Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33087793›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Variable response to electric shark deterrents in bull sharks, Carcharhinus leucas.

A R G Gauthier, E Chateauminois, M G Hoarau, J Gadenne, E Hoarau, S Jaquemet, S K Whitmarsh, C Huveneers

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

A R G GauthierCentre Sécurité Requin, 25F Avenue des Artisans, Zone Artisanale de la Pointe des Châteaux, 97436, Saint Leu, Reunion Island, France. arnault.gauthier@securite-requin.re.
E ChateauminoisCentre Sécurité Requin, 25F Avenue des Artisans, Zone Artisanale de la Pointe des Châteaux, 97436, Saint Leu, Reunion Island, France.
M G HoarauCentre Sécurité Requin, 25F Avenue des Artisans, Zone Artisanale de la Pointe des Châteaux, 97436, Saint Leu, Reunion Island, France.
J GadenneCentre Sécurité Requin, 25F Avenue des Artisans, Zone Artisanale de la Pointe des Châteaux, 97436, Saint Leu, Reunion Island, France.
E HoarauCentre Sécurité Requin, 25F Avenue des Artisans, Zone Artisanale de la Pointe des Châteaux, 97436, Saint Leu, Reunion Island, France.
S JaquemetCentre Sécurité Requin, 25F Avenue des Artisans, Zone Artisanale de la Pointe des Châteaux, 97436, Saint Leu, Reunion Island, France.
S K WhitmarshSouthern Shark Ecology Group, College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
C HuveneersSouthern Shark Ecology Group, College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
Écologie Marine Tropicale des Océans Pacifique et Indien · REAssociation pour l'Utilisation du Rein Artificiel · FRFlinders University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although relatively rare, human-shark interactions and sharks bites are increasing globally, which has led to the development of various mitigation measures. Electric shark deterrents (ESDs) have, so far, been the most effective personal deterrents, but have only been scientifically tested on one of the species most frequently responsible for shark bites, i.e. white shark (Carcharodon carcharias). We tested the effectiveness of five ESDs (E-Shark Force, NoShark, Rpela v2, Freedom + Surf, Freedom + Surf-Shortboard) on bull sharks, Carcharhinus leucas, over a period of 21 days in September 2019, in New Caledonia. Standardised bait was attached 30 cm below an experimental board that had an active ESD for up to 15 min, or until a bull shark touched the bait or the board. We compared the numbers of baits taken, numbers of passes and reactions around the board, as well as the distance between the sharks and the board among ESDs and against a control board with bait and no active ESD. The Freedom + Surf was the most effective ESD, reducing the amounts of baits taken by 42.3%, while the Rpela v2 and Freedom + Surf-Shortboard also significantly reduced the number of baits taken by 16.5% and 16.2% respectively. Mean distance between sharks and the bait was not affected by the ESDs, but the number of approaches and the proportion of reactions were both significantly higher when the Freedom + Surf was active compared to other ESDs. The effectiveness of all ESDs decreased over time, with the likelihood of the bait being taken increasing and the number of approaches and distance between sharks and the bait decreasing. Our findings show that the ability of ESDs to deter bull shark varies between products, with the Freedom + Surf resulting in the most behavioural changes, followed by the Rpela v2 and Freedom + Surf-Shortboard. However, none of the products tested completely stopped sharks from taking the bait.

Indexed as

AnimalsBehavior, AnimalBites and StingsElectricityElectric StimulationNew CaledoniaPredatory BehaviorSharks

Identifiers

PMID33087793
PMCPMC7578011
OpenAlexW3093681424

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.