Common Sharks of the Northern Gulf of Mexico So You Caught a Sand Shark?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Common Sharks of the Northern Gulf of Mexico So you caught a sand shark? Estuaries are ecosystems where fresh and saltwater meet The northern Gulf of Mexico is home to several shark and mix. Estuaries provide nursery grounds for a wide species. A few of these species very closely resemble variety of invertebrate species such as oysters, shrimp, one another and are commonly referred to as and blue crabs along finfishes including croaker, red “sand sharks.” drum, spotted seatrout, tarpon, menhaden, flounder and many others. This infographic will help you quickly differentiate between the different “sand sharks” and also help you Because of this abundance, larger animals patrol coastal identify a few common offshore species. Gulf waters for food. Among these predators are a number of shark species. Sharpnose (3.5 ft) Blacknose (4ft) Finetooth (4ft) Blacktip (5ft) Maximum size of Human (avg. 5.5ft) . the coastal Spinner (6ft) sharks are Bull (8ft) depicted in scale Silky (9ft) Scalloped Hammerhead (10ft) Great Hammerhead (13ft) Maximum Adult Size Adult Maximum Tiger (15ft) 5 ft 10 ft 15 ft Blacktip shark Atlantic sharpnose shark Carcharhinus limbatus Rhizoprionodon terraenovae Spinner shark Easy ID: White “freckles” on the body Easy ID: Pointed snout, anal fin lacks a black tip Carcharhinus brevipinna Finetooth shark Blacknose shark Carcharhinus isodon Carcharhinus acronotus Easy ID: Black tip on anal fin present Easy ID: Distinct lack of black markings on fins, extremely pointed snout Easy ID: Distinct black smudge on the tip of the snout, feisty when caught Easy ID: Blacktip on fins Bull shark present, large robust Carcharhinus leucas body, short snout Great hammerhead Tiger shark Easy ID: Distinct flat hammerhead, and Easy ID: Distinct spot and stripe pattern down the extremely tall pronounced dorsal fin Sphyrna mokarran Galeocerdo cuvier body in juveniles Gulper shark Centrophorus granulosus Easy ID: Distinct lumi- Scalloped hammerhead nous green eye, pupil Easy ID: Interdorsal ridge down back, “silky” smooth Silky shark Sphyrna lewini skin, rounded dorsal fin Carcharhinus falciformes Easy ID: Distinct “scalloping” and rounding of hammerhead Photo credits: David Hay Jones, Trey Spearman, Eric Hoffmayer .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-626
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-626 RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF SMALLTOOTH SAWFISH (Pristis pectinata) BASED ON THE EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK CREEL SURVEY BY JOHN K. CARLSON and JASON OSBORNE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Fisheries Science Center Panama City Laboratory 3500 Delwood Beach Rd. Panama City, FL 32408 February 2012 NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-626 RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF SMALLTOOTH SAWFISH (Pristis pectinata) BASED ON THE EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK CREEL SURVEY BY JOHN K. CARLSONa, and JASON OSBORNEb aNational Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Fisheries Science Center 3500 Delwood Beach Road Panama City, FL 32408 bNational Park Service South Florida Natural Resource Center 40001 State Road 9336 Homestead, FL, 33034 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Rebecca M. Blank, Acting Secretary NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION Jane Lubchenco, Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Eric Schwaab, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries February 2012 This Technical Memorandum series is used for documentation and timely communication of preliminary results, interim reports, or similar special-purpose information. Although the memoranda are not subject to complete formal review, editorial control, or detailed editing, they are expected to reflect sound professional work. NOTICE The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) does not approve, recommend or endorse any proprietary product or material mentioned in this publication. No reference shall be made to NMFS or to this publication furnished by NMFS in any advertising or sales promotion which would imply that NMFS approves, recommends, or endorses any proprietary product or proprietary material mentioned herein which has as its purpose any intent to cause directly or indirectly the advertised product to be used or purchased because of this NMFS publication.
