Nancy E. Kohler, Danielle Bailey, Patricia A. Turner, and Camilla McCandless SEDAR34-WP-25. Submitted: 10 June 2013

Similar documents
SMALL COASTAL SHARK 2007 SEDAR DATA WORKSHOP DOCUMENT

Preliminary catches of smoothhound sharks SEDAR39-DW-03

Cami T. McCandless and Joesph J. Mello SEDAR39- DW June 2014

Melissa M. Giresi, William B. Driggers, R. Dean Grubbs, Jim Gelsleichter, Eric R. Hoffmayer SEDAR39-DW May 2014

Summary Report of the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries Cobia (Rachycentron canadum) Acoustic Tagging. Stephen J. Poland SEDAR58-SID-06

Survival of the blacktip shark, Carcharhinus limbatus

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

Hook Selectivity in Gulf of Mexico Gray Triggerfish when using circle or J Hooks

ASMFC Stock Assessment Overview: Red Drum

SEDAR 10 DW- 08. REVIEW OF TAGGING DATA FOR GAG GROUPER (Mycteroperca microlepis) FROM THE SOUTHEASTERN GULF OF MEXICO REGION

Overview of Florida s Cooperative East Coast Red Snapper Tagging Program, SEDAR41-DW10. Submitted: 1 August 2014

Size and spatial distribution of the blue shark, Prionace glauca, caught by Taiwanese large-scale. longline fishery in the North Pacific Ocean

Atlantic Shark Fishery: Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Management Division

ASMFC Stock Assessment Overview: Red Drum

Sheepshead Fishery Overview South Atlantic State/Federal Management Board May 2014 Introduction Life History Landings

Modeling effects of fishing closures in the Western Florida Shelf

U.S. National Observer Program, Southeast Regional Fishery Observer Programs & Regional Electronic Technology Implementation Plans Jane DiCosimo

Discards of red grouper (Epinephelus morio) for the headboat fishery in the US Gulf of Mexico SEDAR 42- DW- 17

Serial No. N4859 NAFO SCR Doc. 03/41 SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 2003

Highly Migratory Species SWFSC/NMFS Report

Abundance, Distribution, and Habitat Use of Sharks in Two Northeast Florida Estuaries

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

Standardized catch rates of U.S. blueline tilefish (Caulolatilus microps) from commercial logbook longline data

ASMFC Stock Assessment Overview: Atlantic Menhaden

Commercial Bycatch Rates of Shortfin Mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) from Longline Fisheries in the Canadian Atlantic

Estimates of Historic Recreational Landings of Vermilion Snapper in the South Atlantic Using the FHWAR Census Method. Ken Brennan SEDAR 55-WP04

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species

Beverly Sauls SEDAR31-DW11. 5 August 2012

2012 Maryland FMP Report (July 2013) Section 15. Red Drum (Sciaenops ocellatus)

Monitoring the length structure of commercial landings of albacore tuna during the fishing year

Black Seabass Length Frequencies and Condition of Released Fish from At-Sea Headboat Observer Surveys, 2004 to 2010.

Blue Marlin, Makaira nigricans, Movements in the Western North Atlantic Ocean: Results of a Cooperative Game Fish Tagging Program,

SEDAR 28 Gulf and South Atlantic -- Spanish Mackerel and Cobia Workshop Document List Document # Title Authors

Updated landings information for the commercial fisheries in Puerto Rico with emphasis on silk and queen snapper and parrotfish fisheries

ASMFC Stock Assessment Overview: Black Drum

Estimates of Historic Recreational Landings of Red Snapper in the South Atlantic Using the FHWAR Census Method SEDAR41-DW17 DRAFT

Amendment 11: Shortfin Mako Shark Issues and Options. Highly Migratory Species Management Division Spring 2018

Preliminary Draft of. SEDAR 17 Data Workshop Vermilion Snapper Report. Commercial Fishery (Section 3)

Estimates of Historic Recreational Landings of Red Snapper in the South Atlantic Using the FHWAR Census Method SEDAR 41-DW17

Coastal Sharks Technical Committee Meeting Annapolis Maryland September 24 & 25, 2007

What you need to know about juvenile tunas in the Philippines:

Commercial Bycatch Rates of Blue Shark (Prionace glauca) from Longline Fisheries in the Canadian Atlantic

2007 REVIEW OF THE ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR. SPOT (Leiostomus xanthurus) 2006 FISHING YEAR

Barotrauma in Atlantic Coast Fisheries. Chip Collier March 2011

Gulf of Maine Northern Shrimp Survey

NOAA/NMFS QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT. C. Project Title: Center for Shark Research (CSR) at Mote Marine Laboratory,

Cedar Lake Comprehensive Survey Report Steve Hogler and Steve Surendonk WDNR-Mishicot

Alberta Conservation Association 2011/12 Project Summary Report. Project Name: Walleye Stock Assessment Program 2011/12 Moose and Fawcett Lakes

Draft Addendum V For Board Review. Coastal Sharks Management Board August 8, 2018

Some Biological Parameters of Bigeye and Yellowfin Tunas Distributed in Surrounding Waters of Taiwan

Kingfishes (whitings), Menticirrhus spp.

Studies on numerous shark species have

SMOOTH HAMMERHEAD SHARK (HHS)

Species Profile: Red Drum Benchmark Assessment Finds Resource Relatively Stable with Overfishing Not Occurring

Spurdog (Squalus acanthias) in the Northeast Atlantic

SOMALIA National Report to the Scientific Committee of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, 2015

Status of Northern Pike and Yellow Perch at Goosegrass Lake, Alberta, 2006

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species

United States Commercial Vertical Line Vessel Standardized Catch Rates of Red Grouper in the US South Atlantic,

Summer Flounder Fishery Information Document

Public Hearing Document

Reef Fish Amendment 32 Gag and Red Grouper

SEDAR 50 Discard Mortality Ad-Hoc Group Working Paper. Discard Mortality Ad-hoc Group SEDAR50-DW22. Submitted: 26 January 2017

North Carolina. Striped Mullet FMP. Update

ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION. Winter Flounder Abundance and Biomass Indices from State Fishery-Independent Surveys

Modifications to Gulf Reef Fish and South Atlantic Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plans

Public Hearing Summary for Coastal Migratory Pelagics Framework Amendment 4

1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

A non-equilibrium surplus production model of black grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci) in southeast United States waters

Catch per unit effort of coastal prawn trammel net fishery in Izmir Bay, Aegean Sea

Public Hearing Summary

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission DRAFT ADDENDUM I TO THE BLACK DRUM FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

Habitat Utilization, Relative Abundance, and Seasonality of Sharks in the Estuarine and Nearshore Waters of South Carolina

Hakes Assessment SARC 51. Whiting NEFMC PDT Meeting February 14, 2011 Milford, MA

Red Sea bream in Subareas VI, VII and VIII

***This summary does not include shad and herring net requirements.***

IOTC 2015 SC18 ES06[E]

THORNY SKATE IN DIVISIONS 3L, 3N, 3O AND SUBDIVISION 3Ps

Performance Report. B. Project Title: Evaluating Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeon Behavior Related to the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project

Principal Investigator: R. Keller Kopf

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands;

RELEASES AND RECOVERIES OF U.S. SALMONID DATA STORAGE TAGS, AND RECOVERIES OF HIGH SEAS TAGS IN NORTH AMERICA, 2001

Draft Amendment 11: Shortfin Mako Shark Management Measures. Highly Migratory Species Management Division Fall 2018

Description and Analysis of The Gambia Catfish Stock Assessment 2013

An Index of Abundance for Coastal Species of Juvenile Sharks from the Northeast Gulf of Mexico

GCRL s Catch More Fish with Science Spotted Seatrout. Read Hendon Center for Fisheries Research & Development & Capt. Matt Tusa Shore Thing Charters

ESTABLISHING AN OFFSHORE MUSSEL FARM IN FEDERAL WATERS IN THE GULF OF MAINE

STUDY PERFORMANCE REPORT

Determination of the von Bertalanffy Growth Equation for the Southern New England-Middle Atlantic~ Bank and Gulf of Maine stocks of Silver Hake by

BLUE SHARK (BWS) (Prionace glauca)

Current Status and Future. Hudson River American shad stock. New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation

Addendum to SEDAR16-DW-22

SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL MEETING - JUNE Polish Research Report, by A. J. Paciorkowski Sea Fisheries Institute Gdynia Poland.

Selectivity of red snapper in the South Atlantic More than Just Depth

Atlantic Sturgeon Update NER Protected Resources

3.4.3 Advice June Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea Cod in Subareas I and II (Norwegian coastal waters cod)

NORTHWEST SCIENCE AND INFORMATION

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE UPDATE ON LANDINGS OF TUNA, SWORDFISH AND OTHER PELAGICS

2002 REVIEW OF THE ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR BLUEFISH (Pomatomus saltatrix)

Transcription:

Mark/Recapture Data for the Atlantic Sharpnose Shark (Rhizoprionodon terranovae), in the Western North Atlantic from the NEFSC Cooperative Shark Tagging Program Nancy E. Kohler, Danielle Bailey, Patricia A. Turner, and Camilla McCandless SEDAR34-WP-25 Submitted: 1 June 213 This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.

Please cite this document as: Kohler, N.E., D. Bailey, P.A. Turner, and C. McCandless. 213. Mark/Recapture Data for the Atlantic Sharpnose Shark (Rhizoprionodon terranovae), in the Western North Atlantic from the NEFSC Cooperative Shark Tagging Program. SEDAR, North Charleston, SC. 23 pp.

SEDAR34-WP-25 Mark/Recapture Data for the Atlantic Sharpnose Shark (Rhizoprionodon terranovae), in the Western North Atlantic from the NEFSC Cooperative Shark Tagging Program Nancy E. Kohler Danielle Bailey Patricia A. Turner Camilla McCandless NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries Science Center Narragansett Laboratory 28 Tarzwell Drive Narragansett, RI 2882 June 213 Workshop Draft not to be cited without permission of authors. Summary Mark/recapture information from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Cooperative Shark Tagging Program (CSTP) covering the period from 1969 through 212 are summarized for the Atlantic sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon terranovae) in the western North Atlantic. The extent of the tagging effort, areas of release and recapture, and movements and length frequencies of tagged sharks are reported. Two areas were distinguished in order to identify exchange between the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Overall, there was no movement between the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico and limited exchange (8) between the US and the Mexican-managed portion of the Gulf of Mexico; the true extent of this movement is unclear due to the possibility of underreporting of recaptures.

Introduction The Atlantic sharpnose shark, Rhizoprionodon terranovae, inhabits coastal waters in the western North Atlantic, from the Bay of Fundy to shelf waters of the Gulf of Mexico (Castro 1983, Parsons 1983); inhabiting a seasonal temperature range of 18-27 C (Branstetter 1987). Females reproduce annually with pups born late April to early June (Branstetter 1981, Parsons 1983). The gestation period is 11 months producing a litter size of one to eight pups, increasing with female size (Loefer and Sedberry 23). Mating season is mid May to early July (Loefer and Sedberry 23, Branstetter 1981). Sexual maturity for both sexes is reached at approximately age three (Loefer and Sedberry 23). The maximum age is estimated to be between 8 and 1 years (Branstetter 1987). This species is frequently caught by a variety of commercial fishing gear such as bottom longline, gillnet, bandit reel, trawls, and hook-and-line fishing (Loefer and Sedberry 23). The purpose of this document is to summarize mark/recapture information from the NMFS Cooperative Shark Tagging Program (CSTP) for the Atlantic sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon terranovae) in the western North Atlantic. These data cover the period from 1969 through 212 presenting the extent of the tagging effort, areas of release and recapture, and movements of tagged sharks. Data synopses include numbers of fish tagged and recaptured, overall recapture rate, maximum and mean distance traveled, maximum time at liberty, mean lengths, and length frequencies. Materials and Methods The NMFS Cooperative Shark Tagging Program (CSTP) was initiated in 1962. Information on the history and methods of the CSTP are detailed in Kohler et al. 1998 and Kohler and Turner 21. Recreational and commercial fishermen conducted the majority of tagging for these sharks, providing information on size, sex, condition, location, and date of capture. The two primary types of tags used were a fin tag (Jumbo Rototag) and a dart tag ( M-tag ). Tagging studies have been mostly single release events in which recoveries are made opportunistically by recreational and commercial fishermen. When a marked shark is re-caught, information similar to that obtained at release is requested from the recapture, allowing for the calculation of time at large, displacement, and speed. Distance traveled in nautical miles (nm) between tagging and recapture sites is a minimum straight-line distance. For the purposes of these analyses, the boundary between the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic region was a line beginning on the east coast of Florida at 25º1.4 N latitude, proceeding due east to the U.S. EEZ. This report summarizes the CSTP mark/recapture information for the Atlantic sharpnose shark in the western North Atlantic from 1969 through 212. Length and weight for CSTP tag returns are reported with varying units of measure. Fork length (FL) was used when provided and converted to cm when applicable. Total length (TL) was converted to fork length by rearranging the following formula: TL (cm) = (1.158) FL (cm) + 1.476 (SEDAR 13 27). When neither FL nor TL were provided, weight in kilograms was converted to FL by rearranging the following formula: weight (kg) = (5.55519*1-6 ) FL (cm) 3.7395 (SEDAR 13 27). Sharks were categorized into life stages according to length (cm, FL) determined from Loefer and Sedberry 23 (Table 1). The boundaries

between young of the year and juvenile were defined at ~49cm. Sharks measuring less than 5cm FL were classified as young of the year. Sharks between 5cm FL and 67cm were considered to be juveniles. Males and females were considered mature when FL was greater than 67cm. Sharks without a size estimate or sharks of unknown sex were categorized as unknown maturity. Sharks were classified as embryos when they were taken from pregnant females. Results A total of 4,653 Atlantic sharpnose sharks were released with tags along the U.S. east coast and the Gulf of Mexico between 1969 and 212 (Table 2, Figure 1). Of the 4,37 fish of known sex, 2,612 (6%) were males and 1,758 (4%) were females resulting in a 1:.67 male: female sex ratio. Atlantic sharpnose sharks were predominantly caught by rod and reel (7%), longline (24%), and gill net (6%). Sharks were also caught in smaller numbers (n<2) with handline, otter trawl, beach seine, set line, hand landing net, and by hand. Mature fish were the most commonly caught life stage for both males and females (Table 3, Figure 2, 3). The largest measured male and female fish were 19.2cm and 114cm FL, respectively. The mean fork length for both males and females and overall was 71 cm (Table 3). A total of 77 sharks were recaptured from 1969 through 212 with an overall recapture rate of 1.7% and mean distance traveled of 13nm (Table 2). Young of the year had the highest displacement (187nm) relative to the other life-stages (juvenile, 14 nm; mature, 83nm) (Figure 4). The Atlantic sharpnose shark at liberty the longest was 7.3 years and was recaptured 7nm from its original tagging location. The longest distance traveled was 57nm from a fish that was originally tagged off Texas and recaptured in Mexican waters 4.8 months later. There was no movement between the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico (Figures 5-17). The majority of the recaptured fish showed Atlantic coastal movements with some exchange between US Gulf and Mexican waters. Eight Atlantic sharpnose sharks that were tagged off Texas were recaptured off Mexico; this represents.2% of the total numbers tagged. Overall, there was no movement between the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico and limited exchange (8) between the US and the Mexican-managed portion of the Gulf of Mexico. The true extent of this movement is unclear due to the possibility of under-reporting of recaptures.

References Branstetter, S. 1981. Notes on the sharks of the Biological north central Gulf of Mexico. Contrib. Mar. Sci. 24:13-34. Branstetter, S. 1987. Age and Growth Validation of Newborn Sharks Held in Laboratory Aquaria, with Comments on the life history of the Atlantic Sharpnose Shark, Rhizoprionodon terraenovae. Copeia 2:291-3. Castro, J. I., 1983. The sharks of North American waters. Texas A & M University Press, College Station, Texas: 179. Kohler, N.E., J.G. Casey and P.A. Turner. 1998. NMFS Cooperative Shark Tagging Program, 1962-1993: An atlas of shark tag and recapture data. Marine Fisheries Review 6:1-87. Kohler, N.E. and P.A. Turner. 21. Shark tagging: a review of conventional methods and studies. Environmental Biology of Fishes 6:191-223. Loefer, J.K and G.R. Sedberry. 23. Life history of the Atlantic sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae) (Richardson, 1836) off the southeastern United States. Fishery Bulletin, 1:75-88. Parsons, G. R., 1981. Growth and reproduction of the Atlantic sharpnose shark, Rhizoprionodon terraenovae (Richardson). M.S. thesis, 71 p. Univ. of South Alabama, Mobile, AL. Parsons, G.R. 1983. The reproductive biology of the Atlantic sharpnose shark, Rhizoprionodon terraenovae, Richardson. Fish. Bull. 81: 61 73. Parsons, G. R., 1985. Growth and Age Estimation of the Atlantic Sharpnose Shark, Rhizoprionodon terraenovae: a comparison of Techniques. Copeia 1:8-85. SEDAR13. 27. SEDAR 13 Stock Assessment Report. NOAA/NMFS Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Silver Springs, Maryland.

Table 1. Literature values for lengths associated with maturity. Reference n Location Condition Female (FL)* Male (FL)* Parsons 1985 15 Alabama YOY (birth) 26.36-3.68 26.36-3.68 Juvenile 64.87 Mature 72.13-76.45 67.81-72.13 Parsons 1981 Length at birth 26.36 26.36 Max. length 91.13 87.67 Branstetter 8 Texas Born 24.63 24.63 1987 Mature 73.85 67.81 Loefer,** Sedberry 23 193 Virginia to northern Florida Max. length 89.4-93.71 89.4-93.71 Length at birth 23.9 23.9 Largest full term 27.1 27.1 embryo Young of the year 48.9 49.2 Mature 66.8 67.2 Max. length 9.1 9.1 Sex ratio 1:1 *Values given in TL were converted to FL (cm) using formula from SEDAR 13 **Values given in PCL were converted to FL using formula from Loefer &Sedberry 23

Table 2. CSTP data distributed by sex for Atlantic sharpnose sharks tagged and recaptured. Displacement and speed values are calculated using the straight line distance from the tagging location to the recapture location. Sex Tagged Recaptured Recaptured Rate Mean Displacement (nm) Max Displacement (nm) Mean Time at Liberty (days) Max Time at Liberty (days) Mean Speed (nm/day) Male 2612 44 1.7 99.3 57 655.2 265.54 5.7 Female 1758 2 1.1 116.3 337 823.3 2233.46 2.3 Unknown 283 13 4.6 91.4 297 653.3 2379.41 1.6 Total 4653 77 1.7 12.6 57 699.3 265.5 5.7 Sex ratio (M:F) 1:.67 Max Speed (nm/day)

Table 3. CSTP data distributed by sex and life stage for Atlantic sharpnose sharks tagged (including recaptures). YOY = young of the year Sex Mature Juveniles YOY Embryos* Unknown Maturity Males 1931 456 258 1 4.85 9.65 5.46.21 72.73 17.18 9.72.38 58.13 52.78 5.39 34.48 Females 1249 26.42 7.25 37.6 Unknown Sex 142 3. 48.3 4.27 35 6.45 17.15 35.3 13 2.18 35.3 11.92 219 4.63 12.32 42.77 35.74 11.9 6.84 5.11.28 17.24 14.3 4.76 48.28 Fork Length Total Min Max Median Mean SD 2656 56.17 1778 37.61 296 6.22 Total 3322 7.28 864 18.28 512 1.83 29.61 473 1 *embryos from captured pregnant females, that were tagged and released Key Frequency Percent Row percent Column percent 19 11.6 75 7.72 14.14 2 114 76 71.13 16.33 22.91 114.8 68.67 67.56 16.72 19 114.8 76 71.13 16.72

Figure 1. Total number of Atlantic sharpnose sharks tagged (A) and recaptured (B) by year. A. 3 25 2 15 1 5 B. 69 7 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 8 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 9 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 Year 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 1 3 5 7 9 11 Year

Figure 2. Length frequency for Atlantic sharpnose sharks tagged (including recaptures). 14 12 1 Frequency 8 6 4 2 15 2 25 3 35 4 45 5 55 6 65 7 75 8 85 9 95 1 15 11 115 Fork length (cm) Figure 3. Length frequency by sex for Atlantic sharpnose sharks tagged (including recaptures). 8 7 Males Females 6 5 4 3 2 1 15 2 25 3 35 4 45 5 55 6 65 7 75 8 85 9 95 1 15 11 115 Fork Length (cm)

Figure 4. Mean displacement of Atlantic sharpnose sharks at large for 1-265 days. N=3, 21, and 51 for young of the year, juveniles, and mature sharks, respectively. Displacement values are calculated using the straight line distance from the tagging location to the recapture location. 2 18 16 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 Young of the year Juvenile Mature Life Stage

Figure 5. Atlantic sharpnose shark tagging data (including recaptures) by sex. The solid blue line represents the 2m depth contour. The solid black line represents the U.S. EEZ.

Figure 6. Atlantic sharpnose shark tagging data (including recaptures) in the Gulf of Mexico by sex. The solid blue line represents the 2m depth contour. The solid black line represents the U.S. EEZ.

Figure 7. Atlantic sharpnose shark tagging data (including recaptures) off the Atlantic Coast by sex. The solid blue line represents the 2m depth contour. The solid black line represents the U.S. EEZ.

Figure 8. Atlantic sharpnose shark tagging data (including recaptures) by life stage. The solid blue line represents the 2m depth contour. The solid black line represents the U.S. EEZ.

Figure 9. Atlantic sharpnose shark tagging data (including recaptures) in the Gulf of Mexico by life stage. The solid blue line represents the 2m depth contour. The solid black line represents the U.S. EEZ.

Figure 1. Atlantic sharpnose shark tagging data (including recaptures) off the Atlantic Coast by life stage. The solid blue line represents the 2m depth contour. The solid black line represents the U.S. EEZ.

Figure 11. Locations of tagged young of the year and pregnant Atlantic sharpnose sharks (including recaptures). The solid blue line represents the 2m depth contour. The solid black line represents the U.S. EEZ.

Figure 12. Atlantic sharpnose shark recaptures by sex. The solid blue line represents the 2m depth contour. The solid black line represents the U.S. EEZ.

Figure 13. Atlantic sharpnose shark recaptures off the Atlantic Coast by sex. The solid blue line represents the 2m depth contour. The solid black line represents the U.S. EEZ.

Figure 14. Atlantic sharpnose shark recaptures in the Gulf of Mexico by sex. The solid blue line represents the 2m depth contour. The solid black line represents the U.S. EEZ.

Figure 15. Atlantic sharpnose shark tagging data (including recaptures) by sex and life stage. The solid blue line represents the 2m depth contour. The solid black line represents the U.S. EEZ.

Figure 16. Atlantic sharpnose shark tagging data (including recaptures) off the Atlantic Coast by sex and life stage. The solid blue line represents the 2m depth contour. The solid black line represents the U.S. EEZ.

Figure 17. Atlantic sharpnose shark tagging data (including recaptures) in the Gulf of Mexico by sex and life stage. The solid blue line represents the 2m depth contour. The solid black line represents the U.S. EEZ.