DOCSLIB.ORG

Status of the Spiny Dogfish Shark Resource Off the Continental U.S. Pacific Coast in 2011

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Status of the Spiny Dogfish Shark Resource Off the Continental U.S. Pacific Coast in 2011 Status of the spiny dogfish shark resource off the continental U.S. Pacific Coast in 2011 Vladlena Gertseva Ian G. Taylor Fishery Resource Analysis and Monitoring Division Northwest Fisheries Science Center National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2725 Montlake Blvd East, Seattle, WA 98112 April 27, 2012 1 Table of Contents: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 22 1.1. Distribution, biology and life history ........................................................................... 22 1.2. Historical and current fishery ..................................................................................... 24 1.3. Fisheries off Canada and Alaska ................................................................................ 25 1.4. Management history and performance ....................................................................... 25 2. Assessment data .................................................................................................................. 26 2.1. Fishery-dependent data................................................................................................ 26 2.1.1. Commercial landings ....................................................................................... 26 2.1.1.1. Washington .................................................................................................... 27 2.1.1.2. Oregon ........................................................................................................... 27 2.1.1.3. California ...................................................................................................... 28 2.1.2. Recreational removals ..................................................................................... 28 2.1.2.1. Washington .................................................................................................... 28 2.1.2.2. Oregon ........................................................................................................... 29 2.1.2.3. California ...................................................................................................... 30 2.1.3. Bycatch in Pacific hake fishery ....................................................................... 30 2.1.4. Discard ............................................................................................................ 31 2.1.5. Fishery biological data ........................................................................................... 33 2.1.5.1. Length composition data ................................................................................. 33 2.1.5.2. Age data ........................................................................................................... 34 2.2. Fishery-independent data ............................................................................................ 36 2.2.1. Survey indices ......................................................................................................... 37 2.2.2. Survey biological data ............................................................................................ 38 2.2.2.1. Length composition data ................................................................................. 38 2.3. Biological parameters .................................................................................................. 39 2.3.1. Natural mortality .................................................................................................... 39 2.3.2. Growth .................................................................................................................... 39 2.3.3. Maturity and fecundity ............................................................................................ 40 2.3.4. Weight-length relationship...................................................................................... 40 3. Model description................................................................................................................ 41 3.1. Assessment program .................................................................................................... 41 3.2. General model specifications ....................................................................................... 41 3.3. Likelihood components ................................................................................................ 42 3.4. Model parameters ......................................................................................................... 42 3.4.1. Life history parameters ........................................................................................... 42 3.4.2. Stock-recruitment parameters ................................................................................. 42 3.4.3. Selectivity parameters ............................................................................................. 44 4. Model selection and evaluation .......................................................................................... 45 4.1. Alternate model configurations .................................................................................. 45 4.2. Convergence status ..................................................................................................... 45 5. Response to the STAR Panel recommendations .............................................................. 46 6. Base model results ............................................................................................................... 46 7. Model uncertainty ............................................................................................................... 47 7.1. Sensitivity analyses ..................................................................................................... 48 2 7.1.1. Alternative assumptions about fishery removals .................................................... 48 7.1.2. Alternative assumptions about historical discard................................................... 48 7.1.3. Alternative assumptions about discard mortality ................................................... 48 7.1.4. Alternative assumptions about gear selectivity....................................................... 49 7.1.5. Alternative assumptions about extra variance for the IPHC survey ...................... 49 7.1.6. Alternative assumptions of spawner-recruit relationship ....................................... 49 7.2. Retrospective analyses ................................................................................................ 50 7.3. Likelihood profile analyses ......................................................................................... 50 8. Reference points .................................................................................................................. 51 9. Status of the stock ............................................................................................................... 51 10. Decision table ................................................................................................................... 52 11. Regional management consideration ............................................................................ 52 12. Research and data needs ................................................................................................ 53 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... 54 Literature cited............................................................................................................................ 55 TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... 59 FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................... 82 APPENDIX A: Numbers at age estimated by the base model .............................................. 209 A-1: Female numbers at age. ................................................................................................... 210 A-2: Male numbers at age. ....................................................................................................... 225 APPENDIX B: Spiny dogfish assessment model files ............................................................ 240 B-1: Stock Synthesis starter file ............................................................................................... 240 B-2: Stock Synthesis forecast file ............................................................................................. 241 B-3: Stock Synthesis data file ................................................................................................... 242 B-4: Stock Synthesis control file .............................................................................................. 252 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Stock Spiny dogfish (Squalus suckleyi) in the Northeast Pacific Ocean occur from the Gulf of Alaska, with isolated individuals found in the Bering Sea, southward to San Martin Island, in southern Baja California. They are extremely abundant in waters off British Columbia and Washington, but decline in abundance southward along the Oregon and California coasts. This assessment
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Status of the Pacific Spiny Dogfish Shark Resource Off the Continental U.S
    Agenda Item G.5 Attachment 3 (Electronic Only) June 2021 DRAFT Disclaimer: These materials do not constitute a formal publication and are for information only. They are in a pre-review, pre-decisional state and should not be formally cited or reproduced. They are to be considered provisional and do not represent any determination or policy of NOAA or the Department of Commerce. Status of the Pacific Spiny Dogfish shark resource off the continental U.S. Pacific Coast in 2021 by Vladlena Gertseva1, Ian Taylor1, John Wallace1, and Sean E. Matson2 1Northwest Fisheries Science Center National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Seattle, Washington 98112, USA 2West Coast Region National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Seattle, Washington 98115, USA 2021 1 This report may be cited as: Gertseva, V. Taylor, I.G., Wallace, J.R., Matson, S.E. 2021. Status of the Pacific Spiny Dogfish shark resource off the continental U.S. Pacific Coast in 2021. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR. Available from http://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/stock-assessments/ 2 Table of Contents: Acronyms used in this document .............................................................................................. 6 Executive Summary................................................................................................................. 7 Stock ..................................................................................................................................
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Spiny Dogfish.Pdf
    Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks SPINYSILKY DOGFISH SHARK AIGUILLATREQUIN COMMUNSOYEUX TIBURONMIELGA/GALLUDO SEDOSO Fact Sheet TiburonesTiburones martillomartillo Spiny Dogfish Squalus acanthias SPINY DOGFISH Class: Chondrichthyes Order: Squaliformes Family: Squalidae Species: Squalus acanthias Illustration: © Marc Dando Sharks MOU Species Fact Sheet Sharks MOU Species Fact Sheet SPINY DOGFISH SPINY DOGFISH © Shark MOU Advisory Committee This fact sheet was produced by the Advisory Committee of the Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks (Sharks MOU). For further information contact: John Carlson, Ph.D. Research Fish Biologist, NOAA Fisheries Service-Southeast Fisheries Science Center Panama City, [email protected] 1 Sharks MOU Species Fact Sheet SPINY DOGFISH 1. Biology Spiny Dogfish (Squalus acanthias), also known as Picked Dogfish or Spurdog, is a demersal shark that has a maximum length of 125 cm in the North Atlantic. It occurs mostly in shelf seas, from coastal habitats to the shelf edge, but can occur to depths of 900 m. They aggregate by size and sex, and are migratory in regional seas, although very occasional transatlantic movements have been reported. Spiny Dogfish are long lived (ca. 50–60 years) and have slow growth rates. Females mature at a length of 75-85 cm, produce up to 21 pups and gestation lasts two years (ICES 2017). Published studies on S. acanthias from the North Pacific relate to Squalus suckleyi (see Ebert et al. 2010). 2. Distribution Spiny Dogfish is distributed in both northern and southern temperate and boreal waters, but the species is listed on the MOU for the northern hemisphere populations only.
