IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0157717.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Close is too Close? The Effect of a Non-Lethal Electric Shark Deterrent on White Shark Behaviour

Author

Listed:
  • Ryan M Kempster
  • Channing A Egeberg
  • Nathan S Hart
  • Laura Ryan
  • Lucille Chapuis
  • Caroline C Kerr
  • Carl Schmidt
  • Charlie Huveneers
  • Enrico Gennari
  • Kara E Yopak
  • Jessica J Meeuwig
  • Shaun P Collin

Abstract

Sharks play a vital role in the health of marine ecosystems, but the potential threat that sharks pose to humans is a reminder of our vulnerability when entering the ocean. Personal shark deterrents are being marketed as the solution to mitigate the threat that sharks pose. However, the effectiveness claims of many personal deterrents are based on our knowledge of shark sensory biology rather than robust testing of the devices themselves, as most have not been subjected to independent scientific studies. Therefore, there is a clear need for thorough testing of commercially available shark deterrents to provide the public with recommendations of their effectiveness. Using a modified stereo-camera system, we quantified behavioural interactions between white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) and a baited target in the presence of a commercially available, personal electric shark deterrent (Shark Shield Freedom7™). The stereo-camera system enabled an accurate assessment of the behavioural responses of C. carcharias when encountering a non-lethal electric field many times stronger than what they would naturally experience. Upon their first observed encounter, all C. carcharias were repelled at a mean (± std. error) proximity of 131 (± 10.3) cm, which corresponded to a mean voltage gradient of 9.7 (± 0.9) V/m. With each subsequent encounter, their proximity decreased by an average of 11.6 cm, which corresponded to an increase in tolerance to the electric field by an average of 2.6 (± 0.5) V/m per encounter. Despite the increase in tolerance, sharks continued to be deterred from interacting for the duration of each trial when in the presence of an active Shark Shield™. Furthermore, the findings provide no support to the theory that electric deterrents attract sharks. The results of this study provide quantitative evidence of the effectiveness of a non-lethal electric shark deterrent, its influence on the behaviour of C. carcharias, and an accurate method for testing other shark deterrent technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Ryan M Kempster & Channing A Egeberg & Nathan S Hart & Laura Ryan & Lucille Chapuis & Caroline C Kerr & Carl Schmidt & Charlie Huveneers & Enrico Gennari & Kara E Yopak & Jessica J Meeuwig & Shaun P C, 2016. "How Close is too Close? The Effect of a Non-Lethal Electric Shark Deterrent on White Shark Behaviour," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-20, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0157717
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157717
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0157717
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0157717&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0157717?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0157717. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.