SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Zoology / 2017 / Cilt: 41 - Sayı: 6

Diet of the bull shark, Carcharhinus leucas , and the tiger shark, Galeocerdo cuvier , in the eastern Pacific Ocean

Felipe GALVAN-MAGANA
Colombo ESTUPINAN-MONTANO
Jose Felix ESTUPINAN-ORTIZ
Luis German CEDENO-FIGUEROA
Carlos Julio POLO-SILVA
Pages
1111–1117
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results show thatC. leucas(trophic level,I TR ; 4.32 ±0.13) andG. cuvier( I TR ; 4.26 ± 0.09) are tertiary consumers, occupying high positions in the food chain, but also are generalist predatorsthat feed on a variety of prey.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study presents information on the diet of two shark species,Carcharhinus leucasandGaleocerdo cuvier , that inhabit thesoutheastern Pacific Ocean.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The stomachs were collected from October 2003 to July 2005 in Ecuador.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results show thatC. leucas(trophic level,I TR ; 4.32 ±0.13) andG. cuvier( I TR ; 4.26 ± 0.09) are tertiary consumers, occupying high positions in the food chain, but also are generalist predatorsthat feed on a variety of prey.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2003 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study presents information on the diet of two shark species,Carcharhinus leucasandGaleocerdo cuvier , that inhabit thesoutheastern Pacific Ocean. The stomachs were collected from October 2003 to July 2005 in Ecuador. Stomachs of 41C. leucasand sixG. cuvierwere analyzed. According to the index of relative importance (%IRI), the most important prey forC. leucaswere fishes: familyOphichthidae (13.41%),Tylosurus pacificus(9.79%),Katsuwonus pelamis(4.54%), and fish remains (44.81%).G. cuvier , for its part,consumed squids:Ancistrocheirus lesueuri(45.14%),Pholidoteuthis boschmaii(7.81%), andOctopoteuthisspp. (5.17%), as well as turtles:Caretta caretta(9.7%),Lepidochelys cf. kempii(5%), and turtle remains (16.5%). The results show thatC. leucas(trophic level,I TR ; 4.32 ±0.13) andG. cuvier( I TR ; 4.26 ± 0.09) are tertiary consumers, occupying high positions in the food chain, but also are generalist predatorsthat feed on a variety of prey. The high frequency of sea turtles in the stomachs ofG. cuvier(>300 cm) suggests that this shark species isan important predator of turtles, which are commonly found along the southeastern Pacific coasts.

🔖

Cite This Article

GALVAN-MAGANA, F., ESTUPINAN-MONTANO, C., ESTUPINAN-ORTIZ, J. F., CEDENO-FIGUEROA, L. G., POLO-SILVA, C. J. (2022). Diet of the bull shark, Carcharhinus leucas , and the tiger shark, Galeocerdo cuvier , in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Turkish Journal of Zoology, Cilt: 41 - Sayı: 6, 1111–1117. https://ajindex.com/articles/616168

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Baughman JL, Springer S (1950). Biological and economic notes on the sharks of the Gulf of Mexico, with special reference to those of Texas, and with a key for their identification. Am Midl Nat 44: 96-152.
  2. Bell JC, Nichols JT (1921). Notes on the food of Carolina sharks. Co- peia 92: 17-20.
  3. Bornatowski H, Robert MD, Costa L. 2007. Dados sobre a alimen- tação de jovens de tubarão-tigre, Galeocerdo cuvier (Pérson & Lesueur) (Elasmobranchii, Carcharhinidae), do sul do Brasil. Panam J Aquat Sci 2: 10-13 (in Portuguese). Bornatowski H, Navia AF, Braga RR, Abilhoa V, Corrêa MFM (2014b). Ecological importance of sharks and rays in a struc- tural foodweb analysis in southern Brazil. ICES J Mar Sci. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsu025. Carlson JK, Ribera MM, Conrath CL, Heupel MR, Burgess GH (2010). Habitat use and movement patterns of the bull sharks Carcharhinus leucas determined using pop-up satellite archival tags. J Fish Biol 77: 661-675.
  4. Casey JG (1964). Angler’s guide to sharks of the northeastern United States, marine to Chesapeake Bay. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Circular 179: 1-32.
  5. Clark E, Schmidt KV (1965). Sharks of the central Gulf coast of Flor - ida. B Mar Sci 15: 13-83.
  6. Cliff G, Dudley FJ (1991). Sharks caught in the protective gill nets off Natal, South Africa. 4. The bull shark Carcharhinus leucas Valenciennes. S Afr J Mar Sci 10: 253-270.
  7. Compagno LJV (1984). Sharks of the world. An annotated and illus- trated catalogue of shark species to date. Part II (Carcharhini- formes). FAO Fisheries Synopsis 125: 251-655. Cortés E (1997). A critical review of methods of studying fish feeding based on analysis of stomach contents: application to elasmo- branch fishes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 54: 726-738. Cortés E (1999). Standardized diet compositions and trophic levels of sharks. ICES J Mar Sci 56: 707-717.
  8. Crow G, Hewitt IVJ (1988). Longevity records for captive tiger sharks Galeocerdo cuvier with notes on behaviour and management. Int Zoo Yearb 27: 237-240. D’Aubrey JD (1964). Preliminary guide to the sharks found off the east coast of South Africa. B S Afr Assoc Mar Biol Res 8: 1-95.
  9. Darnell RM (1958). Food habits of fishes and larger invertebrates of lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, an estuarine community. Inst Mar Sci 5: 353-416.
  10. Ellis JK, Musick JA (2007). Ontogenetic changes in the diet of the sandbar shark, Carcharhinus plumbeus, in lower Chesapeake Bay and Virginia (USA) coastal waters. Environ Biol Fish 80: 51-67.
  11. Ellis JR, Pawson MG, Shackley SE