4.2 Article

Movements of bonnetheads, Sphyrna tiburo, as a response to salinity change in a Florida estuary

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGY OF FISHES
Volume 84, Issue 3, Pages 293-303

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10641-008-9436-5

Keywords

Abiotic factors; Acoustic telemetry; Electivity; Shark

Funding

  1. Mote Scientific Foundation
  2. Robert Hueter via National Marine Fisheries Service

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The movement of bonnetheads, Sphyrna tiburo, within an estuarine system on the Gulf of Mexico coast of Florida was examined to define response to salinity change. Shark presence and movements were evaluated by acoustic monitoring and gillnet sampling. Acoustic monitoring data were used to investigate active selection of different zones within the estuary based on differences in salinity among zones. Sharks were monitored for 187 days in 2003 and 217 days in 2004 in salinities ranging from 11.0 to 31.0 ppt in 2003 and 15.8 to 34.6 ppt in 2004. Monitoring data supported the hypothesis that salinity played a role in the distribution and movement of S. tiburo. Catch per unit effort (CPUE) data obtained from gillnet sampling from 1995 to 2004 were examined to determine affinity or avoidance of specific salinities within the study site as calculated using an electivity index. Electivity analysis showed almost no affinity or avoidance for specific salinity values. The difference in results between the CPUE and acoustic monitoring in relation to the potential effects of salinity likely relate to the nature of the data, with acoustic monitoring providing continuous data and CPUE providing snapshot location data. The results of this study suggest that although S. tiburo are collected within a wide range of salinity levels, salinity may affect movement and distribution. Salinity effects may be more pronounced during periods of prolonged and/or large changes in salinity as detected by long-term monitoring.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available