Conservation Biology of Elasmobranchs

Elasmobranchs are vital and valuable components of the marine biota. From an ecological perspective they occupy the role of top predators within marine food webs, providing a regulatory control that helps balance the ecosystem. From an evolutionary perspective, this group represents an early divergence along the vertebrate line that produced many unusual, but highly successful, adaptations in function and form. From man's perspective, elasmobranchs have been considered both an unavoidable nuisance, and an exploitable fishery resource. A few of the large shark species have earned a dubious notoriety because of sporadic attacks on humans that occur in coastal areas each year worldwide; the hysteria surrounding an encounter with a shark can be costly to the tourist industry. More importantly, elasmobranchs are often considered a detriment to commercial fishing operations; they cause significant economic damage to catches and fishing gear. On the other hand, consumer attitudes have changed concerning many previously unpopular food fishes, including elasmobranchs, and this group of fishes has been increasingly used by both recreational and commercial fishing interests. Many elasmobranchs have become a popular target of recreational fishermen for food and sport because of their abundance, size, and availability in coastal waters. Similarly, commercial fisheries for elasmobranchs have developed or expanded from an increased demand for elasmobranch food products. (PDF file contains 108 pages.)

Elasmobranchs as living resources: Advances in the biology, ecology, systematics, and the status of the fisheries

This report owes its genesis to the foresight and enthusiam of Dr. Kazuhiro Mizue. By happy circumstance, Professor Mizue contacted me in 1983 with his visionary ideas on cooperative programs. He noted that the time was right because the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science and the National Science Foundation had mutually given priority to cooperative programs in marine biology. I therefore agreed to act as the U.S. coordinator and proposed to NSF, a short trip to Japan to negotiate site visits and timing with ten previously appointed Japanese scientists and, if that trip were successful, to negotiate a joint research project, possibly followed by a joint seminar. (PDF file contains 528 pages.)

Species compositions of elasmobranchs caught by three different commercial fishing methods off southwestern Australia, and biological data for four abundant bycatch species

Commercial catches taken in southwestern Australian waters by trawl fisheries targeting prawns and scallops and from gillnet and longline fisheries targeting sharks were sampled at different times of the year between 2002 and 2008. This sampling yielded 33 elasmobranch species representing 17 families. Multivariate statistics elucidated the ways in which the species compositions of elasmobranchs differed among fishing methods and provided benchmark data for detecting changes in the elasmobranch fauna in the future. Virtually all elasmobranchs caught by trawling, which consisted predominantly of rays, were discarded as bycatch, as were approximately a quarter of the elasmobranchs caught by both gillnetting and longlining. The maximum lengths and the lengths at maturity of four abundant bycatch species, Heterodontus portusjacksoni, Aptychotrema vincentiana, Squatina australis, and Myliobatis australis, were greater for females than males. The L50 determined for the males of these species at maturity by using full clasper calcification as the criterion of maturity did not differ significantly from the corresponding L50 derived by using gonadal data as the criterion for maturity. The proportions of the individuals of these species with lengths less than those at which 50% reach maturity were far greater in trawl samples than in gillnet and longline samples. This result was due to differences in gear selectivity and to trawling being undertaken in shallow inshore waters that act as nursery areas for these species. Sound quantitative data on the species compositions of elasmobranchs caught by commercial fisheries and the biological characteristics of the main elasmobranch bycatch species are crucial for developing strategies for conserving these important species and thus the marine ecosystems of which they are part.

Sustainability of elasmobranchs caught as bycatch in a tropical prawn (shrimp) trawl fishery

The bycatch of Australia’s northern prawn fishery (NPF) comprises 56 elasmobranch species (16 families). The impact of this fishery on the sustainability of these species has not been addressed. We obtained estimates of catch rates and the within-net survival of elasmobranchs. Carcharhinus tilstoni, C. dussumieri, Rhynchobatus djiddensis, and Himantura toshi represented 65% of the bycatch. For most species, >50% of individuals in the bycatch were immature, and some species recruited to the fishery at birth. For all species combined, 66% of individuals in the bycatch died in the trawl net. The relative sustainability of elasmobranchs caught as bycatch was examined by ranking species with respect to their susceptibility to capture and mortality due to prawn trawling and with respect to their capacity to recover once the population was depleted. The species that were least likely to be sustainable were four species of pristids, Dasyatis brevicaudata, and Himantura jenkinsii. These are bottom-associated batoids that feed on benthic organisms and are highly susceptible to capture in prawn trawls. The recovery capacity of these species was also low according to our criteria. Our results provide a valuable first step towards ensuring the sustainability of elasmobranchs that are caught as bycatch by highlighting species for management and research. The effectiveness of turtle excluder devices (TEDs) in reducing elasmobranch bycatch varied greatly among species but was generally not very effective because most of the captured species were small.

Micronekton of the North Pacific

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Working Group History 2. SPECIES COMPOSITION AND DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS RELATED TO WATER MASSES 2.1 Mesopelagic Fishes 2.1.1 Dominant families 2.1.2 Large-scale feeding and/or spawning migration or expatriation? 2.1.3 Definition of water masses 2.1.4 Species composition 2.2 Crustacean Micronekton 2.2.1 Euphausiids 2.2.2 Mysids and decapods 2.3 Cephalopod Micronekton 2.3.1 Family Enoploteuthidae 2.3.2 Family Gonatidae 2.3.3 Family Onychoteuthidae 2.3.4 Family Pyroteuthidae 2.3.5 Other cephalopods 3. VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS 3.1 Mesopelagic Fishes 3.1.1 Significance of diel vertical migration 3.1.2 DVM patterns 3.1.3 Ontogenetic change in DVM patterns 3.2 Crustacean Micronekton 3.3 Cephalopod Micronekton 4. BIOMASS PATTERNS 4.1 Micronektonic Fish 5. LIFE HISTORY 5.1 Fish Micronekton 5.1.1 Age and growth 5.1.2 Production 5.1.3 Reproduction 5.1.4 Mortality 5.2 Crustacean Micronekton 5.2.1 Age and growth 5.2.2 Production 5.2.3 Reproduction and early life history 5.2.4 Mortality 5.3 Cephalopod Micronekton 5.3.1 Age and growth 5.3.2 Production 5.3.3 Reproduction and early life history 5.3.4 Mortality 6. ECOLOGICAL RELATIONS 6.1 Feeding Habits 6.1.1 Fish micronekton 6.1.2 Crustacean micronekton 6.1.3 Cephalopod micronekton 6.2 Estimating the Impact of Micronekton Predation on Zooplankton 6.2.1 Predation by micronektonic fish 6.3 Predators 6.3.1 Cephalopods 6.3.2 Elasmobranchs 6.3.3 Osteichthyes 6.3.4 Seabirds 6.3.5 Pinnipeds 6.3.6 Cetaceans 6.3.7 Human consumption 6.4 Predation Rate 6.5 Ecosystem Perspectives 6.6 Interactions between Micronekton and Shallow Topographies 7. SAMPLING CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Net Trawling 7.1.1 Sampling gears 7.1.2 Sampling of surface migratory myctophids 7.1.3 Commercial-sized trawl sampling 7.1.4 Sampling of euphausiids and pelagic decapods 7.2 Acoustic Sampling 7.2.1 Acoustic theory and usage 7.3 Video Observations (Submersible and ROV) 8. SUMMARY OF PRESENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE 8.1 Fish Micronekton 8.2 Crustacean Micronekton 8.3 Cephalopod Micronekton 9. RECOMMENDATIONS 10. REFERENCES 11. APPENDICES (122 page document)

The status of shark and ray fishery resources in the Gulf of California: applied research to improve management and conservation

Seasonal surveys were conducted during 1998–1999 in Baja California, Baja California Sur, Sonora, and Sinaloa to determine the extent and activities of artisanal elasmobranch fisheries in the Gulf of California. One hundred and forty–seven fishing sites, or camps, were documented, the majority of which (n = 83) were located in Baja California Sur. Among camps with adequate fisheries information, the great majority (85.7%) targeted elasmobranchs during some part of the year. Most small, demersal sharks and rays were landed in mixed species fisheries that also targeted demersal teleosts, but large sharks were usually targeted in directed drift gillnet or, to a lesser extent, surface longline fisheries. Artisanal fishermen were highly opportunistic, and temporally switched targets depending on the local productivity of teleost, invertebrate, and elasmobranch fishery resources. Major fisheries for small sharks (< 1.5 m, “cazón”) were documented in Baja California during spring, in Sonora during autumn–spring, and in Sinaloa during winter and spring. Triakid sharks (Mustelus spp.) dominated cazón landings in the northern states, whereas juvenile scalloped hammerheads (Sphyrna lewini) primarily supported the fishery in Sinaloa. Large sharks (> 1.5 m, “tiburón”) were minor components of artisanal elasmobranch fisheries in Sonora and Sinaloa, but were commonly targeted during summer and early autumn in Baja California and Baja California Sur. The pelagic thresher shark (Alopias pelagicus) and silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) were most commonly landed in Baja California, whereas a diverse assemblage of pelagic and large coastal sharks was noted among Baja California Sur landings. Rays dominated summer landings in Baja California and Sinaloa, when elevated catch rates of the shovelnose guitarfish (Rhinobatos productus, 13.2 individuals/vessel/trip) and golden cownose ray (Rhinoptera steindachneri, 11.1 individuals/vesse/trip) primarily supported the respective fisheries. The Sonoran artisanal elasmobranch fishery was the most expansive recorded during this study, and rays (especially R. productus) dominated spring and summer landings in this state. Seasonal catch rates of small demersal sharks and rays were considerably greater in Sonora than in other surveyed states. Many tiburón populations (e.g., C. leucas, C. limbatus, C. obscurus, Galeocerdo cuvier) have likely been overfished, possibly shifting effort towards coastal populations of cazón and rays. Management recommendations, including conducting demographic analyses using available life history data, determining and protecting nursery areas, and enacting seasonal closures in areas of elasmobranch aggregation (e.g., reproduction, feeding), are proposed. Without effective, enforceable management to sustain or rebuild targeted elasmobranch populations in the Gulf of California, collapse of many fisheries is a likely outcome. (PDF contains 243 pages)

Analysis of permanent magnets as elasmobranch bycatch reduction devices in hook-and-line and longline trials

Previous studies indicate that elasmobranch fishes (sharks, skates and rays) detect the Earth’s geomagnetic field by indirect magnetoreception through electromagnetic induction, using their ampullae of Lorenzini. Applying this concept, we evaluated the capture of elasmobranchs in the presence of permanent magnets in hook-and-line and inshore longline fishing experiments. Hooks with neodymium-iron-boron magnets significantly reduced the capture of elasmobranchs overall in comparison with control and procedural control hooks in the hook-and-line experiment. Catches of Atlantic sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae) and smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis) were signif icantly reduced with magnetic hook-and-line treatments, whereas catches of spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) and clearnose skate (Raja eglanteria) were not. Longline hooks with barium-ferrite magnets significantly reduced total elasmobranch capture when compared with control hooks. In the longline study, capture of blacktip sharks (Carcharhinus limbatus) and southern stingrays (Dasyatis americana) was reduced on magnetic hooks, whereas capture of sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus) was not affected. Teleosts, such as red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), oyster toadfish (Opsanus tau), black sea bass (Centropristis striata), and the bluefish (Pomatomas saltatrix), showed no hook preference in either hook-and-line or longline studies. These results indicate that permanent magnets, although eliciting species-specific capture trends, warrant further investigation in commercial longline and recreational fisheries, where bycatch mortality is a leading contributor to declines in elasmobranch populations.

Age validation of great hammerhead shark (Sphyrna mokarran), determined by bomb radiocarbon analysis

Preliminary validation of annual growth band deposition in vertebrae of great hammerhead shark (Sphyrna mokarran) was conducted by using bomb radiocarbon analysis. Adult specimens (n=2) were collected and thin sections of vertebral centra were removed for visual aging and use in radiocarbon assays. Vertebral band counts were used to estimate age, and year of formation was assigned to each growth band by subtracting estimated age from the year of capture. A total of 10 samples were extracted from growth bands and analyzed for Δ14C. Calculated Δ14C values from dated bands were compared to known-age reference chronologies, and the resulting patterns indicated annual periodicity of growth bands up to a minimum age of 42 years. Trends in Δ14C across time in individual specimens indicated that vertebral radiocarbon is conserved through time but that habitat and diet may inf luence Δ14C levels in elasmobranchs. Although the age validation reported here must be considered preliminary because of the small sample size and narrow age range of individuals sampled, it represents the first confirmation of age in S. mokarran, further illustrating the usefulness of bomb radiocarbon analysis as a tool for life history studies in elasmobranchs.

Reconstruction of original body size and estimation of allometric relationships for the longfin inshore squid (Loligo pealeii) and northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus)

Quantification of predator-prey body size relationships is essential to understanding trophic dynamics in marine ecosystems. Prey lengths recovered from predator stomachs help determine the sizes of prey most influential in supporting predator growth and to ascertain size-specific effects of natural mortality on prey populations (Bax, 1998; Claessen et al., 2002). Estimating prey size from stomach content analyses is often hindered because of the degradation of tissue and bone by digestion. Furthermore, reconstruction of original prey size from digested remains requires species-specific reference materials and techniques. A number of diagnostic guides for freshwater (Hansel et al., 1988) and marine (Watt et al., 1997; Granadeiro and Silva, 2000) prey species exist; however they are limited to specific geographic regions (Smale et al., 1995; Gosztonyi et al., 2007). Predictive equations for reconstructing original prey size from diagnostic bones in marine fishes have been developed in several studies of piscivorous fishes of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean (Scharf et al., 1998; Wood, 2005). Conversely, morphometric relationships for cephalopods in this region are scarce despite their importance to a wide range of predators, such as finfish (Bowman et al., 2000 ; Staudinger, 2006), elasmobranchs (Kohler, 1987), and marine mammals (Gannon et al., 1997; Williams, 1999).

Characteristics of Shark Bycatch Observed on Pelagic Longlines off the Southeastern United States, 1992–2000

Data collected by fisheries observers aboard U.S. pelagic longline vessels were examined to quantify and describe elasmobranch bycatch off the southeastern U.S. coast (lat. 22°–35°N, long. 71°–82°W). From 1992 to 2000, 961 individual longline hauls were observed, during which 4,612 elasmobranchs (15% of the total catch) were documented. Of the 22 elasmobranch species observed, silky sharks, Carcharhinus falciformis, were numerically dominant (31.4% of the elasmobranch catch). The catch status of the animals (alive or dead) when the gear was retrieved varied widely depending on the species, with high mortalities seen for the commonly caught silky and night, C. signatus, sharks and low mortalities for rays (Dasyatidae and Mobulidae), blue, Prionace glauca; and tiger, Galeocerdo cuvier; sharks. Discard percentages also varied, ranging from low discards (27.6%) for shortfin mako, Isurus oxyrinchus, to high discards for blue (99.8%), tiger (98.5%), and rays (100%). Mean fork lengths indicated the majority of the observed by-catch — regardless of species — was immature, and significant quarterly variation in fork length was found for several species including silky; dusky, C. obscurus; night; scalloped hammerhead, Sphyrna lewini; oceanic whitetip, C. longimanus; and sandbar, C. plumbeus; sharks. While sex ratios overall were relatively even, blue, tiger, and scalloped hammerhead shark catches were heavily dominated by females. Bootstrap methods were used to generate yearly mean catch rates (catch per unit effort) and 95% confidence limits; catch rates were generally variable for most species, although regression analysis indicated significant trends for night, oceanic whitetip, and sandbar sharks. Analysis of variance indicated significant catch rate differences among quarters for silky, dusky, night, blue, oceanic whitetip, sandbar, and shortfin mako sharks.

Distribution and Apparent Abundance of the Basking Shark, Cetorhinus maximus, off the Central and Southern California Coast, 1962-85

Basking sharks, Cetorhinus maximus, are frequently observed along the central and northwestern southern California coast during the winter and spring months. These large plankton feeding elasmobranchs, second in size only to the whale shark, Rhineodon typus, had been the subject of a small commercial fishery off California in the late 1940's and early 1950's for their liver oil, rich in vitamin A, and in later years for reduction into fish meal and oil (Roedel and Ripley, 1950). These fisheries were sporadic and did not take basking sharks in large numbers.

Historical knowledge of sharks: ancient science, earliest American encounters, and American science, fisheries, and utilization

In western civilization, the knowledge of the elasmobranch or selachian fishes (sharks and rays) begins with Aristotle (384–322 B.C.). Two of his extant works, the “Historia Animalium” and the “Generation of Animals,” both written about 330 B.C., demonstrate knowledge of elasmobranch fishes acquired by observation. Roman writers of works on natural history, such as Aelian and Pliny, who followed Aristotle, were compilers of available information. Their contribution was that they prevented the Greek knowledge from being lost, but they added few original observations. The fall of Rome, around 476 A.D., brought a period of economic regression and political chaos. These in turn brought intellectual thought to a standstill for nearly one thousand years, the period known as the Dark Ages. It would not be until the middle of the sixteenth century, well into the Renaissance, that knowledge of elasmobranchs would advance again. The works of Belon, Salviani, Rondelet, and Steno mark the beginnings of ichthyology, including the study of sharks and rays. The knowledge of sharks and rays increased slowly during and after the Renaissance, and the introduction of the Linnaean System of Nomenclature in 1735 marks the beginning of modern ichthyology. However, the first major work on sharks would not appear until the early nineteenth century. Knowledge acquired about sea animals usually follows their economic importance and exploitation, and this was also true with sharks. The first to learn about sharks in North America were the native fishermen who learned how, when, and where to catch them for food or for their oils. The early naturalists in America studied the land animals and plants; they had little interest in sharks. When faunistic works on fishes started to appear, naturalists just enumerated the species of sharks that they could discern. Throughout the U.S. colonial period, sharks were seldom utilized for food, although their liver oil or skins were often utilized. Throughout the nineteenth century, the Spiny Dogfish, Squalus acanthias, was the only shark species utilized in a large scale on both coasts. It was fished for its liver oil, which was used as a lubricant, and for lighting and tanning, and for its skin which was used as an abrasive. During the early part of the twentieth century, the Ocean Leather Company was started to process sea animals (primarily sharks) into leather, oil, fertilizer, fins, etc. The Ocean Leather Company enjoyed a monopoly on the shark leather industry for several decades. In 1937, the liver of the Soupfin Shark, Galeorhinus galeus, was found to be a rich source of vitamin A, and because the outbreak of World War II in 1938 interrupted the shipping of vitamin A from European sources, an intensive shark fishery soon developed along the U.S. West Coast. By 1939 the American shark leather fishery had transformed into the shark liver oil fishery of the early 1940’s, encompassing both coasts. By the late 1940’s, these fisheries were depleted because of overfishing and fishing in the nursery areas. Synthetic vitamin A appeared on the market in 1950, causing the fishery to be discontinued. During World War II, shark attacks on the survivors of sunken ships and downed aviators engendered the search for a shark repellent. This led to research aimed at understanding shark behavior and the sensory biology of sharks. From the late 1950’s to the 1980’s, funding from the Office of Naval Research was responsible for most of what was learned about the sensory biology of sharks.

Present status and future scope of fisheries in the Andaman group of islands

The coastal area of approximately 2000 km and the water-bodies in between the Andaman and Nicobar islands are rich in fishery potential which range from 0.012-0.47 million tonnes. The fishery is dominated by catches of sardines, perches, carangids, mackerels, Leiognathus elasmobranchs, seerfish, mullets and tunas. About 2050 fishermen, with 1150 country craft, 113 mechanised boats and 1367 different kinds of nets and lines are engaged in active fishing in the island. Numerous bays, lagoons and creeks are available among the group of islands for mariculture activities. The mangroves of these islands provide feeding and nursery grounds for juveniles of penaeid prawns, crabs and finfishes.

On the use of different natural baits for sea-fishing in India

Rod and line, hand-line, trolling line and fish-traps are the different types of fishing gears wherein suitable fish baits are employed with a view to luring the catch. The coastal fishermen of India mostly use different types of natural fish-baits to catch fishes like Perches, Carangids, Sciaenids, Scombroids and Elasmobranchs. The reactions of the fishes caught to the different baits used are quite varied. Successful line fishing operations very much depend on the fish-baits. A detailed record of the variety of fishes caught, types of fishing and different baits used by the coastal fishermen of India has been made.

Biochemical aspects of the spoilage of prawns

Certain features characterise spoilage of sea foods, as distinct from spoilage of protein foods in general. Among sea foods spoilage differs in the crustaceans, teleosts, or elasmobranchs respectively. High levels of free amino acids concentrations are characteristic of prawns and other crustacean muscle. Changes occurring in these influence pattern of spoilage. Differences also exist in the sea prawns and prawns taken from the backwaters. Melanosis is a characteristic feature of spoilage in prawns. Observations have shown that prawns are very susceptible to spoilage at ordinary temperature, the period of absolute freshness not exceeding 4 hours, while prompt icing extends the period to 3-5 days.