1993
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-3450-9_3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Geographic variation in reproduction between two populations of the bonnethead shark, Sphyrna tiburo

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

7
70
4
1

Year Published

2002
2002
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 59 publications
(82 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
7
70
4
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In this study, the females and males were found to be mature at a larger size, compared to previous studies and it is possible that differences could have resulted from distinctive oceanographic conditions in the region, or fisheries influence, regional differences, or sampling difference which could cause differences in biological parameters between populations, such as maximum size, growth rate, size-at-maturity and fecundity (Parsons, 1993;Lombardi-Carlson et al, 2003;Motta, et al, 2007). Size at birth estimated in the study was 25-30 cm TL which was larger than those reported (as 21-26 cm TL) earlier by Appukuttan and Nair (1988).…”
Section: Length-weight Relationshipscontrasting
confidence: 54%
“…In this study, the females and males were found to be mature at a larger size, compared to previous studies and it is possible that differences could have resulted from distinctive oceanographic conditions in the region, or fisheries influence, regional differences, or sampling difference which could cause differences in biological parameters between populations, such as maximum size, growth rate, size-at-maturity and fecundity (Parsons, 1993;Lombardi-Carlson et al, 2003;Motta, et al, 2007). Size at birth estimated in the study was 25-30 cm TL which was larger than those reported (as 21-26 cm TL) earlier by Appukuttan and Nair (1988).…”
Section: Length-weight Relationshipscontrasting
confidence: 54%
“…These differences may be attributable to differences in the methods for assessing maturity and/or in sample size used in each study. Another possible explanation, taking into account that C. callorynchus has a widely distribution off southern South America, is that perhaps there are multiple discrete populations of this species with latitudinal variation in size at maturity, as was suggested for several chondrichthyan species around the world (Templeman, 1987;Parsons, 1993;Lucifora et al, 1999;Chiaramonte, Petovello, 2000;Mabragaña, Cousseau, 2004;Colonello et al, 2007;Ebert et al, 2008;Barnett et al, 2009). In turn, the PCL 50 estimated in the study area was lower than those values found in northern Patagonian waters, which may be associated with the fact that coastal waters of south-eastern Buenos Aires Province support the highest pressure on chondrichthyans in Argentina (Massa et al, 2004).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Researchers have speculated that this short opportunistic window evolved to maximize the reproductive success of these species by increasing the survival of the young (Castro 2009). Despite the general acceptance of this view of carcharhinid reproductive strategy, the information on which it is based has been obtained from only a few species, largely ones from the temperate waters of the western North Atlantic Ocean, including the Atlantic Sharpnose Shark (Parsons 1983;Loefer and Sedberry 2003), Blacktip Shark Carcharhinus limbatus (Castro 1996), Finetooth Shark (Castro 1993), Blacknose Shark (Driggers et al 2004;Sulikowski et al 2007), Sandbar Shark C. plumbeus (Baremore and Hale 2012), and Bonnethead Sphyrna tiburo (Parsons 1993). In addition, several of these studies have lacked sample sizes and intervals adequate to fully assess the potential reproductive patterns and/or anomalies that could exist within a population.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%