4.3 Review

Batoid nurseries: definition, use and importance

期刊

MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES
卷 595, 期 -, 页码 253-267

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/meps12545

关键词

Sawfish; Skate; Stingray; Guitarfish; Habitat use; Ecological role

资金

  1. CAPES Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nursery areas are crucial for many elasmobranch species, providing benefits that increase fitness and survival. Shark nurseries are well studied and our knowledge of their function and importance has expanded over the past few decades. However, little attention has been given to batoid nurseries, with studies covering less than 6% of the 663 currently described species. Threats of extinction faced by batoids reinforce the importance of defining these critical habitats. This review synthesises current knowledge of batoid nursery areas to provide a better understanding of their ecological roles and importance. Historically, different criteria have been used to define viviparous and oviparous batoid nurseries, causing confusion that could lead to failure of conservation and management strategies by under-or overestimating the importance of areas and delaying effective action. We suggest the criteria used to identify shark nurseries be applied to juvenile batoids, standardizing this nursery definition for all elasmobranchs, but we also advocate for a second set of criteria that identifies egg case nurseries. Batoids are thought to play 3 main ecological roles in nursery areas: energetic links, bioturbators and mesopredators. Biotic and abiotic features affect abundance and distribution of batoids within nurseries and likely play a key role in their habitat use. However, analysis of batoid ecological roles in nursery areas is limited by the lack of research on their early life history stages. Thus, identification of areas that support sensitive life stages and an improved understanding of early life history are crucial for the efficient management and conservation of batoid species and their nurseries.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据