Next Article in Journal
Container Shipment Demand Forecasting in the Australian Shipping Industry: A Case Study of Asia–Oceania Trade Lane
Next Article in Special Issue
Fisheries Reference Point and Stock Status of Croaker Fishery (Sciaenidae) Exploited from the Bay of Bengal, Bangladesh
Previous Article in Journal
Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus) in the Ligurian Sea: Preliminary Study on Acoustics Demonstrates Their Regular Occurrence in Autumn
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Biological and Ecological Aspects of the Blackmouth Catshark (Galeus melastomus Rafinesque, 1810) in the Southern Tyrrhenian Sea

1
Department of Chemical, Biological, Pharmaceutical and Environmental Sciences, University of Messina, Viale F. Stagno d’Alcontres 31, 98166 Messina, Italy
2
Institute for Marine Biological Resources and Biotechnology (IRBIM), National Research Council, 98122 Messina, Italy
3
Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, University of Catania, 95124 Catania, Italy
4
Ente Fauna Marina Mediterranea, Scientific Organization for Research and Conservation of Marine Biodiversity, 96012 Avola, Italy
5
Department of Biomedical, Dental and Morphological and Functional Imaging, University of Messina, Via Consolare Valeria, 98166 Messina, Italy
6
Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Messina, Viale Dell’annunziata, 98168 Messina, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9(9), 967; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jmse9090967
Submission received: 18 July 2021 / Revised: 27 August 2021 / Accepted: 28 August 2021 / Published: 6 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Coastal Fish Research II)

Abstract

:
Data on the biology and ecology of Galeus melastomus are old/absent for the Southern Tyrrhenian Sea, despite there being numerous studies in the wider area. A total of 127 specimens of G. melastomus from the southern Tyrrhenian Sea, collected in 2018–2019 using trawling nets, were analyzed to investigate size at sexual maturity, sex ratio, length–weight relationships, and feeding habits. To our best knowledge, this is the first time in which all these features were investigated in the Southern Tyrrhenian Sea for G. melastomus. The stomach content analysis showed that G. melastomus had intermediate feeding habits, preying on a great variety of species, especially Cephalopoda, Osteichthyes, and Crustacea. The Levin’s index value (Bi) was 0.53. Sex ratio was 0.92:1, with females slightly more abundant and bigger than males. The results also showed a decrease (33.7 cm for females, 31.1 cm for males) in length at 50% maturity (L50). This could be a result of anthropogenic stressors, such as overfishing and/or and environmental changes, which can induce physiological responses in several species. Our results highlighted the differences related to sexual maturity, growth, and feeding habits of the blackmouth catshark in the studied area, providing reference data to allow comparison with future studies on this species adaptations to this and other deep-sea areas in the Mediterranean Sea.

1. Introduction

Elasmobranchs are a key group for the smooth functioning of marine ecosystems, as they regulate prey populations and the ecological dynamics among the different habitats they move between [1,2,3,4]. Sharks, skates, and rays are both top predators and mesopredators in most marine environments, but despite their importance, elasmobranchs are seriously threatened by fishing activities worldwide. Their vulnerability to fishing activities, both directly for human consumption (meat and fins) and as by-catch in several fisheries, is related to their reproductive cycle, characterized by low fecundity and delayed age at maturity [5,6]. More than half of the Mediterranean elasmobranchs are regarded as threatened (included in the IUCN red list) [7], including “deep-water species” (below 200 m). The demersal deep-sea animals are particularly vulnerable to trawl fisheries, which is one of the most important fishery activities, operating at a bathymetric range of 50 to 800 m and exploiting a wide variety of species [8].
However, among demersal elasmobranchs, Scyliorhinidae—as Galeus melastomus, Rafinesque, 1810; Scyliorhinus canicula Linnaeus, 1758, and Scyliorhinus stellaris Linnaeus, 1758—are better able to resist high fishing pressure [9,10,11]. These include early maturation [12], short generation time, faster population dynamics [13], morpho-functional adaptation of gastroenteric and sensorial systems [14,15], and, for G. melastomus and S. canicula, a continuous reproductive cycle. These biological features helped them adapt to the most exploited environments. Thanks to early maturation, short generation time, faster population, and a continuous reproductive cycle, they can maintain their population, concluding their reproductive cycle before being caught (unlike most elasmobranchs), despite a high fishing effort. Moreover, their gastroenteric and sensorial system helped them adapt to scavenger feeding habits and mesopelagic hunting, both essential in deeper habitats, often overexploited by trawling. Despite smaller specimens of G. melastomus and S. canicula being commonly caught by deep-sea trawl fishing, their populations seem to be maintained in many overexploited areas in the Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean [9,11,16,17,18,19]. By monitoring their diet and feeding habits, especially for G. melastomus, which is commonly caught by trawl fisheries, it is possible to obtain new information about deep benthopelagic environments by studying the changes in abundance and population dynamics of G. melastomus [8,20,21,22].
The blackmouth catshark (G. melastomus) is an oviparous demersal elasmobranch belonging to the Carcharhiniformes order that lives in the benthic environments of the outer continental shelf breaks and upper slopes [21,22]. It is ubiquitous in the Mediterranean basin, and it is also distributed in the eastern Atlantic [23,24]. It occupies a generalist niche, with a low trophic level, and it is an opportunistic generalist predator, feeding mainly on mesopelagic species. It can adapt its diet to the available prey in different marine environments and with seasonal fluctuations, and sometimes shows scavenger behavior [8].
The reported depth range for G. melastomus is from 55 to 1873 m, but it is commonly found between 300 and 800 m deep. In the southern Tyrrhenian Sea, according to previous studies [22,25], this species prefers depths between 500 and 800 m, while in the western basin, it is common between 400 and 1400 m. Larger individuals often prefer the trawled muddy bottoms between 200 and 550 m, as shown by the high occurrence of this species in the by-catch of trawl fisheries [26]. This can be correlated with the scavenging habits of the species, which increase with growth [27,28]. The blackmouth catshark has shown allometric growth in the southern Tyrrhenian Sea and Ionian Sea, with a continuous reproductive period in the Tyrrhenian Sea, Adriatic Sea, Alboran Sea, and off Southern France [9,13,25,29].
The aim of this paper was to investigate several aspects of the biology and ecology of the species. The aspects on which we focused were growth parameters, feeding habits, and size at sexual maturity in specimens of G. melastomus from the southern Tyrrhenian Sea. In the Mediterranean Sea, data about this species are generally dated and fragmented, and to the best of our knowledge, the present research represents the first study in the southern Tyrrhenian Sea focused on G. melastomus biology.