    [Show full text]
  • Thermoregulation Strategies of Deep Diving Ectothermic Sharks
    THERMOREGULATION STRATEGIES OF DEEP DIVING ECTOTHERMIC SHARKS A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAIʻI AT MĀNOA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCOTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN ZOOLOGY (MARINE BIOLOGY) AUGUST 2020 By. Mark A. Royer Dissertation Committee: Kim Holland, Chairperson Brian Bowen Carl Meyer Andre Seale Masato Yoshizawa Keywords: Ectothermic, Thermoregulation, Biologging, Hexanchus griseus, Syphrna lewini, Shark ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to my advisor Dr. Kim Holland and to Dr. Carl Meyer for providing me the privilege to pursue a doctoral degree in your lab, which provided more experiences and opportunities than I could have ever imagined. The research environment you provided allowed me to pursue new frontiers in the field and take on challenging questions. Thank you to my committee members Dr. Brian Bowen, Dr. Andre Seale, and Dr. Masato Yoshizawa, for providing your ideas, thoughts, suggestions, support and encouragement through the development of my dissertation. I would like to give my sincere thanks to all of my committee members and to the Department of Biology for taking their time to provide their support and accommodation as I finished my degree during a rather unprecedented and uncertain time. I am very grateful to everyone at the HIMB Shark Lab including Dr. Melanie Hutchinson, Dr. James Anderson, Jeff Muir, and Dr. Daniel Coffey. I learned so much from all of you and we have shared several lifetimes worth of experiences. Thank you to Dr. James Anderson for exciting side projects we have attempted and will continue to pursue in the future. Thank you to Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Black Sea Sharks at Risk
    Black Sea Sharks at Risk The Black Sea is home to world’s biggest, most productive spiny dogfish sharks, but this remarkable, global species is in danger of extinction. CITES action is needed to curb unsustainable trade … before it’s too late. What is a spiny dogfish? The spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) is a small, slender shark found in temperate waters all around the world. Spiny dogfish have been fished for their meat and liver oil for more than a century. Once the most abundant shark, spiny dogfish are now included on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species due to serious overfishing from intense, poorly regulated fisheries. Persistent European demand for meat fuels fishing and international trade. Black Sea spiny dogfish stand out Black Sea spiny dogfish are thought to be the largest and most productive in the world. For instance, they have been shown to grow up to 80 cm larger (180 cm total) and give birth to twice the number of pups (32) than their Atlantic counterparts. Atlantic and Pacific spiny dogfish are known to be pregnant for twice as long (nearly two years!) as those in the Black Sea. Despite these differences, all spiny dogfish are vulnerable. The species is among the slowest growing sharks on earth and therefore exceptionally susceptible to overexploitation and long lasting depletion. Dogfish fishing limits must be precautionary. Endangered populations A population assessment for Black Sea dogfish showed a 60% decline from 1981 to 1992. The population is less depleted than in Northeast Atlantic (where roughly 7% are left), but fishing pressure is expected to remain high and lead to further depletion.
    [Show full text]
  • Cites Proposal 18 Spiny Dogfish Shark
    CITES PROPOSAL 18 SPINY DOGFISH SHARK www.pewenvironment.org/cites Andy Murch/SeaPics.com Biological vulnerability to over-exploitation SPINY DOGFISH SHARK (Squalus acanthias) • Slow to reach maturity: Females: Proposed by Sweden on behalf of Appendix II European Union Member States 6 years, Northwest Atlantic listing and Palau 15 years, Northeast Atlantic Critically Endangered in Northeast 23 to 32 years, Northeast Pacific Males: IUCN Atlantic Red List status Endangered in Northwest Atlantic 10 years, Northwest Atlantic 2 14 years, Northeast Pacific Vulnerable globally • Low reproductive capacity, with only one to 20 pups per litter.3 RECOMMENDATION: SUPPORT • Long lives; some stocks are thought to have • The Pew Environment Group applauds the individuals that live up to 100 years.4 submission of this proposal and urges CITES Parties to support it. • Very long gestation period of 18 to 22 months.5 • Spiny dogfish are in the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organisation’s lowest productivity category and are Spiny dogfish fisheries and trade extremely vulnerable to over-exploitation because The spiny dogfish is a high-value commercial species of their slowness to reach reproductive maturity, experiencing over-exploitation in target and bycatch lengthy gestation and small litters.1 fisheries. The fish are caught in bottom trawls, gillnets and line gear, and by rod and reel. Exploitation is • A strong international demand for spiny dogfish fueled primarily by strong international demand meat and other products has fueled unsustainable for its meat, often sold as rock salmon, rock eel or harvest of this vulnerable species. flake. The European Union is a major importer of the • Fisheries records and stock assessment information meat, although fins and other spiny dogfish products have revealed steep declines in reproductive are traded internationally as well.6 This species is biomass of spiny dogfish around the globe.
    [Show full text]
  • Database of Bibliography of Living/Fossil
    www.shark-references.com Version 16.01.2018 Bibliography database of living/fossil sharks, rays and chimaeras (Chondrichthyes: Elasmobranchii, Holocephali) Papers of the year 2017 published by Jürgen Pollerspöck, Benediktinerring 34, 94569 Stephansposching, Germany and Nicolas Straube, Munich, Germany ISSN: 2195-6499 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32409.72801 copyright by the authors 1 please inform us about missing papers: [email protected] www.shark-references.com Version 16.01.2018 Abstract: This paper contains a collection of 817 citations (no conference abstracts) on topics related to extant and extinct Chondrichthyes (sharks, rays, and chimaeras) as well as a list of Chondrichthyan species and hosted parasites newly described in 2017. The list is the result of regular queries in numerous journals, books and online publications. It provides a complete list of publication citations as well as a database report containing rearranged subsets of the list sorted by the keyword statistics, extant and extinct genera and species descriptions from the years 2000 to 2017, list of descriptions of extinct and extant species from 2017, parasitology, reproduction, distribution, diet, conservation, and taxonomy. The paper is intended to be consulted for information. In addition, we provide data information on the geographic and depth distribution of newly described species, i.e. the type specimens from the years 1990 to 2017 in a hot spot analysis. New in this year's POTY is the subheader "biodiversity" comprising a complete list of all valid chimaeriform, selachian and batoid species, as well as a list of the top 20 most researched chondrichthyan species. Please note that the content of this paper has been compiled to the best of our abilities based on current knowledge and practice, however, possible errors cannot entirely be excluded.
    [Show full text]
  • Status of Sharks in the United States Prepared by Sharon B
    Status of Sharks in the United States Prepared by Sharon B. Young, Marine Issues Field Director Troubled Waters Worldwide, shark populations are in grave peril. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) regularly updates a listing of species of concern. In 2009, the IUCN Shark Specialist group classified 32% of the 64 species of open ocean (pelagic) sharks as being in danger of extinction, primarily as a result of over-fishing. Over one fifth of the more than 500 species of sharks and rays evaluated by the IUCN were considered threatened with extinction. In the Atlantic, only 3 of the 11 most frequently caught species, were considered at a lower risk of extinction. White tip sharks are considered critically endangered. Porbeagle sharks are endangered and the once common skate, which was listed as endangered in 2000 by the IUCN was downgraded to critically endangered only 6 years later in 2006. Shark populations in the U.S. face significant threats, generally from overexploitation by commercial fisheries. They are uniquely vulnerable among fish because their life histories more closely resemble whales than fish. Sharks are long lived. Like whales, they are slow to reproduce and have very few young. Most are highly migratory. Sharks caught on one side of the ocean are often from the same population as those being exploited on the other side of the ocean basin. This can create conservation crises. Porbeagle sharks are the target of commercial shark fisheries in other countries and are also caught incidentally by U.S. fishermen. Even though the U.S. government has acknowledged that they have lost up to 90% of their breeding population, and has added them to a “Species of Concern” list, it gives them no special protection.
    [Show full text]
  • Conclusions GRS 1 3 5 6 8 9 10 12 16 18 20 21 31 35 36 38 40 42 45 GREENLAND SEA
    a a b c d e a) b) c) d) e) Lynghammar University of Tromsø, Norway, A., Christiansen University of Washington,, J. USAS., Gallucci Murmansk Marine, V. BiologicalF., Karamushko Institute, Russia California, O. V., AcademyMecklenburg of Sciences, USA, C. Natural W. History& Møller Museum ,of P. Denmark R. Contact: [email protected] introduction The sea ice cover decreases and human activity increases in Arctic waters. Fisheries (by-catch issues), shipping and petroleum exploita- tion (pollution issues) make it imperative to establish biological base- OCCURRENCE OF lines for the marine fishes inhabiting the Arctic Ocean and adjacent seas (AOAS). As a first step towards credible conservation actions for the Arctic marine fish faunae, we examine the species-richness of chondrich- thyan fishes (class Chondrichthyes) pertaining to 16 regions within the AOAS: chimaeras, sharks and skates. CHONDRICHTHYAN materials and methods • Voucher specimens from Natural History Collections IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN • Annotated checklists (see selected references) • The CAFF Database on Arctic marine fishes (Christiansen et al., in AND ADJACENT SEAS progress) FISHES Only presence and absence data are considered, as reliable abundance data lack for most species. Occurrences known only from floating or beach-cast carcasses, such as Pacific sleeper shark (no. 17) and Alaska skate (no. 29) in the Chukchi Sea, are not considered conclusive evidence of presence and are not included. CHIMAERIFORMES HEXANCHIFORMES RAJIFORMES Chimaeridae - ratfishes Chlamydoselachidae
    [Show full text]
  • 5 November 1997
    An identification guide for deepwater shark species Di Tracey and Peter Shearer National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research August 2002 Contents Page Baxter’s dogfish (Etmopterus baxteri) 2 Catsharks (Apristurus spp.) 3 Leafscale gulper shark (Centrophorus squamosus) 4 Longnose velvet dogfish (Centroscymnus crepidater) 5 Lucifer dogfish (Etmopterus lucifer) 6 Northern spiny dogfish (Squalus mitsukurii) 7 Owston’s dogfish (Centroscymnus owstoni) 8 Plunket’s shark (Centroscymnus plunketi) 9 Portuguese dogfish (Centroscymnus coelolepis) 10 Prickly dogfish (Oxynotus bruniensis) 11 Seal shark (Dalatias licha) 12 Shovelnose dogfish (Deania calcea) 13 Spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) 14 NIWA Guide to Some Common New Zealand Deepwater Sharks – August 2002 Introduction The aim of this guide is to provide clear and concise identification sheets for deepwater shark species for future use by scientific observers and the fishing industry. This guide is an updated version of the Deepwater Shark Reference Guide sheets already prepared by NIWA. The shark species are presented alphabetically by common name. Layout for each species is consistent throughout the document and includes the following: • common name, scientific name, and species code • colour photograph and line drawing for each species • information on the depth distribution of the species • diagnostic features – outlines the key characteristics used to identify the species • maximum lengths that are attained • colour photograph and line drawing of the underside of head for some species These sheets can be substituted for the sheets already included in the revised Observer Manual. Enclosed is a CD ROM containing the shark guide as an interactive PDF document, an Acrobat Reader installer, and a word document.
    [Show full text]
  • Leigh SC, Papastamatiou Y, and DP German. 2017. the Nutritional
    Rev Fish Biol Fisheries (2017) 27:561–585 DOI 10.1007/s11160-017-9481-2 REVIEWS The nutritional physiology of sharks Samantha C. Leigh . Yannis Papastamatiou . Donovan P. German Received: 28 December 2016 / Accepted: 9 May 2017 / Published online: 25 May 2017 Ó Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017 Abstract Sharks compose one of the most diverse Keywords Digestive efficiency Á Digestive and abundant groups of consumers in the ocean. biochemistry Á Gastrointestinal tract Á Microbiome Á Consumption and digestion are essential processes for Spiral intestine Á Stable isotopes obtaining nutrients and energy necessary to meet a broad and variable range of metabolic demands. Despite years of studying prey capture behavior and Introduction feeding habits of sharks, there has been little explo- ration into the nutritional physiology of these animals. Sharks make up one of the most abundant and diverse To fully understand the physiology of the digestive groups of consumers in the ocean (Fig. 1, Compagno tract, it is critical to consider multiple facets, including 2008). They may play an important ecological role in the evolution of the system, feeding mechanisms, energy fluxes in marine environments and in impact- digestive morphology, digestive strategies, digestive ing the biodiversity of lower trophic levels that we biochemistry, and gastrointestinal microbiomes. In depend on as a food and economic resource (e.g., each of these categories, we make comparisons to Wetherbee et al. 1990; Corte´s et al. 2008). However, what is currently known about teleost nutritional beyond prey capture methods and dietary analyses, the physiology, as well as what methodology is used, and nutritional physiology of sharks is woefully under- describe how similar techniques can be used in shark studied.
    [Show full text]