[Show full text]
Shark Cartilage, Cancer and the Growing Threat of Pseudoscience
[CANCER RESEARCH 64, 8485–8491, December 1, 2004] Review Shark Cartilage, Cancer and the Growing Threat of Pseudoscience Gary K. Ostrander,1 Keith C. Cheng,2 Jeffrey C. Wolf,3 and Marilyn J. Wolfe3 1Department of Biology and Department of Comparative Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland; 2Jake Gittlen Cancer Research Institute, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania; and 3Registry of Tumors in Lower Animals, Experimental Pathology Laboratories, Inc., Sterling, Virginia Abstract primary justification for using crude shark cartilage extracts to treat cancer is based on the misconception that sharks do not, or infre- The promotion of crude shark cartilage extracts as a cure for cancer quently, develop cancer. Other justifications represent overextensions has contributed to at least two significant negative outcomes: a dramatic of experimental observations: concentrated extracts of cartilage can decline in shark populations and a diversion of patients from effective cancer treatments. An alleged lack of cancer in sharks constitutes a key inhibit tumor vessel formation and tumor invasions (e.g., refs. 2–5). justification for its use. Herein, both malignant and benign neoplasms of No available data or arguments support the medicinal use of crude sharks and their relatives are described, including previously unreported shark extracts to treat cancer (6). cases from the Registry of Tumors in Lower Animals, and two sharks with The claims that sharks do not, or rarely, get cancer was originally two cancers each. Additional justifications for using shark cartilage are argued by I. William Lane in a book entitled “Sharks Don’t Get illogical extensions of the finding of antiangiogenic and anti-invasive Cancer” in 1992 (7), publicized in “60 Minutes” television segments substances in cartilage.
[Show full text]
Investigating Life History Differences Between Finetooth Sharks, Carcharhinus Isodon, in the Northern Gulf of Mexico and the Western North Atlantic Ocean
Gulf of Mexico Science, 2006(1/2), pp. 2–10 Investigating Life History Differences Between Finetooth Sharks, Carcharhinus isodon, in the Northern Gulf of Mexico and the Western North Atlantic Ocean J. MARCUS DRYMON,WILLIAM B. DRIGGERS III, DOUGLAS OAKLEY, AND GLENN F. ULRICH The life history of the finetooth shark, Carcharhinus isodon, off South Carolina was studied by determining age, growth, and size and age at maturity. These data were compared to a recent study describing the same parameters for finetooth sharks in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Cervical vertebrae were extracted from 168 specimens (71 males and 97 females), ranging in size from 376 to 1,262 mm fork length (FL), and prepared for age analysis using standard techniques. Sex- specific von Bertalanffy growth models were generated and yielded the following ؍ ((Ϫ Ϫ0.19(t Ϫ (Ϫ2.17 ؍ growth equations: Lt 1,311 mm FL (1 e ) for females and Lt 1,151 mm FL (1 Ϫ eϪ0.33(t Ϫ (Ϫ1.43))) for males. The oldest female and male aged were 12.4 yr and 10.4 yr, respectively. Median length where 50% of the population was mature was 1,021 mm FL for females, corresponding to an age of 6.3 yr and 1,015 mm FL for males, corresponding to an age of 5.0 yr. Finetooth sharks in the western North Atlantic Ocean had higher observed ages and there was a sig- nificant difference in size at age between neonate finetooth sharks in the western North Atlantic Ocean and the northern Gulf of Mexico; however, there were no significant differences among von Bertalanffy growth function parameters be- tween regions examined.
[Show full text]
© Iccat, 2007
A5 By-catch Species APPENDIX 5: BY-CATCH SPECIES A.5 By-catch species By-catch is the unintentional/incidental capture of non-target species during fishing operations. Different types of fisheries have different types and levels of by-catch, depending on the gear used, the time, area and depth fished, etc. Article IV of the Convention states: "the Commission shall be responsible for the study of the population of tuna and tuna-like fishes (the Scombriformes with the exception of Trichiuridae and Gempylidae and the genus Scomber) and such other species of fishes exploited in tuna fishing in the Convention area as are not under investigation by another international fishery organization". The following is a list of by-catch species recorded as being ever caught by any major tuna fishery in the Atlantic/Mediterranean. Note that the lists are qualitative and are not indicative of quantity or mortality. Thus, the presence of a species in the lists does not imply that it is caught in significant quantities, or that individuals that are caught necessarily die. Skates and rays Scientific names Common name Code LL GILL PS BB HARP TRAP OTHER Dasyatis centroura Roughtail stingray RDC X Dasyatis violacea Pelagic stingray PLS X X X X Manta birostris Manta ray RMB X X X Mobula hypostoma RMH X Mobula lucasana X Mobula mobular Devil ray RMM X X X X X Myliobatis aquila Common eagle ray MYL X X Pteuromylaeus bovinus Bull ray MPO X X Raja fullonica Shagreen ray RJF X Raja straeleni Spotted skate RFL X Rhinoptera spp Cownose ray X Torpedo nobiliana Torpedo
[Show full text]
Seafood Watch Seafood Report
Seafood Watch Seafood Report Sharks and Dogfish With a focus on: Blacktip shark (Carcharhinus limbatus) Common thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) Dusky smoothhound/smooth dogfish (Mustelus canis) Sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus) Shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) Spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) © Monterey Bay Aquarium Final Report December 21, 2005 Stock Status Update June 9, 2011 Santi Roberts Fisheries Research Analyst Monterey Bay Aquarium SeafoodWatch® Sharks & DogfishReport June 9, 2010 About Seafood Watch® and the Seafood Reports Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from the Internet (seafoodwatch.org) or obtained from the Seafood Watch® program by emailing [email protected]. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans. Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives,” or “Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible.
