Animal Cognition

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 745–753 | Cite as

Are Caribbean reef sharks, Carcharhinus perezi, able to perceive human body orientation?

Original Paper

Abstract

The present study examines the potential capability of Caribbean reef sharks to perceive human body orientation, as well as discussing the sharks’ swimming patterns in a person’s vicinity. A standardized video method was used to record the scenario of single SCUBA divers kneeling in the sand and the approach patterns of sharks, combined with a control group of two divers kneeling back-to-back. When approaching a single test-subject, significantly more sharks preferred to swim outside the person’s field of vision. The results suggest that these sharks are able to identify human body orientation, but the mechanisms used and factors affecting nearest distance of approach remain unclear.

Keywords

Approach Humans Swim patterns Sharks 

References

  1. Baldridge HD (1988) Shark aggression against man: beginnings of an understanding. Calif Fish Game 74:208–217Google Scholar
  2. Blair RC, Sawilowsky SS, Higgins JJ (1987) Limitations of the rank transform in factorial ANOVA. In: Balakrishnan N (ed) Communications in statistics: computations and simulations B16. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 1133–1145Google Scholar
  3. Bleekmann H (1986) Role of the lateral line in fish behaviour. In: Pitcher TJ (ed) Behaviour of teleost fishes. Springer, US, pp 177–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bond ME, Babcock EA, Pikitch EK, Abercrombie DL, Lamb NF, Chapman DD (2012) Reef sharks exhibit site-fidelity and higher relative abundance in marine reserves on the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef. PLoS ONE 7(3):e32983. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032983 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braithwaite VA, Boulcott P (2007) Pain perception, aversion and fear in fish. Dis Aquat Org 75:131–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Byard RW, Gilbert JD, Brown K (2000) Pathologic features of fatal shark attacks. Am J Forens Med Pathol 21:225–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Call J, Bräuer J, Kaminski J, Tomasello M (2003) Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) are sensitive to the attentional state of humans. J Comp Psychol 117:257–263PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chandroo KP, Duncan IJH, Moccia RD (2004) Can fish suffer?: perspectives on sentience, pain, fear and stress. Appl Anim Behav Sci 86:225–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collier RS (1992) Recurring attacks by white sharks on test-subjects at two Pacific sites off Mexico and California. Env Biol Fish 33:319–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Compagno LJV (1984) Sharks of the world. Part 2: Carcharhiniformes. FAO species catalogueGoogle Scholar
  11. Conover WJ (1999) Practical nonparameteric statistics, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York, pp 396–406Google Scholar
  12. Cooper WE, Frederick WG (2007) Optimal fight initiation distance. J Theor Biol 244:59–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Domenici P, Blake R (1997) The kinematics and performance of fish fast-start swimming. J Exp Biol 200:1165–1178PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Frid A, Dill L (2002) Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conserv Ecol 6, 11. http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art11. Accessed 2013
  15. Gácsi M, Miklósi A, Varga O, Topál J, Csáni V (2004) Are readers of our face readers of our minds? Dogs (Canis familiaris) show situation-dependent recognition of human’s attention. Anim Cogn 7:144–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garla RC, Chapman DD, Wetherbee BM, Shivji M (2006) Movement patterns of young Caribbean reef sharks, Carcharhinus perezi, at Fernando de Noronha Archipelago, Brazil: the potential of marine protected areas for conservation of a nursery ground. Mar Biol 149:189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goulet J, Engelmann J, Chagnaud BP, Franosch JP, Suttner J, van Hemmen L (2008) Object localization through the lateral line system of fish: theory and experiment. J Comp Physiol A 194:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hambright KD (1991) Experimental analysis of prey selection by largemouth bass: role of predator mouth width and prey body depth. Trans Am Fish Soc 120:500–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hampton RR (1994) Sensitivity to information specifying the line of gaze of humans in sparrows (Passer domesticus). Behaviour 130:41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hare B, Tomasello M (1999) Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) use human and conspecific social cues to locate hidden food. J Comp Psych 113:173–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hare B, Call J, Agnetta B, Tomasello M (2000) Chimpanzees know what conspecifics do and do not see. Anim Behav 59:771–785PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heithaus MR, Dill LM, Marshall GJ, Buhleier B (2002) Habitat use and foraging behavior of tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier) in a seagrass ecosystem. Mar Biol 140:237–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heupel MR, Simpfendorfer CA, Fitzpatrick R (2010) Large-scale movement and reef fidelity of grey reef sharks. PLoS ONE 5(3):e9650. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009650 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huntingford FA, Adams C, Braithwaite VA, Kadri S, Pottinger TG, Sandøe P, Turnbull JF (2006) Current issues in fish welfare. J Fish Biol 68:332–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Itakura S, Anderson JR (1996) Learning to use experimenter-given cues during an object-choice task by a capuchin monkey. Curr Psychol Cogn 15:103–112Google Scholar