2. Materials and Methods

A total of 127 specimens of G. melastomus ranging from 14.5 to 52 cm in total length (TL) were collected in the southern part of the Tyrrhenian Sea (geographical subarea (GSA)—10), from the coastal area of Campania (41°14′38.7′′ N 13°37′04.2′′ E) to San Vito lo Capo (38°11′41.0′′ N 12°44′29.8′′ E) (white arrows in Figure 1b), including the entire Sicilian Tyrrhenian coast. Blackmouth catsharks were sampled in 2018 and 2019 using trawl nets during MEDITS (international bottom trawl survey in the Mediterranean) [30] and from commercial landings of the fishing fleet CAMPBIOL (PLNRDA 2017–2019-CAMPBIOL) survey [31].
Samples collected during spring, summer, and autumn were frozen on board to prevent the digestion of the stomach content and were immediately transferred to the laboratory after landing. In the laboratory, each specimen was measured (TL in cm) and weighed (W in g), and the sex was determined.
Weight and total length measurements of 127 specimens were used for the total length–weight relationships (LWR) following the formula: W = aTLb, where W is the weight in grams (g), TL is the total length in centimeters (cm), a is the intercept, and b is the slope of the logarithmic regression curve (Bayes method) [32,33,34]. A t-test was used to verify the null hypothesis of the isometric growth (H0: b = 3): when b = 3, the increase in weight was isometric; when b > 3, the weight increase was positive allometric (the fish grew faster in weight than in length); if b < 3, the weight increase was negative allometric (the fish grew faster in length than in weight) [35]. Total length frequency distributions were constructed for both sexes. A chi-square test [36] was used to verify if there was a significant difference (α = 0.05) between the observed and the expected sex ratio (M:F, 1:1). To test if the regressions of the weight (W) on total length (TL) were significantly different (α = 0.05) for the sexes, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed. A t-test was used to verify females’ length compared to males.
Size at sexual maturity of both females and males was estimated using “sizeMat”, an open-source software package that runs on the R platform. Specimens were first divided into two pools according to sex. Following the proposed protocol [37], two data frames were prepared, containing three variables: TL (cm), sex, and gonadal stages. Sex and gonadal stages were estimated visually at the macroscopical level according to the codes of sexual maturity for fish [38], considering immature (“I”) the specimens with a maturation state of “Immature/Virgin” (Stage 1 of the code of sexual maturity for fish), while considering mature (“II, III, IV”) all the others (Stages 2, “Maturing”; 3a, “Mature”; 3b, “Mature/Extruding”; and 4b, “Regenerating”, of the code of sexual maturity for fish [38]). The function used to estimate gonadal stages was “gonad_mature” set on the GLM (generalized linear model, frequentist) regression method. The maturity ogive estimation obtained was subsequently plotted using the “plot” function to extrapolate the graphs.
During the stomach content analyses, each prey item was identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, counted, and weighed. In the category “digested”, all prey not identified because they were too digested or were identified as discards of fishing activities were included. The vacuity index (VC) was calculated to evaluate the percentage of empty stomachs, using the formula: VC = (Ne/N) × 100, where Ne is the number of empty stomachs and N is the number of total stomachs analyzed [39]. No everted stomachs were found in the analyzed specimens. The contribution of each prey item was calculated using the percentage of abundance composition (%N), the percentage of biomass composition (%W), and the frequency of occurrence (%F) [40]. Through these indices, the index of relative importance, IRI = %F(%N + %W) was calculated [41,42]. According the %N values, prey were classified as dominant (N > 50%), secondary (10% < N < 50%), or accidental (N < 10%) [43]. The breadth of the diet was evaluated using the standardized Levin’s index (Bi) [44]:
B = 1 p j 2
B i = B 1 B max 1
where pj is the relative specimen’s frequency of the jth prey item and Bmax is the total number of prey item categories found. Bi was calculated only for prey categories identified at the generic or specific level, while main categories such as phylum or order were excluded from analysis in order not to alter the results due to the aggregation of several species under a single category. The same categories were also considered for the three levels of “dominance” of %N. If the trophic niche of the studied species is narrow, Bi values are near 0, but if the trophic niche is wide, Bi values are closer to 1. According to Bi value, the species are classified as specialist feeder (Bi < 0.40), intermediate feeder (0.40 < Bi < 0.60) or generalist feeder (Bi > 0.60) [45].
Using R studio and the “vegan” package, a cumulative prey curve was estimated to assess the representativity of analyzed stomachs, to obtain sufficient data to define the diet of the species in the studied area. The cumulative number of analyzed specimens was plotted against the estimated number of prey groups with the associated standard deviation (SD). Prey items recorded only once in the stomachs were excluded from analysis because they were considered as “accidental” preys.

3. Results

Out of the total of 127 specimens studied, 61 were males and 66 were females, with a sex ratio of 0.92:1, not significantly different from 1:1 (p-value = 0.657). Females showed, on average, larger sizes than males (Figure 2, Table 1), ranging from 21.5 to 52 cm (SD = 8.4; p-value = 0.034) in total length and from 25 to 538 g (SD = 129.8; p-value = 0.029) in weight.
The analysis of sexual maturity and size showed the presence of both adults and juveniles. Male specimens showed a total length ranging from 14.5 to 50 cm (SD = 10.1) and a weight ranging from 9.5 to 386 g (SD = 99.8). For the entire sample (both sexes, N = 127), the total length ranged from 14.5 to 52 cm (SD = 9.4), and the weight from 9.5 to 538 g (SD = 119.8). Results obtained with the ANCOVA test showed that females were heavier than males (p-value = 0.0047). The total length–weight relationships for both sexes and combined are reported in Table 1 and graphically represented in Figure 3. A positive allometry was found for females (b = 3.201), while males showed a negative allometry (b = 2.953), and an isometric growth was obtained for both sexes combined (b = 3.049) (Figure 3b, Table 1).
The size at first (50%) maturity (L50) was 33.7 cm for females and 31.1 cm for males, indicating that females mature at larger sizes than males (Figure 4).
As shown by the cumulative prey group (Figure 5), the number of analysed stomachs was sufficient to describe the G. melastomus diet. The vacuity index was 11.8%, with 15 empty stomachs out of the total number of stomachs analysed (N = 127).
The Bi value obtained was 0.53, indicating quite generalist feeding habits and an intermediate, between wide and narrow, trophic niche for G. melastomus. The values obtained for %N indicated there were no dominant prey, with Crustacea (mainly Decapoda and Euphausiacea), Mollusca (mainly Cephalopoda), and Osteichthyes classified as secondary prey (10% < N < 50%) (Table 2). The values obtained for %W indicated the importance of Osteichthyes (40.67%) and Mollusca (44.05%), especially Cephalopoda (43.87%) (Figure 6, Table 2) in the diet of this species. Among Cephalopoda, the highest %W values were obtained for Eledone sp. (11.22%); Todarodes sagittatus, Lamarck, 1798 (9.66%); and Histioteuthis sp. (6.96%). Among Osteichthyes, the highest %W values were obtained for Osteichthyes not identified (n.i.) (20.22%); Sardinella aurita, Valenciennes, 1847 (5.74%); Sardina pilchardus, Walbaum, 1792 (3.77%); Ceratoscopelus maderensis, Lowe, 1839 (3.57%); and Electrona risso, Cocco, 1892 (3.16%) (Table 2). Concerning the %IRI, Osteichthyes showed the highest value (48.56%) (Table 2).
Our results also showed the presence of fish heads and sea bird remains (Figure 7) in stomachs contents, confirming the scavenger habits of G. melastomus.

