• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Oceanographic Literature Review >Comparing distributions of white, bull, and tiger sharks near and away from the surf break using three techbased methods
【24h】

Comparing distributions of white, bull, and tiger sharks near and away from the surf break using three techbased methods

机译：使用三种技术方法比较白，公牛和虎鲨的分布，远离冲浪断裂

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Unprovoked shark bites are one of the most recognised human-wildlife conflicts in the marine environment. Historically, management of this threat to public safety largely involved the implementation of lethal strategies. However, there is increasing environmental necessity and social pressure to adopt alternative strategies that minimise harm to sharks and other marine life. While different approaches have been developed that aim to reduce the risk of shark interactions with people, it is difficult to quantify their efficacy due to the rarity of shark bites and a lack of understanding of localised distributions of white (Car-charodon carcharias), bull (Carcharhinus leucas), and tiger (Ga-leocerdo cuvier) sharks, particularly close to surf breaks. Here, we used a rare opportunity to compare observations of these three 'target' shark species nearshore from drone-based surveillance to those caught on SMART (Shark-Management-Alert-in-Real-Time) drumlines and detected from VR4G acoustic receivers, with the latter two both located approximately 500 m offshore.Across 243 operational days, where all three methods were in use off three separate beaches on the east coast of Australia, we found no evidence for nearshore drone-based observations of target shark species to correlate with catches from SMART drumlines or detections from the VR4G acoustic receivers. The absence of correlation was still evident when 2-day, and 3-day moving averages of catches from SMART drumlines and detections from acoustic receivers were considered. While drone-based surveillance can incur sightability errors, it was evident that SMART drumlines do not prevent sharks from entering near the surf zone, and this does not coincide with the portion of sharks detected by the VR4G acoustic receivers. We contend that there is a need for a greater understanding of behavioural processes of large predatory sharks that may pose a threat to ocean users, particularly when considering non-destructive approaches to shark mitigation.
机译：未加工的鲨鱼叮咬是海洋环境中最受公认的人类野生动物冲突之一。从历史上看，对公共安全的这种威胁的管理在很大程度上涉及实施致命战略。然而，采用替代策略，增加了环境必要性和社会压力，以最大限度地减少对鲨鱼和其他海洋生命的伤害。虽然已经开发出不同的方法，旨在降低与人群的鲨鱼互动的风险，但由于鲨鱼咬伤的罕见以及对局部化的白色（Car-Charodon Carcharias），公牛缺乏了解，难以量化它们的疗效。 （Carcharhinus Leucas），老虎（Ga-Leocerdo Cuvier）鲨鱼，特别接近冲浪休息。在这里，我们利用难得的机会将这三个“目标”鲨鱼种的观察与基于无人机的监视的观察与智能（Shark-Management-Alert-in-Real-Time-Time-Time）Drumline捕获并从VR4G声学接收器检测，随着后者的两个都是大约500米的海上海上行动日，所有这三种方法都在澳大利亚东海岸的三个独立的海滩上，我们发现没有近勇于无人机的目标鲨鱼物种的迹象表明从智能智能滚筒线或VR4G声学接收器检测到捕获。考虑了从智能滚筒线和来自声接收机的捕获量的捕获量和3天的移动平均值时仍然明显的相关性仍然是显而易见的。虽然基于无人机的监视可能会产生可见性错误，但很明显，智能拨打智能驾驶室不会防止鲨鱼进入冲浪区附近，并且这与VR4G声学接收器检测的鲨鱼部分不一致。我们认为，需要更加了解大型捕食性鲨鱼的行为过程，这些鲨鱼可能对海洋用户构成威胁，特别是考虑到鲨鱼缓解的非破坏性方法。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Oceanographic Literature Review》 |2020年第10期|2266-2267|共2页
  • 作者

    A.P. Colefax; P.A. Butcher; D.E. Pagendam; B.P. Kelaher;

  • 作者单位

    Southern Cross University National Marine Science Centre Coffs Harbour NSW Australia;

    Southern Cross University National Marine Science Centre Coffs Harbour NSW Australia;

    Southern Cross University National Marine Science Centre Coffs Harbour NSW Australia;

    Southern Cross University National Marine Science Centre Coffs Harbour NSW Australia;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号