[Show full text]
Shark Catch Trends and Effort Reduction in the Beach Protection Program, Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa (Elasmobranch Fisheries - Oral)
NOT TO BE CITED WITHOUT PRIOR REFERENCE TO THE AUTHOR(S) Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Serial No. N4746 NAFO SCR Doc. 02/124 SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL MEETING – SEPTEMBER 2002 Shark Catch Trends and Effort Reduction in the Beach Protection Program, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa (Elasmobranch Fisheries - Oral) S.F.J. Dudley Natal Sharks Board, P. Bag 2, Umhlanga Rocks, 4320, South Africa E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Shark nets have been set off the beaches of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, since 1952, to minimise risk of shark attack. Reliable catch data for each of the 14 shark species commonly caught are available from 1978 only. The nets fish in fixed localities very close to shore and there is an absence of fisheries independent data for most species. There is uncertainty about factors such as localised stock depletion and philopatry. Catch rates of seven species show a significant decline, but this figure drops to four with the exclusion of the confounding effects of the annual sardine run. Of the four, two are caught in very low numbers (Java Carcharhinus amboinensis and great hammerhead Sphyrna mokarran) and it is probable that any decline in population size reflects either local depletion or additional exploitation elsewhere. The other two species (blacktip C. limbatus and scalloped hammerhead S. lewini) are caught in greater numbers. C. limbatus appears to have been subject to local depletion. Newborn S. lewini are captured by prawn trawlers and discarded, mostly dead, adding to pressure on this species. As a precautionary measure, and in the absence of clarity on the question of stock depletion, in September 1999 a process of reducing the number of nets per installation was begun, with a view to reducing catches.
[Show full text]
Silky Shark Updated: December 2016
Silky shark Updated: December 2016 SILKY SHARK SUPPORTING INFORMATION (Information collated from reports of the Working Party on Ecosystems and Bycatch and other sources as cited) CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURES Silky shark in the Indian Ocean are currently subject to a number of Conservation and Management Measures adopted by the Commission: • Resolution 15/01 on the recording of catch and effort data by fishing vessels in the IOTC area of competence sets out the minimum logbook requirements for purse seine, longline, gillnet, pole and line, handline and trolling fishing vessels over 24 metres length overall and those under 24 metres if they fish outside the EEZs of their flag States within the IOTC area of competence. As per this Resolution, catch of sharks silky sharks must be recorded by longline and purse seine fleets (retained and discarded). • Resolution 15/02 Mandatory statistical reporting requirements for IOTC Contracting Parties and Cooperating Non-Contracting Parties (CPCs) indicated that the provisions, applicable to tuna and tuna-like species, are applicable to shark species. • Resolution 11/04 on a Regional Observer Scheme requires data on shark interactions to be recorded by observers and reported to the IOTC within 150 days. The Regional Observer Scheme (ROS) started on 1st July 2010. • Resolution 05/05 Concerning the conservation of sharks caught in association with fisheries managed by IOTC includes minimum reporting requirements for sharks, calls for full utilisation of sharks and includes a ratio of fin-to-body weight for shark fins retained onboard a vessel. Extracts from Resolutions 15/01,15/02, 11/04 and 05/05 RESOLUTION 15/01 ON THE RECORDING OF CATCH AND EFFORT DATA BY FISHING VESSELS IN THE IOTC AREA OF COMPETENCE Para.
[Show full text]
Field Guide to Requiem Sharks (Elasmobranchiomorphi: Carcharhinidae) of the Western North Atlantic
Field guide to requiem sharks (Elasmobranchiomorphi: Carcharhinidae) of the Western North Atlantic Item Type monograph Authors Grace, Mark Publisher NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service Download date 24/09/2021 04:22:14 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/20307 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 153 U.S. Department A Scientiﬁc Paper of the FISHERY BULLETIN of Commerce August 2001 (revised November 2001) Field Guide to Requiem Sharks (Elasmobranchiomorphi: Carcharhinidae) of the Western North Atlantic Mark Grace NOAA Technical Report NMFS 153 A Scientiﬁc Paper of the Fishery Bulletin Field Guide to Requiem Sharks (Elasmobranchiomorphi: Carcharhinidae) of the Western North Atlantic Mark Grace August 2001 (revised November 2001) U.S. Department of Commerce Seattle, Washington Suggested reference Grace, Mark A. 2001. Field guide to requiem sharks (Elasmobranchiomorphi: Carcharhinidae) of the Western North Atlantic. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 153, 32 p. Online dissemination This report is posted online in PDF format at http://spo.nwr.noaa.gov (click on Technical Reports link). Note on revision This report was revised and reprinted in November 2001 to correct several errors. Previous copies of the report, dated August 2001, should be destroyed as this revision replaces the earlier version. Purchasing additional copies Additional copies of this report are available for purchase in paper copy or microfiche from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161; 1-800-553-NTIS; http://www.ntis.gov. Copyright law Although the contents of the Technical Reports have not been copyrighted and may be reprinted entirely, reference to source is appreciated.
[Show full text]
Spinner Shark, Carcharhinus Brevipinna
Published Date: 1 March 2019 Spinner Shark, Carcharhinus brevipinna Report Card Sustainable assessment IUCN Red List IUCN Red List Australian Least Concern Global Near Threatened Assessment Assessment Assessors Burgess, G.H. & Smart, J.J. Report Card Remarks In Australia, fishing pressure is currently well managed Summary The Spinner Shark is a common, coastal pelagic shark found in warm- temperate and tropical waters across the globe. It frequents nearshore waters and is often captured in commercial and recreational fisheries. It is sensitive to fishing pressure and habitat degradation of coastal nursery Source: CSIRO national Fish Collection. License: CC By Attribution. habitats. Little information is known on the status of Spinner Sharks throughout its distribution. Within Australia, fishing pressure is currently well managed. The Spinner Shark is assessed globally as Near Threatened (IUCN) and in Australia as Least Concern (IUCN), while Australian stocks are classified as Sustainable (SAFS). Distribution Within Australia, the Spinner Shark is found across northern Australia, from Walpole (Western Australia), throughout the Northern Territory, Queensland and to southern New South Wales (Last and Stevens 2009). It is distributed throughout the world, including the east coast of the United States, Brazil, Mediterranean Sea, west coast of Central Africa, South Africa, Madagascar and throughout the Indo-Pacific. A recent genetic study detected evidence suggesting there may be multiple, genetically- distinct stocks throughout its Australian range (Geraghty et al. 2013). Stock structure and status There is currently very little information on population size and stock status for the Spinner Shark in Australian waters. A suite of management measures introduced from 2009 have led to a substantial reduction in fishing effort targeting adults in New South Wales waters.
[Show full text]
First Inland Record of Bull Shark Carcharhinus Leucas (Müller & Henle, 1839) (Carcharhiniformes: Carcharhinidae) in Celebes, Indonesia
Ecologica Montenegrina 38: 12-17 (2020) This journal is available online at: www.biotaxa.org/em http://dx.doi.org/10.37828/em.2020.38.3 First inland record of Bull shark Carcharhinus leucas (Müller & Henle, 1839) (Carcharhiniformes: Carcharhinidae) in Celebes, Indonesia VERYL HASAN1,* & IZZUL ISLAM2 1Universitas Airlangga, Fisheries and Marine Faculty, Fish Health Management and Aquaculture Department, Dr. Ir. H. Soekarno street, Surabaya, East Java 60115, Indonesia. 2Universitas Teknologi Sumbawa, Biotechnology Faculty, Biotechnology Department, Olat Maras Street, Sumbawa, West Nusa Tenggara 84371, Indonesia *Corresponding author [[email protected]] Received 25 October 2020 │ Accepted by V. Pešić: 24 November 2020 │ Published online 26 November 2020. Abstract A single specimen (c. 86.2 cm) juvenile of Bull shark Carcharhinus leucas (Müller & Henle, 1839) was captured and photographed by local fisherman using a casting net on 13 February 2018 in Pangkajene River, about 16 km inland, Pangkajene District, South Celebes, Indonesia. This finding is considered as a first inland record of C. leucas in Celebes, and fourth inland records in Indonesia after Papua, Sumatra and Borneo. Monitoring is needed to asses the possibility of Celebes as a migration route and breeding ground of C. leucas. Key words: Biogeography, distribution, elasmobranch, freshwaters, requiem sharks. Introduction The Bull shark Carcharhinus leucas (Müller & Henle, 1839) is one of the few sharks that are truly euryhaline and is a common species that occurs in marine and coastal riverine environments and is wide- spread along the continental coast of all tropical and subtropical seas as well as numerous rivers, lakes, and estuaries (Compagno et al.
