Advertisement

Marine Biology

, 166:68 | Cite as

Interspecific interactions, movement patterns and habitat use in a diverse coastal shark assemblage

  • Michelle R. HeupelEmail author
  • Samantha E. M. Munroe
  • Elodie J. I. Lédée
  • Andrew Chin
  • Colin A. Simpfendorfer
Original Paper

Abstract

Sharks are a highly diverse predatory taxon and are regularly found in large, potentially competitive, assemblages. However, the mechanisms that enable long-term coexistence and factors that drive complementary movement are poorly understood. As interspecific interactions can have a large influence on survival and trophic linkages, research on shark assemblages could substantially increase our understanding of marine community dynamics. In this study, we used passive acoustic telemetry to compare the activity space size, spatial overlap and habitat use patterns of six co-occurring shark species from the same family in a tropical nearshore embayment. Our results indicated that all sizes of Rhizoprionodon taylori (a small-bodied, highly productive species) used significantly larger amounts of space (e.g., mean 95% KUD = 85.9 km2) than juveniles of large-bodied, less productive species (e.g., Carcharhinus amboinensis; 62.3 km2) that use nearshore areas as nursery areas. Most large, less productive species appeared risk averse by using less space, while the smaller more productive species took greater risk by roaming broadly. These movement strategies are likely a means of avoiding predation or gaining access to new or additional resources. Spatial overlap patterns varied substantially between species with overlap in core use areas ranging from 1.2 to 27.6%, but were consistent over time. Most species exhibited low spatial overlap, suggesting spatial partitioning to reduce interspecific competition. While a few species exhibited a high degree of spatial overlap (up to 60% of activity space extent), dietary diversity may reduce competition to support co-occurrence. These data suggest that complex interactions occur in communal nurseries in nearshore waters where species are in direct competition for resources at vulnerable life stages.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank all the staff and students at the Centre for Sustainable Tropical Fisheries and Aquaculture and the countless volunteers for their assistance, especially D Knip.

Funding

Funding for this research was provided by the Australian Research Council and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) awarded to MRH and CAS; additional support was provided by the National Environmental Research Program awarded to CAS.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All research was conducted in accordance with James Cook University (JCU) animal ethics permit A1566 and Great Barrier Reef (G11/346181.1) and QDAF (144482) permits for animal collection.

Supplementary material

227_2019_3511_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (242 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 242 kb)

