Reproductive strategy of milk shark, Rhizoprionodon acutus (Ruppell 1837), along north-eastern Arabian Sea

  • Swatipriyanka Sen
  • Sushanta K. Chakraborty
  • Vivekanandan Elayaperumal
  • Pariyappanal U. Zacharia
  • Ashok K. Jaiswar
  • Gyanaranjan Dash
  • Shoba J. Kizhakudan
  • Sangita A. Bharadiya
  • Jayshree K. Gohel
Full Paper
  • 21 Downloads

Abstract

The reproductive characteristic of Rhizoprionodon acutus were investigated using 684 specimens collected along Gujarat coast (India) of the north-eastern Arabian Sea. The sex ratio between male and female (1:1.13) was not found to be significantly different. Male and female sharks were found to mature at total lengths of 61.5 cm and 61.3 cm, respectively. Large and ripe follicles were observed throughout the year, which indicates that the breeding season extends all through the year. However, a significant increase in maximum follicle diameter was observed during February and March in the first quarter and during October and November in the last quarter of the year, which indicates that a portion of the population shows temporal preferences for breeding. This is also corroborated by the increase in the number of mature females with visible eggs in their ovary. Increase in the number of ready to spawn pregnant females was observed during March to May, followed by an increase in the number of postpartum females during May to June. The larger mean size of embryos was also recorded during May and, therefore, it can be presumed that a major parturition event happens during May. The uterine fecundity was found to be significantly influenced by maternal body size and varied from three to seven embryos per litter. Unlike male sharks, the female sharks showed significant variation in the monthly hepato-somatic index (HSI) which was significantly higher in January, after which it showed a gradual decreasing trend probably due to maternal nutrient investment during gestation.

Keywords

Maturity Litter size Reproduction season Viviparous Embryo size 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to Dr. W.S. Lakra, Director, ICAR-CIFE, Mumbai, and A. Gopalakrishnan, Director, ICAR-CMFRI, Cochin, for providing facilities and encouragement to carry out the above study. The authors are also thankful to the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi, for providing the financial support for the research work.

References

  1. Alonso MK, Crespo EA, Garcia NA, Pedraza SN, Mariotti PA, Mora NJ (2002) Fishery and ontogenetic driven changes in the diet of the spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthias, in Patagonian waters, Argentina. Environ Biol Fishes 63:193–202Google Scholar
  2. Ba A, Ba CT, Diouf K, Ndiaye PI, Panfili J (2013) Reproductive biology of the milk shark Rhizoprionodon acutus (Carcharhinidae) off the coast of Senegal. Afr J Mar Sci 35: 223–232Google Scholar
  3. Baremore IE, Hale, LF (2012) Reproduction of the sandbar shark in the western North Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Mar Coast Fish 4:560–572Google Scholar
  4. Baremore IE, Passerotti MS (2013) Reproduction of the blacktip shark in the Gulf of Mexico. Mar Coast Fish 5:127–138Google Scholar
  5. Bass AJ, D’Aubrey, JD, Kistnasamy, N (1975). Sharks of the east coast of southern Africa. III. The families Carcharhinidae (excluding Mustelus and Carcharhinus) and Sphyrnidae. South African Association for Marine Biological Research, Oceanographic Research Institute Investigational Report No. 38. p.40Google Scholar
  6. Branstetter S, Musick JA (1994) Age and growth estimates for the sand tiger in the North-western Atlantic Ocean. Trans Am Fish Soc 123(2):242–254Google Scholar
  7. Candolin U (1998) Reproduction under predation risk and the trade-off between current and future reproduction in the threespined stickleback. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 265:1171–1175Google Scholar
  8. Capape C, Diatta Y, Diop M, Guelorget O, Vergne Y, Quignard J (2006) Reproduction in the milk shark, Rhizoprionodon acutus (Ruppell, 1837) (Chondrichthyes: Carcharhinidae), from the coast of Senegal (eastern tropical Atlantic). Acta adriatica, 47:111Google Scholar
  9. Capape C, Diop M, N’Dao M(1994) Observations ur la biologie de la reproduction de dix-septespèces de Sélaciens d’intérêt économiquecapturés dans la région marine de Dakar-Ouakam (Sénégal, Atlantique oriental tropical). Bulletin de l’InstitutFondamentald’Afrique Noire, Série A 47:87–102Google Scholar
  10. Castro JI (2009) Observations on the reproductive cycles of some viviparous North American sharks. Aquat Int J Ichthyol 15: 205–222Google Scholar
  11. Chase JM (1999) To grow or reproduce? The role of life-history plasticity in food web dynamics. Am Nat 154:571–586Google Scholar
  12. CMFRI (2015) Annual Report 2014-2015. Technical Report, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, India, pp. 279Google Scholar
  13. Compagno LJV (1984) Sharks of the World. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of shark species to date. Part II (Carcharhiniformes). FAO Fisheries Synopsis, FAO, Rome, Italy, p. 655Google Scholar
  14. Compagno LJV, Niem VH (1998) Carcharhinidae. Requiem sharks. In: Carpenter KE, Niem VH (eds.) The living marine resources of the Western Central Pacific, identification guide for Fishery Purposes, FAO, Rome, Italy, pp. 1312–1360Google Scholar
  15. Compagno LJV, Ebert DA, Smale MJ (1989) Guide to the sharks and rays of southern Africa. New Holland Publication Ltd., London. p. 158Google Scholar
  16. Conrath CL, Musick JA (2012) Reproductive biology of elasmobranchs. in: Carrier JC, Musick, JA, Heithaus MR (Eds), Biology of sharks and their relatives, 2nd edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 291–311Google Scholar
  17. Devadoss P (1988) Observations on the breeding and development of some sharks. J Mar Biol Assoc India 30:121–131Google Scholar
  18. Dulvy NK, Fowler SL, Musick JA, Cavanagh RD, Kyne PM, Harrison LR, Carlson JK, Davidson LN, Fordham, SV, Francis MP, Pollock CM (2014) Extinction risk and conservation of the world’s sharks and rays. Elife, 3, p. e00590,  https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.00590
  19. FAO (2014) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture-opportunities and challenges. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, pp. 223Google Scholar
  20. Fishelson L, Montgomery LW, Myrberg AH Jr. (1987) Biology of surgeonfish Acanthurus nigrofuscus with emphasis on change over in diet and annual gonadal cycles. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 39:37–47Google Scholar
  21. Froese R, Binohlan C (2000) Empirical relationships to estimate asymptotic length, length at first maturity and length at maximum yield per recruit in fishes, with a simple method to evaluate length frequency data. J Fish Biol 56:758–773Google Scholar
  22. Froese R, Pauly D (eds) (2012) FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. https://www.fishbase.org. Accessed 18 Aug 2012
  23. Froese R, Stern-Pirlot A, Winker H, Gascuel D (2008) Size matters: how single-species management can contribute to ecosystem-based fisheries management. Fish Res 92:231–241Google Scholar
  24. Harry AV (2011) Life histories of commercially important tropical sharks from the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Doctoral dissertation, James Cook UniversityGoogle Scholar
  25. Harry AV, Simpfendorfer CA, Tobin AJ (2010) Improving age, growth, and maturity estimates for aseasonally reproducing chondrichthyans. Fish Res 106: 393–403Google Scholar
  26. Hayes DB, Brodziak JKT, O’Gorman JB (1995) Efficiency and bias of estimators and sampling designs for determining length–weight relationships of fish. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 52:84–92Google Scholar
  27. Henderson AC, Mcilwain JL, Al-Oufi HS, Ambu-Ali A (2006) Reproductive biology of the milk shark Rhizoprionodon acutus and the bigeye houndshark, Iago omanensis in the coastal waters of Oman. J Fish Biol 68:1662–1678Google Scholar
  28. Hoffmayer ER, Driggers III WB, Jones LM, Hendon JM, Sulikowski JA (2013) Variability in the reproductive biology of the Atlantic sharpnose shark in the Gulf of Mexico. Mar Coast Fish 5(1):139–151Google Scholar
  29. Jabado RW, Ebert DA (2015) Sharks of the Arabian seas: An identification guide, The International Fund for Animal Welfare, Dubai, UAE, pp. 190–191Google Scholar
  30. Kasim HM, 1991. Shark fishery of Veraval coast with special reference to population dynamics of Scoliodon laticaudus (Muller and Henle) and Rhizoprionodon acutus (Ruppell). J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. India 33:213–228Google Scholar
  31. Kizhakudan SJ, Zacharia PU, Thomas S, Vivekanandan E, Menon M. (2015) Guidance on national plan of action for shark in India, Marine Fisheries Policy Series No.2, CMFRI, Cochin, India, pp.104Google Scholar
  32. Krishnamoorti B, Jagadish I (1986) Biology and population dynamics of grey dog shark, Rhizoprionodon acutus (Ruppell) in Madras waters. Indian J Fish 33:371–385Google Scholar
  33. Loefer JK, Sedberry GR (2003) Life history of the Atlantic sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae) (Richardson, 1836) off the southeastern United States, Fish Bull 101: 75–88Google Scholar
  34. Machado MRB, Silva ZA, Castro ACL (2001) Study of reproductive biology Rhizoprionodon porosus Poey 1861 (Chondrichthyes: Carcharhinidae) from the continental shelf of Maranhao state, Brazil. Boletim do Laboratório de Hidrobiologia 13:51–65Google Scholar
  35. Mattos SMG, Broadhurst MK, Hazin FHV, Jones DM (2001) Reproductive biology of the Caribbean sharpnose shark, Rhizoprionodon porosus from northern Brazil. Mar Freshw Res 52:574–752Google Scholar
  36. Moore ABM, McCarthy ID, Carvalho GR, Peirce R (2012) Species, sex, size and male maturity composition of previously unreported elasmobranch landings in Kuwait, Qatar and Abu Dhabi Emirate. J Fish Biol 80:1619–1642Google Scholar
  37. Musick JA (1999) Ecology and conservation of long-lived marine animals, in: Musick, J.A. (Eds.), Life in the slow lane Vol. 23, American Fisheries Society Symposium, Bethesda, Maryland, pp. 1–10Google Scholar
  38. Olsen EM, Heino M, Lilly GR, Morgan MJ, Brattey J, Ernande B, Dieckmann U (2004) Maturation trends indicative of rapid evolution preceded the collapse of northern cod. Nature 428:932–935Google Scholar
  39. Roff D (1992) The evolution of life histories: theory and analysis. Chapman and Hall, New York, p 548Google Scholar
  40. Setna SB, Sarangdhar PN (1949) Breeding habits of Bombay elasmobranchs. Records of the Indian Museum 47:107–124Google Scholar
  41. Simpfendorfer CA (2003) Rhizoprionodon acutus. SSG Australia and Oceania Regional Workshop, March 2003, The IUCN red list of threatened species 2003: e.T41850A10579779. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2003.RLTS.T41850A10579779.en.Accessed on 26 July 2016
  42. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (2012) Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research, 4th edition, W. H. Freeman and Co., New York, p 937Google Scholar
  43. Springer VG (1964) A revision of the carcharhinid shark genera Scoliodon, Loxodon, Rhizoprionodon, Proceedings of the United States National Museum 115:559–632Google Scholar
  44. Stehmann MFW (2002) Proposal of a maturity stages scale for oviparous and viviparous cartilaginous fishes (Pisces, Chondrichthyes). Arch Fish Mar Res 50:23–48Google Scholar
  45. Stevens JD, McLoughlin KJ (1991) Distribution, size and sex composition, reproductive biology and diet of sharks from northern Australia. Aust J Mar Freshw Res 42:151–199Google Scholar
  46. Stevens JD, Bonfil R, Dulvy NK, Walker PA (2000) The effects of fishing on sharks, rays, and chimaeras (chondrichthyans), and the implications for marine ecosystems. ICES J Mar Sci 57:476–494Google Scholar
  47. Sen S, Chakraborty SK., Vivekanandan E, Zacharia PU, Kizhakudan SJ, Jaiswar AK, Dash G, Jayshree G (2017) Population dynamics and stock assessment of milk shark, Rhizoprionodon acutus (Ruppell, 1837) along Gujarat coast of India. Indian J Geo-Mar Sci 46:936–946Google Scholar
  48. Tsikliras AC, Stergiou KI (2014) Size at maturity of Mediterranean marine fishes. Rev Fish Biol Fish 24: 219–268Google Scholar
  49. Valadou B, Brêthes JC, Inejih CAO (2006) Biological and ecological data of five elasmobranch species from the waters of the Bancd’Arguin National Park (Mauritania). Cybium 30:313–322Google Scholar
  50. Vivekanandan V (2001) Anill-thought ban. Samudra 30:3-9. Online publication available:www.icsf.net/jsp/publication/samudra/pdf/english/issue_30/art01.pdf.
  51. Walker TI (2007) Spatial and temporal variation in the reproductive biology of gummy shark Mustelus antarcticus (Chondrichthyes: Triakidae) harvested off southern Australia. Mar Freshw Res 58:67–97Google Scholar
  52. White WT (2007) Aspects of the biology of carcharhiniform sharks in Indonesian waters. J Mar Biol Assoc U.K. 87:1269–1276Google Scholar
  53. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis, 4th edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, p 663Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Ichthyological Society of Japan 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Swatipriyanka Sen
    • 1
  • Sushanta K. Chakraborty
    • 2
  • Vivekanandan Elayaperumal
    • 3
  • Pariyappanal U. Zacharia
    • 4
  • Ashok K. Jaiswar
    • 2
  • Gyanaranjan Dash
    • 1
  • Shoba J. Kizhakudan
    • 5
  • Sangita A. Bharadiya
    • 1
  • Jayshree K. Gohel
    • 1
  1. 1.Veraval Regional Centre of ICAR-Central Marine Fisheries Research InstituteVeravalIndia
  2. 2.ICAR-Central Institute of Fisheries EducationMumbaiIndia
  3. 3.Bay of Bengal Programme Inter-Governmental Organization (BOBP-IGO)ChennaiIndia
  4. 4.ICAR-Central Marine Fisheries Research InstituteCochinIndia
  5. 5.Madras Research Centre of ICAR-Central Marine Fisheries Research InstituteChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations