Nearshore movement ecology of a medium-bodied shark, the creek whaler Carcharhinus fitzroyensis

Animal Biotelemetry

Michelle R Heupel³  James Moloney¹  Colin A Simpfendorfer²  Samantha EM Munroe² 

[1]College of Marine and Environmental Science, James Cook University, Townsville 4811, QLD, Australia

[2]Centre for Sustainable Tropical Fisheries and Aquaculture and the College of Marine and Environmental Science, James Cook University, Townsville 4811, QLD, Australia

[3]Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville 4810, QLD, Australia

关键词: Medium-bodied sharks;    Residency;    Nearshore;    Kernel utilisation distributions;    Habitat selection;    Environmental change;    Coast;   

Others  :  1224668
DOI  :  10.1186/s40317-015-0026-y

 received in 2014-10-14, accepted in 2015-03-11,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

The movement and habitat use patterns of medium-bodied nearshore sharks are poorly understood. However, these species face some of the highest levels of exposure to anthropogenic development. The habitat and space use strategies species exhibit affect their role within communities and how they respond to environmental change. The present study used passive acoustic telemetry to evaluate the residency, space use, and habitat use patterns of the creek whaler Carcharhinus fitzroyensis in a nearshore embayment in Queensland, Australia.

Results

Individuals were monitored for approximately 18 months. Half of the monitored population were highly resident to the bay. In contrast, several individuals spent less than 2 weeks in the bay, suggesting that broader movements may occur in a portion of the population. Size had no effect on residency. Activity space size varied between months and time of day but was also not affected by animal size. All C. fitzroyensis spent the majority of time in seagrass habitat (70%) and deep water (>5 m) mud substrate (20%). Shallow mudflat, sandy inshore, and reef habitats were rarely used (7%). Although the sample size of immature individuals was relatively small, results indicated immature and mature C. fitzroyensis shared space and habitats.

