Scientific response to a cluster of shark bites
Abstract Shark bites are of high public concern globally. Information on shark occurrence and behaviour, and of the effects of human behaviours, can help understand the drivers of shark‐human interactions. In Australia, a number of shark bite clusters occurred over the last decade. One of these took...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2022-08-01
|
| Series: | People and Nature |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10337 |
| _version_ | 1828526097480810496 |
|---|---|
| author | Adam Barnett Richard Fitzpatrick Michael Bradley Ingo Miller Marcus Sheaves Andrew Chin Bethany Smith Amy Diedrich Jonah Lee Yick Nicolas Lubitz Kevin Crook Carlo Mattone Mike B. Bennett Leah Wojtach Kátya Abrantes |
| author_facet | Adam Barnett Richard Fitzpatrick Michael Bradley Ingo Miller Marcus Sheaves Andrew Chin Bethany Smith Amy Diedrich Jonah Lee Yick Nicolas Lubitz Kevin Crook Carlo Mattone Mike B. Bennett Leah Wojtach Kátya Abrantes |
| author_sort | Adam Barnett |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Shark bites are of high public concern globally. Information on shark occurrence and behaviour, and of the effects of human behaviours, can help understand the drivers of shark‐human interactions. In Australia, a number of shark bite clusters occurred over the last decade. One of these took place in Cid Harbour the Whitsundays, Queensland, a region for which little was known about the shark community. Here, we describe and evaluate the research in response to that shark bite cluster. Fishing methods, acoustic and satellite tracking, and baited remote underwater video cameras (BRUVs) were used to identify the shark species using Cid Harbour, estimate relative abundance, and describe habitat use and residency. Side‐scan sonar and BRUVs were also used to assess prey availability. Recreational users were surveyed to understand human behaviour and their awareness and perceptions of ‘Shark Smart’ behaviours. This allowed shark occurrence and behaviour to be interpreted in the context of human behaviours in the Harbour. Eleven shark species were identified. Relative abundance was not unusually high, and residency in Cid Harbour was typically low. For example, 79% of acoustically tagged sharks visited the harbour on <10% days at liberty. Shark prey was available year‐round. Notably, anchored boats regularly conduct activities that can attract sharks (dumping food scraps, provisioning and cleaning fish). Alone, the methods used in this study had variable success, but combined they provided a large amount of complementary information. Including a social science component in the research response to the shark bite incidents allowed for a more holistic understanding of the Cid Harbour bite incidents. This study did not identify anything unusual about the shark community that could have contributed to the Cid Harbour shark bite cluster. However, the three incidents involved people bitten almost instantly after entering the water, which is unusual and suggests that feeding/attracting sharks to boats could have been a contributor and also that any species capable of biting humans could have been responsible. The eradication of activities that attract sharks to areas where people enter the water may reduce shark bite risk. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-11T21:17:21Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-f1ab6043996e42d38e98176e6357aa3f |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2575-8314 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-11T21:17:21Z |
| publishDate | 2022-08-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | People and Nature |
| spelling | doaj.art-f1ab6043996e42d38e98176e6357aa3f2022-12-22T00:50:33ZengWileyPeople and Nature2575-83142022-08-014496398210.1002/pan3.10337Scientific response to a cluster of shark bitesAdam Barnett0Richard Fitzpatrick1Michael Bradley2Ingo Miller3Marcus Sheaves4Andrew Chin5Bethany Smith6Amy Diedrich7Jonah Lee Yick8Nicolas Lubitz9Kevin Crook10Carlo Mattone11Mike B. Bennett12Leah Wojtach13Kátya Abrantes14Biopixel Oceans Foundation Cairns Qld AustraliaBiopixel Oceans Foundation Cairns Qld AustraliaCollege of Science and Engineering James Cook University Cairns Qld AustraliaCollege of Science and Engineering James Cook University Cairns Qld AustraliaCollege of Science and Engineering James Cook University Cairns Qld AustraliaCentre for Sustainable Tropical Fisheries and Aquaculture, College of Science and Engineering James Cook University Townsville Qld AustraliaCollege of Science and Engineering James Cook University Cairns Qld AustraliaCollege of Science and Engineering James Cook University Cairns Qld AustraliaInland