[Show full text]
Ore Bin / Oregon Geology Magazine / Journal
State of Oregon The ORE BIN· Department of Geology Volume 34,no. 10 and Mineral Industries 1069 State Office BI dg. October 1972 Portland Oregon 97201 FOSSil SHARKS IN OREGON Bruce J. Welton* Approximately 21 species of sharks, skates, and rays are either indigenous to or occasionally visit the Oregon coast. The Blue Shark Prionace glauca, Soup-fin Shark Galeorhinus zyopterus, and the Dog-fish Shark Squalus acanthias commonly inhabit our coastal waters. These 21 species are represented by 16 genera, of which 10 genera are known from the fossi I record in Oregon. The most common genus encountered is the Dog-fish Shark Squalus. The sharks, skates, and rays, (all members of the Elasmobranchii) have a fossil record extending back into the Devonian period, but many major groups became extinct before or during the Mesozoic. A rapid expansion in the number of new forms before the close of the Mesozoic gave rise to practically all the Holocene families living today. Paleozoic shark remains are not known from Oregon, but teeth of the Cretaceous genus Scapanorhyn chus have been collected from the Hudspeth Formation near Mitchell, Oregon. Recent work has shown that elasmobranch teeth occur in abundance west of the Cascades in marine Tertiary strata ranging in age from late Eocene to middle Miocene (Figures 1 and 2). All members of the EIasmobranchii possess a cartilaginous endoskeleton which deteriorates rapidly upon death and is only rarely preserved in the fossil record. Only under exceptional conditions of preservation, usually in a highly reducing environment, will cranial or postcranial elements be fossilized.
[Show full text]
Mercury in Sharks of Belize, 2008
Elevated mercury levels in sharks of Belize David C. Evers 1, Rachel T. Graham 2, Neil Hammerschlag 3, Christopher Perkins 4, Robert Michener 5, and Tim Divoll 1 BioDiversity Research Institute 1, Wildlife Conservation Society 2, University of Miami 3, University of Connecticut 4, and Boston University 5. Abstract: Mercury (Hg) loading in global aquatic ecosystems is a growing concern. 1. Mercury exposure profile by shark species - Highest Hg levels were recorded in the bull, blacktip, great Study Area : A total of 14 distinct locations were sampled in the Gulf of Honduras along Compelling evidence of widespread adverse effects in fish and wildlife populations indicates hammerhead, scalloped hammerhead, and nurse sharks. Lowest Hg levels were recorded in the bonnethead, the coast of southern Belize (red circle). Comparison shark muscle Hg concentrations sharpnose, lemon and sandbar sharks. the rate of transformation to methylmercury is problematic. Long-lived, apex predators such from the U.S. are from southern Florida (white circle). 2.5 as sharks are at high risk to Hg toxicity. We investigated the occurrence of Hg in sharks from USEPA Advisory = 0.3 ug/g, ww coastal waters of southern Belize. In our pilot study, 101 sharks representing 9 species were FDA & WHO Advisory = 1.0 ug/g, ww 2.0 analyzed for muscle Hg levels. Highest Hg levels were recorded in bull, blacktip, hammerhead, and nurse sharks. Lowest Hg levels were recorded in bonnethead, sharpnose, 1.5 and lemon sharks. Over 88% of the sharks sampled exceeded USEPA human health 1.0 consumption standards. Muscle Hg strongly correlated with size for blacktip and nurse sharks.
[Show full text]