Conclusions

Overall, C. fitzroyensis used a combination of nearshore movement patterns typically exhibited by small- and large-bodied species. The movement patterns exhibited by C. fitzroyensis suggest that this species has a moderately high degree of seagrass habitat specialisation. Seagrass habitat is typically highly productive and may be an important foraging habitat for this species. Given the consistent use of seagrass habitat, C. fitzroyensis are likely vulnerable to population decline as a result of seagrass habitat loss. Future research should continue to investigate the unique movements of medium-bodied sharks.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Munroe et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Beck MW, Heck KL, Able KW, Childers DL, Eggleston DB, Gillanders BM, et al.: The identification, conservation, and management of estuarine and marine nurseries for fish and invertebrates. Bioscience 2001, 51:633-41.
• [2]Robertson AI, Duke NC: Mangroves as nursery sites: comparisons of the abundance and species composition of fish and crustaceans in mangroves and other nearshore habitats in tropical Australia. Mar Biol 1987, 96:193-205.
• [3]Heupel MR, Carlson JK, Simpfendorfer CA: Shark nursery areas: concepts, definition, characterization and assumptions. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2007, 337:287-97.
• [4]Knip DM, Heupel MR, Simpfendorfer CA: Sharks in nearshore environments: models, importance, and consequences. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2010, 402:1-11.
• [5]Suchanek TH: Temperate coastal marine communities: biodiversity and threats. Am Zool 1994, 34:100-14.
• [6]Lotze HK, Lenihan HS, Bourque BJ, Bradbury RH, Cooke RG, Kay MC, et al.: Depletion, degradation, and recovery potential of estuaries and coastal seas. Science 2006, 312:1806-9.
• [7]Shahidul Islam M, Tanaka M: Impacts of pollution on coastal and marine ecosystems including coastal and marine fisheries and approach for management: a review and synthesis. Marine Pollut Bull 2004, 48:624-49.
• [8]Blaber SJM, Cyrus DP, Albaret J-J, Ching CV, Day JW, Elliott M, et al.: Effects of fishing on the structure and functioning of estuarine and nearshore ecosystems. ICES J Mar Sci: J du Conseil 2000, 57:590-602.
• [9]Harley CDG, Randall Hughes A, Hultgren KM, Miner BG, Sorte CJB, Thornber CS, et al.: The impacts of climate change in coastal Rechisky E, Wetherbee B: short-term movements of juvenile and neonate sandbar sharks, Carcharhinus plumbeus, on their nursery grounds in Delaware Bay. Environ Biol Fish 2003, 68:113-28.
• [10]Rechisky E, Wetherbee B: Short-term movements of juvenile and neonate sandbar sharks, Carcharhinus plumbeus, on their nursery grounds in Delaware Bay. Environ Biol Fish 2003, 68:113-28.
• [11]DiGirolamo AL, Gruber SH, Pomory C, Bennett WA: Diel temperature patterns of juvenile lemon sharks Negaprion brevirostris, in a shallow-water nursery. J Fish Biol 2012, 80:1436-48.
• [12]Ortega LA, Heupel MR, Van Beynen P, Motta PJ: Movement patterns and water quality preferences of juvenile bull sharks (Carcharhinus leucas) in a Florida estuary. Environ Biol Fish 2009, 84:361-73.
• [13]Branstetter S: Early life-history implications of selected carcharhinoid and lamnoid sharks of the northwest Atlantic. NOAA Tech Rep NMFS 1990, 90:17-28.
• [14]Castro J: The shark nursery of Bulls Bay, South Carolina, with a review of the shark nurseries of the southeastern coast of the United States. In The reproduction and development of sharks, skates, rays and ratfishes. Edited by Demski L, Wourms J. Springer, Netherlands; 1993:37-48.
• [15]Knip DM, Heupel MR, Simpfendorfer CA, Tobin AJ, Moloney J: Ontogenetic shifts in movement and habitat use of juvenile pigeye sharks Carcharhinus amboinensis in a tropical nearshore region. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2011, 425:233-46.
• [16]Feldheim KA, Gruber SH, Ashley MV: The breeding biology of lemon sharks at a tropical nursery lagoon. P Roy Soc Lond B Bio 2002, 269:1655-61.
• [17]Grubbs RD: Ontogenetic shifts in movements and habitat use. In Sharks and their relatives II: biodiversity, adaptive physiology, and conservation. Edited by Carrier JC, Musick JA, Heithaus MR. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL; 2010:319-42.
• [18]Carlson J, Heupel M, Bethea D, Hollensead L: Coastal habitat use and residency of juvenile Atlantic sharpnose sharks (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae). Estuar Coast 2008, 31:931-40.
• [19]Munroe SEM, Simpfendorfer CA, Heupel MR: Habitat and space use of an abundant nearshore shark: Rhizoprionodon taylori. Mar Freshw Res 2014, 65:959-68.
• [20]Lyle J: Observations on the biology of Carcharhinus cautus (Whitley), C. melanopterus (Quoy & Gaimard) and C. fitzroyensis (Whitley) from Northern Australia. Mar Freshw Res 1987, 38:701-10.
• [21]Simpfendorfer C, Chidlow J, McAuley R, Unsworth P: Age and growth of the whiskery shark, Furgaleus macki, from southwestern Australia. Environ Biol Fish 2000, 58:335-43.
• [22]Knip DM, Heupel MR, Simpfendorfer CA: Habitat use and spatial segregation of adult spottail sharks Carcharhinus sorrah in tropical nearshore waters. J Fish Biol 2012, 80:767-84.
• [23]Yates PM, Heupel MR, Tobin AJ, Moore SK, Simpfendorfer C. Diversity in shark nursery areas along a tropical coastline. Mar Freshw Res. 2015. doi:10.1071/MF14033.
• [24]Last PR, Stevens JD: Sharks and rays of Australia. 2nd edition. CSIRO Publishing Collingwood, Victoria, Australia; 2009.
• [25]Smart JJ, Harry AV, Tobin AJ, Simpfendorfer CA: Overcoming the constraints of low sample sizes to produce age and growth data for rare or threatened sharks. Aquat Conserv 2013, 23:124-34.
• [26]Harry AV, Tobin AJ, Simpfendorfer CA, Welch DJ, Mapleston A, White J, et al.: Evaluating catch and mitigating risk in a multispecies, tropical, inshore shark fishery within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Mar Freshw Res 2011, 62:710-21.
• [27]Espinoza M, Farrugia TJ, Lowe CG: Habitat use, movements and site fidelity of the gray smooth-hound shark (Mustelus californicus Gill 1863) in a newly restored southern California estuary. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 2011, 401:63-74.
• [28]Ebert DA: Sharks, rays and chimaeras of California. University California Press, Berkeley, CA; 2003.
• [29]Knip DM, Heupel MR, Simpfendorfer CA: To roam or to home: site fidelity in a tropical coastal shark. Mar Biol 2012, 159:1647-57.
• [30]Heupel MR, Yeiser BG, Collins AB, Ortega L, Simpfendorfer CA: Long-term presence and movement patterns of juvenile bull sharks, Carcharhinus leucas, in an estuarine river system. Mar Freshw Res 2010, 61:1-10.
• [31]Murchie K, Schwager E, Cooke S, Danylchuk A, Danylchuk S, Goldberg T, et al.: Spatial ecology of juvenile lemon sharks (Negaprion brevirostris) in tidal creeks and coastal waters of Eleuthera, The Bahamas. Environ Biol Fish 2010, 89:95-104.
• [32]Castro JI: The shark nursery of Bulls Bay, South Carolina, with a review of the shark nurseries of the southeastern coast of the United States. Environ Biol Fish 1993, 38:37-48.
• [33]Lowe CG: Bioenergetics of free-ranging juvenile scalloped hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna lewini) in Kāne’ohe Bay, Ō’ahu, HI. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 2002, 278:141-56.
• [34]Bush A, Holland K: Food limitation in a nursery area: estimates of daily ration in juvenile scalloped hammerheads, Sphyrna lewini (Griffith and Smith, 1834) in Kāne’ohe Bay, Ō’ahu, Hawai’i. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 2002, 278:157-78.
• [35]Edgar GJ, Shaw C: The production and trophic ecology of shallow-water fish assemblages in southern Australia III: general relationships between sediments, seagrasses, invertebrates and fishes. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 1995, 194:107-31.
• [36]Jackson EL, Rowden AA, Attrill MJ, Bossley SJ, Jones MB: The importance of seagrass beds as a habitat for fisheries species. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 2001, 39:269-303.
• [37]Orth R, Heck K, van Montfrans J: Faunal communities in seagrass beds: a review of the influence of plant structure and prey characteristics on predator–prey relationships. Estuaries 1984, 7:339-50.
• [38]Kuba M, Byrne R, Burghardt G: A new method for studying problem solving and tool use in stingrays (Potamotrygon castexi). Anim Cogn 2010, 13:507-13.
• [39]Schluessel V: Who would have thought that ‘Jaws’ also has brains? Cognitive functions in elasmobranchs. Anim Cogn 2014, 18:1-19.
• [40]Last PR: Freshwater and estuarine elasmobranchs of Australia. Elasmobranch biodiversity, conservation and management: Proceedings of the International Seminar and Workshop, Sabah, Malaysia; 1997.
• [41]Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. A vulnerability assessment for the Great Barrier Reef: seagrass. In: A vulnerability assessment for the Great Barrier Reef: seagrass. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority; 2011. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-the-reef/threats-to-the-reef/climate-change/how-climate-change-can-affect-the-reef/great-barrier-reef-vulnerability-assessment. Accessed 20 Apr 2014.
• [42]Furnas MM. Catchments and corals: terrestrial runoff to the Great Barrier Reef. Australian Institute of Marine Science & CRC Reef Research Centre; 2003. http://epubs.aims.gov.au/handle/11068/6477. Accessed 7 June 2014.
• [43]Chin A, Tobin AJ, Heupel MR, Simpfendorfer CA: Population structure and residency patterns of the blacktip reef shark (Carcharhinus melanopterus) in turbid coastal environments. J Fish Biol 2013, 82:1192-210.
