The Caribbean Reef Shark is targeted and/or captured as bycatch in artisanal and commercial gillnets and longlines throughout its range. Artisanal fisheries are intense across much of Atlantic South America, and there are largely unmanaged commercial longline fisheries in several areas; In addition to fisheries pressure, coral reef ecosystems in the Caribbean Sea, which are the primary habitat for this species, are in decline due to climate change, specifically coral bleaching, disease, invasive species, and coastal pollution (Carpenter et al. 2008, Jackson et al. 2014). Overall, this shark has very little refuge from fishing, and is at threat from a continuing decline in habitat quality.
(25°250 N, 78°350 W): The focal shark feeding site was located 2.6 km off the south coast of the island where Caribbean reef sharks have been fed almost daily since 1986 as a dive tourism attraction.
Local people (e.g., individuals, communities, co-operatives)
National external (individual, groups. e.g., hunters, anglers, photographers, tourists)
International external (individual, groups. e.g., hunters, anglers, photographers, tourists)
Is the use part of a strategy to generate conservation incentives, to finance conservation, or to improve tolerance/stewardship?
Yes
Is there evidence that the use is affecting the conservation status of the species? HIDE
No – no clear evidence of the impact of use compared to other factors influencing
Is there evidence that the use is affecting natural selection?
Unknown/not recorded
Is there evidence that the use is affecting poaching of illegal wildlife trade?
Unknown/not reported
Is there any evidence that this use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the status of non-target species
Yes, it is having a positive effect (e.g., reduced competition, reduced risk of hybridization)
Unknown/not recorded
Additional Details (if available)
healthy populations of apex predators have been shown to have positive impacts on biodiversity at lower trophic levels (Sergio et al. 2005), thus conservation of these species may deliver wider ecosystem-level benefits.
Details of assessment carried out
‘fed’ individuals showed significant 15N enrichment in their tissues compared to conspecifics of the same size that failed to obtain bait at the feeding site, and un-provisioned sharks from a control site. Despite the disparity in trophic signatures, fed, unfed and control sharks exhibited similar degrees of residency at their respective home receiver sites, and travelled similar daily minimum distances. Thus, despite long-term provisioning of this Caribbean reef shark population, there is no evidence for shifts in the behaviours considered which might affect the ecological role of these sharks. We found that although a large number of sharks attended feeding events, a very small proportion of sharks acquired bait regularly. Our results therefore suggest that the impacts of long-term, regular provisioning on this shark population may be limited, at least in terms of the parameters examined here. Sharks that took bait frequently (the ‘fed’ group) had elevated d15N values compared to individuals of similar size and sex that were either often present but unsuccessful at feeds (the ‘unfed’ group) or rarely present and mostly resident elsewhere (the ‘control’ group).
Has a valuation of financial flows from this use at the site/national/international level been recorded
Maljković, A., & Côté, I. (2011). Effects of tourism-related provisioning on the trophic signatures and movement patterns of an apex predator, the Caribbean reef shark. Biological Conservation, 144(2), 859-865. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.11.019
provisioning is presented as an effective strategy that can contribute to apex predator conservation. Provisioning-based tourism, when accompanied by natural history information, can enhance public awareness of the conservation plight of apex predator populations