Fisheries Service New Norfolk TAS AustraliaCollege of Science and Engineering James Cook University Cairns Qld AustraliaCollege of Science and Engineering James Cook University Cairns Qld AustraliaCollege of Science and Engineering James Cook University Cairns Qld AustraliaSchool of Biomedical Sciences The University of Queensland St Lucia Qld AustraliaCollege of Science and Engineering James Cook University Cairns Qld AustraliaBiopixel Oceans Foundation Cairns Qld AustraliaAbstract Shark bites are of high public concern globally. Information on shark occurrence and behaviour, and of the effects of human behaviours, can help understand the drivers of shark‐human interactions. In Australia, a number of shark bite clusters occurred over the last decade. One of these took place in Cid Harbour the Whitsundays, Queensland, a region for which little was known about the shark community. Here, we describe and evaluate the research in response to that shark bite cluster. Fishing methods, acoustic and satellite tracking, and baited remote underwater video cameras (BRUVs) were used to identify the shark species using Cid Harbour, estimate relative abundance, and describe habitat use and residency. Side‐scan sonar and BRUVs were also used to assess prey availability. Recreational users were surveyed to understand human behaviour and their awareness and perceptions of ‘Shark Smart’ behaviours. This allowed shark occurrence and behaviour to be interpreted in the context of human behaviours in the Harbour. Eleven shark species were identified. Relative abundance was not unusually high, and residency in Cid Harbour was typically low. For example, 79% of acoustically tagged sharks visited the harbour on <10% days at liberty. Shark prey was available year‐round. Notably, anchored boats regularly conduct activities that can attract sharks (dumping food scraps, provisioning and cleaning fish). Alone, the methods used in this study had variable success, but combined they provided a large amount of complementary information. Including a social science component in the research response to the shark bite incidents allowed for a more holistic understanding of the Cid Harbour bite incidents. This study did not identify anything unusual about the shark community that could have contributed to the Cid Harbour shark bite cluster. However, the three incidents involved people bitten almost instantly after entering the water, which is unusual and suggests that feeding/attracting sharks to boats could have been a contributor and also that any species capable of biting humans could have been responsible. The eradication of activities that attract sharks to areas where people enter the water may reduce shark bite risk. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10337acoustic trackinghuman‐wildlife conflictsatellite trackingshark biteshark provisioningtourism |
| spellingShingle | Adam Barnett Richard Fitzpatrick Michael Bradley Ingo Miller Marcus Sheaves Andrew Chin Bethany Smith Amy Diedrich Jonah Lee Yick Nicolas Lubitz Kevin Crook Carlo Mattone Mike B. Bennett Leah Wojtach Kátya Abrantes Scientific response to a cluster of shark bites People and Nature acoustic tracking human‐wildlife conflict satellite tracking shark bite shark provisioning tourism |
| title | Scientific response to a cluster of shark bites |
| title_full | Scientific response to a cluster of shark bites |
| title_fullStr | Scientific response to a cluster of shark bites |
| title_full_unstemmed | Scientific response to a cluster of shark bites |
| title_short | Scientific response to a cluster of shark bites |
| title_sort | scientific response to a cluster of shark bites |
| topic | acoustic tracking human‐wildlife conflict satellite tracking shark bite shark provisioning tourism |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10337 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT adambarnett scientificresponsetoaclusterofsharkbites AT richardfitzpatrick scientificresponsetoaclusterofsharkbites AT michaelbradley scientificresponsetoaclusterofsharkbites AT ingomiller scientificresponsetoaclusterofsharkbites AT marcussheaves scientificresponsetoaclusterofsharkbites AT andrewchin scientificresponsetoaclusterofsharkbites AT bethanysmith scientificresponsetoaclusterofsharkbites AT amydiedrich scientificresponsetoaclusterofsharkbites AT jonahleeyick scientificresponsetoaclusterofsharkbites AT nicolaslubitz scientificresponsetoaclusterofsharkbites AT kevincrook scientificresponsetoaclusterofsharkbites AT carlomattone scientificresponsetoaclusterofsharkbites AT mikebbennett scientificresponsetoaclusterofsharkbites AT leahwojtach scientificresponsetoaclusterofsharkbites AT katyaabrantes scientificresponsetoaclusterofsharkbites |