ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

The whale shark Rhincodon typus is an endangered, highly migratory species with a wide, albeit patchy, distribution through tropical oceans. Ten aerial survey flights along the southern Mozambican coast, conducted between 2004–2008, documented a relatively high density of whale sharks along a 200 km stretch of the Inhambane Province, with a pronounced hotspot adjacent to Praia do Tofo. To examine the residency and movement of whale sharks in coastal areas around Praia do Tofo, where they may be more susceptible to gill net entanglement, we tagged 15 juveniles with SPOT5 satellite tags and tracked them for 2–88 days (mean = 27 days) as they dispersed from this area. Sharks travelled between 10 and 2,737 km (mean = 738 km) at a mean horizontal speed of 28 ± 17.1 SD km day ⁻¹ . While several individuals left shelf waters and travelled across international boundaries, most sharks stayed in Mozambican coastal waters over the tracking period. We tested for whale shark habitat preferences, using sea surface temperature, chlorophyll- a concentration and water depth as variables, by computing 100 random model tracks for each real shark based on their empirical movement characteristics. Whale sharks spent significantly more time in cooler, shallower water with higher chlorophyll- a concentrations than model sharks, suggesting that feeding in productive coastal waters is an important driver of their movements. To investigate what this coastal habitat choice means for their conservation in Mozambique, we mapped gill nets during two dedicated aerial surveys along the Inhambane coast and counted gill nets in 1,323 boat-based surveys near Praia do Tofo. Our results show that, while whale sharks are capable of long-distance oceanic movements, they can spend a disproportionate amount of time in specific areas, such as along the southern Mozambique coast. The increasing use of drifting gill nets in this coastal hotspot for whale sharks is likely to be a threat to regional populations of this iconic species.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Submitted 31 May 2017
Accepted 23 November 2017
Published 2 January 2018
Corresponding author
Christoph A. Rohner,
chris@marinemegafauna.org
Academic editor
David Johnston
Additional Information and
Declarations can be found on
page 17
DOI 10.7717/peerj.4161
Copyright
2018 Rohner et al.
Distributed under
Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0
OPEN ACCESS
Satellite tagging highlights the importance
of productive Mozambican coastal waters
to the ecology and conservation of whale
sharks
Christoph A. Rohner1, Anthony J. Richardson2,3, Fabrice R. A. Jaine1,4,5,
Michael B. Bennett6, Scarla J. Weeks7, Geremy Cliff8,9, David P. Robinson10,
Katie E. Reeve-Arnold11 and Simon J. Pierce1
1Manta Ray & Whale Shark Research Centre, Marine Megafauna Foundation, Praia do Tofo, Mozambique
2CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Dutton Park, QLD, Australia
3Centre for Applications in Natural Resource Mathematics (CARM), School of Mathematics and Physics,
The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia
4Sydney Institute of Marine Science, Mosman, NSW, Australia
5Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW, Australia
6School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia
7Biophysical Oceanography Group, School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management,
The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia
8Kwa-Zulu Natal Sharks Board, Umhlanga, KZN, South Africa
9Biomedical Resource Unit, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, KZN, South Africa
10 Shark Watch Arabia, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
11 All Out Africa Marine Research Centre, Praia do Tofo, Inhambane, Mozambique
ABSTRACT
The whale shark Rhincodon typus is an endangered, highly migratory species with a wide,
albeit patchy, distribution through tropical oceans. Ten aerial survey flights along the
southern Mozambican coast, conducted between 2004–2008, documented a relatively
high density of whale sharks along a 200 km stretch of the Inhambane Province,
with a pronounced hotspot adjacent to Praia do Tofo. To examine the residency and
movement of whale sharks in coastal areas around Praia do Tofo, where they may be
more susceptible to gill net entanglement, we tagged 15 juveniles with SPOT5 satellite
tags and tracked them for 2–88 days (mean =27 days) as they dispersed from this
area. Sharks travelled between 10 and 2,737 km (mean =738 km) at a mean horizontal
speed of 28 ±17.1 SD km day1. While several individuals left shelf waters and travelled
across international boundaries, most sharks stayed in Mozambican coastal waters over
the tracking period. We tested for whale shark habitat preferences, using sea surface
temperature, chlorophyll-aconcentration and water depth as variables, by computing
100 random model tracks for each real shark based on their empirical movement
characteristics. Whale sharks spent significantly more time in cooler, shallower water
with higher chlorophyll-aconcentrations than model sharks, suggesting that feeding in
productive coastal waters is an important driver of their movements. To investigate
what this coastal habitat choice means for their conservation in Mozambique, we
mapped gill nets during two dedicated aerial surveys along the Inhambane coast and
counted gill nets in 1,323 boat-based surveys near Praia do Tofo. Our results show
that, while whale sharks are capable of long-distance oceanic movements, they can
How to cite this article Rohner et al. (2018), Satellite tagging highlights the importance of productive Mozambican coastal waters to the
ecology and conservation of whale sharks. PeerJ 6:e4161; DOI 10.7717/peerj.4161
spend a disproportionate amount of time in specific areas, such as along the southern
Mozambique coast. The increasing use of drifting gill nets in this coastal hotspot for
whale sharks is likely to be a threat to regional populations of this iconic species.
Subjects Aquaculture, Fisheries and Fish Science, Conservation Biology, Ecology, Marine Biology,
Natural Resource Management
Keywords Rhincodon typus, Biotelemetry, Movement ecology, Oceanography, Fishing pressure
INTRODUCTION
Knowledge of the movements of a species in space and time improves understanding of
its habitat use and ecology, can enhance conservation management, and allows prediction
of the species’ response to changing conditions (Sims, 2010;Block et al., 2011;Hays et
al., 2016). It can, however, be technologically and logistically challenging to study the
movements of difficult-to-access species, such as wide-ranging marine fishes. Recent
improvements in the equipment available for marine animal tracking, coupled with refined
analytical techniques (Nathan et al., 2008;Block et al., 2011;Costa, Breed & Robinson,
2012), have made it easier to interpret both the movements and motivation underpinning
the spatial ecology of even highly-mobile species (Sims et al., 2006).
Whale sharks Rhincodon typus move thousands of kilometres horizontally (Hueter,
Tyminski & De la Parra, 2013;Berumen et al., 2014;Hearn et al., 2016) and perform vertical
dives to >1,900 m depth (Tyminski et al., 2015). Although they actively move and do not
simply follow surface ocean currents (Sleeman et al., 2010), ecological drivers of their
movements are poorly understood. As coastal aggregations of whale sharks, including
our study population off Mozambique, comprise mostly juveniles (Rohner et al., 2015b),
reproduction is not likely to influence their movements during this life stage. Avoiding
predation is also not a likely factor driving the movements of these large (>4 m in
length) sharks that have few natural predators (Rowat & Brooks, 2012). Rather, prey search
behaviour is likely to be the major driver of their movement, as zooplankton, the primary
prey of whale sharks, are patchily distributed (Lalli & Parsons, 1997) throughout the species’
tropical to warm temperate distribution (Rowat & Brooks, 2012).
Whale sharks are sighted off Praia do Tofo in southern Mozambique throughout the year
(Rohner et al., 2013b;Haskell et al., 2015). Although some inter-annual site fidelity has been
observed (Rohner et al., 2015b), photo-identification data suggest a short mean residency
time (9 days) for this stretch of coast (C Prebble et al., 2017, unpublished data). Where they
go, and the underlying drivers of this rapid turnover, remain uncertain. Although whale
sharks are also seen in nearby Tanzania, Seychelles and Djibouti, photo-identification
has shown limited connectivity among those sites (Norman et al., 2017;Brooks et al., 2010;
Andrzejaczek et al., 2016). Despite their well-documented ability to move long distances
(Hueter, Tyminski & De la Parra, 2013;Hearn et al., 2016), including from Praia do Tofo
(Brunnschweiler et al., 2009), in the Indian Ocean there have been few examples of whale
sharks being re-sighted outside the geographic region where they were first identified
(Norman et al., 2017). As most photo-identification and tag deployment has taken place
Rohner et al. (2018), PeerJ , DOI 10.7717/peerj.4161 2/24
at aggregation sites dominated by juvenile males, limited inference can be made about
the behavior of the broader whale shark population (Rohner et al., 2015b). Mature whale
sharks (>800–900 cm long; Acuña Marrero et al., 2014;Rohner et al., 2015b) may range
further, and are likely to be more oceanic, as few have been sighted at coastal aggregation
sites (Hearn et al., 2016;Robinson et al., 2016;Ramírez-Macías et al., 2017).
There is a clear conservation imperative to understand the movement ecology of whale
sharks in southern Mozambique. Whale shark sightings at Praia do Tofo decreased by 79%
between 2005 and 2011 with local environmental parameters taken into consideration
(Rohner et al., 2013b), a trend that has continued following the conclusion of that study
(Pierce & Norman, 2016). In the northern Mozambique Channel, following a slight increase
in sightings from the tuna purse-seine fleet between 1991–2000, there was a decrease from
2000–2007 (Sequeira et al., 2013). In absolute terms, 600 sightings were reported from
1990s, decreasing to 200 from 2000–2007 (Sequeira et al., 2014), and peak monthly
sightings decreased by 50% (Sequeira et al., 2014). While large-scale oceanographic
mechanisms may influence sightings (Rohner et al., 2013b), there are also fisheries-related
captures and mortalities of whale sharks in the region (Jonahson & Harding, 2007;Capietto
et al., 2014;Everett et al., 2015).
Mozambique ranks low on the global Human Development Index: 0.418 =181 of
188 countries (United Nations Development Programme, 2016). With over two thirds of
Mozambique’s population living within 150 km of the coast, 50% of their protein
intake comes from fish (Hara, Deru & Pitamber, 2007). Gill net use has been increasing
in Mozambique since the cessation of conflict in 1992 (WWF Eastern African Marine
Ecoregion, 2004), and nets have been actively distributed by fisheries officials in some
areas of the country to move fishing effort away from sensitive inshore nursery habitats
(Leeney, 2017). Floating gill nets, extending from the beach to 200 m offshore, pose a
threat to marine megafauna species swimming along this coast. While few formal data are
available, these gill nets are routinely used off the Inhambane coast. At least two whale
shark mortalities have been observed in this area, both sighted opportunistically (S Pierce,
pers. obs., 2015), and entanglements are commonly reported (Speed et al., 2008; S Pierce,
2017, unpublished data). Whale sharks are a valuable focal species in marine tourism
off Praia do Tofo and adjacent areas (Pierce et al., 2010;Tibiri¸
cá et al., 2011;Haskell et al.,
2015). The species received formal protection in Mozambique and, separately, were listed
on Appendix I of the Convention of Migratory Species—which requires prohibition of
take by signatory countries (which includes Mozambique)—during 2017.
Here we examine the regional movements and underlying environmental drivers
of whale shark activity in Mozambique. We use aerial surveys, satellite telemetry and
randomised model shark tracks to establish their activity hotspots in this region, and test
the hypothesis that they preferentially spend most of their time in shallow coastal waters.
With the limited data available, we also assess the potential for interaction with the coastal
gill net fishery along the Inhambane coast.
Rohner et al. (2018), PeerJ , DOI 10.7717/peerj.4161 3/24
Figure 1 Whale shark and gill net locations from aerial surveys (conducted in 2004–2008 and in 2016,
respectively). Density of whale shark sightings along (A) the northern and (B) southern stretch of the
southern Mozambique coast and (C) along the northern South Africa coast. The red line shows the flight
path of whale shark surveys and a cross indicates gill nets in use.
Full-size DOI: 10.7717/peerj.4161/fig-1
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Aerial surveys for whale sharks
Data on the spatial distribution of whale sharks in southern Mozambique were acquired
from aerial survey flights conducted by the KwaZulu-Natal Sharks Board in a top wing
aircraft, flown 305 m (1,000 ft) above sea level at 184 km h1(100 knots) (Fig. 1). Two
observers recorded time and GPS coordinates for each whale shark within 750 m of the
coast during 10 regional flights between 2004 and 2008 in February and March. Flights
were conducted when viewing conditions were optimal, characterised by light winds
and minimal cloud (see full methods in (Cliff et al., 2007)). For aggregations of multiple
individuals, central coordinates were used when only the start and end GPS position were
Rohner et al. (2018), PeerJ , DOI 10.7717/peerj.4161 4/24
recorded. Aerial surveys have the limitations that whale sharks can only be seen by observers
in surface waters, but the species also occupies deeper habitats in which they would not be
able to be sighted. Logistical and cost constraints also meant that a relatively small number
of aerial surveys were available for this study. Aerial survey data did not temporally match
satellite tagging data. Spatial data were mapped in ArcGIS 10.2.1 in 1 km2grids and whale
shark numbers expressed per km2.
Study area and whale shark tagging
Fifteen juvenile whale sharks, comprising 12 males and 3 females ranging from 540–865 cm
total length (TL), were equipped with Smart Position or Temperature Transmitting
(SPOT5) tags from Wildlife Computers, and tracked between November 2010 and January
2012. All tagged sharks were photographically identified based on their spot pattern
posterior to the gills and matched on, or added to, the Wildbook for Whale Sharks global
whale shark database (http://www.whaleshark.org;Arzoumanian, Holmberg & Norman,
2005). Sex was determined based on the presence (male) or absence (female) of claspers.
Male maturity status was assigned according to clasper length and thickness (Rohner et
al., 2015b). Longer-term (pre- and post-tagging) site fidelity of these sharks was assessed
through to the end of 2016 via photo-identification submissions to the Wildbook database.
Length estimates were derived from laser photogrammetry and visual size assessments, with
an estimated error of ±50 cm (Rohner et al., 2011). All tags were deployed immediately off
Praia do Tofo in southern Mozambique (23.85S, 35.54E). The tag’s float was covered with
dark antifouling paint to minimise bio-fouling and make it less obvious to predatory fishes.
The tag was connected to a 5 cm titanium dart (Wildlife Computers) via a 180 cm
tether. The first five tags had a stainless steel game-fishing swivel 30 cm from the dart,
before it became evident from retrieval of shed tags that the swivel was a weak point and
was therefore not used in later deployments. The first three tags used stainless steel wire
as a short tether connecting the dart with the swivel; the remainder of the tether (and the
entire tether in later deployments) comprised Dyneema braid. The dart was inserted into
the skin at the posterior base of the 1st dorsal fin for the first three tags, using a 200 cm
hand spear. Tag retention was improved on subsequent deployments by implanting the
dart slightly further anteriorly, so that the tag floated adjacent to the 1st dorsal fin. No
animal was restrained, caught or removed from its natural habitat for the purpose of this
study. Whale shark tagging was compliant with ethics guidelines from the University of
Queensland’s Animal Ethics Committee and was conducted under their approval certificate
GPEM/186/10/MMF/WCS/SF.
SPOT5 tags are positively buoyant and communicate with the ARGOS system
(http://www.argos-system.org) when the wet/dry sensor is exposed to air. Tags were
programmed for a daily limit of 300 transmissions to save battery power in case of extended
tag retention. Transmitted data included tag location and accuracy (location classes 3, 2, 1,
0, A, B, Z), as well as sea surface temperature (SST) at the time of transmission. We used
standard methods by Hearn et al. (2013; time of transmissions and time-at-temperature
data) to determine when a tag detached from the shark, and removed the floating portion
of the tracks before analyses were conducted. We only used location classes 3, 2 and 1
Rohner et al. (2018), PeerJ , DOI 10.7717/peerj.4161 5/24
for further analyses. Estimated precision for location classes 3, 2 and 1 are theoretically
0.15, 0.35 and 1.00 km (ARGOS), but are larger when the tag is deployed on an animal
at sea, with mean errors of 0.49, 0.94 and 1.10 km, respectively (Costa et al., 2010). More
than half of all transmissions (n=1,930) were characterised by ARGOS location classes
3, 2 and 1 and allowed accurate position estimation. Track distance was measured as the
sum of the straight-line distances between two adjacent locations. Nine tags also recorded
the proportion of time spent in 12 pre-defined temperature bins during 1, 5 or 6 h time
intervals with data recorded at 05:00 h, 06:00 h, 11:00 h, 17:00 h, 18:00 h and 23:00 h.
These time-at-temperature (TAT) data are limited to a period preceding a transmission
via satellite, and hence do not reflect the full temperature range experienced by the tagged
whale sharks. Available TAT data ranged from 36–100% of tracking days for individual
sharks (mean =81%) and 173 of 262 days in total for all sharks combined. SST and
chlorophyll-aconcentration (Chl-a) data were derived from the Moderate Resolution
Imaging Spectroradiometer website (MODIS; modis.gsfc.nasa.gov) to produce monthly
day- and night-merged SST and Chl-atime series at 1 km2spatial resolution for the period
sharks were tagged. Chl-awas used as a proxy for zooplankton availability. Despite a possible
lag in zooplankton abundance in response to a phytoplankton bloom (Plourde & Runge,
1993;Flagg, Wirick & Smith, 1994), phyto- and zooplankton abundance is often correlated
(Hutchinson, 1967;Richardson & Schoeman, 2004;Ware & Thomson, 2005) and has been
used similarly in previous studies on planktivorous elasmobranchs (Sims et al., 2003;
Sleeman et al., 2007;Graham et al., 2012). To investigate drivers of coastal occurrences
of whale sharks, SST values were extracted for one coastal location near Praia do Tofo
(23.85S, 35.62E, 36 m depth) and one further offshore (23.85S, 36.00E, 988 m depth,
45 km from the coast). SST and Chl-avalues were also extracted for all positions with a
location class 3, 2 or 1 from tracked whale sharks and for all positions from random model
sharks (see below). A nine-month mean was produced for SST and Chl-a, encompassing all
months when tagged sharks were tracked. Bathymetric data were derived from the NOAA
ETOPO2 dataset at a 1 km resolution.
Random model sharks
We generated random model tracks (‘model sharks’) for each tagged shark (‘real sharks’)
based on characteristics of the real tracks, similar to analyses conducted on basking
sharks Cetorhinus maximus by Sims et al. (2006). Input data for this analysis were observed
locations with accuracy classes 3, 2 and 1, and a step was defined as the most direct, straight
line between successive locations. Each model shark had the same starting location, overall
track distance, and step-length frequencies as the real whale shark, but the order of steps
was randomised. Real whale sharks often swam along the coast (Fig. S1), but as we had no
a priori expectation whether sharks would move north or south or offshore, our random
sharks took a random angle between steps while constraining the total length of the track
to that of the real sharks. For a step that crossed land, or extended beyond the study area
boundary (20–30S, 31–40E), another random turning angle was taken. The simulation
was run in R (R Development Core Team, 2008) and sets of 100 model shark tracks were
generated for each whale shark (Fig. S2). The aim of the model sharks was not to mimic
Rohner et al. (2018), PeerJ , DOI 10.7717/peerj.4161 6/24
the real sharks, but to test whether the real sharks had a preference for locations on the
regional shelf (0–200 m depth, 22.17S–24.51S), or for certain SST or chl-aconditions.
Kernel density estimation analysis
All transmitted tag locations and modelled shark locations were input to ArcGIS 10.2.1.
The ‘‘kernel density tool’’ was used to calculate percentile kernels of location density.
Kernel density estimates were produced following MacLeod (2013), with a search radius
of 5 km and the outlying locations falling into the 2.5% kernel removed. Kernel density
estimation analysis is based on transmitted locations and cannot consider the periods of
the overall tracking duration when no locations were transmitted, which equaled 183 of
403 days in our dataset.
Gill nets
Gill nets in the study area were set and drifting at the surface perpendicular to the beach. Net
dimensions varied among fishing communities in the region, but were typically 20–200 m
long, 5–8 m deep, and had a mesh size of 5–20 cm. Nets were made from monofilament or
thin rope. Whale sharks are not specifically targeted in Mozambique, but nets with a larger
mesh size present an entanglement risk. Locations of these gill nets along the 200 km of
coastline between Zàvora to Pomene were recorded with a GPS during two aerial survey
flights in May 2016. A transect was flown along the coast in a Bat Hawk LSA at 244 m
(800 ft) above sea level at 60 knots and 300–500 m from the beach. To assess the trend in
gill net use over time, we used survey data off the Praia do Tofo area itself. We conducted
1,323 boat-based surveys from 2012 to 2015, during which gill nets were counted on the
way to dive sites located along a 40 km stretch of coast. Surveys were on average 21.3 km
long, but survey design was influenced by which sites the dive company accessed at the
time. We calculated the number of gill nets per 1,000 km of survey track for each year
over the 4-year period. The gill net surveys did not temporally match with the whale shark
tracking data, as pre-2012 gill nets were not counted because they were rarely in use around
Praia do Tofo.
RESULTS
Whale shark aggregation
Flight observers recorded a total of 202 whale sharks in southern Mozambique during the
10 aerial survey transects between 2004 and 2008, with a mean of 3.4 individuals 100 km1.
The focal area of whale shark sightings was the 200 km stretch of coastline between Zàvora
and Pomene, with the peak at Praia do Tofo (Fig. 1). Several large aggregations were
observed near Praia do Tofo, with the largest being 51 individuals sighted on 1 March
2005.
Gill nets were recorded during aerial surveys in the same region where whale shark
sightings were highest between Zàvora and Pomene (Fig. 1). In the immediate area around
Praia do Tofo, boat-based surveys showed that gill net usage increased 7 times from 0.95
to 6.44 nets per 1,000 km survey track from 2012 to 2015.
Rohner et al. (2018), PeerJ , DOI 10.7717/peerj.4161 7/24
Table 1 Track details of 15 whale sharks equipped with SPOT5 tags, with track number, shark ID on the Wildbook for Whale Sharks global
database, sex, total length (TL), track start and end date and track duration. Track distance is measured as the sum of the straight-line distances
between two adjacent locations, only including locations of ARGOS class (LC) 3, 2 and 1.
# ID Sex TL (cm) Start date End date Days Track
distance
(km)
Speed (km
day1)
No. of fixes
(Pos. day1)
Number of
fixes (LC
3,2,1 day1)
Days with
locations
(% of total
tracking
days)
1 MZ-421 M 560 11-Nov-10 14-Nov-10 4 66.6 16.7 8.7 6.7 4 (100%)
2 MZ-562 M 540 02-Feb-11 05-Feb-11 4 280.3 70.1 9.7 4.7 3 (75%)
3 MZ-286 F 550 19-Jul-11 28-Jul-11 10 261.5 26.1 6.9 4.2 8 (80%)
4 MZ-275 M 745 22-Jul-11 25-Jul-11 4 10.4 2.6 6.0 2.3 2 (50%)
5 MZ-418 M 700 09-Aug-11 18-Aug-11 10 325.5 32.6 7.1 2.6 10 (100%)
6 MZ-238 M 600 09-Aug-11 24-Aug-11 16 412.7 25.8 5.4 2.0 10 (63%)
7 MZ-241 M 630 10-Aug-11 03-Sep-11 25 814.6 32.6 5.4 2.9 23 (92%)
8 MZ-463 M 635 11-Aug-11 21-Aug-11 11 457.1 41.6 8.4 5.6 6 (55%)
9 MZ-606 M 550 26-Aug-11 20-Sep-11 26 668.0 25.7 7.8 3.8 21 (81%)
10 MZ-607 M 865 11-Aug-11 05-Oct-11 56 204.5 3.7 1.0 0.3 8 (14%)
11 MZ-600 M 600 23-Jul-11 18-Oct-11 88 2,446.8 27.8 5.1 3.2 38 (43%)
12 MZ-614 M 600 12-Oct-11 08-Nov-11 28 677.0 24.2 8.6 3.6 24 (86%)
13 MZ-615 F 650 26-Oct-11 17-Jan-12 84 2,736.7 32.6 3.7 1.6 38 (45)
14 MZ-165 M 670 25-Nov-11 26-Nov-11 2 23.9 11.9 12.0 6.0 2 (100%)
15 MZ-471 M 820 28-Nov-11 01-Jan-12 35 1,687.0 48.2 6.0 3.7 23 (66%)
Maximum 865 88 2,737 70.1 12.0 6.7 100%
Minimum 540 2 10 2.6 1.0 0.3 14%
Mean 648 26.9 738 28.1 5.0 2.6 55%
Horizontal movements, tag retention and transmissions
SPOT5 tags remained on the sharks for 2–88 days (mean ±SD =27 ±28.1 d) and
transmitted locations on 55% of days of the combined tracking duration (Table 1).
Whale sharks travelled at a mean speed of 28 km day1(median =26.1 km day1,
range =2.6–70.1 km day1), similar to whale sharks tracked elsewhere (Table 2). The
longest straight-line, along-track distances were 2,737 km over 84 days, and 2,447 km
over 88 days (Table 1). All sharks remained within the southern Mozambique Channel
and eastern South African waters while tagged (Fig. 2). Seven sharks (47%) moved
offshore for at least part of their track, while the other eight (53%) remained on the
shelf near the coast. Tracking duration did not influence whether sharks went offshore
or stayed coastal (t= −1.11, df =11.4, p=0.29). Season may have played a role, with
a greater proportion of sharks moving offshore in summer (three out of three), less in
winter (three of five), and a lower proportion again in spring (two of seven), although
numbers were too small to be conclusive (Fig. 2). Whale sharks travelling away from
the coast swam significantly further (mean =1,137 vs. 282 km) and faster (mean
=43 vs. 20 km day1) than those that stayed in coastal waters (t=2.29, df =8.3,
p=0.05, and t=2.46, df =11.1, p=0.031, respectively). Of the five sharks tagged
within a short time period (9–11 July 2011), one initially swam northward along the
Rohner et al. (2018), PeerJ , DOI 10.7717/peerj.4161 8/24
Table 2 Published whale shark tagging study information, with tag type; N, number of tracked sharks; M, males; F, females; mean total length
and range in brackets (cm); mean (±SD) total distance travelled; tag attachment duration and mean (±SD) daily speed. Failed tags are not in-
cluded in the analysis.
Location Tag type N (M, F) Total length
(cm)
Distance
(km)
Duration
(days)
Speed
(km d1)
Reference
Mozambique Real-time 15 (12, 3) 648 (540–865) 738 (±861.7) 26 (±28.0) 29 (±30.7) This study
Qatar Real-time 28 (17, 11) 704 (500–900) 378 (±546.3) 69 (±60.7) 7 (±13.5) Robinson et al. (2017)
Ecuador Mix 26 (0, 26) 1047 (400–1,310) 2,273 (±1,933.6) 62 (±50.6) 41 (±25.5) Hearn et al. (2016)
Saudi Arabia Archival 47 (14, 16) 391 (300–700) 502 (±613.4) 146 (±80.3) 4 (±4.9) Berumen et al. (2014)
Mexico Archival 28 (10, 18) 738 (500–900) 699 (±1,322.8) 68.4 (±54.5) 9 (±11.0) Hueter, Tyminski & De la Parra (2013)
Mozambique Archival 2 (1, 1) 725 (650–800) 607 (±838.6)*47 (±56.6) 8 (±8.3) Brunnschweiler et al. (2009)
Seychelles Real-time 3 (1, ) 617 (500–700) 1,769 (±1,471.2) 42 (±20.8) 43 (±70.6) Rowat & Gore (2007)
Taiwan Real-time 3 (3, 0) 423 (400–450) 4,250 (±1,458.1) 143 (±56.1) 30 (±26.0) Hsu et al. (2007)
Australia Archival 10 (1, 7) 715 (470–1,100) 581 (±544.8)*92 (±88.9) 6 (±6.1) Wilson et al. (2006)
SE Asia Real-time 6 (,) 567 (300–700) 890 (±1,284.1) 35 (±48.9) 25 (±26.2) Eckert et al. (2002)
Mexico Real-time 14 (, 7) 643 (300–1,800) 1,812 (±3,749.4) 149 (±334.6) 12 (±11.2) Eckert & Stewart (2001)**
Notes.
*Indicates straight-line distances from tagging to pop-up location.
**A record of a >13,000 km track from this paper is now broadly considered to be from a floating tag (Andrzejaczek et al., 2016).
coast and four swam southward. Apart from MZ-463, which travelled to northern South
Africa, these sharks stayed in coastal waters and swam past Praia do Tofo again after
3–13 days.
Home range and random model sharks
The kernel density estimation analysis of whale shark tracks showed that the main hotspot
of whale shark activity was between Zàvora and Praia do Tofo, with a second, less intense
hotspot around the Pomene headland, 100 km north of Praia do Tofo (Fig. 3A). High-use
areas were on the continental shelf. By contrast, model sharks spread from Praia do Tofo
and their high activity zone included areas off the continental shelf (Fig. 3B). Overall, whale
sharks spent significantly more time on the regional shelf (85%) than model sharks (15%;
χ2=1239.6, df =15, p<0.001). An example is shark MZ-241, which swam north along
the coast, then briefly headed offshore, before returning to coastal waters south of Praia do
Tofo (Fig. S2). This was one of 10 sharks that spent more time on the shelf than any of the
corresponding 100 model tracks for each real shark. Only MZ-562 (8% of a 3-day track)
and MZ-463 (26% of a 10-day track) spent less time on the regional shelf than half of the
model sharks.
Tagged sharks transmitted their position on 30 separate days while they were in the
immediate whale shark search area off Tofo (23.85S–23.93S), excluding detections from
the day of tag deployment. Only two sharks, on two separate days, were re-sighted in
regular visual surveys using photo-identification during the period of tag deployment. One
of these had its tag entangled in a fishing line, causing the tag to sit under the shark’s body
and preventing it from breaking the surface to transmit, so we removed the tag and line.
Photo-identification data indicated that most of the tagged sharks (67%) returned to the
Rohner et al. (2018), PeerJ , DOI 10.7717/peerj.4161 9/24
31˚E 32˚E 33˚E 34˚E 35˚E 36˚E 37˚E 38˚E 39˚E 40˚E
30˚S
29˚S
28˚S
27˚S
26˚S
25˚S
24˚S
23˚S
22˚S
21˚S
-10000 -7500 -5000 -2500 0
Bathymetry m
A
35˚E 36˚E
24˚40’S
24˚30’S
24˚ 20’S
24˚ 10’S
23˚50’S
23˚40’S
23˚30’S
23˚20’S
23˚ 10’S
22˚ 50’S
36˚ 20’E
23˚ 00’S
24˚ 00’S
Praia do Tofo
200 m
1000 m
35˚ 20’E 35˚ 40’E
B
200 m
1000 m
200 km 50 km
MZ-238
MZ-463
MZ-286
MZ-615
Legend
Praia do Tofo
MZ-471
MZ-418
MZ-606
MZ-275
MZ-607
MZ-165
MZ-421
Legend
MZ-562
MZ-241
MZ-600
MZ-614
Maputo
Zàvora
Pomene
Zàvora
Pomene
Figure 2 Whale shark tracks in the southern Mozambique Channel. Bathymetry maps showing the
movements of satellite-tagged sharks. (A) Sharks that included large-scale movement off the continental
shelf (n=8). (B) All sharks that remained locally on the continental shelf (n=7). Circle, winter; triangle,
spring; square, summer deployments.
Full-size DOI: 10.7717/peerj.4161/fig-2
Figure 3 Kernel density maps. Kernel density estimations from all satellite tag locations for (A) tracked
whale sharks and (B) random model sharks.
Full-size DOI: 10.7717/peerj.4161/fig-3
Rohner et al. (2018), PeerJ , DOI 10.7717/peerj.4161 10/24
A
B
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
Number of transmissions
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Sea surface temperature (°C)
20 22 24 26 28 30
18−19
19−20
20−21
21−22
22−23
23−24
24−25
25−26
26−27
27−28
28−29
29−30
Sea surface temperature (°C)
Number of transmissions
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Figure 4 Sea surface temperature preferences. (A) Number of tag transmissions in each sea surface tem-
perature bin, showing a wide temperature distribution and an affinity for surface temperatures of 22–
26 C. (B) Number of transmissions made by the tags in each month, with mean monthly sea surface tem-
perature plotted for Praia do Tofo (square; 23.85S, 35.62E) and 45 km directly offshore (circle; 23.85S,
36.00E).
Full-size DOI: 10.7717/peerj.4161/fig-4
region after losing their tag, with these sharks being sighted on 2–11 unique days (mean
=4.8 ±2.6 days) over 1–6 unique calendar years between 2005 and 2016 (mean =3.2 ±
1.4 years).
Temperature and chlorophyll-a distributions
Tag-derived temperature data showed whale sharks moved through surface temperatures
between 18.5–29.7 C, with a mean of 23.9 ±1.51 C. Half of all transmissions were from
a narrow range of 22–24 C waters, and >95% were from 21–27 C waters (Fig. 4A). This
temperature distribution is at least partly a result of the seasonal bias in tagging, with most
transmissions in winter and spring when coastal and offshore temperatures were relatively
cool (Fig. 4B).
Whale sharks spent more time in cooler water with higher Chl-athan model sharks
(Figs. 5A and 5B). Mean Chl-awas significantly higher for whale sharks (mean =1.18 ±
2.74 mg m3) than model sharks (mean =0.27 ±0.79 mg m3;t= −9.38, df =803.3,
Rohner et al. (2018), PeerJ , DOI 10.7717/peerj.4161 11/24
> 0.1
0.2−0.3
0.4−0.5
1−5
10−50
0.3−0.4
5-10
0.5-1
0.1−0.2
Chlorophyll-a concentration (mg m-3)
Whale shark tracks
Frequency (%)
Modelled shark tracks
010203040 40302010
Whale shark tracks Modelled shark tracks
> 20
21-22
24-25
26-27
28-29
22-23
27-28
25-26
20-21
29-30
23-24
Sea surface temperature (°C)
010203050 40 5040302010
B
A
CD
34˚E 36˚E 38˚E32˚E
22˚S
24˚S
26˚S
28˚S
10.0
1.0
0.1
0.01
Praia do Tofo
D
34˚E 36˚E 38˚E 29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
Praia do Tofo
32˚E
22˚S
24˚S
26˚S
28˚S
C
mean = 1.18
SD = 2.74
mean = 0.27
SD = 0.79
mean = 24.2
SD = 1.59
mean = 24.5
SD = 1.62
Figure 5 Real vs. random tracks. Distributions for all locations of real tracks (‘‘whale shark tracks’’,
white) and for all locations of 100 random tracks per real shark (‘‘modelled shark tracks’’, grey) of
satellite-derived (A) sea surface temperature (SST) and (B) chlorophyll-aconcentration (Chl-a). Nine-
month mean images of (C) SST and (D) Chl-ashowing their respective mean regional distributions for
the study period.
Full-size DOI: 10.7717/peerj.4161/fig-5
Rohner et al. (2018), PeerJ , DOI 10.7717/peerj.4161 12/24
2.1−5.0
5.1−10.0
10.1−15.0
15.1−17.5
17.6−20.0
20.1−22.5
22.6−25.0
25.1−27.5
27.6−29.0
29.1−31.0
Proportion of time
020406080
2.1−5.0
5.1−10.0
10.1−15.0
15.1−17.5
17.6−20.0
20.1−22.5
22.6−25.0
25.1−27.5
27.6−29.0
29.1−31.0
20406080
Sea surface temperature Tag temperature data
A
B
Figure 6 Sea surface vs. vertically-integrated temperatures. Proportion of time spent in each temper-
ature bin for sea surface temperature of all locations (‘‘Sea surface temperature’’) and for tag-recorded,
time-integrated temperature (‘‘Tag temperature data’’) for locations (A) on the shelf and (B) off the shelf
for all tags.
Full-size DOI: 10.7717/peerj.4161/fig-6
p<0.001). Mean satellite-derived SST was significantly cooler for whale shark locations
(mean =24.23 ±1.59 C) than for model sharks (24.49 ±1.62 C; t=4.28, df =679.4,
p<0.001; Fig. 5B). Chl-aand SST distributions were also significantly different between
whale sharks and model sharks (χ2=549.1, df =8, <0.0001 and χ2=297.5, df =10,
p<0.0001, respectively). Coastal shelf waters had higher Chl-a(Fig. 5C) and were cooler
(Fig. 5D) than offshore waters over the 9-month duration of this study.
Vertical movement (inferred from temperature-at-depth)
Temperatures recorded in binned intervals of up to 24 h prior to each transmission indicated
that some of the tagged sharks made pronounced vertical movements. Combining data
from all tags, the temperature bin extremes ranged from 5.1–10 C up to 27.6–29 C. The
largest proportion of time (64%) was spent in 22.6–25 C water. Overall, whale sharks
experienced a wider temperature range when they were off the continental shelf as opposed
to inshore (Fig. 6). When on the shelf, they spent the majority of time (76%) in 22.6–25 C
water, while the coldest temperatures recorded from shelf waters were in the 15.1–17.5 C
bin (0.1% of time). By contrast, when off the shelf, sharks spent the most time in warmer
25.1–27.5 C water, while the coldest offshore temperatures were in the 5.1–10.0 C (0.3%
of time) and in the 10.1–15.0 C bins (7.9%).
DISCUSSION
Whale sharks tagged at Praia do Tofo moved widely in southern Mozambican and eastern
South African waters. Although the duration of tag transmission was relatively short for
most sharks, they spent a disproportionately high amount of time in regional shelf waters
between Zàvora and Pomene. This is of concern for regional whale shark conservation, as
gill net use is rapidly increasing in the same coastal area where tagged whale sharks spent
Rohner et al. (2018), PeerJ , DOI 10.7717/peerj.4161 13/24
a lot of time, leading to a higher chance of net entanglement and mortality. Whale sharks
moved through water with higher Chl-athan simulated model sharks, suggesting that
foraging is a major driver of their movements in this region.
The coastal whale shark hotspot in southern Mozambique
The primary activity hotspot for tagged whale sharks was a 200 km stretch of shelf waters
along the coast from Zàvora to Praia do Tofo, and also around Pomene. This agrees with
our aerial survey data from 2004–2008, despite the temporal mismatch of the two datasets,
which strengthens the importance of this area for whale sharks. One caveat is that both
technologies require the sharks to be in surface waters to be detected, and whale sharks may
also be abundant elsewhere in deeper water but remain undetected. The observed hotspot
was not the result of random movement, or a bias due to the tagging site, as model sharks
spent significantly less time on the continental shelf than real whale sharks. In addition,
long-term whale shark sightings at Praia do Tofo fluctuated, but did not have a seasonal
trend (Rohner et al., 2013b). Hence, while our tracks were relatively short and did not span
the whole year, the general pattern may apply throughout the year. The narrow shelf waters
around Praia do Tofo were a preferred habitat for whale sharks in the region in our study,
which is further corroborated by photo-identification and tourism studies (Pierce et al.,
2010;Haskell et al., 2015;Rohner et al., 2015b). However, our tagging data also show that
the core use area for whale sharks in Mozambique is larger than previously reported, and
larger than in some other, more defined whale shark aggregations that exploit specific
and localised ephemeral prey sources or biological events (Heyman et al., 2001;Robinson
et al., 2013;Rohner et al., 2015a). For example, the 50% kernel densities covered 185 km2
in Mozambique compared to just 66 km2in Qatar (Robinson et al., 2017).
Eight whale sharks (53% of those tagged) returned to the tagging site during tag
attachment after significant initial (>50 km) movement away from the site, mostly along
the coast. Only two of these individuals were photographically recaptured, despite close to
daily survey effort in good conditions for potential resightings (S Pierce, 2012, unpublished
data). This further stresses the importance of sightings-independent methods for assessing
whale shark residency, as detectability can be low, even when regular visual surveys are
performed (Cagua et al., 2015;Andrzejaczek et al., 2016). Eight of the 15 tagged whale
sharks were photographically re-sighted at Praia do Tofo after losing their tags, indicating
some degree of site fidelity. Elsewhere, whale sharks also return to other aggregation sites,
as determined by photo-ID techniques (Holmberg, Norman & Arzoumanian, 2009;Rowat
et al., 2011), and their site fidelity may be more prevalent than expected from sightings
data (Cagua et al., 2015).
Preference for shelf waters
During the 8 months of the year (Jul–Feb) that whale sharks were tracked, over a combined
duration of 403 days, whale sharks actively chose continental shelf waters that were cooler
and had higher Chl-athan the modelled sharks that moved randomly. While shallower,
cooler water and higher Chl-aco-vary in our study region, the bigger difference in Chl-a
between real and model sharks indicated that they mostly selected Chl-a. Their preference
Rohner et al. (2018), PeerJ , DOI 10.7717/peerj.4161 14/24
for cooler shelf waters with higher Chl-ais thus likely to be related to foraging activities.
Even though whale sharks do not directly feed on phytoplankton, and there is often a
lag between the timing of phytoplankton and zooplankton blooms (Plourde & Runge,
1993;Flagg, Wirick & Smith, 1994), high phytoplankton biomass is often indicative of high
zooplankton densities (Hutchinson, 1967;Richardson & Schoeman, 2004;Ware & Thomson,
2005). Whale shark sightings (Sleeman et al., 2007) and the abundance of other large marine
animals have previously been correlated with Chl-a(Zagaglia, Lorenzzetti & Stech, 2004;
Block et al., 2011;Graham et al., 2012;Jaine et al., 2012). We suggest that the juvenile whale
sharks at Praia do Tofo that stay on the shelf do so to take advantage of high local food
availability. Whale sharks off Praia do Tofo have been seen feeding 20% of their time
during daylight hours (Pierce et al., 2010). Stomach contents of whale sharks from southern
Mozambique and northern South Africa were dominated by mysids, a group of demersal
zooplankton that emerge into surface waters at night (Rohner et al., 2013a). Shallow coastal
waters also have a high abundance of other demersal zooplankton (Alldredge & King, 1977;
Ohlhorst, 1982). This suggests that Mozambican coastal waters are important foraging
grounds for these juvenile whale sharks, perhaps more at night than during the day.
Tag-recorded temperature data further support the hypothesis that whale sharks often
remain in shelf waters to exploit foraging opportunities. When off the shelf, in deeper
waters, whale sharks experienced a broader temperature range that extended to cooler
temperatures than those recorded from the surface. By contrast, the temperature range
recorded for locations on the shelf were similar to surface water temperatures. This indicated
that little diving behaviour took place, as shelf waters in the Mozambique Channel get
significantly cooler at depth (Lamont et al., 2010;Malauene et al., 2014;Rohner et al., 2017).
This suggested that whale sharks increased their vertical movement when off the shelf.
Whale sharks dive to bathypelagic depths (>1,000 m), as has been demonstrated with
pressure-recording tags (Brunnschweiler et al., 2009;Tyminski et al., 2015). One whale
shark tagged near Praia do Tofo undertook most deep dives in the southern Mozambique
Channel during the day, when zooplankton is often found at depth (Loose & Dawidowicz,
1994), suggesting that these dives might have been related to foraging (Brunnschweiler
et al., 2009). Results from biochemical dietary studies have suggested that whale sharks
may feed on meso- and bathypelagic crustaceans and fishes, among other prey (Rohner
et al., 2013a). Since temperatures of 4.2 C, 5.5 C and 9.2 C were recorded at 1,264 m,
1,092 m and 1,087 m depth respectively (Brunnschweiler et al., 2009), one of our tagged
sharks, MZ-463, may have dived to depths of around 1,000 m (5.1–10 C bin), potentially
to feed.
Whale sharks swam at a mean speed of 28 km d1which is within the large range
of swimming speeds reported in previous studies. Larger sharks (>900 cm TL) tagged
in other locations exhibited similar speeds to juveniles (Wilson et al., 2006;Hearn et al.,
2016), and the difference in distance covered per day among studies is likely to be primarily
influenced by the sharks’ behaviour (feeding vs. migrating) rather than their size, at least
for sharks >400 cm TL. Similarly, total mean track distance in different studies is likely to
be influenced by both tracking duration and whale shark behaviour.
Rohner et al. (2018), PeerJ , DOI 10.7717/peerj.4161 15/24
Conservation and management implications
This study supports the results from other tracking studies that show whale sharks routinely
swim long distances and cross international boundaries. Offshore areas were used by some
of the tagged individuals and may be important habitats for the species, particularly
large, mature animals (Hearn et al., 2016) that are seldom seen at coastal aggregations
(Rowat & Brooks, 2012;Rohner et al., 2015b;Ramírez-Macías et al., 2017). Results of this
study indicate that southern Mozambican whale sharks routinely cross into South African
waters, in addition to some interchange with Madagascar (Brunnschweiler et al., 2009), the
Seychelles (Andrzejaczek et al., 2016) and Tanzania (Norman et al., 2017). A coordinated
regional approach to managing the species’ conservation in the Western Indian Ocean is
therefore of importance, given the transnational boundaries crossed by individual sharks,
and their occupancy of international waters.
That notwithstanding, these juvenile whale sharks spent a large proportion of their
time on the shelf adjacent to Praia do Tofo, indicating that this is a particularly important
habitat within the region. Drifting gill nets are set in the same areas where the whale
shark activity hotspot was recorded. Furthermore, their use in the Praia do Tofo area
has increased over recent years. While the satellite tracking dataset (2010–2012) does not
temporally match with the gill net abundance dataset (2012–2015), we suggest that the
spatial overlap of the whale shark hotspot and the increasing gill net use in the area raises
concerns, especially considering the regular north-south movement of whale sharks close
to the coast that is likely to bring them in contact with these nets. However, concomitant
data on gill net numbers and locations and the distribution of whale sharks would be
needed to quantify the risk to whale sharks. Other threatened species, such as manta
rays, may also be affected by this fishery (Rohner et al., 2017). There are few available
data on catch and injury rates along this remote coast, although multiple mortalities
from gill nets and injuries characteristic of net entanglement have been reported from the
Inhambane Province (Speed et al., 2008, S Pierce, 2015, unpublished data). Interview-based
surveys with fishing communities are presently underway to provide more information
on catches. Whale sharks within the Indian Ocean are listed as ‘Endangered’ on the IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species (Pierce & Norman, 2016), and they are locally important
to a burgeoning marine tourism industry (Pierce et al., 2010;Tibiri¸
cá et al., 2011;Haskell
et al., 2015). The lack of habitat-level protection, coupled with poor regulation of inshore
fisheries in Mozambique, is a clear threat to this population.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank Clare Prebble and Peter Bassett, along with other volunteers from the Marine
Megafauna Foundation (MMF) for their assistance in the field. We thank the people who
found and returned some of the tags. We gratefully acknowledge the NASA Ocean Biology
Processing Group for provision of Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer
satellite data. Janneman Conradie and Joshua Axford from MMF conducted the gill
net aerial surveys and Ross Newbigging (All Out Africa) and Jessica Williams (Moz
Turtles) helped compile the gill net visual survey data. We thank David Johnston,
Rohner et al. (2018), PeerJ , DOI 10.7717/peerj.4161 16/24
Jeremy Kiszka and one anonymous reviewer for their constructive comments on our
submitted manuscript. Casa Barry Lodge and Peri-Peri Divers provided logistics field
support. This research has made use of data and software tools provided by Wildbook for
Whale Sharks, an online mark-recapture database operated by the non-profit scientific
organisation Wild Me with support from public donations and the Qatar Whale Shark
Research Project. Some maps were created using ArcGIS software by Esri, please visit
http://www.esri.com. We acknowledge the use of free vector and raster map data sourced
from http://www.naturalearthdata.com.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DECLARATIONS
Funding
Field work was supported by the Shark Foundation, Aqua-Firma, Waterlust, a Rufford Small
Grant and the PADI Foundation. Christoph Rohner and Simon Pierce were supported by
two private trusts. Anthony Richardson was supported by the Australian Research Council
Future Fellowship FT0991722. The funders had no role in study design, data collection
and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Grant Disclosures
The following grant information was disclosed by the authors:
Shark Foundation.
Aqua-Firma.
Waterlust.
PADI Foundation.
Australian Research Council Future Fellowship: FT0991722.
Competing Interests
The authors declare there are no competing interests.
Author Contributions
Christoph A. Rohner conceived and designed the experiments, performed the
experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed
drafts of the paper.
Anthony J. Richardson conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data,
contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed
drafts of the paper.
Fabrice R.A Jaine analyzed the data, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Michael B. Bennett and Geremy Cliff contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools,
reviewed drafts of the paper.
Scarla J. Weeks conceived and designed the experiments, contributed reagents/materi-
als/analysis tools, reviewed drafts of the paper.
David P. Robinson analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of
the paper.
Rohner et al. (2018), PeerJ , DOI 10.7717/peerj.4161 17/24
Katie E. Reeve-Arnold performed the experiments, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Simon J. Pierce conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments,
wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Animal Ethics
The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body
and any reference numbers):
Whale shark tagging was compliant with ethics guidelines from the University of
Queensland’s Animal Ethics Committee and was conducted under their approval certificate
GPEM/186/10/MMF/ WCS/SF.
Data Availability
The following information was supplied regarding data availability:
The raw data has been provided as a Supplemental File.
Supplemental Information
Supplemental information for this article can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/
peerj.4161#supplemental-information.
REFERENCES
Acuña Marrero D, Jiménez J, Smith F, Doherty PF, Hearn A, Green JR, Paredes-Jarrín
J, Salinas-de León P. 2014. Whale shark (Rhincodon typus) seasonal presence,
residence time and habitat use at Darwin Island, Galapagos Marine Reserve. PLOS
ONE 9:e115946 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0115946.
Alldredge AL, King JM. 1977. Distribution, abundance, and substrate preferences of
demersal reef zooplankton at Lizard Island Lagoon, Great Barrier Reef. Marine
Biology 41:317–333 DOI 10.1007/BF00389098.
Andrzejaczek S, Meeuwig J, Pierce S, Davies T, Fisher R, Meekan M. 2016. The
ecological connectivity of whale shark aggregations in the Indian Ocean: a photo-
identification approach. Royal Society Open Science 3:160455
DOI 10.1098/rsos.160455.
Arzoumanian Z, Holmberg J, Norman B. 2005. An astronomical pattern-matching
algorithm for computer-aided identification of whale sharks Rhincodon typus.
Journal of Applied Ecology 42:999–1011 DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01117.x.
Berumen ML, Braun CD, Cochran JEM, Skomal GB, Thorrold SR. 2014. Movement
patterns of juvenile whale sharks tagged at an aggregation site in the Red Sea. PLOS
ONE 9:e103536 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0103536.
Block BA, Jonsen ID, Jorgensen SJ, Winship AJ, Shaffer SA, Bograd SJ, Hazen EL, Foley
DG, Breed GA, Harrison A-L, Ganong JE, Swithenbank A, Castleton M, Dewar H,
Mate BR, Shillinger GL, Schaefer KM, Benson SR, Weise MJ, Henry RW, Costa
DP. 2011. Tracking apex marine predator movements in a dynamic ocean. Nature
475:86–90 DOI 10.1038/nature10082.
Rohner et al. (2018), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.4161 18/24
Brooks K, Rowat D, Pierce SJ, Jouannet D, Vely M. 2010. Seeing spots: photo-
identification as a regional tool for whale shark identification. Western Indian Ocean
Journal of Marine Science 9:185–194.
Brunnschweiler JM, Baensch H, Pierce SJ, Sims DW. 2009. Deep-diving behaviour of a
whale shark Rhincodon typus during long-distance movement in the western Indian
Ocean. Journal of Fish Biology 74:706–714 DOI 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2008.02155.x.
Cagua EF, Cochran JEM, Rohner CA, Prebble CEM, Sinclair-Taylor TH, Pierce SJ,
Berumen ML. 2015. Acoustic telemetry reveals cryptic residency of whale sharks.
Biology Letters 11:20150092 DOI 10.1098/rsbl.2015.0092.
Capietto A, Escalle L, Chavance P, Dubroca L, Delgado de Molina A, Murua H,
Floch L, Damiano A, Rowat D, Merigot B. 2014. Mortality of marine megafauna
induced by fisheries: insights from the whale shark, the world’s largest fish. Biological
Conservation 174:147–151 DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2014.03.024.
Cliff G, Anderson-Reade MD, Aitken AP, Charter GE, Peddemors VM. 2007. Aerial
census of whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) on the northern KwaZulu-Natal coast,
South Africa. Fisheries Research 84:41–46 DOI 10.1016/j.fishres.2006.11.012.
Costa DP, Breed GA, Robinson PW. 2012. New insights into pelagic migrations:
implications for ecology and conservation. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and
Systematics 43:73–96 DOI 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102710-145045.
Costa DP, Robinson PW, Arnould JPY, Harrison A-L, Simmons SE, Hassrick JL,
Hoskins AJ, Kirkman SP, Oosthuizen H, Villegas-Amtmann S, Crocker DE. 2010.
Accuracy of ARGOS locations of pinnipeds at-sea estimated using fastloc GPS. PLOS
ONE 5:e8677 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0008677.
Eckert SA, Dolar LL, Kooyman GL, Perrin W, Rahman RA. 2002. Movements of whale
sharks (Rhincodon typus) in south-east Asian waters as determined by satellite
telemetry. Journal of Zoology 257: S0952836902000705
DOI 10.1017/S0952836902000705.
Eckert SA, Stewart BS. 2001. Telemetry and satellite tracking of whale sharks, Rhincodon
typus, in the Sea of Cortez, Mexico, and the north Pacific Ocean. Environmental
Biology of Fishes 60:299–308 DOI 10.1023/A:1007674716437.
Everett BI, Jiddawi N, Wambiji N, Boinali K, Andriamaharo T, Oodally Z, Chauca I.
2015. WIOFish database: a catalogue of small-scale fisheries of the Western Indian
Ocean: Biennial Report for 2014 and 2015. Available at http:// www.wiofish.org/
portal/ wiofishdb/ UserFiles/ SysDocs/ bb_content/ 10000/ 2/ WIOFish%20Biennial%
20Report%202015.pdf .
Flagg CN, Wirick CD, Smith SL. 1994. The interaction of phytoplankton, zoo-
plankton and currents from 15 months of continuous data in the Mid-Atlantic
Bight. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 41:411–435
DOI 10.1016/0967-0645(94)90030-2.
Graham RT, Witt MJ, Castellanos DW, Remolina F, Maxwell S, Godley BJ, Hawkes
LA. 2012. Satellite tracking of manta rays highlights challenges to their conservation.
PLOS ONE 7:e36834 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0036834.
Rohner et al. (2018), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.4161 19/24
Hara MW, Deru J, Pitamber S. 2007. Artisanal fisheries development project–Republic of
Mozambique. Abidjan: African Development Fund.
Haskell PJ, McGowan A, Westling A, Méndez-Jiménez A, Rohner CA, Collins K,
Rosero-Caicedo M, Salmond J, Monadjem A, Marshall AD, Pierce SJ. 2015.
Monitoring the effects of tourism on whale shark Rhincodon typus behaviour in
Mozambique. Oryx 49:492–499 DOI 10.1017/S0030605313001257.
Hays GC, Ferreira LC, Sequeira AMM, Meekan MG, Duarte CM, Bailey H, Bailleul F,
Bowen WD, Caley MJ, Costa DP, Eguíluz VM, Fossette S, Friedlaender AS, Gales
N, Gleiss AC, Gunn J, Harcourt R, Hazen EL, Heithaus MR, Heupel M, Holland
K, Horning M, Jonsen I, Kooyman GL, Lowe CG, Madsen PT, Marsh H, Phillips
RA, Righton D, Ropert-Coudert Y, Sato K, Shaffer SA, Simpfendorfer CA, Sims
DW, Skomal G, Takahashi A, Trathan PN, Wikelski M, Womble JN, Thums M.
2016. Key questions in marine megafauna movement ecology. Trends in Ecology &
Evolution 31(6):463–475 DOI 10.1016/j.tree.2016.02.015.
Hearn AR, Green JR, Espinoza E, Peñaherrera C, Acuña D, Klimley A. 2013. Simple
criteria to determine detachment point of towed satellite tags provide first evidence
of return migrations of whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) at the Galapagos Islands,
Ecuador. Animal Biotelemetry 1:Article 11 DOI 10.1186/2050-3385-1-11.
Hearn AR, Green J, Román MH, Acuña Marrero D, Espinoza E, Klimley AP. 2016.
Adult female whale sharks make long-distance movements past Darwin Island
(Galapagos, Ecuador) in the Eastern Tropical Pacific. Marine Biology 163:Article 214
DOI 10.1007/s00227-016-2991-y.
Heyman W, Graham R, Kjerfve B, Johannes R. 2001. Whale sharks Rhincodon typus
aggregate to feed on fish spawn in Belize. Marine Ecology Progress Series 215:275–282
DOI 10.3354/meps215275.
Holmberg J, Norman B, Arzoumanian Z. 2009. Estimating population size, structure,
and residency time for whale sharks Rhincodon typus through collaborative photo-
identification. Endangered Species Research 7:39–53 DOI 10.3354/esr00186.
Hsu H-H, Joung S-J, Liao Y-Y, Liu K-M. 2007. Satellite tracking of juvenile whale
sharks, Rhincodon typus, in the Northwestern Pacific. Fisheries Research 84:25–31
DOI 10.1016/j.fishres.2006.11.030.
Hueter RE, Tyminski JP, De la Parra R. 2013. Horizontal movements, migration
patterns, and population structure of whale sharks in the Gulf of Mexico and north-
western Caribbean Sea. PLOS ONE 8:e71883 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0071883.
Hutchinson GE. 1967. A treatise on limnology. New York: Wiley.
Jaine FRA, Couturier LIE, Weeks SJ, Townsend KA, Bennett MB, Fiora K, Richardson
AJ. 2012. When giants turn up: sighting trends, environmental influences and
habitat use of the manta ray Manta alfredi at a coral reef. PLOS ONE 7:e46170
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0046170.
Jonahson M, Harding S. 2007. Occurrence of whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) in
Madagascar. Fisheries Research 84:132–135 DOI 10.1016/j.fishres.2006.11.023.
Lalli CM, Parsons TR. 1997. Biological oceanography—an introduction. Oxford: Elsevier,
337.
Rohner et al. (2018), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.4161 20/24
Lamont T, Roberts MJ, Barlow RG, Morris T, Van den Berg M. 2010. Circulation
patterns in the Delagoa Bight, Mozambique, and the influence of deep ocean eddies.
African Journal of Marine Science 32:553–562 DOI 10.2989/1814232X.2010.538147.
Leeney RH. 2017. Are sawfishes still present in Mozambique? A baseline ecological study.
PeerJ 5:e2950 DOI 10.7717/peerj.2950.
Loose CJ, Dawidowicz P. 1994. Trade-offs in diel vertical migration by zooplankton: The
costs of predator avoidance. Ecology 75:2255–2263 DOI 10.2307/1940881.
MacLeod C. 2013. An introduction to using GIS in marine ecology. Glasgow: Pictish Beast
Publications.
Malauene BS, Shillington F, Roberts MJ, Moloney CL. 2014. Cool, elevated chlorophyll-
awaters off northern Mozambique. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in
Oceanography 100:68–78 DOI 10.1016/j.dsr2.2013.10.017.
Nathan R, Getz WM, Revilla E, Holyoak M, Kadmon R, Saltz D, Smouse PE. 2008.
A movement ecology paradigm for unifying organismal movement research.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
105:19052–19059 DOI 10.1073/pnas.0800375105.
Norman BM, Holmberg JA, Arzoumanian Z, Reynolds SD, Wilson RP, Rob D, Pierce
SJ, Gleiss AC, De la Parra R, Galvan B, Ramirez-Macias D, Robinson DP, Fox S,
Graham R, Rowat D, Potenski M, Levine M, Mckinney JA, Hoffmayer ER, Dove
ADM, Hueter RE, Ponzo A, Araujo G, Aca E, David D, Rees R, Duncan A, Rohner
CA, Prebble CEM, Hearn AR, Acuna D, Berumen ML, Vazquez A, Green J, Bach S,
Schmidt JV, Beatty S, Morgan DL. 2017. Undersea constellations: the global biology
of an endangered marine megavertebrate further informed through citizen science.
BioScience 67(12):1029–1043 DOI 10.1093/biosci/bix127.
Ohlhorst SL. 1982. Diel migration patterns of demersal reef zooplankton. Journal of Ex-
perimental Marine Biology and Ecology 60:1–15 DOI 10.1016/0022-0981(81)90176-3.
Pierce SJ, Méndez-Jiménez A, Collins K, Rosero-Caicedo M, Monadjem A. 2010.
Developing a code of conduct for whale shark interactions in mozambique. Aquatic
Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 20:782–788 DOI 10.1002/aqc.1149.
Pierce SJ, Norman B. 2016. Rhincodon typus. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Available at http:// dx.doi.org/ 10.2305/ IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T19488A2365291.en.
Plourde S, Runge JA. 1993. Reproduction of the planktonic copepod Calanus finmarchi-
cus in the lower St Lawrence Estuary: relation to the cycle of phytoplankton produc-
tion and evidence for a Calanus pump. Marine Ecology Progress Series 102:217–228
DOI 10.3354/meps102217.
R Development Core Team. 2008. R: a language and environment for statistical comput-
ing. Vienna: the R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at http:// www.R-
project.org/ .
Ramírez-Macías D, Queiroz N, Pierce SJ, Humphries NE, Sims DW, Brunnschweiler
JM. 2017. Oceanic adults, coastal juveniles: tracking the habitat use of whale sharks
off the Pacific coast of Mexico. PeerJ 5:e3271 DOI 10.7717/peerj.3271.
Richardson AJ, Schoeman DS. 2004. Climate impact on plankton ecosystems in the
Northeast Atlantic. Science 305:1609–1612 DOI 10.1126/science.1100958.
Rohner et al. (2018), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.4161 21/24
Robinson DP, Jaidah MY, Bach S, Lee K, Jabado RW, Rohner CA, March A, Caprodossi
S, Henderson AC, Mair JM, Ormond R, Pierce SJ. 2016. Population structure,
abundance and movement of whale sharks in the Arabian Gulf and the Gulf of
Oman. PLOS ONE 11(6):e0158593 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0158593.
Robinson DP, Jaidah MY, Bach SS, Rohner CA, Jabado RW, Ormond R, Pierce SJ.
2017. Some like it hot: repeat migration and residency of whale sharks within an
extreme natural environment. PLOS ONE 12(9):e0185360
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0185360.
Robinson DP, Jaidah MY, Jabado RW, Lee-Brooks K, Nour El-Din NM, Al Malki
AA, Elmeer K, McCormick PA, Henderson AC, Pierce SJ, Ormond RFG.
