4.7 Article

Increased shark bite survivability revealed by two centuries of Australian records

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-16950-5

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NSW Department of Primary Industries
  2. Southern Cross University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The perceived and real threat of shark bites have significant impacts on both health and economy. This study assesses the changing odds of surviving an unprovoked shark bite in Australia over 200 years. It reveals that survivability rates vary for different shark species and are influenced by environmental and anthropogenic factors.
The perceived and real threat of shark bites have significant direct health and indirect economic impacts. Here we assess the changing odds of surviving an unprovoked shark bite using 200 years of Australian records. Bite survivability rates for bull (Carcharhinus leucas), tiger (Galeocerdo cuvier) and white (Carcharodon carcharias) sharks were assessed relative to environmental and anthropogenic factors. Survivability of unprovoked bull, tiger and white shark bites were 62, 75 and 53% respectively. Bull shark survivability increased over time between 1807 and 2018. Survivability decreased for both tiger and white sharks when the person was doing an in water activity, such as swimming or diving. Not unsurprisingly, a watercraft for protection/floatation increased survivability to 92% from 30%, and 88% from 45%, for tiger and white sharks respectively. We speculate that survival may be related to time between injury and treatment, indicating the importance of rapid and appropriate medical care. Understanding the predictors of unprovoked bites, as well as survivability (year and water activity), may be useful for developing strategies that reduce the number of serious or fatal human-shark interactions without impacting sharks and other marine wildlife.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available