Fisheries and Oceans Canada
www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
2.4 Management strategies for tunicate-infested product
Purpose: The purpose of this protocol is to outline the minimum requirements for mitigation measures to be implemented for socking and processing of tunicate-infested product.
Background: Given the biology of the various tunicate species, different management strategies may be required.
Currently, the installation of 25 mesh (750 microns) screening in processing plants is considered to be an acceptable measure to protect receiving waters from the potential infestation for the clubbed and vase tunicate species, but the ability of viable larvae to pass this screening is unknown. Similarly, 25 mesh screening assists in the removal of colonial tunicate species, but may be ineffective in containing fragments which have the potential to regenerate into new colonies. As well, 25 mesh screening may be ineffective in preventing the passage of viable larvae to receiving waters. More research is required to assess the most appropriate measures and approaches to prevent the infestation of receiving waters from the socking and processing of tunicate-infested product.
In addition to needed research, there is recognition that growers working together can have a difference in controlling and managing the spread of established species. Examples include the bay management approach adopted by growers in March Water to slow the spread and growth of the clubbed tunicate and the co-operation of growers in Rustico Bay in response to the identification of the violet tunicate. As well, growers in Tracadie Bay came together in response to the recognized need to reduce mussel numbers in Tracadie Bay. These are examples of bay or adaptive management measures which can be applied to other bodies of water to the benefit of growers, processors and other water users.
Protocol: Applications will be reviewed by the PEI-ITC on a case by case basis. Depending on the specifics of each application, additional conditions may be added to I&T licence.
(a) CLUBBED TUNICATE (Styela clava)
Click on the image for a full size version
© PEI Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture
|
As of January 1, 2006, clubbed tunicate is considered established in:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(b) VASE TUNICATE (Ciona intestinalis)
Click on the image for a full size version
© PEI Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture
|
As of January 1, 2006, vase tunicate is considered established in:
|
|
|
|
|
|
(c) VIOLET TUNICATE (Botrylloides violaceus)
Click on the image for a full size version
© PEI Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture
|
As of January 1, 2006, violet tunicate is considered established in:
|
|
|
|
Note: “An acceptable level of risk” will be determined through a “risk assessment” conducted on a case by case basis.
(d) GOLDEN STAR TUNICATE (Botryllus schlosseri)
Click on the image for a full size version
© PEI Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture
|
As of January 1, 2006, golden star tunicate is considered established in:
|
|
|
|
Note: “An acceptable level of risk” will be determined through a “risk assessment” conducted on a case by case basis.