References

  1. Abascal FJ, Quintans M, Ramos-Cartelle A, Mejuto J (2011) Movements and environmental preferences of the shortfin mako, Isurus oxyrinchus, in the southeastern Pacific Ocean. Mar Biol 158:1175–1184.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-011-1639-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen LG, Yoklavich MM, Cailliet GM, Horn MH (2006) Bays and estuaries. In: Allen LG, Pondella DJ, Horn MH (eds) The ecology of marine fishes: California and adjacent waters. University of California Press, Los Angeles, pp 119–148Google Scholar
  3. Almany GR (2004a) Differential effects of habitat complexity, predators and competitors on abundance of juvenile and adult coral reef fishes. Oecologia 141:105–113.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004-1617-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Almany GR (2004b) Does increased habitat complexity reduce predation and competition in coral reef fish assemblages? Oikos 106:275–284.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.13193.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbier EB, Hacker SD, Kennedy C, Koch EW, Stier AC, Silliman BR (2011) The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecol Monogr 81:169–193.  https://doi.org/10.1890/10-1510.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beauchamp G (2003) Group-size effects on vigilance: a search for mechanisms. Behav Process 63:111–121.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-6357(03)00002-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beck MW, Heck KL, Able KW, Childers DL, Eggleston DB, Gillanders BM, Halpern B, Hays CG, Hoshino K, Minello TJ, Orth RJ, Sheridan PF, Weinstein MP (2001) The identification, conservation, and management of estuarine and marine nurseries for fish and invertebrates. Bioscience 51:633–641.  https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051%5b0633:ticamo%5d2.0.co;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benkwitt CE (2013) Density-dependent growth in invasive lionfish (Pterois volitans). PLoS One 8:e66995.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066995 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Bethea DM, Buckel JA, Carlson JK (2004) Foraging ecology of the early life stages of four sympatric shark species. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 268:245–264.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps268245 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bethea DM, Ajemian MJ, Carlson JK, Hoffmayer ER, Imhoff JL, Grubbs RD, Peterson CT, Burgess GH (2015) Distribution and community structure of coastal sharks in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Environ Biol Fishes 98:1233–1254.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-014-0355-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MH, White JS (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24:127–135.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer Science & Business Media, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Butts C (2013) sna: tools for social network analysis.–R package ver. 2.3-1Google Scholar
  14. Calenge C (2006) The package adehabitat for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol Model 197:516–519.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.03.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carlson J, Heupel M, Bethea D, Hollensead L (2008) Coastal habitat use and residency of juvenile Atlantic sharpnose sharks (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae). Estuaries Coast 31:931–940.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-008-9075-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carrier JC, Musick JA, Heithaus MR (2012) Biology of sharks and their relatives. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Castro JI (1993) The shark nursery of Bulls Bay, South Carolina, with a review of the shark nurseries of the southeastern coast of the United States. Environ Biol Fishes 38:37–48.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00842902 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chin A, Heupel MR, Simpfendorfer CA, Tobin AJ (2013a) Ontogenetic movements of juvenile blacktip reef sharks: evidence of dispersal and connectivity between coastal habitats and coral reefs. Aquat Conserv 23:468–474.  https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2349 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chin A, Tobin AJ, Heupel MR, Simpfendorfer CA (2013b) Population structure and residency patterns of the blacktip reef shark Carcharhinus melanopterus in turbid coastal environments. J Fish Biol 82:1192–1210.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12057 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Chin A, Heupel MR, Simpfendorfer CA, Tobin AJ (2016) Population organisation in reef sharks: new variations in coastal habitat use by mobile marine predators. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 544:197–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Connell JH (1983) On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition: evidence from field experiments. Am Nat 122:661–696.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2460847 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Conrath CL, Musick JA (2010) Residency, space use and movement patterns of juvenile sandbar sharks (Carcharhinus plumbeus) within a Virginia summer nursery area. Mar Freshw Res 61:223–235.  https://doi.org/10.1071/MF09078 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Core Development Team R (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  24. Croft DP, Madden JR, Franks DW, James R (2011) Hypothesis testing in animal social networks. Trends Ecol Evol 26:502–507.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.05.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Csardi G, Nepusz T (2006) The igraph software package for complex network research. Complex Syst 1695:1–9Google Scholar