  26. Kaminski J, Call J, Tomasello M (2004) Body orientation and face orientation: two factors controlling apes’ begging behavior from humans. Anim Cogn 7:216–233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Levine M (1996) Unprovoked attacks by white sharks off the South African coast. In: Klimely AP, Ainley DG (eds) Great white sharks. The biology of Carcharodon carcharias. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 435–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martin RA (2007) A review of shark agonistic displays: comparison of display features and implications for shark–human interactions. Mar Freshw Behav Physiol 40:3–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McComb DM, Tricas TC, Kajiura SM (2009) Enhanced visual fields in hammerhead sharks. J Exp Biol 212:4010–4018PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McKinley J, Sambrook TD (2000) Use of human-given cues by domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) and horses (Equus caballus). Anim Cogn 3:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pack AA, Herman LM (2004) Bottlenosed dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) comprehend the referent of both static and dynamic human gazing and pointing in an object-choice task. J Comp Psychol 118:160–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pettigrew JD (1991) Evolution of binocular vision. In: Cronly-Dillon JR, Gregory RL (eds) Vision and visual dysfunction, vol 2., Evolution of the eye and visual sytem. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 271–283Google Scholar
  33. Povinelli DJ, Eddy TJ (1996) What young chimpanzees know about seeing. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev 61:1–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ritter EK (2006) Understanding sharks. Krieger, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  35. Ritter EK (2012) Shark–human interaction. Situations findings recommendations. Shark School Publishing, PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  36. Ritter EK, Amin RW (2012) Effect of human body position on the swimming behavior of bull sharks, Carcharhinus leucas. Soc Anim 20:225–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ritter EK, Levine M (2004) Use of forensic analysis to better understand shark attack behaviour. J Forensic Odontostomatol 22:40–46PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Ritter EK, Levine M (2005) Bite motivation of sharks reflected by the wound structure on humans. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 26:136–140PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Ritter E, Lutz K, Levine M (2008) When humans and sharks meet. In: Olsson F (ed) New developments in the psychology of motivation. Nova Biomedical Books, New York, pp 45–52Google Scholar
  40. Sand O, Enger PS, Karlsen HE, Kudsen FR (2001) Detection of infrasound in fish and behavioral responses to intense infrasound in juvenile salmonids and European silver eels: a minireview. Am Soc Symp 26:183–193Google Scholar
  41. Sawilowsky S (1985) Robust and power analysis of the 2 × 2 × 2 ANOVA, rank transformation, random normal scores, and expected transformation tests. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South FloridaGoogle Scholar
  42. Sawilowsky S (1990) Nonparametric tests of interaction in experimental design. Rev Educ Res 60(1):91–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sawilowsky S, Blair RC, Higgins JJ (1989) An investigation of the type I error and power properties of the rank transform procedure in factorial ANOVA. J Educ Stat 14(3):255–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Scharf FS, Juanes F, Rountree RA (2000) Predator size–prey size relationships of marine fish predators: interspecific variation and effects of ontogeny and body size on trophic-niche breadth. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 208:229–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schloegl C, Kotrschal K, Bugnyar T (2008) Do common ravens (Corvus corax) rely on human or conspecific gaze cues to detect hidden food? Anim Cogn 11:231–241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shark Research Institute (2013) http://www.sharkattackfile.net. Accessed 1 May, 2013
  47. Tavares R (2009) Fishery biology of the Caribbean reef sharks, Carcharhinus perezi (Poey, 1876), in a Caribbean insular platform: Los Roques Archipelago National Park, Venezuela. Pan-Am J Aquat Sci 4:500–512Google Scholar
  48. Stankowich T, Blumstein DT (2005) Fear in animals: a meta-analysis and review of risk management. Proc R Soc 272:2627–2634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thompson GL (1991) A note on the rank transform for interactions. Biometrika 78(3):697–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thompson GL, Ammann LP (1989) Efficiencies of the rank-transform in two-way models with no interaction. J Am Stat Assoc 4(405):325–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van der Waerden BL (1952) Order tests for the two-sample problem and their power. Indag Math 14:453–458Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Shark Research Institute, Florida OfficePensacolaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsUniversity of West FloridaPensacolaUSA

Personalised recommendations