Burgess et al. (2005, this issue) present a critique of two articles describing shark declines in the north-west Atlantic (Baum et al. 2003) and Gulf of Mexico (Baum and Myers 2004), and contend that we have overstated the results of our research. In these two papers, we examined trends in relative...
| Other Authors: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Text |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.503.6257 http://www.fmap.ca/ramweb/papers-total/Baumetal2005.pdf |
| Summary: | Burgess et al. (2005, this issue) present a critique of two articles describing shark declines in the north-west Atlantic (Baum et al. 2003) and Gulf of Mexico (Baum and Myers 2004), and contend that we have overstated the results of our research. In these two papers, we examined trends in relative abundance for multiple large pelagic shark species. Pelagic sharks include oceanic and coastal (denoted by *) species, and our research focused on 9 of the 17 species we modeled: those we analyzed at the species level (blue Prionace glauca, dusky * Carcharhinus obscurus, oceanic whitetip C. longimanus, silky * C. falciformis, tiger * Galeocerdo cuvier, white * Carcharodon car-charias), and those that dominated the species groups we analyzed (scalloped hammerhead * Sphyrna lewini |
|---|