• [44]Morrissey JF, Gruber SH: Habitat selection by juvenile lemon sharks, Negaprion brevirostris. Environ Biol Fish 1993, 38:311-9.
• [45]Collins AB, Heupel MR, Motta PJ: Residence and movement patterns of cownose rays Rhinoptera bonasus within a south-west Florida estuary. J Fish Biol 2007, 71:1159-78.
• [46]Seagrass Watch. Seagrass Watch: Townsville. 2013. http://www.seagrasswatch.org/townsville.html. Accessed 31 Dec 2014.
• [47]Cartamil DP, Vaudo JJ, Lowe CG, Wetherbee BM, Holland KN: Diel movement patterns of the Hawaiian stingray, Dasyatis lata: implications for ecological interactions between sympatric elasmobranch species. Mar Biol 2003, 142:841-7.
• [48]Sundstrom LF, Gruber SH, Clermont SM, Correia JPS, de Marignac JRC, Morrissey JF, et al.: Review of elasmobranch behavioral studies using ultrasonic telemetry with special reference to the lemon shark, Negaprion brevirostris, around Bimini Islands, Bahamas. Environ Biol Fish 2001, 60:225-50.
• [49]Garla R, Chapman D, Wetherbee B, Shivji M: Movement patterns of young Caribbean reef sharks, Carcharhinus perezi, at Fernando de Noronha Archipelago, Brazil: the potential of marine protected areas for conservation of a nursery ground. Mar Biol 2006, 149:189-99.
• [50]Erftemeijer PLA, Robin Lewis Iii R: Environmental impacts of dredging on seagrasses: a review. Mar Pollut Bull 2006, 52:1553-72.
• [51]Walker DI, McComb AJ: Seagrass degradation in Australian coastal waters. Mar Poll Bull 1992, 25:191-5.
• [52]Ralph P, Tomasko D, Moore K, Seddon S, Macinnis-Ng CO: Human impacts on seagrasses: eutrophication, sedimentation, and contamination. In Seagrasses: biology, ecology, and conservation. Springer, Netherlands; 2006:567-93.
• [53]McGlathery KJ: Macroalgal blooms contribute to the decline of seagrass in nutrient-enriched coastal waters. J Phycol 2001, 37:453-6.
• [54]Haynes D, Müller J, Carter S: Pesticide and herbicide residues in sediments and seagrasses from the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and Queensland coast. Mar Pollut Bull 2000, 41:279-87.
• [55]Orth RJ, Carruthers TJB, Dennison WC, Duarte CM, Fourqurean JW, Heck KL, et al.: A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems. Bioscience 2006, 56:987-96.
• [56]Waycott M, Duarte CM, Carruthers TJB, Orth RJ, Dennison WC, Olyarnik S, et al.: Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the globe threatens coastal ecosystems. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009, 106:12377-81.
• [57]Hughes AR, Williams SL, Duarte CM, Heck KL, Waycott M: Associations of concern: declining seagrasses and threatened dependent species. Front Ecol Environ 2008, 7:242-6.
• [58]Kessel ST, Cooke SJ, Heupel MR, Hussey NE, Simpfendorfer CA, Vagle S, et al.: A review of detection range testing in aquatic passive acoustic telemetry studies. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries 2014, 24:199-218.
• [59]Abecasis D, Erzini K: Site fidelity and movements of gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata) in a coastal lagoon (Ria Formosa, Portugal). Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 2008, 79:758-63.
• [60]Werry JM, Planes S, Berumen ML, Lee KA, Braun CD, Clua E: Reef-fidelity and migration of tiger sharks, Galeocerdo cuvier, across the Coral Sea. PLoS One 2014, 9:e83249.
• [61]Simpfendorfer CA, Heupel MR, Hueter RE: Estimation of short-term centers of activity from an array of omnidirectional hydrophones and its use in studying animal movements. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 2002, 59:23-32.
• [62]Calenge C: The package adehabitat for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol Model 2006, 197:516-9.
• [63]Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D. nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-109; 2013. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/nlme/index.html. Accessed 5 May 2014.
• [64]Wagenmakers E-J, Farrell S: AIC model selection using Akaike weights. Psychon B Rev 2004, 11:192-6.
• [65]Strauss RE: Reliability estimates for Ivlev’s electivity index, the forge ratio, and a proposed linear index of food selection. T Am Fish Soc 1979, 108:344-52.
• [66]Hutchinson G: Concluding remarks. In Niche: theory and application. Edited by Whittaker R, Stroudsburg LS. Hutchinson and Ross, Inc., Pennsylvania: Dowden; 1957:387-99.
• [67]Devictor V, Clavel J, Julliard R, Lavergne S, Mouillot D, Thuiller W, et al.: Defining and measuring ecological specialization. J Appl Ecol 2010, 47:15-25.
• [68]Smith EP: Niche breadth, resource availability, and inference. Ecology 1982, 63:1675-81.
• [69]Arlettaz R: Habitat selection as a major resource partitioning mechanism between the two sympatric sibling bat species Myotis myotis and Myotis blythii. J Anim Ecol 1999, 68:460-71.