Shark Tagging: A Review Of Conventional Methods and Studies

By N. Kohler, P. A. Turner. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 2001

290 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Aquatic Science, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/324a0218db00b0a6aed49d9f00eb825ed52fb7e3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Aquatic Science

1. S. Cooke
2. N. Hammerschlag
3. A. Stoner
4. A. Marshall
5. R. Rosa
6. C. Dudgeon
7. D. Chapman
8. A. Gallagher

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. N. Hammerschlag
2. S. Cooke
3. A. Gallagher
4. G. Raby
5. D. W. Sims
6. J. Brownscombe
7. T. Guttridge
8. D. Chapman

Citations in the corpus

• Phylogeography and conservation of the bull shark (Carcharhinus leucas) inferred from mitochondrial and microsatellite DNA (2011, background): “Kohler and Turner (2001), reviewing the data on tag and recapture of sharks, indicate the maximum distance and speed traveled by the bull shark was 643 km at a rate of 20.1 km day-1.”
• Conducting and interpreting fish telemetry studies: considerations for researchers and resource managers (2019, background): “For sharks and some other taxa (e.g., sturgeon), tonic immobility (a temporary state of motor inhibition) can be achieved by placing fish in a supine position (Kohler and Turner 2001; Kessel and Hussey 2015).”
• Residency of the scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini) at Malpelo Island and evidence of migration to other islands in the Eastern Tropical Pacific (2011, background): “Kohler and Turner (2001) summarize maximum known travel distances for a number of shark species, based on tagging studies.”
• Assessing Stress and Predicting Mortality in Economically Significant Crustaceans (2012, background): “Kohler and Turner (2001) reviewed the value of tag studies (focusing on sharks) and provided a thoughtful discussion of the sources of bias associated with tag and recapture studies, including technical aspects (e.g., tag loss), biology of the subject species, including emigration and differential…”
• Deep danger: intra-specific predation risk influences habitat use and aggregation formation of juvenile lemon sharks Negaprion brevirostris (2012, methodology): “After capture, all sharks were sexed, measured (precaudal, TL), tagged with a PIT and external National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) m-type dart tag (Kohler & Turner 2001).”
• Use of natural marks on population estimates of the nurse shark,Ginglymostoma cirratum, at Atol das Rocas Biological Reserve, Brazil (2005, methodology): “Artificial external marks such as tags are commonly used in shark studies (Ingram 1994, Kohler & Turner 2001 ).”
• Evaluating the physiological and physical consequences of capture on post‐release survivorship in large pelagic fishes (2007, background): “Recapture rates from NMFS tagging programmes range from 1.7% in billfishes (Prince, Ortiz, Rosenthal, Venizelos & Davy 2001) to 5.1% in sharks ( Kohler & Turner 2001 ).”
• Abundance and demography of a seasonal aggregation of zebra sharks Stegostoma fasciatum (2008, background): “Many sharks display migratory behaviour and conventional tagging studies on coastal demersal shark species have revealed movements of hundreds of km (e.g. horn shark 400 km, McLaughlin & O’Gower 1971; lemon shark 426 km, nurse shark 541 km, Kohler & Turner 2001).”
• Assessing the size, growth rate and structure of a seasonal population of whale sharks (Rhincodon typus Smith 1828) using conventional tagging and photo identification (2007, background): “For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service’ Cooperative shark tagging program involves over 4000 recreational anglers (Kohler and Turner, 2001).”
• Philopatry and Regional Connectivity of the Great Hammerhead Shark, Sphyrna mokarran in the U.S. and Bahamas (2017, unknown): “Photographs were taken to facilitate individual identification using natural marks, fin morphology, wounds and pigmentation (Kohler and Turner, 2001; Domeier and Nasby-Lucas, 2007; Marshall and Pierce, 2012).”
• A review of shark satellite tagging studies (2011, background): “Although useful, conventional identification tagging does not provide the appropriate data needed for policy makers, nor can the methodology be improved to help fill this need (Kohler and Turner, 2001).”
• 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 (2006, result): “Not only were most sharks recaptured in almost the same location as the original tagging site, but this recapture rate also is high relative to those obtained in many other elasmobranch tagging studies ( Kohler and Turner 2001 ).”
• Size and structure of a photographically identified population of manta rays Manta alfredi in southern Mozambique (2011, background): “Mark and re-capture studies using conventional tagging methods are not well suited to manta rays, as the required effort in the field would be high, equipment expensive, and extensive physical tagging may disturb the population under investigation (Minta and Mangel 1989; Kohler and Turner 2001; Cast”