  26. Dale JJ, Stankus AM, Burns MS, Meyer CG (2011) The shark assemblage at French Frigate Shoals Atoll, Hawaii: species composition, abundance and habitat use. PLoS One 6:e16962.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016962 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Davenport S, Stevens J (1988) Age and growth of two commercially imported sharks (Carcharhinus tilstoni and C. sorrah) from Northern Australia. Mar Fresh Res 39:417–433.  https://doi.org/10.1071/MF9880417 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Duncan KM, Holland KN (2006) Habitat use, growth rates and dispersal patterns of juvenile scalloped hammerhead sharks Sphyrna lewini in a nursery habitat. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 312:211–221.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps312211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ebert DA (1991) Observations on the predatory behaviour of the sevengill shark Notorynchus cepedianus. S Afr J Mar Sci 11:455–465.  https://doi.org/10.2989/025776191784287637 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ebert D, Fowler S, Compagno L (2013) Sharks of the world. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  31. Fausch KD, White RJ (1981) Competition between brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) for positions in a Michigan stream. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 38:1220–1227.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f81-164 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fox J, Weisberg S (2011) An R companion to applied regression. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  33. Froeschke JT, Stunz GW, Sterba-Boatwright B, Wildhaber ML (2010) An empirical test of the ‘shark nursery area concept’ in Texas bays using a long-term fisheries-independent data set. Aquat Biol 11:65–76.  https://doi.org/10.3354/ab00290 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Guttridge TL, van Dijk S, Stamhuis EJ, Krause J, Gruber SH, Brown C (2013) Social learning in juvenile lemon sharks, Negaprion brevirostris. Anim Cogn 16:55–64.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-012-0550-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Harry AV, Macbeth WG, Gutteridge AN, Simpfendorfer CA (2011) The life histories of endangered hammerhead sharks (Carcharhiniformes, Sphyrnidae) from the east coast of Australia. J Fish Biol 78:2026–2051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Harry AV, Morgan JAT, Ovenden JR, Tobin AJ, Welch DJ, Simpfendorfer CA (2012) Comparison of the reproductive ecology of two sympatric blacktip sharks (Carcharhinus limbatus and Carcharhinus tilstoni) off north-eastern Australia with species identification inferred from vertebral counts. J Fish Biol 81:1225–1233.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2012.03400.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Harry AV, Tobin AJ, Simpfendorfer CA (2013) Age, growth and reproductive biology of the spot-tail shark, Carcharhinus sorrah, and the Australian blacktip shark, C. tilstoni, from the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, north-eastern Australia. Mar Freshw Res 64:277–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Heithaus MR (2007) Nursery areas as essential shark habitats: a theoretical perspective. Am Fish Soc Symp 50:3–13Google Scholar
  39. Heithaus MR, Vaudo JJ, Kreicker S, Layman CA, Krützen M, Burkholder DA, Gastrich K, Bessey C, Sarabia R, Cameron K (2013) Apparent resource partitioning and trophic structure of large-bodied marine predators in a relatively pristine seagrass ecosystem. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 481:225–237.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10235 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Heupel MR, Hueter RE (2002) Importance of prey density in relation to the movement patterns of juvenile blacktip sharks (Carcharhinus limbatus) within a coastal nursery area. Mar Freshw Res 53:543–550.  https://doi.org/10.1071/MF01132 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Heupel MR, Simpfendorfer CA, Hueter RE (2004) Estimation of shark home ranges using passive monitoring techniques. Environ Biol Fishes 71:135–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Heupel MR, Carlson JK, Simpfendorfer CA (2007) Shark nursery areas: concepts, definition, characterization and assumptions. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 337:287–297.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps337287 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Heupel MR, Kanno S, Martins AP, Simpfendorfer CA (2018a) Advances in understanding the roles and benefits of nursery areas for elasmobranch populations. Mar Fresh Res.  https://doi.org/10.1071/mf18081 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Heupel MR, Lédée EJ, Simpfendorfer CA (2018b) Telemetry reveals spatial separation of co-occurring reef sharks. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 589:179–192.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12423 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Humphries NE, Simpson SJ, Wearmouth VJ, Sims DW (2016) Two’s company, three’s a crowd: fine-scale habitat partitioning by depth among sympatric species of marine mesopredator. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 561:173–187.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11937 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Jacoby DMP, Brooks EJ, Croft DP, Sims DW (2012) Developing a deeper understanding of animal movements and spatial dynamics through novel application of network analyses. Methods Ecol Evol 3:574–583.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2012.00187.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kessel ST, Cooke SJ, Heupel MR, Hussey NE, Simpfendorfer CA, Vagle S, Fisk AT (2013) A review of detection range testing in aquatic passive acoustic telemetry studies. Rev Fish Biol Fish 24:199–218.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-013-9328-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kinney MJ, Simpfendorfer CA (2009) Reassessing the value of nursery areas to shark conservation and management. Conserv Lett 2:53–60.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00046.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kinney M, Hussey N, Fisk A, Tobin A, Simpfendorfer C (2011) Communal or competitive? Stable isotope analysis provides evidence of resource partitioning within a communal shark nursery. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 439:263–276.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps09327 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Knip DM, Heupel MR, Simpfendorfer CA (2010) Sharks in nearshore environments: models, importance, and consequences. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 402:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08498 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Knip DM, Heupel MR, Simpfendorfer CA, Tobin AJ, Moloney J (2011) Ontogenetic shifts in movement and habitat use of juvenile pigeye sharks Carcharhinus amboinensis in a tropical nearshore region. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 425:233–246.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps09006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Knip DM, Heupel MR, Simpfendorfer CA (2012) Habitat use and spatial segregation of adult spottail sharks Carcharhinus sorrah in tropical nearshore waters. J Fish Biol 80:767–784.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2012.03223.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Last PR, Stevens JD (2009) Sharks and rays of Australia, 2nd edn. CSIRO Publishing Collingwood, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  54. Lédée EJI, Heupel MR, Tobin AJ, Simpfendorfer CA (2015) Movements and space use of giant trevally in coral reef habitats and the importance of environmental drivers. Anim Biotelem 3:6.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40317-015-0024-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lédée EJ, Heupel MR, Tobin AJ, Mapleston A, Simpfendorfer CA (2016) Movement patterns of two carangid species in inshore habitats characterised using network analysis. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 553:219–232.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11777 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Marshall AD, Kyne PM, Bennett MB (2008) Comparing the diet of two sympatric urolophid elasmobranchs (Trygonoptera testacea Müller & Henle and Urolophus kapalensis Yearsley & Last): evidence of ontogenetic shifts and possible resource partitioning. J Fish Biol 72:883–898.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2007.01762.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Matich P, Heithaus MR (2015) Individual variation in ontogenetic niche shifts in habitat use and movement patterns of a large estuarine predator (Carcharhinus leucas). Oecologia 178:347–359.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-015-3253-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Matich P, Ault JS, Boucek RE, Bryan DR, Gastrich KR, Harvey CL, Heithaus MR, Kiszka JJ, Paz V, Rehage JS (2017) Ecological niche partitioning within a large predator guild in a nutrient-limited estuary. Limnol Oceanogr 62:934–953.  https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.10477 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Matley J, Tobin A, Lédée E, Heupel M, Simpfendorfer C (2016a) Contrasting patterns of vertical and horizontal space use of two exploited and sympatric coral reef fish. Mar Biol 163:253.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-016-3023-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Matley JK, Heupel MR, Fisk AT, Simpfendorfer CA, Tobin AJ (2016b) Measuring niche overlap between co-occurring Plectropomus spp. using acoustic telemetry and stable isotopes. Mar Fresh Res 68:1468–1478.  https://doi.org/10.1071/MF16120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. McMahon TE, Tash JC (1988) Experimental analysis of the role of emigration in population regulation of desert pupfish. Ecology 69:1871–1883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mourier J, Jacoby DMP, Guttridge TL (2018) Network analysis and theory in shark ecology-methods and applications. In: Carrier JC, Heithaus MR, Simpfendorfer CA (eds) Shark research: emerging technologies and applications for the field and laboratory. CRC Press, Boca Roton, pp 337–356Google Scholar
  63. Munroe SEM, Simpfendorfer CA, Heupel MR (2014) Habitat and space use of an abundant nearshore shark, Rhizoprionodon taylori. Mar Freshw Res 65:959–968.  https://doi.org/10.1071/MF13272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Munroe SEM, Simpfendorfer CA, Moloney J, Heupel MR (2015) Nearshore movement ecology of a medium-bodied shark, the creek whaler Carcharhinus fitzroyensis. Anim Biotelem 3:10.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40317-015-0026-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Munroe SEM, Simpfendorfer CA, Heupel MR (2016) Variation in blacktip shark movement patterns in a tropical coastal bay. Environ Biol Fishes 99:377–389.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-016-0480-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Munsch SH, Cordell JR, Toft JD (2016) Fine-scale habitat use and behavior of a nearshore fish community: nursery functions, predation avoidance, and spatiotemporal habitat partitioning. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 557:1–15.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11862 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Nakamura I, Watanabe YY, Papastamatiou YP, Sato K, Meyer CG (2011) Yo-Yo vertical movements suggest a foraging strategy for tiger sharks Galeocerdo cuvier. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 424:237–246.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08980 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Opsahl T (2009) Structure and evolution of weighted networks. University of London, LondonGoogle Scholar
  69. O’Shea O, Thums M, Van Keulen M, Kempster R, Meekan M (2013) Dietary partitioning by five sympatric species of stingray (Dasyatidae) on coral reefs. J Fish Biol 82:1805–1820.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12104 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Papastamatiou YP, Wetherbee BM, Lowe CG, Crow GL (2006) Distribution and diet of four species of carcharhinid shark in the Hawaiian Islands: evidence for resource partitioning and competitive exclusion. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 320:239–251.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps320239 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D (2012) R Development Core Team. nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models, R package version:3.1-103. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme
  72. Schielzeth H (2010) Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression coefficients. Methods Ecol Evol 1:103–113.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00012.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schlaff AM, Heupel MR, Simpfendorfer CA (2014) Influence of environmental factors on shark and ray movement, behaviour and habitat use: a review. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries 24:1089–1103.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-014-9364-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schoener TW (1986) Resource partitioning. In: Kilkkawa J, Anderson DJ (eds) Community ecology: pattern and process. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Boston, pp 91–126Google Scholar
  75. Simpfendorfer C (1992) Reproductive strategy of the Australian sharpnose shark, Rhizoprionodon taylori (Elasmobranchii: Carcharhinidae), from Cleveland Bay, Northern Queensland. Mar Freshw Res 43:67–75.  https://doi.org/10.1071/MF9920067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Simpfendorfer CA (1993) Age and growth of the Australian sharpnose shark, Rhizoprionodon taylori, from north Queensland, Australia. Environ Biol Fishes 36:233–241.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00001718 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Simpfendorfer C (1998) Diet of the Australian sharpnose shark, Rhizoprionodon taylori, from northern Queensland. Mar Freshw Res 49:757–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Simpfendorfer CA, Milward NE (1993) Utilisation of a tropical bay as a nursery area by sharks of the families Carcharhinidae and Sphyrnidae. Environ Biol Fishes 37:337–345.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00005200 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Simpfendorfer CA, Heupel MR, Hueter RE (2002) Estimation of short-term centers of activity from an array of omnidirectional hydrophones and its use in studying animal movements. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59:23–32.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f01-191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sommerville E, Platell ME, White WT, Jones AA, Potter IC (2011) Partitioning of food resources by four abundant, co-occurring elasmobranch species: relationships between diet and both body size and season. Mar Fresh Res 62:54–65.  https://doi.org/10.1071/MF10164 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Speed CW, Meekan MG, Field IC, McMahon CR, Stevens JD, McGregor F, Huveneers C, Berger Y, Bradshaw CJA (2011) Spatial and temporal movement patterns of a multi-species coastal reef shark aggregation. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 429:261–618.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps09080 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Springer S (1967) Social organization of shark populations. In: Gilbert PW, Mathewson RF, Rall DP (eds) Sharks, skates and rays. John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, pp 149–174Google Scholar
  83. Sridhar H, Beauchamp G, Shanker K (2009) Why do birds participate in mixed-species foraging flocks? A large-scale synthesis. Anim Behav 78:337–347.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.05.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Tamburello N, Côté IM, Dulvy NK (2015) Energy and the scaling of animal space use. Am Nat 186:196–211.  https://doi.org/10.1086/682070 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Taylor MD, Fairfax AV, Suthers IM (2013) The race for space: using acoustic telemetry to understand density-dependent emigration and habitat selection in a released predatory fish. Rev Fish Sci 21:276–285.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10641262.2013.796813 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Tillett BJ, Meekan MG, Field IC, Hua Q, Bradshaw CJA (2011) Similar life history traits in bull (Carcharhinus leucas) and pigeye (C. amboinensis) sharks. Mar Fresh Res 62:850–860.  https://doi.org/10.1071/MF10271 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Tobin AJ, Mapleston A, Harry AV, Espinoza M (2014) Big fish in shallow water; use of an intertidal surf-zone habitat by large-bodied teleosts and elasmobranchs in tropical northern Australia. Environ Biol Fishes 97:821–838.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-013-0182-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Webster MS (2004) Density dependence via intercohort competition in a coral-reef fish. Ecology 85:986–994.  https://doi.org/10.1890/02-0576 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. White W, Potter I (2004) Habitat partitioning among four elasmobranch species in nearshore, shallow waters of a subtropical embayment in Western Australia. Mar Biol 145:1023–1032.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-004-1386-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. White WT, Platell ME, Potter IC (2004) Comparison between the diets of four abundant species of elasmobranch in a subtropical embayment: implications for resource partitioning. Mar Biol 144:439–448.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-003-1218-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Yates PM, Heupel MR, Tobin AJ, Moore SK, Simpfendorfer CA (2015) Diversity in immature-shark communities along a tropical coastline. Mar Fresh Res 66:399–410.  https://doi.org/10.1071/MF14033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Yick JL, Tracey SR, White RWG (2011) Niche overlap and trophic resource partitioning of two sympatric batoids co-inhabiting an estuarine system in southeast Australia. J Appl Ichthyol 27:1272–1277.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2011.01819.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS (2010) A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol Evol 1:3–14.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2009.00001.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michelle R. Heupel
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Samantha E. M. Munroe
    • 2
    • 3
  • Elodie J. I. Lédée
    • 2
    • 4
  • Andrew Chin
    • 2
  • Colin A. Simpfendorfer
    • 2
  1. 1.Australian Institute of Marine ScienceTownsvilleAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Sustainable Tropical Fisheries and Aquaculture and College of Science and EngineeringJames Cook UniversityTownsvilleAustralia
  3. 3.TERN Ecosystem Surveillance Monitoring, School of Biological SciencesThe University of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  4. 4.Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Ottawa-Carleton Institute for BiologyCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations