Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 77, Issue 3–4, pp 401–406 | Cite as

Analysis of variability in vertebral morphology and growth ring counts in two Carcharhinid sharks

  • Andrew N. PiercyEmail author
  • Travis S. Ford
  • Laura M. Levy
  • Franklin F. SnelsonJr
Original Paper


Inter- and intra-regional variations in vertebrae morphology and growth increment counts (band counts) were analyzed for two carcharhinid shark species, Carcharhinus plumbeus (n = 10) and C. limbatus (n = 11). Five sequential vertebrae were removed from the cervical region, above the branchial chamber and posterior to the chondrocrainium, and thoracic region, below the first dorsal fin. Dorsal–ventral height, medial–lateral breadth, and caudal–cranial length were measured for each sampled vertebra. Results indicate no significant difference in vertebral morphology within a sampled region of the vertebral column. However, a significant difference in vertebral morphology was noted between regions for both shark species, with thoracic vertebrae consistently larger than cervical vertebrae. A sub-set of three vertebrae was taken from each sampled region of each shark for sectioning and counting of growth increments. Analyses of growth increment counts by two readers indicated no significant difference in band counts within and between sampled regions.


Shark Growth Vertebrae Age Carcharhinus plumbeus Carcharhinuslimbatus 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The authors thank Alexia Morgan, Taylor Chapple, and Peter Cooper for assistance in collecting shark specimens for this study. We also thank Mike Allen for statistical guidance. Funding for this project came from the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Highly Migratory Species Division through the Florida Program for Shark research involvement in the National Shark Research Consortium.


  1. Branstetter S (1987) Age and growth estimates for blacktip, Carcharhinus limbatus, and spinner, C. brevipinna, sharks from the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Copeia 1987:964–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cailliet GM & KJ Goldman (2004) Age determination and validation in chondrichthyan fishes. In: Carrier JC, Musick JA, Heithaus MR (eds) Biology of sharks and their relatives. CRC Press, pp 399–447Google Scholar
  3. Cailliet GM, Martin LK, Kusher D, Wolf P, Welden BA (1983) Techniques for enhancing vertebral bands in age estimation of California elasmobranchs. In: Prince ED, Pulos LM (eds) Proceedings of the international workshop on age determination of ocean pelagic fishes: tunas, billfishes, and sharks. NOAA Tech Rep NMFS 8, pp 157–165Google Scholar
  4. Cailliet GM, Radtke RL, Welden BA (1986) Elasmobranch age determination and verification: a review. In: Uyeno T, Arai R, Taniuchi T, Matsuura K (eds) Indo-Pacific Fish Biology: Proceedings of the second international conference on Indo-Pacific Fishes. Ichthyological Society of Japan, Tokyo, pp 345–359Google Scholar
  5. Casey JG, Pratt HL Jr, Stillwell CE (1985) Age and growth of the sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus) from the Western North Atlantic. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 42:963–974Google Scholar
  6. Joung SJ, Liao YY, Chen CT (2004) Age and growth of sandbar shark, Carcharhinus plumbeus, in northeastern Tawian waters. Fisheries Research 70:83–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Natanson LJ, Mello JJ, Campana SE (2002) Validated age and growth of the porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus) in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Fish Bull 100:266–278Google Scholar
  8. Officer RA, Gason AS, Walker TI, Clement JG (1996) Sources of variation in counts of growth increments in vertebrae from gummy shark, Mustelus antarcticus, and school shark, Galeorhinus galeus: implications for age determination. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53:1765–1777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ricker WE (1975) Computational and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Bull Fish Res Board Can 191:1–382Google Scholar
  10. Sminkey TR, Musick JA (1995) Age and growth of the sandbar shark, Carcharhinus plumbeus, before and after population depletion. Copeia 1995:871–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew N. Piercy
    • 1
    Email author
  • Travis S. Ford
    • 1
  • Laura M. Levy
    • 2
  • Franklin F. SnelsonJr
    • 1
  1. 1.Florida Program for Shark Research, Florida Museum of Natural HistoryUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations