Energetic benefits of prey choice for a shark-eating shark
- PMID: 40576842
- DOI: 10.1007/s00442-025-05758-5
Energetic benefits of prey choice for a shark-eating shark
Abstract
Optimal foraging theory has been used to understand the foraging choices of animals but is rarely applied to large predatory fishes due to difficulties measuring their behavior in the wild. Great hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna mokarran) are atypical among sharks in that they prefer large prey, such as other sharks and large teleost species, rather than smaller teleost or invertebrate prey. Great hammerheads are known to hunt blacktip sharks (Carcharhinus limbatus) that form large seasonal aggregations off the coast of southern Florida. However, the foraging advantage of this dietary choice and hunting strategy is unclear. We equipped great hammerheads with biologging sensors (speed, video, sonar) to estimate swimming metabolic rates and prey encounter rates and then model the foraging benefits of hunting large prey (sharks) versus small prey (reef-associated teleosts). We estimate great hammerheads need to consume 0.7% body weight (BW) per day of shark prey or 0.9% BW per day of teleost prey. Our foraging model predicts that a ~ 110 kg hammerhead would only need to consume a whole ~ 25 kg blacktip shark once every 3 weeks and could survive 2 months during low blacktip density periods without feeding before starving to death. However, it would need to capture one to two ~ 1 kg teleost per day to avoid falling below its energetic baseline. Great hammerhead sharks may obtain significant benefits by hunting sharks in southern Florida, especially during the winter when prey density is high.
Keywords: Bioenergetics; Biologging; Foraging ecology; Great hammerhead sharks.
© 2025. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Ethics approval: All applicable institutional and/or national guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. Shark tagging was approved by FIU IACUC #201480. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Code availability: Speed sensor processing and bioenergetic analysis were completed with custom code in R Studio (R Core Team, version 1.2.5033, 2020). Sonar analysis was performed with custom code in MatLab (MathWorks, Inc., version r2021a) and video analysis was completed in BORIS (Friard and Gamba 2016).
References
-
- Allen G (1985) FAO species catalogue, vol 6. Snappers of the World. FAO Fisheries Synopsis, vol 6
-
- Berger-Tal O, Mukherjee S, Kotler BP, Brown JS (2009) Look before you leap: is risk of injury a foraging cost? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63(12):1821–1827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-009-0809-3 - DOI
-
- Bethea DM, Carlson JK, Hollensead LD, Papastamatiou YP, Graham BS (2011) A comparison of the foraging ecology and bioenergetics of the early life-stages of two sympatric hammerhead sharks. Bull Mar Sci 87(4):873–889. https://doi.org/10.5343/bms.2010.1047 - DOI
-
- Bowers ME, Kajiura SM (2025) Seasonal distribution and environmental predictors of the movement of male blacktip sharks Carcharhinus limbatus off the US East Coast. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 753:119–135
-
- Brett JR, Groves TDD (1979) Physiological energetics. In: Hoar WS, Randall DJ, Brett JR (eds) Fish physiology, VIII: bioenergetics and growth. Academic Press, New York, pp 279–352
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources