The emerging field of electrosensory and semiochemical shark repellents: Mechanisms of detection, overview of past studies, and future directions

O’Connell, Craig P.; Stroud, Eric M.; He, Pingguo

doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.11.005

Cited by 36 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Records of shark depredation of electronic biologgers suggest electroreceptive attraction (Kerstetter, Polovina, & Graves, 2004) and Porsmoguer, Bănaru, Boudouresque, Dekeyser, and Almarcha (2015) found that magnets on hooks increased catch rates of blue shark (Prionace glauca; Carcharhinidae). Other recent research demonstrates deterrent effects of electropositive metals, magnets, and semiochemical repellents on by-catch of sharks and sturgeon, although results are temperature-and species-specific and may be superceded by social cues when fishes aggregate (Bouyoucos, Bushnell, & Brill, 2014;Brill et al, 2009;Hutchinson et al, 2012;O'Connell, Stroud, & He, 2012;Robbins, Peddemors, & Kennelly, 2011).…”

Section: Sensory Ecologymentioning

confidence: 99%

What makes fish vulnerable to capture by hooks? A conceptual framework and a review of key determinants

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Considerable time and money are expended in the pursuit of catching fish with hooks (e.g., handlining, angling, longlining, trolling, drumlining) across the recreational, commercial and subsistence fishing sectors. The fish and other aquatic organisms (e.g., squid) that are captured are not a random sample of the population because external (e.g., turbidity) and underlying internal variables (e.g., morphology) contribute to variation in vulnerability to hooks. Vulnerability is the probability of capture for any given fish in a given location at a given time and mechanistically explains the population‐level catchability coefficient, which is a fundamental and usually time‐varying (i.e., dynamic) variable in fisheries science and stock assessment. The mechanistic drivers of individual vulnerability to capture are thus of interest to fishers by affecting catch rates, but are also of considerable importance to fisheries managers whenever hook‐and‐line‐generated data contribute to stock assessments. In this paper, individual vulnerability to hooks is conceptualized as a dynamic state, in which individual fish switch between vulnerable and invulnerable states as a function of three interdependent key processes: an individual fish's internal state, its encounter with the gear, and the characteristics of the encountered gear. We develop a new conceptual framework of “vulnerability,” summarize the major drivers of fish vulnerability, and conclude that fish vulnerability involves complex processes. To understand vulnerability, a shift to interdisciplinary research and the integration of ecophysiology, fish ecology, fisheries ecology and human movement ecology, facilitated by new technological developments, is required.

show abstract

Section: Sensory Ecologymentioning

confidence: 99%

What makes fish vulnerable to capture by hooks? A conceptual framework and a review of key determinants

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Stress responses can be used as biomarkers of the combined effects of physiological challenge, energy budgets, and anthropogenic disturbance (Romero 2004), and the functional traits of species may be useful in understanding how species are affected by fishery interactions (Conrad et al 2011, Gallagher et al 2012, O'Connell et al 2012. We attribute the range of stress responses to the performance/equilibrium differences of closely related species and variation in the operation of species' physiological machinery.…”

Section: Interspecific Rankings and Comparisonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physiological stress response, reflex impairment, and survival of five sympatric shark species following experimental capture and release

Gallagher

Serafy²,

Cooke

et al. 2014

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

228

190

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many fisheries, some component of the catch is usually released. Quantifying the effects of capture and release on fish survival is critical for determining which practices are sustainable, particularly for threatened species. Using a standardized fishing technique, we studied sublethal (blood physiology and reflex impairment assessment) and lethal (post-release mortality with satellite tags) outcomes of fishing stress on 5 species of coastal sharks (great hammerhead, bull, blacktip, lemon, and tiger). Species-specific differences were detected in whole blood lactate, partial pressure of carbon dioxide, and pH values, with lactate emerging as the sole parameter to be significantly affected by increasing hooking duration and shark size. Species-specific differences in reflex impairment were also found; however, we did not detect any significant relationships between reflex impairment and hooking duration. Taken together, we ranked each species according to degree of stress response, from most to least disturbed, as follows: hammerhead shark > blacktip shark > bull shark > lemon shark > tiger shark. Satellite tagging data revealed that nearly 100% of all tracked tiger sharks reported for at least 4 wk after release, which was significantly higher than bull (74.1%) and great hammerhead (53.6%) sharks. We discuss which mechanisms may lead to species-specific differences in sensitivity to fishing and suggest that observed variation in responses may be influenced by ecological and evolutionary phenomena. Moreover, our results show that certain species (i.e. hammerhead sharks in this study) are inherently vulnerable to capture stress and mortality resulting from fisheries interactions and should receive additional attention in future conservation strategies.

show abstract

“…Coastal communities often demand intervention to reduce the risk of further attacks, especially if an unusually high number of incidents have occurred in a short space of time (Curtis et al 2012). A wide range of mitigation measures to decrease the risks of shark attack have been implemented, including short-term targeted shark fishing, long-term deployment of shark-fishing devices such as gillnets or drumlines, use of shark repellents and, more recently, scientific studies to understand better the biology, ecology and behaviour of sharks (Cliff and Dudley 1992;Wetherbee et al 1994;Nel and Peschak 2006;Beschta and Ripple 2009;Cliff and Dudley 2011;O'Connell et al 2011O'Connell et al , 2014Hazin and Afonso 2014). In general, knowledge of apex shark predators remains scarce compared to their terrestrial counterparts (Beschta and Ripple 2009).…”

Section: Seasonal Variability Of Bull and Tiger Shark Presence On Thementioning

confidence: 99%

Seasonal variability of bull and tiger shark presence on the west coast of Reunion Island, western Indian Ocean

Blaison

Jaquemet

Guyomard³

et al. 2015

African Journal of Marine Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceA fisheries‑independent survey using longlines and drumlines, and an acoustic telemetry study, revealed that bull sharks Carcharhinus leucas and tiger sharks Galeocerdo cuvier occur throughout the year off the west coast of Reunion Island. The research, which commenced in 2011, was conducted in response to an increase in the rate of shark attacks. Juvenile, subadult and young adult tiger sharks of 111–390 cm total length (TL) were caught in all months except July; the sex ratio was 1:1 (M:F; n = 61). All bull sharks taken, except one (183 cm TL), were mature (205–329 cm TL), with a sex ratio of 0.7:1 (M:F; n = 54), and catches occurred throughout the year except in May and August, with the highest CPUE in September. Presence/absence of a total of 46 tagged tiger sharks and 36 tagged bull sharks was monitored by means of 42 acoustic receivers distributed along the west coast of the island. Tagged tiger sharks were detected in all months, with seasonal variation between sexes. Detections of males remained low throughout the year but with a peak in winter, whereas detections of females were low in May and August only and peaked in summer. Tagged bull sharks of both sexes were more abundant in winter than in summer, with females present year round. The reasons for the apparent differences in seasonality found in longline and drumline catches compared to acoustic monitoring are discussed

show abstract

The emerging field of electrosensory and semiochemical shark repellents: Mechanisms of detection, overview of past studies, and future directions

Cited by 36 publications

References 59 publications

What makes fish vulnerable to capture by hooks? A conceptual framework and a review of key determinants

What makes fish vulnerable to capture by hooks? A conceptual framework and a review of key determinants

Physiological stress response, reflex impairment, and survival of five sympatric shark species following experimental capture and release

Seasonal variability of bull and tiger shark presence on the west coast of Reunion Island, western Indian Ocean

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About