Shark and ray provisioning: functional insights into behavioral, ecological and physiological responses across multiple scales

Brena, Pierpaolo F.; Mourier, Johann; Planes, Serge; Clua, Éric

doi:10.3354/meps11492

Cited by 79 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Owing to the relatively long history of fish feeding and tourist activity (more than 15 years) in the study site, it is likely that habituation has taken place and that most fish have become increasingly tolerant to human presence, advocating the first hypothesis. This is consistent with observations in most species of sharks and rays exposed to provisioning (Brena, Mourier, Planes, & Clua, ). They exhibit an increase in daytime activity when tourism operators are present (Brena et al, ), such as occurs for fed whitetip reef sharks Trianodon obesus that are otherwise active during the night (Fitzpatrick et al, ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…This is consistent with observations in most species of sharks and rays exposed to provisioning (Brena, Mourier, Planes, & Clua, ). They exhibit an increase in daytime activity when tourism operators are present (Brena et al, ), such as occurs for fed whitetip reef sharks Trianodon obesus that are otherwise active during the night (Fitzpatrick et al, ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Impact categories: NMVA = non-managed visitation area; MVA = managed visitation area; RA = reference area. Microhabitats: LW = large wood pieces; HS = hard substrate; US = unconsolidated substrate; CS = channel surface; CC = channel centre; MR = macrophytes and roots; and LI = litter in daytime activity when tourism operators are present (Brena et al, 2015), such as occurs for fed whitetip reef sharks Trianodon obesus that are otherwise active during the night (Fitzpatrick et al, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Tourism impact on stream fish measured with an ecological and a behavioural indicator

Bessa

Geffroy

Gonçalves-de-Freitas

2017

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As nature‐based tourism grows, its impacts on aquatic ecosystems follow, requiring effective management techniques to conserve river integrity. Nevertheless, strong indicators of tourism impacts are scarce and have seldom been studied for many species. This study evaluated whether microhabitat use and activity period of a variety of fish species are effective for assessing tourism impacts in a headwater stream in which recreation (snorkelling) occurs. Microhabitat use and activity period of the most representative fish were observed in river stretches used for recreation and compared with reference stretches. Fish neither altered microhabitat use nor became more cryptic owing to tourism, maybe because they have evolved to occupy a certain microhabitat and cannot inhabit others, thus making habitat use a poor indicator of tourism impact. Fish respond to the presence of tourists by changing the promptness to begin and end activity, making the time of activity a good indicator of tourism impact, which can be easily assessed by tourism managers or government agencies and used to control the environmental impact of recreation involving fish. It is suggested that aquatic conservation protocols should include local indicators, and that behavioural indicators (activity period) might be more relevant than ecological indicators (microhabitat use) for early recognition of tourism impacts. These findings can be extended to the conservation of other fish communities subject to intensive tourism and with a strong circadian rhythm, such as coral reef fishes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tourism impact on stream fish measured with an ecological and a behavioural indicator

Bessa

Geffroy

Gonçalves-de-Freitas

2017

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yet, despite the ever-growing popularity of shark tourism and number of operators that often use food rewards to attract sharks in close proximity to tourists, published information on the effects of provisioning activities on animal behaviour and health is only available for 17 species from 11 locations (Brena et al, 2015;Barnett et al, 2016). Generally, baseline biological data are missing for many aspects of shark provisioning for most species.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hand feeding can periodically fuel a major portion of bull shark energy requirements at a provisioning site in Fiji

Brunnschweiler

Payne

Barnett

2017

Animal Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wildlife tourism is often extolled for its contribution to conservation. However, understanding the effects of tourism activities on the health of target animals is required to fully assess conservation benefits. Shark tourism operators often use food rewards to attract sharks in close proximity to tourists, but nothing is known about the contribution of these food rewards to the energetic requirements of target species. In this study, hand feeding of bull sharks Carcharhinus leucas was directly observed on 36 commercial shark watching dives in the Shark Reef Marine Reserve (SRMR), Fiji. Mean number of tuna heads consumed per dive by focal individuals ranged from 1.3 to 3.7. Monitored bull sharks consumed an average of~0.74 heads per provisioning day, and bioenergetics modelling suggests that some sharks might periodically be meeting their full energy requirement from provisioning at the SRMR. Knowing how much individual sharks consume at provisioning sites and how this relates to their energy requirements is crucial in order to better understand the effects of wildlife tourism and its contribution to conservation.

show abstract

“…From an ecology perspective, some of the effects from tourism have been investigated in South Africa and Australia where changes in behavior, residency, activity, and space use were noted (Laroche et al, 2007;Sperone et al, 2012a;Bruce and Bradford, 2013;Huveneers et al, 2013aHuveneers et al, , 2018aTowner et al, 2016). Whether these changes affect energetic budget (e.g., Huveneers et al, 2018a) or are detrimental to individuals or populations is mostly unknown, and has been identified as a priority requiring further investigation (Brena et al, 2015;Gallagher and Huveneers, 2018). The scarcity of easily accessible white shark aggregations without associated tourism has made it difficult to assess the effects of wildlife tourism due to the lack of control sites.…”

Section: Can We Reliably Assess and Significantly Reduce Human-shark mentioning

confidence: 99%

Future Research Directions on the “Elusive” White Shark

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Shark and ray provisioning: functional insights into behavioral, ecological and physiological responses across multiple scales

Cited by 79 publications

References 63 publications

Tourism impact on stream fish measured with an ecological and a behavioural indicator

Tourism impact on stream fish measured with an ecological and a behavioural indicator

Hand feeding can periodically fuel a major portion of bull shark energy requirements at a provisioning site in Fiji

Future Research Directions on the “Elusive” White Shark

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About