Further evidence of pigmentation change in white sharks, Carcharodon carcharias

2012 ◽  
Vol 63 (12) ◽  
pp. 1215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Robbins ◽  
Andrew Fox

Patterns of pigmentation are widely used for the identification of white sharks, with photographic databases often forming the basis for studies of population modelling, site fidelity and movement patterns. The permanence of these identifying markings is assumed to remain constant. Here, we present evidence of melanism resulting in a change in the shape and size of pigmentation markings on the lower caudal lobe of a female white shark. We found a 33% reduction in size of an islet over a 9-month period. The newly melanised region was 10% darker than the adjoining pigmented areas, and did not match the original pattern. Possible causes of the observed melanism are presented, and the implications for the reliability of using caudal-fin pigmentation patterns for identification purposes are discussed, with a combinational matching approach recommended.

Copeia ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 1992 (3) ◽  
pp. 680 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Peter Klimley ◽  
Scot D. Anderson ◽  
Peter Pyle ◽  
R. P. Henderson

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A. R. G. Gauthier ◽  
E. Chateauminois ◽  
M. G. Hoarau ◽  
J. Gadenne ◽  
E. Hoarau ◽  
...  

Abstract Although relatively rare, human-shark interactions and sharks bites are increasing globally, which has led to the development of various mitigation measures. Electric shark deterrents (ESDs) have, so far, been the most effective personal deterrents, but have only been scientifically tested on one of the species most frequently responsible for shark bites, i.e. white shark (Carcharodon carcharias). We tested the effectiveness of five ESDs (E-Shark Force, NoShark, Rpela v2, Freedom + Surf, Freedom + Surf—Shortboard) on bull sharks, Carcharhinus leucas, over a period of 21 days in September 2019, in New Caledonia. Standardised bait was attached 30 cm below an experimental board that had an active ESD for up to 15 min, or until a bull shark touched the bait or the board. We compared the numbers of baits taken, numbers of passes and reactions around the board, as well as the distance between the sharks and the board among ESDs and against a control board with bait and no active ESD. The Freedom + Surf was the most effective ESD, reducing the amounts of baits taken by 42.3%, while the Rpela v2 and Freedom + Surf—Shortboard also significantly reduced the number of baits taken by 16.5% and 16.2% respectively. Mean distance between sharks and the bait was not affected by the ESDs, but the number of approaches and the proportion of reactions were both significantly higher when the Freedom + Surf was active compared to other ESDs. The effectiveness of all ESDs decreased over time, with the likelihood of the bait being taken increasing and the number of approaches and distance between sharks and the bait decreasing. Our findings show that the ability of ESDs to deter bull shark varies between products, with the Freedom + Surf resulting in the most behavioural changes, followed by the Rpela v2 and Freedom + Surf—Shortboard. However, none of the products tested completely stopped sharks from taking the bait.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document