4. Discussion

The sex ratio analysis showed that across all sites, the number of male specimens did not significantly differ from that of females, while the analysis of sexual maturity and size showed that both adults and juveniles were present in the area, as shown by other authors in the Strait of Sicily, and Tyrrhenian and Alboran Seas [13,25,46]. However, in other areas of the Mediterranean Sea, such as the Ionian and NW Aegean Seas, immature specimens in the catches were abundant [10,17,29,47,48]. These differences could be correlated with different fishing depths, geographic areas, and size/maturation stages of the species. In some areas, G. melastomus in fact showed seasonal and bathymetric variations related to recruitment and reproductive period ([47] and references therein).
Female specimens matured at larger sizes than males and were larger than males. They showed positive allometric growth, unlike the males, which instead showed a negative allometric growth. These findings were different from those obtained in the Strait of Sicily [46], where the species showed an isometric growth for both sexes, while it was coherent with a previous study from the southern Tyrrhenian Sea [25]. G. melastomus growth patterns from the studied area also differed from those of S. canicula. In this species, the males were often bigger than females in most areas of Mediterranean Sea ([9,47,49,50,51] and literature therein), while female specimens matured at a larger size than males, as in blackmouth catsharks. This difference may be related to metabolic and ecological variations between the two Scyliorhinidae species, which show different feeding habits, distribution patterns, and diet.
Comparing our results with the few data present from the southern Tyrrhenian Sea, our findings showed an increase of large specimens in trawling catches, with the highest frequency of occurrence for individuals with a TL of 35–40 cm for males, and 35–40 cm and 45–50 cm for females (Figure 3). The previous study of the southern Tyrrhenian Sea [25] showed the dominance of immature small individuals (<30 cm), with a small fraction of mature large individuals in the total catch obtained through trawling in a depth range between 500 and 880 m. Similar abundances in total trawling catch of small specimens also were shown in other areas in the Mediterranean Sea, such as the Alboran Sea (Western Mediterranean [13]), the Ionian Sea [10], and the Southern Adriatic Sea [29]. The highest frequency of occurrence for larger specimens (35–50 cm) shown by our results could indicate the need for larger individuals, which are usually distributed in deeper environments not exploited by trawling, to move to shallow water, increasing the risk of being caught by trawling. The reason behind this movement is not clear, considering which variations on bathymetrical distribution could be influenced by many factors. However, according to previous literature on other areas in the Mediterranean Sea [10,52], this high frequency of occurrence for larger specimens showed by the results could be correlated with mating. In fact, this species carried out periodical migration from deeper waters, using shallow environments for mating and perhaps nursery grounds [48,49,50]. The collection of new data from landings and studies on the population dynamics of G. melastomus could help to improve knowledge regarding reproductive areas of this species in the southern Tyrrhenian Sea. Identifying and protecting these areas is essential for the conservation of blackmouth catsharks.
L50 decreased from 42.5 cm for females and 37 cm for males, as shown by a previous study from the southern Tyrrhenian Sea [53], to 33.7 cm for females and 31.1 cm for males. The variation of this biological parameter compared with the literature on this area may be related to differences in methodology, statistical analysis, stock variability, and stability of the species [54]. Another aspect that could influence this variation may be the differences in sample size between the present and previous studies [55,56]. For this reason, further analysis of population dynamics and biology of this species with a larger sample are necessary to confirm this result. It is essential to highlight that changes in maturation size of the species could be correlated with environmental changes, such as increase in water temperature and acidification, or anthropogenetic stressors, such as overfishing and/or environmental pollution [57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64]. In general, size-selective fishing pressure or overfishing can lead to a decreased size at first maturity, as it is a way for the species to adapt and be able to reproduce before being caught. High catches of juveniles in the trawl fishery could have led to this adaptation [65,66,67,68]. Moreover, the presence of pollutants can induce physiological adaptations, leading to early gonadal maturation stages and size reduction [69,70,71]. Other studies concerning the effects of pollutants on this and other species [57,63,64,72,73] are necessary to better understand these processes. It is also essential to consider and study pollutants with unknown effects on marine organisms, such as plastics, now ubiquitous in marine environments [58,59,60,61,62,74]. In the last 150 years temperatures increased globally by ~0.76 °C (a further increase of 1–3 °C is expected by 2100) [75], in combination with a pH decrease by 0.0044 units and a further expected decrease of 0.3–0.4 units by 2100 [67,68]. Ocean warming and acidification are known to be factors that induce physiological responses in elasmobranchs [76,77,78]. These include increases in embryonic development, growth rate, and food consumption, as well as changes in hunting behavior [79,80,81,82,83,84]. These biological and ecological variations may also have negative, cascading effects on predator–prey relationships, altering the food web, and consequently entire ecosystems [85,86,87,88]. Concerning the deep-sea environment of the Mediterranean Sea, climate change and anthropogenetic stressors are progressively impacting the deep biocenosis ([89] and references therein) by changing the physic-chemical conditions ([90] and references therein). These variations inevitably have an impact on the physiology and ecology of deep biocenosis, especially on benthic ecosystems, and consequently on benthic and benthopelagic fauna, including sharks [91,92,93,94]. Further analyses of population dynamics and biology are needed to understand the reproductive biology and ecological variations of G. melastomus populations. Increased knowledge will improve the efficacy of deep marine biocenosis conservation and management.
Diet indices obtained in the present study clearly showed how this species mainly feeds on cephalopods, crustaceans, and bony fishes; however, except for a few species (Sepia orbignyana, Férussac (in d’Orbigny), 1826; T. sagittatus; Pasiphea sp.; Meganyctiphanes norvegica, M. Sars, 1857; C. maderensis), no clear preference was detected for particular species within these groups. The high occurrence of Euphasiacea—M. norvegica and Nematoscelis atlantica, Hansen, 1916—and small cephalopods and bioluminescent mesopelagic fishes of the family Myctophidae Gill, 1893—Diaphus sp., E. risso—should be correlated with feeding habits of small specimens, as shown by previous studies of other areas in the Mediterranean Sea [95,96]; while the high occurrence of larger cephalopods, such as T. sagittatus; Eledone sp.; Scaeurgus unicirrhus, Delle Chiaje (in Férussac and d’Orbigny), 1841; Dendrobranchiata (such as Pasiphaea sp.); and Osteichthyes species, could be correlated with adult feeding [97,98,99,100].
The most represented prey in terms of abundance belonged to Crustacea, followed by Mollusca and Osteichthyes. Considering the % IRI, the main prey of importance among Crustacea were Euphausiacea and Pasiphaea sp. Among Mollusca, the most relevant taxa were Cephalopoda, with T. sagittatus, Eledone sp., and S. orbignyana as the most important prey species. Among Osteichthyes, the most relevant prey was C. maderensis. Overall, bioluminescent mesopelagic fishes, such as those of the family Myctophidae, were commonly detected, and also easily identified thanks to their peculiar saccular otolith shape [101,102]. Moreover, Clupeidae, Cuvier, 1816 species derived from the discard of fisheries—remains of S. pilchardus and S. aurita—were also often identified. These latter species, once thrown back into the sea, become a fundamental source of food in the deep environment. The scavenging habit of G. melastomus has been highlighted by the presence in some stomachs of animal remains, like fish heads (deriving from fishery discards) and sea bird remains (Figure 7). This ecological feature could explain the resilience of this species, which often lives in an environment highly exploited by fisheries in many geographical areas that provide them the possibility to exploit fishery discards and offal [95,103].
The value obtained for Bi showed that G. melastomus in the southern Tyrrhenian Sea was an intermediate feeder, with quite generalist and opportunistic feeding habits and an intermediate trophic niche. This species preys on a few main taxa (e.g., Crustacea, Osteichthyes, Mollusca), but with no specific preference for any particular prey species within these main groups. In other words, while the diet of G. melastomus was not dominated by specific prey, species belonging to the groups of Crustacea, Osteichthyes, and Mollusca were clearly the most abundant in its diet. These results were similar to those found in other areas, such as the western Mediterranean Sea and the central Aegean Sea [104,105,106], where this species mainly fed on Crustaceans; whereas in the Gulf of Lion, the species preyed mainly on Cephalopoda and Decapoda [106,107]. The diet of this species here and in different areas in the Mediterranean Sea may be related to the different availability of prey, which shifts in different environments with seasonality, confirming its ability to adapt, survive in different habitats, and exploit the food availability of the area. This is a fundamental condition to survive in different deep oligotrophic environments, where it is essential to adapt the diet according to the food availability, a typical condition for opportunistic species such as G. melastomus.
A common feature in diet composition across different areas, also shown by our results, was the high occurrence of bioluminescent mesopelagic prey—Abraliopsis morisii, Verany, 1839; Heteroteuthis sp.; M. norvegica; Diaphus sp.; C. maderensis; E. risso; and Hygophum sp. [104,107,108,109,110,111]. This was due to the adaptation of the large eyes and retina of the blackmouth catshark to a dark, deep environment. Its retina, with long rods, provides a better sense of sight, and is adapted to distinguish the photophores’ light spectral emission of the main bioluminescent mesopelagic preys [108], reducing their counterstaining camouflage effectiveness.
The habit of blackmouth catsharks to prey mainly on benthopelagic species in all the areas in the Mediterranean and Atlantic Ocean has been confirmed by several studies [104,106,107,109,110,111,112,113,114]. In most environments, such as the Cantabrian Sea, this is a strategic way to achieve trophic partitioning with other syntopic shark species, such as S. canicula and S. stellaris, which mainly prey on strictly benthic species by using their developed olfactory sense [95]. On the other hand, to confirm the presence of a similar situation in the Tyrrhenian Sea, further analysis about the diet of other Scyliorhinidae species is necessary.
The trophic features of this species in most marine environments are essential for the proper functioning of the deep marine biocenosis. G. melastomus, in fact, plays a key role in the energy transfer across the different depth strata. Therefore, the study and monitoring of its diet, feeding habits, and ecological interactions with other sympatric and syntopic predators in areas where the data are scarce or absent (as in the case of the southern Tyrrhenian Sea) could help in understanding the ecological dynamic of the trophic network in the deep environments.

5. Conclusions

Although further studies are needed to better understand the biology and ecology of this species in the Mediterranean Sea, our study provided new data on several biological and ecological aspects of G. melastomus in the southern Tyrrhenian Sea and contributed to filling some of the gaps in the literature. Sharks represent key species in several marine habitats, and the study of their biology and ecology remains fundamentally important for management and conservation purposes. Our study highlighted the sexual maturity, size distribution, and feeding habits of the blackmouth catshark in the southern Tyrrhenian Sea, essential for understanding its ecological role, importance, and adaptation strategies in a deep environment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.D., G.C. and F.T.; methodology, S.F., C.D. and F.T.; software, F.T., S.F. and G.C.; validation, N.S., P.R., M.A. and S.S.; formal analysis, C.D., S.F. and M.A.; investigation, S.F., P.R., S.S. and G.C.; resources, P.R. and N.S.; data curation, S.S.; writing—original draft preparation, C.D. and F.T.; writing—review and editing, G.C. and F.T.; visualization, M.A. and S.S.; supervision, N.S. and P.R.; project administration, P.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the EU and Italian Ministry of Agricultural, Food, and Forestry Policies (PLNRDA 2017–2019-CAMPBIOL), in the framework of the “EU—Data Collection Framework, REG. (UE) N. 508/2014-FEAMP and REG. (EU) N. 2017/1004”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data will made available on request.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge E. Armeli Minicante, F. Soraci, and D. Salvati (IRBIM-CNR) for fish-trawl surveys and sampling onboard. Any experiments complied with the current laws of the country in which they were performed.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Nowicki, R.J.; Thomson, J.A.; Wirsing, A.J.; Heithaus, M.R.; Fourqurean, J.W. Loss of predation risk from apex predators can exacerbate marine tropicalization caused by extreme climatic events. J. Anim. Ecol. 2021, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Tiralongo, F.; Messina, G.; Lombardo, B.M. Biological Aspects of Juveniles of the Common Stingray, Dasyatis pastinaca (Linnaeus, 1758) (Elasmobranchii, Dasyatidae), from the Central Mediterranean Sea. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Tiralongo, F.; Messina, G.; Gatti, R.C.; Tibullo, D.; Lombardo, B.M. Some biological aspects of juveniles of the rough ray, Raja radula Delaroche, 1809 in Eastern Sicily (central Mediterranean Sea). J. Sea Res. 2018, 142, 174–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Tiralongo, F.; Messina, G.; Brundo, M.V.; Lombardo, B.M. Biological aspects of the common torpedo, Torpedo torpedo (Linnaeus, 1758) (Elasmobranchii: Torpedinidae), in the central Mediterranean Sea (Sicily, Ionian Sea). Eur. Zool. J. 2019, 86, 488–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Pacoureau, N.; Rigby, C.L.; Kyne, P.M.; Sherley, R.B.; Winker, H.; Carlson, J.K.; Fordham, S.V.; Barreto, R.; Fernando, D.; Francis, M.P.; et al. Half a century of global decline in oceanic sharks and rays. Nature 2021, 589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Tiralongo, F.; Messina, G.; Lombardo, B.M. Discards of elasmobranchs in a trammel net fishery targeting cuttlefish, Sepia officinalis Linnaeus, 1758, along the coast of Sicily (central Mediterranean Sea). Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2018, 20, 60–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dulvy, N.K.; Allen, D.J.; Ralph, G.M.; Walls, R.H.L. The Conservation Status of Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras in the Mediterranean Sea; IUCN: Malaga, Spain, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  8. D’Iglio, C.; Savoca, S.; Rinelli, P.; Spanò, N. Diet of the Deep-Sea Shark Galeus melastomus Rafinesque, 1810, in the Mediterranean Sea: What We Know and What We Should Know. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Capapé, C.; Reynaud, C.; Vergne, Y.; Quignard, J.P. Biological observations on the smallspotted catshark scyliorhinus canicula (chondrichthyes: Scyliorhinidae) off the languedocian coast (Southern France, Northern mediterranean). Panam. J. Aquat. Sci. 2008, 3, 282–289. [Google Scholar]
  10. Tursi, A.; D’Onghia, G.; Matarrese, A.; Piscitelli, G. Observations on population biology of the blackmouth catshark Galeus melastomus (Chondrichthyes, Scyliorhinidae) in the Ionian Sea. Cybium 1993, 17, 187–196. [Google Scholar]
  11. Ramírez-Amaro, S.; Ordines, F.; Terrasa, B.; Esteban, A.; García, C.; Guijarro, B.; Massutí, E. Demersal chondrichthyans in the western Mediterranean: Assemblages and biological parameters of their main species. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2016, 67, 636–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Camhi, M.D.; Fowler, S.L.; Musick, J.A.; Bräutigam, A.; Fordham, S.V.; Brautigam, A. Sharks and Their Relatives: Ecology and Conservation; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 1998; Volume 3, ISBN 283170460X. [Google Scholar]
  13. Rey, J.; de Sola, L.G.; Massutí, E. Distribution and biology of the blackmouth catshark Galeus melastomus in the Alboran Sea (Southwestern Mediterranean). J. Northwest Atl. Fish. Sci. 2005, 35, 215–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lauriano, E.R.; Pergolizzi, S.; Aragona, M.; Montalbano, G.; Guerrera, M.C.; Crupi, R.; Faggio, C.; Capillo, G. Fish and Shellfish Immunology Intestinal immunity of dogfish Scyliorhinus canicula spiral valve: A histochemical, immunohistochemical and confocal study. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2019, 87, 490–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pergolizzi, E.R.L.S.; Kuciel, J.G.M.; Faggio, M.A.C. Immunohistochemical colocalization of G protein alpha subunits and 5-HT in the rectal gland of the cartilaginous fish Scyliorhinus canicula. Microsc. Res. Tech. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ordines, F.; Massutí, E.; Moranta, J.; Quetglas, A.; Guijarro, B.; Fliti, K. Islas baleares vs argelia: Dos poblaciones cercanas de elasmobranquios en el mediterráneo occidental con distintas condiciones oceanográficas e historias pesqueras. Sci. Mar. 2011, 75, 707–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gouraguine, A.; Hidalgo, M.; Moranta, J.; Bailey, D.M.; Ordines, F.; Guijarro, B.; Valls, M.; Barberá, C.; De Mesa, A. Elasmobranch spatial segregation in the western Mediterranean. Sci. Mar. 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Rodríguez-Cabello, C.; Sánchez, F.; Serrano, A.; Olaso, I. Effects of closed trawl fishery areas on some elasmobranch species in the Cantabrian Sea. J. Mar. Syst. 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ligas, A.; Osio, G.C.; Sartor, P.; Sbrana, M.; de Ranieri, S. Trayectoria a largo plazo de algunas especies de elasmobranquios en los mares de Toscana (Mediterráneo noroccidental) a través de 50 años de datos de captura. Sci. Mar. 2013, 77, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Heithaus, M.R.; Frid, A.; Wirsing, A.J.; Worm, B. Predicting ecological consequences of marine top predator declines. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2008, 23, 202–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bradai, M.N.; Saidi, B.; Enajjar, S. Elasmobranchs of the Mediterranean and Black Sea: Status, Ecology and Biology. Bibliographic Analysis; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2012; ISBN 9789251073865. [Google Scholar]