2013. Whale sharks, Rhincodon typus, aggregate around offshore platforms in
Qatari waters of the Arabian Gulf to feed on fish spawn. PLOS ONE 8:e58255
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0058255.
Rohner CA, Armstrong AJ, Pierce SJ, Prebble CEM, Cagua EF, Cochran JEM,
Berumen ML, Richardson AJ. 2015a. Whale sharks target dense prey patches
of sergestid shrimp off Tanzania. Journal of Plankton Research 37:352–362
DOI 10.1093/plankt/fbv010.
Rohner CA, Couturier LIE, Richardson AJ, Pierce SJ, Prebble CEM, Gibbons MJ,
Nichols PD. 2013a. Diet of whale sharks Rhincodon typus inferred from stomach
content and signature fatty acid analyses. Marine Ecology Progress Series 493:219–235
DOI 10.3354/meps10500.
Rohner CA, Flam AL, Pierce SJ, Marshall AD. 2017. Steep declines in sightings of manta
rays and devilrays (Mobulidae) in southern Mozambique. PeerJ Preprints 5:e3051v1
DOI 10.7287/peerj.preprints.3051v1.
Rohner CA, Pierce SJ, Marshall AD, Weeks SJ, Bennett MB, Richardson AJ. 2013b.
Trends in sightings and environmental influences on a coastal aggregation
of manta rays and whale sharks. Marine Ecology Progress Series 482:153–168
DOI 10.3354/meps10290.
Rohner CA, Richardson AJ, Marshall AD, Weeks SJ, Pierce SJ. 2011. How large is the
world’s largest fish? Measuring whale sharks Rhincodon typus with laser photogram-
metry. Journal of Fish Biology 78:378–385 DOI 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02861.x.
Rohner CA, Richardson AJ, Prebble CEM, Marshall AD, Bennett MB, Weeks SJ,
Cliff G, Wintner SP, Pierce SJ. 2015b. Laser photogrammetry improves size and
demographic estimates for whale sharks. PeerJ 3:e886 DOI 10.7717/peerj.886.
Rowat D, Brooks KS. 2012. A review of the biology, fisheries and conservation
of the whale shark Rhincodon typus.Journal of Fish Biology 80:1019–1056
DOI 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2012.03252.x.
Rowat D, Brooks K, March A, McCarten C, Jouannet D, Riley L, Jeffreys G, Perri M,
Vely M, Pardigon B. 2011. Long-term membership of whale sharks (Rhincodon
typus) in coastal aggregations in Seychelles and Djibouti. Marine and Freshwater
Research 62:621–627 DOI 10.1071/MF10135.
Rohner et al. (2018), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.4161 22/24
Rowat D, Gore M. 2007. Regional scale horizontal and local scale vertical movements
of whale sharks in the Indian Ocean off Seychelles. Fisheries Research 84:32–40
DOI 10.1016/j.fishres.2006.11.009.
Sequeira AMM, Mellin C, Delean S, Meekan MG, Bradshaw CJA. 2013. Spatial and
temporal predictions of inter-decadal trends in Indian Ocean whale sharks. Marine
Ecology Progress Series 478:185–195 DOI 10.3354/meps10166.
Sequeira AMM, Mellin C, Floch L, Williams PG, Bradshaw CJA. 2014. Inter-ocean
asynchrony in whale shark occurrence patterns. Journal of Experimental Marine
Biology and Ecology 450:21–29 DOI 10.1016/j.jembe.2013.10.019.
Sims DW. 2010. Tracking and analysis techniques for understanding free-ranging shark
movements and behaviour. In: Carrier JC, Musick JA, Heithaus MR, eds. Sharks and
their relatives II biodiversity, adaptive physiology, and conservation. Boca Rotan: CRC
Press, 351.
Sims DW, Southall EJ, Richardson AJ, Reid PC, Metcalfe JD. 2003. Seasonal movements
and behaviour of basking sharks from archival tagging: no evidence of winter
hibernation. Marine Ecology Progress Series 248:187–196 DOI 10.3354/meps248187.
Sims DW, Witt MJ, Richardson AJ, Southall EJ, Metcalfe JD. 2006. Encounter
success of free-ranging marine predator movements across a dynamic prey
landscape. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 273:1195–1201
DOI 10.1098/rspb.2005.3444.
Sleeman JC, Meekan MG, Wilson SG, Jenner CKS, Jenner MN, Boggs GS, Steinberg
CC, Bradshaw CJA. 2007. Biophysical correlates of relative abundances of marine
megafauna at Ningaloo Reef, Western Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research
58:608–623 DOI 10.1071/MF06213.
Sleeman JC, Meekan MG, Wilson SG, Polovina JJ, Stevens JD, Boggs GS, Bradshaw
CJA. 2010. To go or not to go with the flow: environmental influences on whale
shark movement patterns. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology
390:84–98 DOI 10.1016/j.jembe.2010.05.009.
Speed CW, Meekan MG, Rowat D, Pierce SJ, Marshall AD, Bradshaw CJA. 2008.
Scarring patterns and relative mortality rates of Indian Ocean whale sharks. Journal
of Fish Biology 72:1488–1503 DOI 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2008.01810.x.
Tibiri¸
cá Y, Birtles A, Valentine P, Miller DK. 2011. Diving tourism in Mozam-
bique: An opportunity at risk? Tourism in Marine Environments 7:141–151
DOI 10.3727/154427311X13195453162732.
Tyminski JP, De La Parra-Venegas R, Cano JG, Hueter RE. 2015. Vertical move-
ments and patterns in diving behavior of whale sharks as revealed by pop-
up satellite tags in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. PLOS ONE 10(11):e0142156
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0142156.
United Nations Development Programme. 2016. United Nations Human Development
Report 2016. Available at http:// hdr.undp.org/ en/ 2016-report .
Ware DM, Thomson RE. 2005. Bottom-up ecosystem trophic dynamics determine fish
production in the northeast Pacific. Science 308:1280–1284
DOI 10.1126/science.1109049.
Rohner et al. (2018), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.4161 23/24
Wilson SG, Polovina JJ, Stewart BS, Meekan MG. 2006. Movements of whale sharks
(Rhincodon typus) tagged at Ningaloo Reef, Western Australia. Marine Biology
148:1157–1166 DOI 10.1007/s00227-005-0153-8.
WWF Eastern African Marine Ecoregion. 2004. Towards a Western Indian Ocean dugong
conservation strategy: the status of dugongs in the Western Indian Ocean region and
priority conservation actions. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: WWF, 68.
Zagaglia CR, Lorenzzetti JA, Stech JL. 2004. Remote sensing data and longline catches
of yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) in the equatorial Atlantic. Remote Sensing of
Environment 93:267–281 DOI 10.1016/j.rse.2004.07.015.
Rohner et al. (2018), PeerJ , DOI 10.7717/peerj.4161 24/24
... The plankton communities of Delagoa Bight in Maputo Bay and Sofala Bank along Mozambique's coastline [46,47] have high primary productivity that support higher trophic level diversity along southern Mozambique [48][49][50]. Among Mozambique's coastal regions, Inhambane Province, located between Delagoa Bight and Sofala Bank, is known as a biodiversity hotspot [51,52], with whale sharks, manta rays, migrating humpback whales, bottlenose dolphins, humpback dolphins, dugongs, sea turtles, small-eye stingray, guitar sharks, corals, and many reef fishes utilizing the region [51][52][53][54][55][56]. This biodiversity supports a prominent tourism industry for SCUBA diving, snorkeling, surfing, and fishing [57]. ...
... The plankton communities of Delagoa Bight in Maputo Bay and Sofala Bank along Mozambique's coastline [46,47] have high primary productivity that support higher trophic level diversity along southern Mozambique [48][49][50]. Among Mozambique's coastal regions, Inhambane Province, located between Delagoa Bight and Sofala Bank, is known as a biodiversity hotspot [51,52], with whale sharks, manta rays, migrating humpback whales, bottlenose dolphins, humpback dolphins, dugongs, sea turtles, small-eye stingray, guitar sharks, corals, and many reef fishes utilizing the region [51][52][53][54][55][56]. This biodiversity supports a prominent tourism industry for SCUBA diving, snorkeling, surfing, and fishing [57]. ...
... However, additional research during the wet season (Austral summer) would be necessary to assess if changes in land use will impact this region. Coastal Inhambane Province is a biological hot spot reliant on local fisheries as a food source and economic development through tourism due to the year-round presence of actively feeding planktivores [52,57], and changes to the coastal system can have compounding affects to the rural community. Further monitoring and education of HABs is needed in the region to ensure ecosystem, human, and wildlife health. ...
Article
Full-text available
Harmful algal blooms (HABs) are increasing globally in frequency, persistence, and geographic extent, posing a threat to ecosystem and human health. To date, no occurrences of marine phycotoxins have been recorded in Mozambique, which may be due to absence of a monitoring program and general awareness of potential threats. This study is the first documentation of neurotoxin, domoic acid (DA), produced by the diatom Pseudo-nitzschia along the east coast of Africa. Coastal Inhambane Province is a biodiversity hotspot where year-round Rhincodon typus (whale shark) sightings are among the highest globally and support an emerging ecotourism industry. Links between primary productivity and biodiversity in this area have not previously been considered or reported. During a pilot study, from January 2017 to April 2018, DA was identified year-round, peaking during Austral winter. During an intense study between May and August 2018, our research focused on identifying environmental factors influencing coastal productivity and DA concentration. Phytoplankton assemblage was diatom-dominated, with high abundances of Pseudo-nitzschia spp. Data suggest the system was influenced by nutrient pulses resulting from coastal upwelling. Continued and comprehensive monitoring along southern Mozambique would provide critical information to assess ecosystem and human health threats from marine toxins under challenges posed by global change.
... The species is distributed across tropical and warm temperate marine waters worldwide (Rowat & Brooks, 2012). Although individual whale sharks are highly mobile, and capable of swimming thousands of kilometres each year (Ramírez-Macías et al., 2017;Diamant et al., 2018;Rohner et al., 2018), they often display site fidelity to areas with a predictably high density of their prey (Graham & Roberts, 2007;Rohner et al., 2020), which include a variety of zooplankton and small bait fish (Heyman et al., 2001;Robinson et al., 2013;Rohner et al., 2013a;Rohner et al., 2015a). ...
... There are several coastal whale shark aggregations in the Western Indian Ocean, including Praia do Tofo in southern Mozambique (Cliff et al., 2007;Rohner et al., 2018), Mahe in the Seychelles (Rowat et al., 2009a;Rowat et al., 2009b), Mafia Island in Tanzania (Rohner et al., 2020), and north-west Madagascar (Diamant et al., 2018). Significant declines in whale shark sightings have also been documented from this region (Sequeira et al., 2013;Rohner et al., 2013b;Pierce & Norman, 2016;Dulvy et al., 2017). ...
... period were associated with bait fish, which the sharks were feeding on. Like other regional whale shark aggregation sites, such as Djibouti, Mozambique, Seychelles, and Tanzania (Rowat et al., 2011;Rohner et al., 2015a;Rohner et al., 2018;Boldrocchi et al., 2020), it appears that Nosy Be is used as a regular feeding area for juvenile male sharks. ...
Article
• Between September and December, whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) aggregate in the coastal waters off Nosy Be, an island in north-western Madagascar. Swimming with these sharks has become an important tourism activity, but no formal protection is in place in Madagascar to protect this endangered species from the potential negative effects of tourism or other human impacts. • Boat-based surveys (n = 405) were conducted from tourism vessels from September to December, 2015–2019. For most sightings (98%), whale sharks were sighted while foraging for bait fish at the surface, in association with mackerel tuna (Euthynnus affinis) and seabirds (Sternidae). A total of 408 individual whale sharks were individually photo-identified over this period. All individuals were immature, and 82% of sexed sharks were male. Sharks ranged from 3.0 to 8.0 m in total length (TL), with a mean TL of 5.65 ± 0.94 m (n = 66) for females and 5.46 ± 1.09 m for males (n = 295). • Most sharks (72% of the identified individuals) were only identified once within the study period. Movement modelling showed an open population with a short mean residence time of 7.2 days. Resightings were recorded from up to 12 years apart (2007–2019). Ten sharks were seen in all five seasons during 2015–2019. A basic POPAN mark–recapture model estimated a total population size of 681 (608–763) sharks over the 2015–2019 period. • Nosy Be waters are an important foraging ground for juvenile whale sharks. Sighting data demonstrate that a high proportion of the sharks’ preferred habitat lies outside existing protected areas, but within an identified Key Biodiversity Area. National species-level protection and increased spatial management is warranted to secure the continued presence of whale sharks in this region.
... These variables did not present any collinearity, suggesting that there are other seasonal variances driving these abundances of stingrays in this region. Underwater temperatures can be influenced by large-scale oceanographic movement, such as the dynamic eddies and upwellings found off the coast of Inhambane (Saetre and Silva 1984;Rohner et al. 2018). The productive coastal waters adjacent to Praia do Tofo have also been linked to the abundance of surface-feeding Rhincodon typus, which are found to frequent this area throughout the year in accordance with plankton blooms (Rohner et al. 2018). ...
... Underwater temperatures can be influenced by large-scale oceanographic movement, such as the dynamic eddies and upwellings found off the coast of Inhambane (Saetre and Silva 1984;Rohner et al. 2018). The productive coastal waters adjacent to Praia do Tofo have also been linked to the abundance of surface-feeding Rhincodon typus, which are found to frequent this area throughout the year in accordance with plankton blooms (Rohner et al. 2018). ...
... Further investigation to understand these relationships is required. The predictor variables included in the models are not exhaustive, and other variables are likely to be important in explaining the remaining variance in stingray abundances in this region (Saetre and Silva 1984;Le Port et al. 2012;Rohner et al. 2013Rohner et al. , 2018. For example, fishing effort in the study area and the abundance of predator and prey species were not measured and are potentially key variables influencing stingray abundance. ...
Article
Full-text available
Understanding the drivers that influence abundance and distribution of marine species is essential to predict future trends in abundance and inform conservation efforts. This is vital in the largely unregulated coastline of Mozambique, where stingrays are afforded no protection by law and are caught by small-scale fishers. During SCUBA dives from 2012 to 2018, trained citizen scientists recorded 11 environmental, spatial and temporal variables along with the count of four stingray species (Megatrygon microps, Taeniurops meyeni, Neotrygon indica and Pateobatis jenkinsii) in the Inhambane region of Mozambique. By constructing bubble plots and generalised additive mixed models (GAMMs), we analysed the relationship between the probability of sightings of each species with the 11 variables. It is evident that the sightings for each of these four stingrays of the Inhambane region differ spatially and seasonally. The key findings include that T. meyeni and M. microps were found to increase in sighting frequency in different seasons (winter and summer respectively) at similar dive sites typically further from shore. Neotrygon indica commonly occupied the areas closer to shore. Identifying key habitats, and temporal and environmental conditions, is conducive to implementing effective conservation strategies in the region, such as, in this instance, all stingrays could be provided with a refuge in the same area.
... The increased density of zebra shark being reported in Tofo Bay could be related to the increased use of gill nets by fishers in this area. While few formal data are available, gill nets are routinely seen off the Inhambane coast and are usually found extended from the beach to c. 200 m offshore (Pierce et al., 2008;Rohner et al., 2018). In this study, gill nets were the fishing gear most commonly attributed to zebra shark sightings; 79% of fishers that used gill nets stated that they had sighted zebra shark. ...
... Where zebra shark had been sighted by a fisher using gill nets, the fisher stated 'accidental catch' as the primary reason for the sighting in 72% of the incidents. Gill nets pose a threat to marine megafauna species as they are indiscriminate and can be left unattended for several hours during the day or overnight (Pierce et al., 2008;Leeney 2017;Rohner et al., 2018). Whilst the bycatch of zebra shark in gillnets is concerning, it could help explain why fishers indicated a hotspot of zebra shark in Tofo Bay. ...
... Although dive effort was high in Tofo Bay, the time constraints of dive surveys can lead to transient individuals that are travelling through or only in the location for short periods of time not being recorded. As gill nets are left for long periods of time in Tofo Bay (Rohner et al., 2018) they are more likely to capture and record these individuals. Furthermore, as zebra sharks are primarily nocturnal and gill nets can be set overnight, this further increases the chance to capture zebra sharks that could be feeding in Tofo Bay. ...
Article
Fishery catch records offer limited data to assess the status of rare, non-commercial species, including some sharks. Despite marine megafauna creating an important source of revenue though tourism, basic spatial information required to create conservation strategies is not available for many of these species. A cost-effective approach to assess the distribution of rare, non-commercial species is required to manage resources and inform conservation strategies in data-deficient areas. This study provides new information on the distribution and abundance of the zebra shark in southern Africa and examines if local ecological knowledge can be used to identify spatial and temporal trends of rare, non-commercial elasmobranchs. Trends identified from fisher interviews at two locations were compared to those collected using structured dive surveys. Both fisher interviews and structured surveys identified similar hotspot areas and temporal changes in the zebra shark population. Photographs of zebra sharks taken by researchers, dive operators, and recreational scuba divers between Pomene and Sodwana Bay were used to identify and provide information on the size, sex and movement of individuals. A combination of geo-located data gathered from one hundred interviews conducted with fishers at four different locations within Mozambique and sightings information from scuba divers were used in a species distribution model to determine the relative importance of environmental predictors and identify further areas of suitable habitat. Sea surface temperature was the most important factor in the coldest months, with distance from shore most limiting habitat suitability at other times of year. This approach could be applied in data-deficient regions to highlight areas of interest, prioritise research activities and inform conservation actions for rare, non-commercial marine megafauna.
... We analyzed the tracks in R (R Core Team, 2013) to produce histograms of the quality of transmissions of each day. We removed duplicated messages and applied a 2 ms −1 speed filter to remove inaccurate locations based on the maximum speeds of whale sharks (Rowat and Gore, 2007;Rohner et al., 2018). Once filtered, tracks with alternating days missing satellite positions were interpolated to give estimated locations. ...
... Indeed, selective foraging within such oceanographic features is a behavior common to a very wide range of oceanic taxa, including other sharks (Sims and Quayle, 1998;Queiroz et al., 2017;Andrzejaczek et al., 2018), turtles (Polovina et al., 2003), birds (Shaffer et al., 2009), and teleost fishes (Fiedler and Bernard, 1987). In addition to frontal zones, whale sharks have also been observed in areas of higher Chl-a levels (Sleeman et al., 2007;Rohner et al., 2018). When data were available, we found that the sharks in our study all remained in areas of relatively moderate to high Chl-a levels. ...
Article
Full-text available
Whale sharks off the western coast of India have suffered high levels of fishing pressure in the past, and today continue to be caught in small-scale fisheries as by-catch. Additionally, coastlines in this region host very large and growing human populations that are undergoing rapid development. This exacerbates ongoing anthropogenic threats to this species such as pollution, habitat loss, and ship traffic. For these reasons, there is an urgent need for data on movement patterns of whale sharks in this region of the Indian Ocean. Here, we address this issue by providing the first data on the horizontal movements of whale sharks tagged in the northern Arabian Sea off the western coast of the Indian state of Gujarat. From 2011 to 2017, eight individuals, ranging from 5.4 to 8 m were tagged and monitored using satellite telemetry. Tag retention varied from 1 to 137 days, with the sharks traveling distances of 34 – ∼2,230 km. Six of the eight individuals remained close to their tagging locations, although two sharks displayed wide ranging movements into the Arabian Sea, following frontal zones between water masses of different sea surface temperatures. We explore the relationship between the movement patterns of these whale sharks and the physical and biological processes of the region.
... Aggregations of the whale shark R. typus are seasonally observed off the Mozambique coasts and in the northern and central Mozambique Channel [60,61] where they are used by the purse-seiners as "natural aggregating devices", mostly off Juan de Nova (cf. IOTC statistical data). ...
Article
Full-text available
Sharks have declined worldwide and remote sanctuaries are becoming crucial for shark conservation. The southwest Indian Ocean is a hotspot of both terrestrial and marine biodiversity mostly impacted by anthropogenic damage. Sharks were observed during surveys performed from April to June 2013 in the virtually pristine coral reefs around Europa Island, a remote Marine Protected Area located in the southern Mozambique Channel. Observation events comprised 67 1-hour scientific dives between 5-35m depth and 7 snorkeling inspections , as well as 4 dinghy-based observations in the shallow lagoon. In a period of 24 days, 475 sharks were tallied. Carcharhinus galapagensis was most encountered and contributed 20% of the abundance during diving, followed by C. albimarginatus (10%). Both species were more abundant between 11-14h, and on the exposed sides of the island. Numbers of Sphyrna lewini were highest with 370 individuals windward and leeward, mostly schooling. S. lewini aggregations in the area are hypothesized to be attracted to the seamount archipelago offering favorable conditions for deep incursions and of which Europa Island forms part. C. amblyrhynchos, Galeocerdo cuvier and S. mokarran were uncommon, while there was an additional observation of Rhincodon typus. The lagoon of Europa was a nursery ground for C. melanopterus where it was the only species present. A total of 8 species was recorded, contributing to the shark diversity of 15 species reported from Europa since 1952 in the scientific and gray literature. Overall, with the occurrence of several species of apex predators in addition to that of R. typus, large schools of S. lewini, fair numbers of reef sharks and a nursery of C. melanopterus, Europa's sharks constitute a significant reservoir of biodiversity, which contributes to preserve the functioning of the ecosystem. Our observations highlight the relevance of Europa Island for shark conservation and the need for shark-targeted management in the EEZ of both Europa and Bassas da India.
... Aggregations of the whale shark R. typus are seasonally observed off the Mozambique coasts and in the northern and central Mozambique Channel [60,61] where they are used by the purse-seiners as "natural aggregating devices", mostly off Juan de Nova (cf. IOTC statistical data). ...
Article
Full-text available
Sharks have declined worldwide and remote sanctuaries are becoming crucial for shark conservation. The southwest Indian Ocean is a hotspot of both terrestrial and marine biodiversity mostly impacted by anthropogenic damage. Sharks were observed during surveys performed from April to June 2013 in the virtually pristine coral reefs around Europa Island, a remote Marine Protected Area located in the southern Mozambique Channel. Observation events comprised 67 1-hour scientific dives between 5 – 35m depth and 7 snorkeling inspections, as well as 4 dinghy-based observations in the shallow lagoon. In a period of 24 days, 475 sharks were tallied. Carcharhinus galapagensis was most encountered and contributed 20% of the abundance during diving, followed by C . albimarginatus (10%). Both species were more abundant between 11-14h, and on the exposed sides of the island. Numbers of Sphyrna lewini were highest with 370 individuals windward and leeward, mostly schooling. S . lewini aggregations in the area are hypothesized to be attracted to the seamount archipelago offering favorable conditions for deep incursions and of which Europa Island forms part. C . amblyrhynchos , Galeocerdo cuvier and S . mokarran were uncommon, while there was an additional observation of Rhincodon typus . The lagoon of Europa was a nursery ground for C . melanopterus where it was the only species present. A total of 8 species was recorded, contributing to the shark diversity of 15 species reported from Europa since 1952 in the scientific and gray literature. Overall, with the occurrence of several species of apex predators in addition to that of R . typus , large schools of S . lewini , fair numbers of reef sharks and a nursery of C . melanopterus , Europa’s sharks constitute a significant reservoir of biodiversity, which contributes to preserve the functioning of the ecosystem. Our observations highlight the relevance of Europa Island for shark conservation and the need for shark-targeted management in the EEZ of both Europa and Bassas da India.
... The daily average speeds (0.07−1.6 m s −1 = 6.05−138.24 km d −1 ) (Eckert et al. 2002, Motta et al. 2010, Rohner et al. 2018 were used to determine a speed buffer radius applied to the 2 known positions at the start and end of the 14 d gap, on 4 and 18 March, respectively. The location data were analysed in R v.4.0.1 (R Core Team 2020) and RStudio Desktop v.1.3.959 ...
Article
Integrated analysis of the vertical and horizontal movements of epipelagic fishes requires high-resolution data from tags that have been attached to animals for long periods. The recovery of a SPLASH tag deployed on a whale shark (Rhincodon typus) for three months enabled access to archival data of horizontal and vertical movements of the shark that travelled 5,380 km from Christmas Island to the Banda Sea. We examined water temperature and bathymetry to compare movements of the shark with key oceanographic features. Over 89 days, we identified 1931 dives and grouped these into five broad categories depending on dive shape. To investigate the potential for these dives to reflect behavioural thermoregulation, we used boosted regression trees to model the relationship between pre- and post-dive surface durations and dive characteristics. The shark’s movements were correlated with water temperatures, with the animal following frontal systems while remaining in a sea surface temperature range of 24 – 29°C. Across the continental shelf off north-western Australia, the shark mostly remained near the seafloor, likely avoiding very warm SSTs and strong currents at the surface. U- (foraging) and V- (searching) shaped dives accounted for ~78% of dives. Foraging dives during the day descended to 200 – 500 m and were preceded and followed by extended periods at the surface, whereas at night, the shark rarely dived below 200 m, likely foraging near the thermocline. Our results show how water temperatures influence the movements of whale sharks, with “basking” at the surface during the day likely to gather environmental heat for thermoregulation, aiding to maintain body temperatures.
Article
Full-text available
Conservation and management of mobile marine species requires an understanding of how movement behaviour and space-use varies among individuals and populations, and how intraspecific differences influence exposure to anthropogenic threats. Because of their long-distance movements, broad distribution and long lifespan, whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) can encounter multiple, cumulative threats. However, we lack knowledge on how sharks at different aggregations use their habitats, and how geographic variation in anthropogenic threats influences their vulnerability to population decline. Using movement data from 111 deployments of satellite-linked tags, we examined how whale sharks at five aggregations in the Indian Ocean varied in their exposure to six anthropogenic impacts known to threaten this endangered species. Tagged sharks were detected in territorial waters of 24 countries, and international waters, with individuals travelling up to 11,401 km. Despite long-distance movements, tagged sharks from each aggregation occupied mutually exclusive areas of the Indian Ocean, where they encountered different levels of anthropogenic impacts. Sharks in the Arabian Gulf had the greatest proximity to oil and gas platforms, and encountered the warmest sea surface temperatures and highest levels of shipping, pollution and ocean acidification, while those from the Maldives and Mozambique aggregations had the highest exposure to fishing and human population impacts respectively. Our findings highlight the need for aggregation-specific conservation efforts to mitigate regional threats to whale sharks. Multinational coordination is essential for implementing these efforts beyond national jurisdictions and tackling issues of global conservation concern, including the consequences of climate change and an expanding human population.
Article
Full-text available
The black marlin Istiompax indica is an apex marine predator and is susceptible to overfishing. The movement ecology of the species remains poorly-known, particularly within the Indian Ocean, which has hampered assessment of their conservation status and fisheries management requirements. Here, we used pop-up archival satellite tags to track I. indica movement and examine their dispersal. Forty-nine tags were deployed off Kenya during both the north-east (November–April) and south-west (August–September) monsoon seasons, providing locations from every month of the year. Individual I. indica were highly-mobile and track distance correlated with the duration of tag attachment. Mean track duration was 38 days and mean track distance was >1,800 km. Individuals dispersed in several directions: north-east into Somalian waters, and up to northern Oman; east towards the Seychelles; and south into the Mozambique Channel. Their core habitat shifted seasonally, and overlapped with areas of high productivity off Kenya, Somalia, and Oman during the first half of the year. A second annual aggregation off the Kenyan coast, during August and September, did not coincide with high chlorophyll-a concentrations or thermal fronts, and the drivers of the species’ distribution in this second aggregation was unclear. We tested their habitat preferences by comparing environmental conditions at track locations to those at locations along simulated tracks based on the real tracks. Observed I. indica preferred cooler water with higher chl-a concentrations and stayed closer to the coast than simulated tracks. The rapid and extensive dispersal of I. indica from Kenya suggests that there is likely a single stock in the Western Indian Ocean, with individuals swimming between areas of high commercial catches off northern Somalia and Oman, and artisanal and recreational fisheries catches throughout East Africa and Mozambique. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Preprint
Full-text available
Mobulid rays are one of the most vulnerable chondrichthyan groups due to their low population growth rates and high susceptibility to fisheries. While estimates of human-induced mortality are lacking, sighting trend data can provide an index of their status. We recorded underwater sightings data of Mobula alfredi , M. birostris and M. kuhlii over a 14-year period in southern Mozambique. Generalised linear models were used to standardise sightings and adjust for influences other than time. Standardised sightings of the three species, individually, declined by >90%. Declines in sightings were driven primarily by a rapid decrease between 2003–2007, although the declines continued to 2016. While environmental variables did influence sightings, they did not explain this steep decline over time. Increasing mortality from fisheries is likely to have played a significant role in the declining sightings of these vulnerable species.
Article
Full-text available
The whale shark is an ideal flagship species for citizen science projects because of its charismatic nature, its size, and the associated ecotourism ventures focusing on the species at numerous coastal aggregation sites. An online database of whale shark encounters, identifying individuals on the basis of their unique skin patterning, captured almost 30,000 whale shark encounter reports from 1992 to 2014, with more than 6000 individuals identified from 54 countries. During this time, the number of known whale shark aggregation sites (hotspots) increased from 13 to 20. Examination of photo-identification data at a global scale revealed a skewed sex-ratio bias toward males (overall, more than 66%) and high site fidelity among individuals, with limited movements of sharks between neighboring countries but no records confirming large, ocean basin-scale migrations. Citizen science has been vital in amassing large spatial and temporal data sets to elucidate key aspects of whale shark life history and demographics and will continue to provide substantial long-term value.
Article
Full-text available
The Arabian Gulf is the warmest sea in the world and is host to a globally significant population of the whale shark Rhincodon typus. To investigate regional whale shark behaviour and movements, 59 satellite-linked tags were deployed on whale sharks in the Al Shaheen area off Qatar from 2011-14. Four different models of tag were used throughout the study, each model able to collect differing data or quantities of data. Retention varied from one to 227 days. While all tagged sharks crossed international maritime boundaries, they typically stayed within the Arabian Gulf. Only nine sharks dispersed through the narrow Strait of Hormuz into the Gulf of Oman. Most sharks stayed close to known or suspected feeding aggregation sites over summer months, but dispersed throughout the Arabian Gulf in winter. Sharks rarely ventured into shallow areas (
Article
Full-text available
Eight whale sharks tagged with pop-up satellite archival tags off the Gulf of California, Mexico, were tracked for periods of 14–134 days. Five of these sharks were adults, with four females visually assessed to be pregnant. At least for the periods they were tracked, juveniles remained in the Gulf of California while adults moved offshore into the eastern Pacific Ocean. We propose that parturition occurs in these offshore waters. Excluding two juveniles that remained in the shallow tagging area for the duration of tracking, all sharks spent 65 ± 20.7% (SD) of their time near the surface, even over deep water, often in association with frontal zones characterized by cool-water upwelling. While these six sharks all made dives into the meso- or bathypelagic zones, with two sharks reaching the maximum depth recordable by the tags (1285.8 m), time spent at these depths represented a small proportion of the overall tracks. Most deep dives (72.7%) took place during the day, particularly during the early morning and late afternoon. Pronounced habitat differences by ontogenetic stage suggest that adult whale sharks are less likely to frequent coastal waters after the onset of maturity.
Article
Full-text available
Sawfishes (Pristidae) were formerly abundant in the western Indian Ocean, but current data on sawfish presence and distribution are lacking for most of the region. This paper summarises historical records of sawfishes in Mozambican waters and presents the findings of the first assessment of the presence and status of sawfishes in Mozambique. A countrywide baseline assessment was undertaken between May and July 2014, using interviews with artisanal, semi-industrial and industrial fishers, fish traders and fisheries monitoring staff as the primary source of information on sawfish distribution, recent catches, socio-economic value and cultural importance. Additional interviews were conducted via email or telephone with individuals running sport fishing operations or who otherwise had considerable experience interacting with the fishing sectors or the marine environment in Mozambique. Where encountered, sawfish rostra were photographed and a series of measurements and associated data were collected. In total, 200 questionnaire surveys and seven interviews with recreational fishing and dive operators were conducted, and 19 rostra were documented from museum archives and private collections, belonging to two sawfish species, the Largetooth Sawfish ( Pristis pristis) and Green Sawfish ( P. zijsron) . The most recent captures of sawfishes were reported to have occurred in 2014. Two key sites were identified where both recent encounters were reported and numerous Largetooth Sawfish rostra were documented. Gill nets were the fishing gear most commonly attributed to sawfish catches. Sawfishes did not hold any cultural importance in Mozambique, but they have at least some socio-economic importance to artisanal fishers, primarily through the sale of their fins. The meat did not appear to be held in high regard and was usually consumed locally. Sampling and further research is now required to confirm the presence of sawfishes and to assess the primary threats to sawfishes in those areas. At one site where a number of rostra were present and where fishers stated that they still catch sawfish, gill nets are being provided to fishers as an alternative to beach seining. This may have a serious impact on the local sawfish population and more broadly for other elasmobranchs in the area. Immediate action is required to develop a landings monitoring programme in this and other key habitats, and to encourage fishers to release sawfishes alive.
Article
Full-text available
Genetic and modelling studies suggest that seasonal aggregations of whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) at coastal sites in the tropics may be linked by migration. Here, we used photo-identification (photo-ID) data collected by both citizen scientists and researchers to assess the connectedness of five whale shark aggregation sites across the entire Indian Ocean at timescales of up to a decade. We used the semi-automated program I3S (Individual Interactive Identification System) to compare photographs of the unique natural marking patterns of individual whale sharks collected from aggregations at Mozambique, the Seychelles, the Maldives, Christmas Island (Australia) and Ningaloo Reef (Australia). From a total of 6519 photos, we found no evidence of connectivity of whale shark aggregations at ocean-basin scales within the time frame of the study and evidence for only limited connectivity at regional (hundreds to thousands of kilometres) scales. A male whale shark photographed in January 2010 at Mozambique was resighted eight months later in the Seychelles and was the only one of 1724 individuals in the database to be photographed at more than one site. On average, 35% of individuals were resighted at the same site in more than one year. A Monte Carlo simulation study showed that the power of this photo-ID approach to document patterns of emigration and immigration was strongly dependent on both the number of individuals identified in aggregations and the size of resident populations.
Article
Full-text available
Most previous studies on whale shark movements have been on immature sharks. Here, we present tracking data for large females that we tagged at the Galapagos Islands, where they occur seasonally. We conducted fieldwork at Darwin Island (1.67, 92.0°W) from July to October in 2011 and in 2012. We often saw individual sharks several times on a particular day, but rarely saw them again more than 2 days later after they were first sighted. We tagged 39 female whale sharks, 36 of which were between 8 and 12 m long. We tracked 27 sharks for 9–176 days (median = 47 day). Sharks tagged in July moved west into the open ocean, whereas those tagged in September and October moved toward the coast of South America. They travelled between 49 and 2747 km from Darwin (median = 1296 km), at about 38 km day⁻¹ (median rate). We observed five of those sharks later at various times at Darwin Island after >1 month absence, by photo-identification (n = 2) or satellite track (n = 3). Tracks that lasted through December ended along the continental shelf break of northern Peru. We show return movements of individuals through Darwin after moving large distances into the open ocean and establish connectivity with mainland Ecuador and Peru.
Article
Full-text available
Data on the occurrence of whale sharks, Rhincodon typus, in the Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Oman were collected by dedicated boat surveys and via a public-sightings scheme during the period from 2011 to 2014. A total of 422 individual whale sharks were photo-identified from the Arabian Gulf and the northern Gulf of Oman during that period. The majority of sharks (81%, n = 341) were encountered at the Al Shaheen area of Qatar, 90 km off the coast, with the Musandam region of Oman a secondary area of interest. At Al Shaheen, there were significantly more male sharks (n = 171) than females (n = 78; X2 = 17.52, P < 0.05). Mean estimated total length (TL) for sharks was 6.90 m ± 1.24 (median = 7 m; n = 296). Males (7.25 m ± 1.34; median = 8 m, n = 171) were larger than females (6.44 m ±1.09; median = 7 m, n = 78; Mann-Whitney U test, p < 0.01). Of the male sharks assessed for maturity 63% were mature (n = 81), with 50% attaining maturity by 7.29 m and 100% by 9.00 m. Two female sharks of >9 m individuals were visually assessed as pregnant. Con-nectivity among sharks sighted in Qatari, Omani and UAE waters was confirmed by individual spot pattern matches. A total of 13 identified sharks were re-sighted at locations other than that at which they were first sighted, including movements into and out of the Arabian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz. Maximum likelihood techniques were used to model an estimated combined population for the Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Oman of 2837 sharks ± 1243.91 S.E. (95% C.I. 1720–6295). The Al Shaheen aggregation is thus the first site described as being dominated by mature males while the free-swimming pregnant females are the first reported from the Indian Ocean.
Article
Full-text available
It is a golden age for animal movement studies and so an opportune time to assess priorities for future work. We assembled 40 experts to identify key questions in this field, focussing on marine megafauna, which include a broad range of birds, mammals, reptiles, and fish. Research on these taxa has both underpinned many of the recent technical developments and led to fundamental discoveries in the field. We show that the questions have broad applicability to other taxa, including terrestrial animals, flying insects, and swimming invertebrates, and, as such, this exercise provides a useful roadmap for targeted deployments and data syntheses that should advance the field of movement ecology.