Suchergebnisse

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. ; The number of shark-human interactions and shark bites per capita has been increasing since the 1980s, leading to a rise in measures developed to mitigate the risk of shark bites. Yet many of the products commercially available for personal protection have not been scientifically tested, potentially providing an exaggerated sense of security to the people using them. We tested five personal shark deterrents developed for surfers (Shark Shield Pty Ltd [Ocean Guardian] Freedom+ Surf, Rpela, SharkBanz bracelet, SharkBanz surf leash, and Chillax Wax) by comparing the percentage of baits taken, distance to the bait, number of passes, and whether a shark reaction could be observed. We did a total of 297 successful trials at the Neptune Islands Group Marine Park in South Australia, during which 44 different white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) interacted with the bait, making a total of 1413 passes. The effectiveness of the deterrents was variable, with the Freedom+ Surf affecting shark behaviour the most and reducing the percentage of bait taken from 96% (relative to the control board) to 40%. The mean distance of sharks to the board increased from 1.6 ± 0.1 m (control board) to 2.6 ± 0.1 m when the Freedom Surf+ was active. The other deterrents had limited or no measurable effect on white shark behaviour. Based on our power analyses, the smallest effect size that could be reliably detected was ∼15%, which for the first time provides information about the effect size that a deterrent study like ours can reliably detect. Our study shows that deterrents based on similar principles—overwhelming a shark's electroreceptors (the ampullae of Lorenzini) with electrical pulses—differ in their efficacy, reinforcing the need to test each product independently. Our results will allow private and government agencies and the public to make informed decisions about the use and suitability of these five products. ; The following grant information was disclosed by the authors: New South Wales Department of Primary Industries Shark Management Strategy (SMS) Competitive Annual Grants Program. Government of South Australia. Ocean Guardian Pty Ltd. Neiser Foundation.

Context Researchers studying animals need to ensure that sampling procedures and the methods they use are as harmless and non-disruptive as possible, particularly when their focal species are threatened or protected. White sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) are Vulnerable under the IUCN Red List, protected globally, and are frequently studied by marine ecologists. Aims To assess white shark responses to research activities (i.e. tagging and biopsy procedures, and electric deterrent trials) conducted at the Neptune Islands Group Marine Park (South Australia, Australia). Methods Trends in shark residency following research activities were assessed by comparing shark abundance (number of sharks detected by acoustic receivers and sighted by cage-diving operators) before, during, and after scientific expeditions, and to natural fluctuations in the absence of research activities using 8 years (2013–2021) of acoustic tracking and daily sighting reports from a wildlife tourism industry. Key results Number of white sharks and residency decreased after sampling. However, changes observed following research activities were similar to natural fluctuations, suggesting that these changes reflected natural variations rather than being due to sharks responding negatively to the research activities. Conclusions Our study showed that external tagging, biopsies, or deterrent trials do not affect short- and long-term residency or abundance of white sharks, probably owing to the research activities being minimally intrusive and to sharks having efficient immune systems and remarkable ability to heal from injuries. Implications Re-evaluating study methods forms part of the researcher's responsibilities to ensure best practice and to abide by national and international codes for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes.

Researchers TL, BG, JW, NB and JM were supported by the Marine Biodiversity Hub through funding from the Australian Government's National Environmental Science Program. Data validation scripts and GlobalArchive.org were supported by the Australian Research Data Commons, the Gorgon-Barrow Island Gorgon Barrow Island Net Conservation Benefits Fund, administered by the Government of Western Australia and the BHP/UWA Biodiversity and Societal Benefits of Restricted Access Areas collaboration. ; 1. Baited remote underwater stereo-video systems (stereo-BRUVs) are a popular tool to sample demersal fish assemblages and gather data on their relative abundance and body-size structure in a robust, cost-effective, and non-invasive manner. Given the rapid uptake of the method, subtle differences have emerged in the way stereo-BRUVs are deployed and how the resulting imagery are annotated. These disparities limit the interoperability of datasets obtained across studies, preventing broad-scale insights into the dynamics of ecological systems. 2. We provide the first globally accepted guide for using stereo-BRUVs to survey demersal fish assemblages and associated benthic habitats. 3. Information on stereo-BRUV design, camera settings, field operations, and image annotation are outlined. Additionally, we provide links to protocols for data validation, archiving, and sharing. 4. Globally, the use of stereo-BRUVs is spreading rapidly. We provide a standardised protocol that will reduce methodological variation among researchers and encourage the use of Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reproducible (FAIR) workflows to increase the ability to synthesise global datasets and answer a broad suite of ecological questions. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed

The global lockdown to mitigate COVID-19 pandemic health risks has altered human interactions with nature. Here, we report immediate impacts of changes in human activities on wildlife and environmental threats during the early lockdown months of 2020, based on 877 qualitative reports and 332 quantitative assessments from 89 different studies. Hundreds of reports of unusual species observations from around the world suggest that animals quickly responded to the reductions in human presence. However, negative effects of lockdown on conservation also emerged, as confinement resulted in some park officials being unable to perform conservation, restoration and enforcement tasks, resulting in local increases in illegal activities such as hunting. Overall, there is a complex mixture of positive and negative effects of the pandemic lockdown on nature, all of which have the potential to lead to cascading responses which in turn impact wildlife and nature conservation. While the net effect of the lockdown will need to be assessed over years as data becomes available and persistent effects emerge, immediate responses were detected across the world. Thus, initial qualitative and quantitative data arising from this serendipitous global quasi-experimental perturbation highlights the dual role that humans play in threatening and protecting species and ecosystems. Pathways to favorably tilt this delicate balance include reducing impacts and increasing conservation effectiveness. ; The Canada Research Chairs program provided funding for the core writing team. Field research funding was provided by A.G. Leventis Foundation; Agence Nationale de la Recherche, [grant number ANR-18-32–0010CE-01 (JCJC PEPPER)]; Agencia Estatal de Investigaci; Agência Regional para o Desenvolvimento da Investigação Tecnologia e Inovação (ARDITI), [grant number M1420-09-5369-FSE-000002]; Alan Peterson; ArcticNet; Arkadaşlar; Army Corp of Engineers; Artificial Reef Program; Australia's Integrated Marine Observing System (IMOS), National Collaborative; Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS), University of Tasmania; Australian Institute of Marine Science; Australian Research Council, [grant number LP140100222]; Bai Xian Asia Institute; Batubay Özkan; BC Hydro Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program; Ben-Gurion University of the Negev; Bertarelli Foundation; Bertarelli Programme in Marine Science; Bilge Bahar; Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; Biology Society of South Australia; Boston University; Burak Över; California State Assembly member Patrick O'Donnell; California State University Council on Ocean Affairs, Science & Technology; California State University Long Beach; Canada Foundation for Innovation (Major Science Initiative Fund and funding to Oceans Network Canada), [grant number MSI 30199 for ONC]; Cape Eleuthera Foundation; Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales; Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; Charles Darwin Foundation, [grant number 2398]; Colombian Institute for the Development of Science and Technology (COLCIENCIAS), [grant number 811–2018]; Colombian Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, [grant number 0041–2020]; Columbia Basin Trust; Commission for Environmental Cooperation; Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Cultural practices and environmental certification of beaches, Universidad de la Costa, Colombia, [grant number INV.1106–01–002-15, 2020–21]; Department of Conservation New Zealand; Direction de l'Environnement de Polynésie Française; Disney Conservation Fund; DSI-NRF Centre of; Excellence at the FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology; Ecology Project International; Emin Özgür; Environment and Climate Change Canada; European Community: RTD programme - Species Support to Policies; European Community's Seventh Framework Programme; European Union; European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, Marie Skłodowska-Curie, [grant number 798091, 794938]; Faruk Eczacıbaşı; Faruk Yalçın Zoo; Field research funding was provided by King Abdullah University of Science and Technology; Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program; Fisheries and Oceans Canada; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, [grant numbers FWC-12164, FWC-14026, FWC-19050]; Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional; Fonds québécois de la recherche nature et technologies; Foundation Segré; Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT Portugal); Galapagos National Park Directorate research, [grant number PC-41-20]; Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, [grant number GBMF9881 and GBMF 8072]; Government of Tristan da Cunha; Habitat; Conservation Trust Foundation; Holsworth Wildlife Research Endowment; Institute of Biology of the Southern Seas, Sevastopol, Russia; Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt; Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE), Brazil; Israeli Academy of Science's Adams Fellowship; King Family Trust; Labex, CORAIL, France; Liber Ero Fellowship; LIFE (European Union), [grant number LIFE16 NAT/BG/000874]; Mar'a de Maeztu Program for Units of Excellence in R&D; Ministry of Science and Innovation, FEDER, SPASIMM,; Spain, [grant number FIS2016–80067-P (AEI/FEDER, UE)]; MOE-Korea, [grant number 2020002990006]; Mohamed bin Zayed Species Conservation Fund; Montreal Space for Life; National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Earth and Space Science Fellowship Program; National Geographic Society, [grant numbers NGS-82515R-20]; National Natural Science Fund of China; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; National Parks Board, Singapore; National Science and Technology Major Project of China; National Science Foundation, [grant number DEB-1832016]; Natural Environment Research Council of the UK; Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Alliance COVID-19 grant program, [grant numbers ALLRP 550721–20, RGPIN-2014-06229 (year: 2014), RGPIN-2016-05772 (year: 2016)]; Neiser Foundation; Nekton Foundation; Network of Centre of Excellence of Canada: ArcticNet; North Family Foundation; Ocean Tracking Network; Ömer Külahçıoğlu; Oregon State University; Parks Canada Agency (Lake Louise, Yoho, and Kootenay Field Unit); Pew Charitable Trusts; Porsim Kanaf partnership; President's International Fellowship Initiative for postdoctoral researchers Chinese Academy of Sciences, [grant number 2019 PB0143]; Red Sea Research Center; Regional Government of the Azores, [grant number M3.1a/F/025/2015]; Regione Toscana; Rotary Club of Rhinebeck; Save our Seas Foundation; Science & Technology (CSU COAST); Science City Davos, Naturforschende Gesellschaft Davos; Seha İşmen; Sentinelle Nord program from the Canada First Research Excellence Fund; Servizio Foreste e Fauna (Provincia Autonoma di Trento); Sigrid Rausing Trust; Simon Fraser University; Sitka Foundation; Sivil Toplum Geliştirme Merkezi Derneği; South African National Parks (SANParks); South Australian Department for Environment and Water; Southern California Tuna Club (SCTC); Spanish Ministry for the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge; Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness; Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation; State of California; Sternlicht Family Foundation; Suna Reyent; Sunshine Coast Regional Council; Tarea Vida, CEMZOC, Universidad de Oriente, Cuba, [grant number 10523, 2020]; Teck Coal; The Hamilton Waterfront Trust; The Ian Potter Foundation, Coastwest, Western Australian State NRM; The Red Sea Development Company; The Wanderlust Fund; The Whitley Fund; Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline; Tula Foundation (Hakai Institute); University of Arizona; University of Pisa; US Fish and Wildlife Service; US Geological Survey; Valencian Regional Government; Vermont Center for Ecostudies; Victorian Fisheries Authority; VMRC Fishing License Fund; and Wildlife Warriors Worldwide.