caught in trawl fisheries throughout the year on both coasts, seasonal targeting of spawning aggregations and egg beds through trawling can cause disturbance of spawning individuals and damage eggs attached to the bottom. Switching to jigging and pelagic gears can minimize damage to the habitat and prevent damage of egg beds.

Marine Reserves

Last updated on 21 Jul 2008

At present, a 45 day closed season is implemented from April to May for trawlers and mechanized vessels on both the coasts of India. But it is pertinent to note that most of the peak spawning and spawning aggregations of Indian squid appear from September to December along the south-west coast, when they are not protected. In fact, purse seines targeting pelagic fish have caught Indian squids in large numbers off the Kerala and Karnataka coastline in recent years, which could lead to further decline in catches.

Cod-end mesh size needs to be increased from 15 mm to the legal size of 35 mm as stipulated in Indian fisheries laws. A minimum size of 45 mm should be stipulated for Indian squids exported through processors and supply chain to foreign markets. In India, currently minimum legal size (MLS) rule is only implemented for export of rock lobsters and similar rule should be enforced for squid fisheries. Purse seine and trawl activity should be regulated in Kerala waters where trawler incursion into the inshore zone is relatively high during the monsoon and post-monsoon season.

FishSource Scores

Last updated on 6 December 2016

SELECT SCORES

MANAGEMENT QUALITY

As calculated for 2015 data.

The score is < 6.

The fishery is open access with no harvest controls. Seasonal and area specific fishing bans on trawl fishing are implemented to avoid impacts during spawning; however, these are not enforced as broadly as recommended (Meiyappan et al. 2000; Meiyappan and Mohamed 2003). Further, the timing of these closures does not coincide well with peak spawning for Loligo duvauceli, which occurs during the post-monsoon season (Asokan 2000).

As calculated for 2015 data.

The score is < 6.

There is limited scientific advice pertaining to harvest allowances. It has been suggested that the most effective management strategy for achieving sustainable cephalopod harvests is to limit fishing effort (Meiyappan et al. 2000), and levels of effort needed to achieve sustainable harvests are recommended variously. However, there is no clear indication that management has tried to limit effort accordingly.

As calculated for 2015 data.

The score is < 6.

The stock is not managed through catch limits. Illegal fishing and unreported harvests and discards are considered to be significant sustainability concerns in Indian fisheries (Mathew 2009); though, the degree to which these are significant is likely variable among fishery sectors.

STOCK HEALTH:

As calculated for 2015 data.

The score is ≥ 6.

There is very little reporting on the overall stock status of Indian squid, and biomass estimates for the species throughout Indian coastal waters were last reported in 1993 (Meiyappan et al. 1993). Cephalopod resources generally are considered to be between fully and over-exploited (FAO 2011), a level indicating there is no room for further expansion of the fishery. Cephalpods are thought to have a high capacity to withstand heavy fishing pressure due to biological characteristics they possess (fast growth rate and high fecundity) (Devarag and Vivekanandan 1999), though the Loligo duvauceli species is indicated to be an exception with regard to fecundity (Asokan 2000).

As calculated for 2015 data.

The score is ≥ 6.

Analyses of various sectors of the Indian Squid populations indicate that fishing effort would need to be reduced to achieve estimates of either MSY or LRP benchmarks (Mohamed 1996; Mohamed and Rao 1997; Karnik et al. 2002; Sasikumar and Mohamed 2011). These studies have been carried out by different entities including the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, which is the research body responsible for the previous stock assessment of the species. We did not find any indication that management has acted to reduce exploitation of Indian squid.

No data available for biomass
No data available for biomass
To see data for catch and tac, please view this site on a desktop.
No data available for fishing mortality
No data available for fishing mortality
No data available for recruitment
No data available for recruitment
To see data for management quality, please view this site on a desktop.
To see data for stock status, please view this site on a desktop.
DATA NOTES

There has been no recent nor any comprehensive stock assessment for the stock, therefore qualitative scores have been applied. Reported catches are extrapolated values for Loligo duvauceli, calculated as actual catch from total reported Cephalopod catches for the entire Indian EEZ.  

Download Source Data

Registered users can download the original data file for calculating the scores after logging in. If you wish, you can Register now.

Fishery Improvement Projects (FIPs)

No related FIPs

Certifications

Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)

No related MSC certifications

Sources

Credits
  1. Abdussamad, E.M. and Somayajulu, K.R. 2004. Cephalopod fishery at Kakinada along the east coast of India: Resource characteristics and stock assessment of Loligo duvauceli. Bangladesh. J. Fish. Res., 8(1): 61-69.
  2. Afsal, V.V., K.S.S.M. Yousuf, B. Anoop, A.K. Anoop, P. Kannan, M. Rajagopalan and E. Vivekanandan. 2008. A note on cetacean distribution in the Indian EEZ and the contiguous seas during 2003-2007. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 10(3):209-215.
  3. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI), 2013. Annual Report 2012-13, CMFRI Technical Report, Kochi: Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, 204pp. http://eprints.cmfri.org.in/9465/1/CMFRI_Annual_Report_2012-13.pdf
  4. Hill, B. J. and T. J. Wassenberg. 1990. Fate of discards from prawn trawlers in Torres Strait. Australian J. Mar. Freshw.Res., 41: 53-74
  5. Jereb, P. and Clyde, F.E.R. 2006. Cephalopods of the Indian Ocean. A review. Part I. Inshore squids (Loliginidae) collected during the International Indian Ocean Expedition. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 119(1):91-136
  6. Karnik, N. S., Chakraborty, K. S., Jaiswar, A. K., Swamy, R. P., Rajaprasad, R., Boomireddy, S., Rizvi, A. F., 2003. Growth and mortality of Indian squid, Loligo duvauceli (d’ Orbigny) (Mollusca/Cephalopoda/Teuthoidea) from Mumbai waters, India, Indian Journal of Marine Sciences 32(1): 67-70.http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/4224/1/IJMS%2032(1)%2067-70.pdf
  7. Kumaran, P.L. 2002. Marine mammal research in India-a review and critique of the methods. Current Science, 83: 1210-1220.
  8. Meiyappan, M. M., and K. S. Mohamed. 2003. Cephalopods. Pp. 221–227 in J. M. Mohan & A. A. Jayaprakash, eds., Status of exploited marine fishery resources of India, Central Marine Fisheries Institute, Kochi, India.
  9. Meiyappan, M.M., Srinath, M., Nair, K.P., Rao, K.S., Sarvesan, R., Rao, G.S., Mohamed, K.S., Vidhyyasagar, K. Sundraram, K.S., Lipton, A.P., Natarajan, P., Radhakrishnan, G., Balan, K., Kripa, V., and Sathianandan, T.V. 1993. Stock assessment of the Indian squid Loligo duvauceii (Orbigny). Indian Journal of Fisheries 40(1,2): 74 -84 http://eprints.cmfri.org.in/252/1/Article_08.pdf
  10. Mohamed, K.S. 1993. Spawning congregations of Indian squid Loligo duvauceli (Cephalopoda Loliginidae) in the Arabian Sea off Mangalore and Malpe, Research Centre of Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, 2pp. http://eprints.cmfri.org.in/7017/1/132-_IJMS_1993.pdf
  11. Mohamed, K.S. 1996. Estimates of growth, mortality and stock of the Indian squid Loligo duvaucelii, exploited off Mangalore, Southwest coast of India. Bulletin of Marine Science 58(2): 393-403.
  12. Mohamed, K.S. and G. S. Rao. 1997. Seasonal growth, stock-recruitment relationship and predictive yield of the Indian squid Loligo duvauceli (Orbigny) exploited off Karnataka coast. Indian J. Fish., 44(4): 319-329.
  13. Mohamed, K. S., G. S. Rao and T. S. Velayudhan. 2007. A century of molluscan fisheries research in India. In: M. J. Modayil and N. G. K. Pillai (Eds.), Status and Perspectives in Marine Fisheries Research in India. CMFRI, Kochi. 173-195.
  14. Mohamed, K.S, M. Joseph, P. S. Alloycious, G. Sasikumar, P. Laxmilatha, P. K. Asokan, V. Kripa, V. Venkatesan, S. Thomas, S. Sundaram and G. S. Rao. 2009. Quantitative and qualitative assessment of exploitation of juvenile cephalopods from the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal and determination of minimum legal sizes. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of India Volume 51(1): 98-106.
  15. Mohan, J., 2007. Studies on some aspects of landings, utilization and export of commercially important cephalopod, Ph. D. Cochin University of Science and Technology, Cochin, 218pp. http://dyuthi.cusat.ac.in/xmlui/handle/purl/2870
  16. Pramod, G. 2010. Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Marine Fish Catches in the Indian Exclusive Economic Zone, Field Report, Policy and Ecosystem Restoration in Fisheries, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, BC, Vancouver, Canada, 30 pages.
  17. Radhakrishnan, E. V., V. D. Deshmukh, M. K. Manisseri, M. Rajamani, J. K. Kizhakudan and R. Thangaraja. 2005. Status of the major lobster fisheries in India. New Zealand J. Mar.Freshw. Res., 39: 723-732.
  18. Silas, E.G. 1985. Presidential address. Proceedings of the Symposium on Endangered Marine Animals and Marine Parks. Marine Biological Association of India, 1: x-xii.
  19. Thangavelu, R. Ghosh, S, Zala, M.S. and Dhokia, H.K. 2010. Record landings of cephalopods by trawlers at Veraval during first quarter of 2009. Marine Fisheries Information Service T&E Ser., No. 205: 16-17.
  20. Thomas, S. and Kizhakudan, J. 2006. Cephalopod fishery and population dynamics of Loligo duvauceli (Orbigny) off Saurashtra region, Gujarat. Indian J. Fish., 53(4): 425-430.
  21. Yousuf K.S.S.M., A.K. Anoop, B. Anoop, V.V. Afsal, E. Vivekanandan, R.P. Kumarran, M. Rajagopalan, P.K. Krishnakumar and P. Jayasankar. 2008. Observations on incidental catch of cetaceans in three landing centres along the Indian coast. JMBAUK online.
  22. Vivekanandan, E., Jeyabaskaran, R., Yousuf, K. S. S. M., Anoop, B.m Abhilash, K. S., Rajagopalan, M. 2010. Marine mammal research and conservation in India. CMFRI Pamphlet (13/2010). pp. 1-20.

References

    Comments

    This tab will disappear in 5 seconds.

    Comments on:

    Indian squid - India

    comments powered by Disqus