Shark nursery areas: concepts, definition, characterization and assumptions

By M. Heupel, J. Carlson, C. Simpfendorfer. 2007

748 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/833edca955f13cfa5ff94d79638552a4561befc6

How researchers see this paper

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

In Global and Planetary Change

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Spatial and temporal movement patterns of a multi-species coastal reef shark aggregation (2011, neutral): “…fidelity has been observed in reef sharks at a number of remote islands or atolls (Stevens 1984, Garla et al. 2006, Chapman et al. 2009, Papastamatiou et al. 2009a, Field et al. 2011), although fewer studies have addressed this topic on fringing or barrier reef systems (e.g. Heupel et al. 2010).”
Unravelling the ecological role and trophic relationships of uncommon and threatened elasmobranchs in the western Mediterranean Sea (2015, background): “In this way, elasmobranchs can feed on different prey groups and reduce competition for available food resources (Carrassón & Cartes 2002, Heupel et al. 2007, Navarro et al. 2014).”
Communal or competitive? Stable isotope analysis provides evidence of resource partitioning within a communal shark nursery (2011, background): “Nursery area management, if implemented properly (Heupel et al. 2007, Kinney & Simpfendorfer 2009), has the potential to be a powerful tool for shark conservation.”
Estuarine nursery areas provide a low-mortality environment for young bull sharks Carcharhinus leucas (2011, background): “…m.heupel@aims.gov.au KEY WORDS: Ecological advantage · Survival · Estuary · Bull shark · Carcharhinus leucas · River Resale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisher Mar Ecol Prog Ser 433: 237–244, 2011 some instances these conditions are not met (Heupel et al. 2007).”
Evaluating marine protected areas for the conservation of tropical coastal sharks (2012, background): “Behavioral strategies of sharks vary considerably between species, such as the use of nursery areas (Heupel et al., 2007), which may potentially affect the benefits species derive from MPAs in coastal regions.”
Reassessing the value of nursery areas to shark conservation and management (2009, methodology): “Heupel et al. (2007) simplified this process for sharks when they revised the definition of shark nurseries to areas with high juvenile abundances across years (high in comparison to surrounding areas), relating this high abundance to high recruitment value for adult populations, therefore allowing…”
Nursery habitat use and foraging ecology of the brown stingray Dasyatis lata determined from stomach contents, bulk and amino acid stable isotopes (2011, positive): “Thus, based on the criteria proposed by Heupel et al. (2007), Kāne‘ohe Bay is an important nursery habitat for brown stingrays.”
Sharks in nearshore environments: models, importance, and consequences (2010, background): “Although nearshore nursery areas are used by and contain crucial habitat for some sharks (e.g. species of Springer’s hypothetical population), not all species utilise nursery areas and not all nearshore habitats function as nurseries (Heupel et al. 2007).”
Ontogenetic shifts in movement and habitat use of juvenile pigeye sharks Carcharhinus amboinensis in a tropical nearshore region (2011, background): “In particular for sharks, nearshore regions provide habitat for many different functions, including foraging and use of nursery areas (Castro 1993, Bethea et al. 2004, Heupel et al. 2007).”
Phylogeography and conservation of the bull shark (Carcharhinus leucas) inferred from mitochondrial and microsatellite DNA (2011, background): “For instance, coastal species often have complex relationships with their near-shore habitats (e.g., geographically discrete developmental habitats), which can limit dispersal (Heupel et al. 2007) and result in subdivided populations.”
Environmental influences on the occurrence of coastal sharks in estuarine waters (2010, methodology): “…and distributions patterns have been investigated for many shark species using acoustic telemetry or tagging methods and linking distributions to physical or biological patterns at the study sites (Hight & Lowe 2007, Heupel & Simpfendorfer 2008, Ortega et al. 2009, Papastamatiou et al. 2009).”
Habitat use, movements and site fidelity of the gray smooth-hound shark (Mustelus californicus Gill 1863) in a newly restored southern California estuary (2011, background): “Heupel et al. (2007) proposed that a shark nursery will likely have: 1) higher densities of sharks compared to other areas, 2) sharks would display strong site fidelity and residency, and 3) natal homing and philopatric behavior would be more likely to occur.”
Population genetics of Australian white sharks reveals fine-scale spatial structure, transoceanic dispersal events and low effective population sizes (2012, result): “These authors found the degree of juvenile site fidelity to be high and constant over several years, consistent with the nursery definition of Heupel et al. (2007).”
Complexities of coastal shark movements and their implications for management (2010, background): “The belief that shark nursery areas are essential for population persistence (Bonfil 1997) has placed a focus on the study of juvenile life stages (Heupel et al. 2007, Kinney & Simpfendorfer 2009), which has also been facilitated by the relative ease of handling juveniles and access.”
Research Priorities to Support Effective Manta and Devil Ray Conservation (2018, background): “To date two locations have been identified that meet established criteria for elasmobranch nursery habitats (Heupel et al., 2007; Martins et al., 2018) (M.”
First characterization of shark nursery habitat in the United States Virgin Islands: evidence of habitat partitioning by two shark species (2008, background): “Heupel et al. (2007), however, suggest the distinction between primary and secondary nurseries is ambiguous and should be eliminated.”