Interspecific interactions, movement patterns and habitat use in a diverse coastal shark assemblage
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.
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 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.
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.
- 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
- 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
- Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer Science & Business Media, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Butts C (2013) sna: tools for social network analysis.–R package ver. 2.3-1Google Scholar
- Core Development Team R (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
- Csardi G, Nepusz T (2006) The igraph software package for complex network research. Complex Syst 1695:1–9Google Scholar
- Ebert D, Fowler S, Compagno L (2013) Sharks of the world. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Fox J, Weisberg S (2011) An R companion to applied regression. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Heithaus MR (2007) Nursery areas as essential shark habitats: a theoretical perspective. Am Fish Soc Symp 50:3–13Google Scholar
- 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
- Last PR, Stevens JD (2009) Sharks and rays of Australia, 2nd edn. CSIRO Publishing Collingwood, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Opsahl T (2009) Structure and evolution of weighted networks. University of London, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Schoener TW (1986) Resource partitioning. In: Kilkkawa J, Anderson DJ (eds) Community ecology: pattern and process. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Boston, pp 91–126Google Scholar
- 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