  22. Psomadakis, P.N.; Giustino, S.; Vacchi, M. Mediterranean fish biodiversity: An updated inventory with focus on the Ligurian and Tyrrhenian seas. Zootaxa 2012, 3263, 1–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Relini, G. Checklist Della Flora e Della Fauna dei Mari Italiani (Parte II); Ministero dell’ambiente e della tutela del territorio e del mare: Rome, Italy, 2010; Volume 17. [Google Scholar]
  24. García-de-Vinuesa, A.; Demestre, M.; Carreño, A.; Lloret, J. The Bioactive Potential of Trawl Discard: Case Study from a Crinoid Bed Off Blanes (North-Western Mediterranean). Mar. Drugs 2021, 19, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Rinelli, P.; Bottari, T.; Florio, G.; Romeo, T.; Giordano, D.; Greco, S. Observations on distribution and biology of Galeus melastomus (Chondrichthyes, Scyliorhinidae) in the southern Tyrrhenian Sea (central Mediterranean). Cybium 2005, 29, 41–46. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ragonese, S.; Di Stefano, L.; Bianchini, M.L. Catture e selettività di pesci cartilaginei nella pesca dei gamberi rossi nello Stretto di Sicilia. Biol. Mar. Medit. 2000, 7, 400–401. [Google Scholar]
  27. Dimech, M.; Kaiser, M.J.; Ragonese, S.; Schembri, P.J. Ecosystem effects of fishing on the continental slope in the Central Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2012, 449, 41–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Jones, E.G.; Tselepides, A.; Bagley, P.M.; Collins, M.A.; Priede, I.G. Bathymetric distribution of some benthic and benthopelagic species attracted to baited cameras and traps in the deep eastern Mediterranean. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2003, 251, 75–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ungaro, N.; Marano, G. Galeus melastomus Rafinesque, 1810 (Selachii, Scyliorhinidae). Distribuzione e biologia sui fondi batiali del basso Adriatico. Atti. Rel. Acc. Pugl. Sci. 1994, 49, 195–207. [Google Scholar]
  30. Group, M.W. International Bottom Trawl Survey in the Mediterranean Instruction Manual Version 6. 2012. Available online: https://www.sibm.it/MEDITS%202011/docs/Medits-Handbook-2012%20versione%20definitiva.pdf (accessed on 28 August 2021).
  31. Ragonese, S.; Norrito, G. Le principali criticità del Piano Italiano di Raccolta Dati Alieutici dal punto di vista di un collega esperto in pesca e proveniente da un esopianeta (in vista della nuova programmazione 2021–2024). NTR-ITPP 2021, sr102, 1–49. [Google Scholar]
  32. Freedman, D.A.; Purves, R.A. Bayes’ Method for Bookies. Ann. Math. Stat. 1969, 40, 1177–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Šmídl, V.; Quinn, A. The Variational Bayes Method in Signal Processing; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2006; ISBN 3540288201. [Google Scholar]
  34. Froese, R.; Thorson, J.T.; Reyes, R.B. A Bayesian approach for estimating length-weight relationships in fishes. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 2014, 30, 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Jisr, N.; Younes, G.; Sukhn, C.; El-Dakdouki, M.H. Length-weight relationships and relative condition factor of fish inhabiting the marine area of the Eastern Mediterranean city, Tripoli-Lebanon. Egypt. J. Aquat. Res. 2018, 44, 299–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pandis, N. The chi-square test. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2016, 150, 898–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Torrejon-Magallanes, J. Package sizeMat. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/package=sizeMat (accessed on 30 August 2021).
  38. Follesa, M.C.; Carbonara, P. Atlas of the Maturity Stages of Mediterranean Fishery Resources. Studies and Reviews n. 99; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019; ISBN 9789251319758. [Google Scholar]
  39. Euzen, O. Food habits and diet composition of some fish of Kuwait. Kuwait Bull. Mar. Sci. 1987, 9, 65–85. [Google Scholar]
  40. Hyslop, E.J. Stomach contents analysis—a review of methods and their application. J. Fish Biol. 1980, 17, 411–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Cortés, E. A critical review of methods of studying fish feeding based on analysis of stomach contents: Application to elasmobranch fishes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1997, 54, 726–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Carrassón, M.; Matallanas, J.; Casadevall, M. Feeding strategies of deep-water morids on the western Mediterranean slope. Deep Sea Res. Part I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 1997, 44, 1685–1699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. N’Da, K. Regime alimentaire du rouget de roche Mullus surmuletus (Mullidae) dans le Nord du Golfe de Gascogne. Cybium 1992, 16, 159–167. [Google Scholar]
  44. Krebs, J.C. Ecological Methodology; Harper Row: New York, NY, USA, 1989; Volume 620. [Google Scholar]
  45. Novakowski, G.C.; Hahn, N.S.; Fugi, R. Diet seasonality and food overlap of the fish assemblage in a pantanal pond. Neotrop. Ichthyol. 2008, 6, 567–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Ragonese, S.; Nardone, G.; Ottonello, D.; Gancitano, S.; Giusto, G.B.; Sinacori, G. Distribution and biology of the blackmouth catshark galeus melastomus in the strait of sicily (central mediterranean sea). Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 2009, 10, 55–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Tserpes, G.; Maravelias, C.D.; Pantazi, M.; Peristeraki, P. Distribution of relatively rare demersal elasmobranchs in the eastern Mediterranean. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Capapé, C.; Guélorget, O.; Vergne, Y.; Reynaud, C. Reproductive biology of the blackmouth catshark, Galeus melastomus (Chondrichthyes: Scyliorhinidae) off the Languedocian coast (southern France, northern Mediterranean). J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 2008, 88, 415–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Metochis, C.P.; Carmona-Antoñanzas, G.; Kousteni, V.; Damalas, D.; Megalofonou, P. Population structure and aspects of the reproductive biology of the blackmouth catshark, Galeus melastomus Rafinesque, 1810 (Chondrichthyes: Scyliorhinidae) caught accidentally off the Greek coasts. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 2018, 98, 909–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Capapé, C.; Zaouali, J. Contribution a la biologie des Scyliorhinidae des cotes tunisiennes. VI. Galeus melastomus Rafinesque, 1810. Repartition geographique et bathymetrique, sexualite, reproduction, fecondite. Cah. Biol. Mar. 1977, 18, 449–463. [Google Scholar]
  51. Capape, C.; Quignard, J.P. Contribution a La Biologie Des Rajidae Des Cotes Tunisiennes. I. Raja Miraletus, Linne, 1758: Repartition Geographique Et Bathymetrique, Sexualite, Reproduction, Fecondite. Arch. Inst. Pasteur Tunis 1974, 51, 39–60. [Google Scholar]
  52. D’Onghia, G.; Matarrese, A.; Tursi, A.; Sion, L. Observations on the depth distribution pattern of the small-spotted catshark in the North Aegean Sea. J. Fish Biol. 1995, 47, 421–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Carbonara, P.; Casciaro, L.; Bitetto, I.; Zupa, W.; Gaudio, P.; Facchini, M.T.; Spedicato, M. Reproductive cycle and length at first maturity of Galeus melastomus in the central Mediterranean Sea. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Scientific Conference of the European Elasmobranch Association (EEA), Italy, Milan, 22–25 November 2012; p. 58. [Google Scholar]
  54. Ramírez-Amaro, S.; Picornell, A.; Arenas, M.; Castro, J.A.; Massutí, E.; Ramon, M.M.; Terrasa, B. Contrasting evolutionary patterns in populations of demersal sharks throughout the western Mediterranean. Mar. Biol. 2018, 165, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Roughgarden, J. A simple model for population dynamics in stochastic environments. Am. Nat. 1975, 109, 713–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lindström, J.; Kokko, H. Cohort effects and population dynamics. Ecol. Lett. 2002, 5, 338–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wheeler, C.R.; Gervais, C.R.; Johnson, M.S.; Vance, S.; Rosa, R.; Mandelman, J.W.; Rummer, J.L. Anthropogenic stressors influence reproduction and development in elasmobranch fishes. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Savoca, S.; Bottari, T.; Fazio, E.; Bonsignore, M.; Mancuso, M.; Luna, G.M.; Romeo, T.; D’Urso, L.; Capillo, G.; Panarello, G.; et al. Plastics occurrence in juveniles of Engraulis encrasicolus and Sardina pilchardus in the Southern Tyrrhenian Sea. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Savoca, S.; Capillo, G.; Mancuso, M.; Bottari, T.; Crupi, R.; Branca, C.; Romano, V.; Faggio, C.; D’Angelo, G.; Spanò, N. Microplastics occurrence in the Tyrrhenian waters and in the gastrointestinal tract of two congener species of seabreams. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2019, 67, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Capillo, G.; Savoca, S.; Panarello, G.; Mancuso, M.; Branca, C.; Romano, V.; D’Angelo, G.; Bottari, T.; Spanò, N. Quali-quantitative analysis of plastics and synthetic microfibers found in demersal species from Southern Tyrrhenian Sea (Central Mediterranean). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 150, 110596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Albano, M.; Panarello, G.; Di Paola, D.; D’Angelo, G.; Granata, A.; Savoca, S.; Capillo, G. The mauve stinger Pelagia noctiluca (Cnidaria, Scyphozoa) plastics contamination, the Strait of Messina case. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 2021, 0, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Albano, M.; Panarello, G.; Di Paola, D.; Capparucci, F.; Crupi, R.; Gugliandolo, E.; Spanò, N.; Capillo, G.; Savoca, S. The Influence of Polystyrene Microspheres Abundance on Development and Feeding Behavior of Artemia salina (Linnaeus, 1758). Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Fazio, F.; D’Iglio, C.; Capillo, G.; Saoca, C.; Peycheva, K.; Piccione, G.; Makedonski, L. Environmental Investigations and Tissue Bioaccumulation of Heavy Metals in Grey Mullet from the Black Sea (Bulgaria) and the Ionian Sea (Italy). Animals 2020, 10, 1739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Fazio, F.; Saoca, C.; Sanfilippo, M.; Capillo, G.; Spanò, N.; Piccione, G. Response of vanadium bioaccumulation in tissues of Mugil cephalus (Linnaeus 1758). Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 689, 774–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Schilling, H.T.; Smith, J.A.; Stewart, J.; Everett, J.D.; Hughes, J.M.; Suthers, I.M. Reduced exploitation is associated with an altered sex ratio and larger length at maturity in southwest Pacific (east Australian) Pomatomus saltatrix. Mar. Environ. Res. 2019, 147, 72–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Yanti, A.; Tresnati, J.; Yasir, I.; Syafiuddin; Rahmani, P.Y.; Aprianto, R.; Tuwo, A. Size at the maturity of sea cucumber Holothuria scabra. Is it an overfishing sign in Wallacea Region? IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 473, 12056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Froese, R. Keep it simple: Three indicators to deal with overfishing. Fish Fish. 2004, 5, 86–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Trippel, E.A. Age at maturity as a stress indicator in fisheries. Bioscience 1995, 45, 759–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lister, A.L.; Van Der Kraak, G.J.; Rutherford, R.; MacLatchy, D. Fundulus heteroclitus: Ovarian reproductive physiology and the impact of environmental contaminants. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. C Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2011, 154, 278–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Parisi, C.; Guerriero, G. Antioxidative defense and fertility rate in the assessment of reprotoxicity risk posed by global warming. Antioxidants 2019, 8, 622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Kime, D.E. The effects of pollution on reproduction in fish. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 1995, 5, 52–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Dulvy, N.K.; Forrest, R.E. Life histories, population dynamics, and extinction risks in chondrichthyans. Sharks and Their Relatives II: Biodiversity, Adaptive Physiology, and Conservation. 2010, pp. 639–679. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237044390_Life_Histories_Population_Dynamics_and_Extinction_Risks_in_Chondrichthyans (accessed on 28 August 2021).
  73. Spanò, N.; Di Paola, D.; Albano, M.; Manganaro, A.; Sanfilippo, M.; D’Iglio, C.; Capillo, G.; Savoca, S. Growth performance and bioremediation potential of Gracilaria gracilis (Steentoft, L.M. Irvine & Farnham, 1995). Int. J. Environ. Stud. 2021, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Savoca, S.; Lo Giudice, A.; Papale, M.; Mangano, S.; Caruso, C.; Spanò, N.; Michaud, L.; Rizzo, C. Antarctic sponges from the Terra Nova Bay (Ross Sea) host a diversified bacterial community. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability; Field, L., Barros, C., Dokken, V., Mach, D., Mastrandrea, K., Bilir, M., Chatterjee, T., Ebi, M., Estrada, K., Genova, Y., et al., Eds.; IPCC: England, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  76. Di Santo, V. Intraspecific variation in physiological performance of a benthic elasmobranch challenged by ocean acidification and warming. J. Exp. Biol. 2016, 219, 1725–1733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Ripley, D.M.; De Giorgio, S.; Gaffney, K.; Thomas, L.; Shiels, H.A. Ocean warming impairs the predator avoidance behaviour of elasmobranch embryos. Conserv. Physiol. 2021, 9, coab045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Musa, S.M.; Ripley, D.M.; Moritz, T.; Shiels, H.A. Ocean warming and hypoxia affect embryonic growth, fitness and survival of small-spotted catsharks, Scyliorhinus canicula. J. Fish Biol. 2020, 97, 257–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Pistevos, J.C.A.; Nagelkerken, I.; Rossi, T.; Olmos, M.; Connell, S.D. Ocean acidification and global warming impair shark hunting behaviour and growth. Nat. Publ. Gr. Sci.Rep. 2015, 5, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Rosa, R.; Baptista, M.; Lopes, V.M.; Pegado, M.R.; Paula, R.; Tru, K.; Repolho, T.; Rosa, R. Early-life exposure to climate change impairs tropical shark survival Author for correspondence. Proc. R. Soc. B 2014, 281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Rosa, R.; Rummer, J.L.; Munday, P.L.; Rosa, R. Biological responses of sharks to ocean acidification. Biol. Lett. 2017, 13, 201607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Barragán-Méndez, C.; Sánchez-García, F.; Sobrino, I.; Mancera, J.M.; Ruiz-Jarabo, I. Air Exposure in Catshark (Scyliorhinus canicula) Modify Muscle Texture Properties: A Pilot Study. Fishes 2018, 3, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Johnson, M.S.; Kraver, D.W.; Renshaw, G.M.C.; Rummer, J.L. Will ocean acidification affect the early ontogeny of a tropical oviparous elasmobranch (Hemiscyllium ocellatum)? Conserv. Physiol. 2016, 4, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Schlaff, A.M.; Heupel, M.R.; Simpfendorfer, C.A. Influence of environmental factors on shark and ray movement, behaviour and habitat use: A review. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 2014, 24, 1089–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Barnes, C.A.B.; Axwell, D.A.M.; Euman, D.A.C.R. Global patterns in predator – prey size relationships reveal size dependency of trophic transfer efficiency. Ecology 2010, 91, 222–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Perry, S.F.; Gilmour, K.M. Acid–base balance and CO 2 excretion in fish: Unanswered questions and emerging models. Respir. Physiol. Neurobiol. 2006, 154, 199–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Vucic-Pestic, O.; Ehnes, B.R.; Rall, B.C.; Brose, U. Warming up the system: Higher predator feeding rates but lower energetic efficiencies. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2011, 1301–1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Rall, B.C.; Vucic-Pestic, O.; Ehnes, B.R.; Emmerson, M.; Brose, U. Temperature, predator – prey interaction strength and population stability. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2010, 16, 2145–2157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Danovaro, R. Climate change impacts on the biota and on vulnerable habitats of the deep Mediterranean Sea. Rend. Lincei. Sci. Fis. e Nat. 2018, 29, 525–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Yasuhara, M.; Danovaro, R. Temperature impacts on deep-sea biodiversity. Biol. Rev. 2016, 91, 275–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Sweetman, A.K.; Thurber, A.R.; Smith, C.R.; Levin, L.A.; Mora, C.; Wei, C.L.; Gooday, A.J.; Jones, D.O.B.; Rex, M.; Yasuhara, M.; et al. Major impacts of climate change on deep-sea benthic ecosystems. Elementa 2017, 5, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Danovaro, R.; Snelgrove, P.V.R.; Tyler, P. Challenging the paradigms of deep-sea ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2014, 29, 465–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Catarino, D.; Knutsen, H.; Verissimo, A.; Olsen, E.M.; Jorde, P.E.; Menezes, G.; SannÆs, H.; Stankovic, D.; Company, J.B.; Neat, F.; et al. The Pillars of Hercules as a bathymetric barrier to gene flow promoting isolation in a global deep-sea shark (Centroscymnus coelolepis). Mol. Ecol. 2015, 24, 6061–6079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Henry, L.; Stehmann, M.F.W.; Clippele, L. De Seamount egg-laying grounds of the deep-water skate Bathyraja richardsoni. J. Fish Biol. 2016, 89, 1473–1481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Olaso, I.; Velasco, F.; Sánchez, F.; Serrano, A.; Rodríguez-Cabello, C.; Cendrero, O. Trophic relations of lesser-spotted catshark (Scyliorhinus canicula) and blackmouth catshark (Galeus melastomus) in the Cantabrian Sea. J. Northwest Atl. Fish. Sci. 2005, 35, 481–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Bendiab, A.A.T.; Mouffok, S.; Boutiba, Z. Feeding Habits of Two Sharks Species Scyliorhinus canicula (Linnaeus, 1758) and Galeus melastomus (Rafinesque, 1810) in the Western Algerian coasts. J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci. 2016, 6, 108–116. [Google Scholar]
  97. Neves, A.; Figueiredo, I.; Moura, T.; Assis, C.; Gordo, L.S. Diet and feeding strategy of Galeus melastomus in the continental slope off southern Portugal. Vie Milieu 2007, 57, 165–169. [Google Scholar]
  98. Carrassón, M.; Cartes, J.E. Trophic relationships in a Mediterranean deep-sea fish community: Partition of food resources, dietary overlap and connections within the benthic boundary layer. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2002, 241, 41–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Macpherson, E. Régime alimentaire de Galeus melastomus (Rafinesque, 1810), Etmopterus 8 spinax (L., 1758) et Scymnorhinus licha (Bonaterre, 1788), en Méditerranée Occidentale. 1980. Available online: https://digital.csic.es/handle/10261/161666?locale=en (accessed on 28 August 2021).
  100. Macpherson, E. Resource Partitioning in a Mediterranean Demersal Fish Community. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 1981, 4, 183–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Tuset, V.M.; Lombarte, A.; Assis, C.A. Otolith atlas for the western Mediterranean, north and central eastern Atlantic. Sci. Mar. 2008, 72, 7–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. D’Iglio, C.; Albano, M.; Famulari, S.; Savoca, S.; Panarello, G.; Di Paola, D.; Perdichizzi, A.; Rinelli, P.; Lanteri, G.; Spanò, N.; et al. Intra- and interspecific variability among congeneric Pagellus otoliths. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 16315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Cartes, J.E.; Soler-Membrives, A.; Stefanescu, C.; Lombarte, A.; Carrassón, M. Contributions of allochthonous inputs of food to the diets of benthopelagic fish over the northwest Mediterranean slope (to 2300 m). Deep. Res. Part I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 2016, 109, 123–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Anastasopoulou, A.; Mytilineou, C.; Lefkaditou, E.; Dokos, J.; Smith, C.J.; Siapatis, A.; Bekas, P.; Papadopoulou, K.N. Diet and feeding strategy of blackmouth catshark Galeus melastomus. J. Fish Biol. 2013, 83, 1637–1655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Ait Darna, S.; Taleb Bendiab, A.A.; Mouffok, S.; Belmahi, A.-E.; Bouderbala, M. Observation on distribution, biology, growth, diet and feeding strategy of blackmouth catshark Galeus melastomus (Rafinesque, 1810) (Chondrichthyes: Scyliorhinidae) in western Algerian coasts. Biodivers. J. 2018, 9, 357–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Fanelli, E.; Rey, J.; Torres, P.; Gil De Sola, L. Feeding habits of blackmouth catshark Galeus melastomus Rafinesque, 1810 and velvet belly lantern shark Etmopterus spinax (Linnaeus, 1758) in the western Mediterranean. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 2009, 25, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Carrassón, M.; Stefanescu, C.; Cartes, J.E. Diets and bathymetric distributions of two bathyal sharks of the Catalan deep sea (western Mediterranean). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 1992, 82, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Bozzano, A.; Murgia, R.; Vallerga, S.; Hirano, J.; Archer, S. The photoreceptor system in the retinae of two dogfishes, Scyliorhinus canicula and Galeus melastomus: Possible relationship with depth distribution and predatory lifestyle. J. Fish Biol. 2001, 59, 1258–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Bello, G. Heteroteuthis dispar (Cephalopoda: Sepiolidae) nella dieta di selaci demersali. Biol. Mar. Medit. 1995, 2, 211–215. [Google Scholar]
  110. Valls, M.; Quetglas, A.; Ordines, F.; Moranta, J. Feeding ecology of demersal elasmobranchs from the shelf and slope off the Balearic Sea (western Mediterranean). Sci. Mar. 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Rodhouse, P.G.K.; Lu, C.C.; Roper, C.F.E. Malcolm Roy Clarke, FRS. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 2015, 95, 865–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Pierce, G.J.; Boyle, P.R. A review of methods for diet analysis in piscivorous marine mammals. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 1991, 29. [Google Scholar]
  113. Bello, G. Cephalopods from the stomach contents of demersal chondrichthyans caught in the Adriatic Sea. Vie Milieu 1997, 47, 221–227. [Google Scholar]
  114. Dallarés, S.; Padrós, F.; Cartes, J.E.; Solé, M.; Carrassón, M. The parasite community of the sharks Galeus melastomus, Etmopterus spinax and Centroscymnus coelolepis from the NW Mediterranean deep-sea in relation to feeding ecology and health condition of the host and environmental gradients and variables. Deep. Res. Part I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 2017, 129, 41–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Maps of the Mediterranean Sea (a) and the subarea studied (GSA 10) (b). In (b), the white arrows indicate northern and southern GSA geographical border points with their relative coordinates.
Figure 1. Maps of the Mediterranean Sea (a) and the subarea studied (GSA 10) (b). In (b), the white arrows indicate northern and southern GSA geographical border points with their relative coordinates.
Jmse 09 00967 g001
Figure 2. Sex composition by size classes of G. melastomus: (a) male; (b) female.
Figure 2. Sex composition by size classes of G. melastomus: (a) male; (b) female.
Jmse 09 00967 g002
Figure 3. Total length–weight relationships of G. melastomus for both sexes: (a) females (gray, N = 66) and males (blue, N = 61) and (b) combined.
Figure 3. Total length–weight relationships of G. melastomus for both sexes: (a) females (gray, N = 66) and males (blue, N = 61) and (b) combined.
Jmse 09 00967 g003
Figure 4. Plotting the maturity ogives of G. melastomus male (a) and female (b) specimens: values of size at gonad maturity (L50) and R-squared (R2) are reported. Grey dots refer to the specimens analyzed. Red dots indicate the L50 in the curve. Dashed blue curves indicate confidence intervals.
Figure 4. Plotting the maturity ogives of G. melastomus male (a) and female (b) specimens: values of size at gonad maturity (L50) and R-squared (R2) are reported. Grey dots refer to the specimens analyzed. Red dots indicate the L50 in the curve. Dashed blue curves indicate confidence intervals.
Jmse 09 00967 g004
Figure 5. Cumulative prey curve (in red) as a function of sample size for all stomachs of G. melastomus analysed. The standard deviation (SD) is represented with dashed lines.
Figure 5. Cumulative prey curve (in red) as a function of sample size for all stomachs of G. melastomus analysed. The standard deviation (SD) is represented with dashed lines.
Jmse 09 00967 g005
Figure 6. Diet composition by weight (%W) of G. melastomus. The percentage of biomass composition of main prey categories is summarized on the right of the figure. “Other” indicates unidentified prey and sea bird remains.
Figure 6. Diet composition by weight (%W) of G. melastomus. The percentage of biomass composition of main prey categories is summarized on the right of the figure. “Other” indicates unidentified prey and sea bird remains.
Jmse 09 00967 g006
Figure 7. Evidence of the presence in stomachs of sea birds (Mergus merganser Linnaeus, 1758): plumage remains (a,b), beak (c), and tissue remains (d).
Figure 7. Evidence of the presence in stomachs of sea birds (Mergus merganser Linnaeus, 1758): plumage remains (a,b), beak (c), and tissue remains (d).
Jmse 09 00967 g007
Table 1. Total length–weight relationship parameters of G. melastomus in the Tyrrhenian Sea (western Mediterranean Sea); “a” represents the values of the intercept, and “b” is the slope of the logarithmic regression curve. C.I. = 95% confidence interval.
Table 1. Total length–weight relationship parameters of G. melastomus in the Tyrrhenian Sea (western Mediterranean Sea); “a” represents the values of the intercept, and “b” is the slope of the logarithmic regression curve. C.I. = 95% confidence interval.
Length–Weight Relationship Parameters
aC.I. abC.I. bR2p-Value
Females0.0010.001–0.0023.2013.058–3.3430.9690.027
Males0.0030.002–0.0042.9532.883–3.0230.9920.047
Combined0.0020.001–0.0033.0492.976–3.1210.9820.079
Table 2. Diet composition of G. melastomus from the southern Tyrrhenian Sea (western Mediterranean Sea). %F = percentage frequency of occurrence; %N = percentage in number; %W = percentage in biomass; IRI = index of relative importance of prey items and its percentage (%IRI). Numbers in bold are sums of indices for main categories.
Table 2. Diet composition of G. melastomus from the southern Tyrrhenian Sea (western Mediterranean Sea). %F = percentage frequency of occurrence; %N = percentage in number; %W = percentage in biomass; IRI = index of relative importance of prey items and its percentage (%IRI). Numbers in bold are sums of indices for main categories.
%N%W%F%IRI
MOLLUSCA29.0044.0556.9435.57
Gasteropoda0.280.180.760.01
Gasteropoda n.i.0.280.180.760.01
Cephalopoda28.7243.8756.1835.56
Abraliopsis morisii0.280.500.760.02
Alloteuthis media0.560.541.520.06
Eledone cirrhosa0.280.850.760.03
Eledone sp.0.5611.221.520.68
Heteroteuthis dispar1.410.612.270.18
Histioteuthis reversa0.850.862.270.15
Histioteuthis sp.0.286.960.760.21
Loligo sp.0.560.351.520.05
Scaeurgus unicirrhus0.280.850.860.03
Sepia orbignyana5.071.005.301.23
Sepietta oweniana0.280.130.760.01
Sepiola intermedia0.560.090.760.02
Todarodes sagittatus3.109.665.302.59
Cephalopoda n.i.14.6510.2531.8230.30
CRUSTACEA38.8610.5539.4411.63
Amphipoda0.280.040.760.01
Amphipoda n.i.0.280.040.760.01
Decapoda10.979.1325.795.01
Eusergestes arcticus0.280.090.760.01
Parapenaeus longirostris0.280.260.760.02
Pasiphaea multidentata0.562.000.760.07
Pasiphea sivado1.410.783.790.32
Pasiphea sp.0.560.461.520.06
Plesionika giglioli0.281.070.760.04
Robustosergia robusta0.280.450.760.02
Solenocera membranacea0.280.560.760.02
Brachyura n.i.0.280.130.760.01
Decapoda n.i.0.560.261.520.05
Dendrobranchiata n.i.5.922.9812.884.38
Sergestidae n.i.0.280.090.760.01
Euphausiacea27.051.2711.376.57
Meganyctiphanes norvegica3.100.353.030.40
Nematoscelis atlantica1.410.161.520.09
Euphausiacea n.i.22.540.766.826.08
Isopoda0.560.111.520.04
Isopoda n.i.0.560.111.520.04
OSTEICHTHYES27.0240.6756.1148.56
Ceratoscopelus maderensis2.823.575.301.30
Chauliodus sloani0.280.040.760.01
Diaphus holti0.280.890.760.03
Diaphus sp.0.850.181.520.06
Electrona risso1.413.162.270.40
Gadiculus argenteus0.280.110.760.01
Hygophum benoiti0.280.130.760.01
Hygophum hygomii0.280.320.760.02
Hygophum sp.0.280.040.760.01
Macroramphosus scolopax0.280.150.760.01
Myctophum punctatum0.280.290.760.02
Ophidion rochei0.280.370.760.02
Peristedion cataphractum0.280.090.760.01
Sardina pilchardus0.563.771.520.25
Sardinella aurita0.565.741.520.37
Stomias boa0.280.060.760.01
Synchiropus phaeton0.280.390.760.02
Congridae n.i.0.280.080.760.01
Myctophidae n.i.0.561.071.520.09
Osteichthyes n.i.16.6220.2232.5845.90
TUNICATA0.280.040.760.01
Ascidiacea n.i.0.280.040.760.01
OTHER4.794.6912.884.22
Digested4.514.5712.124.21
Feathers (Mergus merganser)0.280.120.760.01
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

D’Iglio, C.; Albano, M.; Tiralongo, F.; Famulari, S.; Rinelli, P.; Savoca, S.; Spanò, N.; Capillo, G. Biological and Ecological Aspects of the Blackmouth Catshark (Galeus melastomus Rafinesque, 1810) in the Southern Tyrrhenian Sea. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 967. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jmse9090967

AMA Style

D’Iglio C, Albano M, Tiralongo F, Famulari S, Rinelli P, Savoca S, Spanò N, Capillo G. Biological and Ecological Aspects of the Blackmouth Catshark (Galeus melastomus Rafinesque, 1810) in the Southern Tyrrhenian Sea. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 2021; 9(9):967. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jmse9090967

Chicago/Turabian Style

D’Iglio, Claudio, Marco Albano, Francesco Tiralongo, Sergio Famulari, Paola Rinelli, Serena Savoca, Nunziacarla Spanò, and Gioele Capillo. 2021. "Biological and Ecological Aspects of the Blackmouth Catshark (Galeus melastomus Rafinesque, 1810) in the Southern Tyrrhenian Sea" Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 9, no. 9: 967. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jmse9090967

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop