4.3 Article

Telemetry reveals spatial separation of co-occurring reef sharks

期刊

MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES
卷 589, 期 -, 页码 179-192

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/meps12423

关键词

Acoustic tracking; Carcharhinus; Galeocerdo; Triaenodon; Hemigaleus; Network analysis; Kernel utilisation distribution; IMOS Animal Tracking Facility

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [FT100101004]
  2. Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS)
  3. Australian Government through the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy
  4. Super Science Initiative
  5. Australian Research Council [FT100101004] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ability to understand the functioning of ecosystems requires an understanding of the role individual or groups of species play within that environment. Defining ecological roles is challenging in complex ecosystems such as coral reefs. While it is well known that multiple reef-associated shark species coexist on a single reef, their patterns of space use and interactions have been difficult to define. Here we used acoustic telemetry data to analyse activity space, depth use and spatial networks to examine the interplay of these species relative to their roles in coral reef ecosystems. Integration of multiple analyses revealed that species with similar sizes and similar diets displayed clear spatial segregation, both between habitats and depth. This distribution is likely to reduce competition for prey among these species. In contrast, species that are dietary generalists or that have unique diets moved more broadly and overlapped with all other species. These results suggest competition for prey may be a driving factor in the distribution and space use of reef-associated sharks, revealing complex, interdependent functional roles within these systems. Results of this analysis demonstrate the advanced information that can be obtained through application of multiple methods and directed, simultaneous study of multiple species.

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