01 Carlson MFR70(1)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Status of the United States Population of Night Shark, Carcharhinus signatus JOHN K. CARLSON, ENRIC CORTES, JULIE A. NEER, CAMILLA T. MCCANDLESS, and LAWRENCE R. BEERKIRCHER Introduction coastal, small coastal, and pelagic) based Generally, species are considered for on known life history, habitat, market, listing under the ESA if they meet the The first fishery management plan and fishery characteristics (NMFS, definition of an endangered or threat- for shark populations in waters of the 1993). The Fishery Management Plan ened species and that status is the result United States (U.S.) Atlantic Ocean and of the Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and of one or any combination of the fol- Gulf of Mexico was developed in 1993 sharks (NMFS, 1999) added a fourth lowing factors: 1) present or threatened (NMFS, 1993). Because species-spe- category and prohibited the retention destruction, modification, or curtailment cific catch and life history information of 19 species of sharks (Prohibited Spe- of its habitat or range; 2) overutilization was limited, sharks were grouped and cies management category) based on a for commercial, recreational, scientific, managed under three categories (large precautionary approach for species with or educational purposes; 3) disease or little or no biological information that predation; 4) inadequacy of existing reg- were thought to be highly susceptible ulatory mechanisms; or 5) other natural to overexploitation. or manmade factors affecting its contin- The U.S. Endangered Species Act ued existence. In establishing its species John K. Carlson and Enric Cortés are with the (ESA) is designed to provide for the con- of concern list, NMFS determined that National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 3500 Del- servation of endangered and threatened factors related to the demography and wood Beach Road, Panama City, FL 32408. species and to take appropriate steps vulnerability of a species will be evalu- Julie A. Neer was with the NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 3500 Delwood Beach to recover a species. When a species is ated to determine whether the species Road, Panama City, FL 32408. Current address listed as endangered under the ESA, it is represents a species of concern (71 CFR is the South Atlantic Fishery Management Coun- afforded all protections of the ESA, in- 55431). NMFS developed the following cil, Science and Statistics Program, 4055 Faber Place, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405. cluding the development and implemen- factors to be considered in evaluating Camilla T. McCandless is with the NMFS, North- tation of recovery plans, requirements vulnerability: 1) abundance and produc- east Fisheries Science Center, 28 Tarzwell Drive, that Federal agencies use their authority tivity, or magnitude of decline (in terms Narragansett, RI 02882, and Lawrence R. Beer- kircher is with the NMFS, Southeast Fisheries to conserve the species, and prohibitions of recent and historical rates); 2) natural Science Center, 75 Virginia Beach Dr., Miami, against certain practices, such as taking rarity and endemism; 3) distribution; FL 33149. John Carlson is the corresponding author (e-mail: [email protected]). individuals of the species. and 4) life history characteristics. ABSTRACT—Night sharks, Carcharhi- tainty in the decline, the night shark is cur- Analysis of biological information indicates nus signatus, are an oceanic species gen- rently listed as a species of concern due night sharks have intrinsic rates of increase erally occurring in outer continental shelf to alleged declines in abundance result- (r) about 10% yr–1 and have moderate waters in the western North Atlantic Ocean ing from fishing effort, i.e. overutilization. rebound potential and an intermediate gen- including the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of To assess their relevance to the species of eration time compared to other sharks. An Mexico. Although not targeted, night sharks concern list, we collated available informa- analysis of trends in relative abundance make up a segment of the shark bycatch tion on the night shark to provide an analy- from four data sources gave conflicting in the pelagic longline fishery. Histori- sis of its status. Night shark landings were results, with one series in decline, two series cally, night sharks comprised a significant likely both over- and under-reported and increasing, and one series relatively flat. proportion of the artisanal Cuban shark thus probably did not reflect all commercial Based on the analysis of all currently avail- fishery but today they are rarely caught. and recreational catches, and overall they able information, we believe the night shark Although information from some fisher- have limited relevance to the current status does not qualify as a species of concern ies has shown a decline in catches of night of the species. Average size information has but should be retained on the prohibited sharks, it is unclear whether this decline is not changed considerably since the 1980’s species list as a precautionary approach due to changes in fishing tactics, market, or based on information from the pelagic long- to management until a more comprehen- species identification. Despite the uncer- line fishery when corrected for gear bias. sive stock assessment can be conducted. 70(1) 1 Figure 1.—A night shark captured in the swordfish pelagic longline fishery. The night shark, Carcharhinus sig- shark fishery, making up to 60–75% of a species of concern list, a description natus (Fig. 1) is a medium-sized shark the catch from 1937 to 1941 (Martinez, of the factors that it will consider when (maximum reported size 276 cm total 1947). Beginning in the 1970’s with the identifying species of concern, and revi- length) characterized by a gray blue development of the swordfish fishery, sion of the ESA Candidate Species List.3 body with a long snout, an interdorsal anecdotal evidence suggested a sub- NMFS transferred 25 candidate species, ridge, and large green eyes. Night sharks stantial decline in the abundance of this including night sharks, to the species of are similar in morphology to silky, C. species. Guitart-Manday (1975) docu- concern list. falciformis, and dusky, C. obscurus, mented a decline in the mean weight per Although information from some sharks and are usually distinguished unit of effort for night sharks from 53.4 fisheries has shown a decline in catches from these species by the placement of kg in 1971 to 21.1 kg in 1973. Night of night sharks, it is unclear whether the first dorsal fin and the length of the sharks comprised 26.1% of the shark this decline is due to changes in fishing second dorsal fin free rear tip (Castro, catch in a segment of the pelagic long- tactics, markets, species identification or 1983). Night sharks have broad upper line fishery from 1981 to 1983 (Berkeley real population declines. Furthermore, teeth with prominent basal serrations and Campos, 1988), but this declined no studies have estimated the demogra- with distinct notches along margin and to 0.3% and 3.3% of the shark catch in phy and productivity of the night shark, oblique cusps (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1993 and 1994, respectively, based on which is necessary in its evaluation as a 1948; Garrick, 1985). They are an oce- observer data (Beerkircher1). Further, species of concern. Our goal was to col- anic species generally occurring in outer photographic evidence from marlin tour- late all available information on the night continental shelf waters in the northwest naments in south Florida showed that shark to provide a preliminary analysis Atlantic Ocean from Delaware south to large night sharks were caught daily in of its status and assess its relevance to the Florida Straits including the Carib- the 1970’s but are rarely captured today the list of species of concern. bean Sea and Gulf of Mexico (Bigelow (Castro et al., 1999). and Schroeder, 1948; Compagno, 1984). The night shark is currently listed as Materials and Methods Night sharks are generally found from a Prohibited Species (NMFS, 1999) but 50 to 600 m in depth (Compagno, 1984) was originally petitioned and added to Life History but specimens have been collected from the Candidate Species List2 under the Life history information is currently 26 to 2,000 m (Bigelow and Schroeder, Endangered Species Act in 1997. NMFS not available for night shark popula- 1948; Branstetter, 1981). The World identified the night shark as an ESA can- tions in the northwest Atlantic Ocean. Conservation Union (IUCN) currently didate species due to alleged declines in To construct demographic models, we lists night shark globally as vulnerable abundance resulting from fishing effort summarized all available life history based on population declines throughout (i.e. overutilization). On 15 April 2004, information from the literature and con- its western Atlantic Ocean range due to NMFS announced the establishment of ducted analyses from those data where target and bycatch exploitation by fisher- appropriate. ies (Santana el al., 2006). 1Beerkircher, L. Unpubl. data on file at NMFS, In the northwest Atlantic Ocean, night Southeast Fish. Sci. Cent., 75 Virginia Beach Dr., Miami, FL 33149. 3NMFS, Revision of Candidate Species List sharks historically comprised a signifi- 2Online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ Under the Endangered Species Act, 2004, Fed- cant proportion of the artisanal Cuban concern. eral Register paper 69 FR 19975) 2 Marine Fisheries Review Natural Mortality, Productivity, and confidence intervals (calculated as on longline and other vessels (Large and Elasticity Estimation the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles) for Pelagic Logbook) and observer reports parameter estimates. All simulations from these fisheries (SEFSC Pelagic The instantaneous rate of natural were run with MS Excel spreadsheet Longline Observer Program) as reported mortality (M) was estimated through software equipped with risk analysis in various publications (details are given multiple indirect life history methods and matrix algebra software and MS in Cortés and Neer5).