Residency, Site Fidelity, and Regional Movement of Tiger Sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier) at a Pupping Location in the Bahamas
, Vital Heim 1,5, Samuel H. Gruber 1,†and Tristan L. Guttridge 1,6Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General comments:
The evaluated manuscript brings results of an interesting study conducted with the purpose of determining residency, dispersal, and philopatry of tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier) in Bimini, The Bahamas. Overall, the authors argue that this area probably serves as a pupping ground rather than a nursery ground, also suggesting that it is used across multiple reproductive cycles.
Undoubtedly, the theme is relevant, current and very opportune. Although these topics on sharks has been widely known, the studies related to it are always welcome; going to fill a gap about the tiger shark (G. cuvier) in this study area. Therefore, based on the comments below, I can recommend publication of the study in Sustainability in the present form.
Specific comments:
The manuscript has just a few normal formatting errors and/or typos. Overall, it is well structured, the topics are well connected and each aspect is well argued. It is also supported by a solid statistical analysis, summarized clearly and effectively in the figures presented in the manuscript. Just a little advice; in the data analysis paragraph, I would include the GAMM model used, and explaining each variable, etc.
Otherwise, good work and congratulations on both the study and the manuscript!
Author Response
Attached is a PDF with comprehensive responses.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors present a comprehensive study on the space use and movement behaviour of the tiger shark in Bimini, the Bahamas, which is supposed to be an important pupping area for this species. Using long-term mark-recapture and acoustic and satellite telemetry they aimed to find evidence supporting that Bimini serves as a pupping location and assess the levels of residency and site fidelity to the area, and the regional connectivity. The authors found evidence that Bimini likely serves as a pupping ground (but not as a nursery area) for tiger sharks, and that mature females use this area across multiple reproductive cycles.
Overall, I think the paper is very well written and the writing is smooth, simple, and very readable. The introduction gives a nice overview and provides background for the study’s questions. The methods are described clearly, and the results are presented comprehensively. In sum, the findings will make a valuable contribution to the topic as it adds important considerations to the body of literature on shark conservation.
I only have some minor comments for the authors (listed below), which I hope could improve their final version:
The first two paragraphs are partly repetitive (e.g., ll. 40-41, 67-68). Maybe it can be re-arranged to make the reading smoother.
ll. 111 “range”, instead of “rang”
ll.541-543 Is there any research literature available on other shark species, supporting that nursery and pupping areas may be in different areas?
General remark: I think adding some comparisons to other shark species (with similar life-history traits) may be beneficial for the discussion and put the study into a broader context of shark conservation.
Author Response
Attached is a PDF with comprehensive responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I really appreciated the experimental design and I am impressed about the data series considered. This is a precious information for such an important species. As I'm not familiar with the methodologies used, I found the M&M section extremely detailed and clear. The whole manuscript has a high value.
Here follow some minor comments and editing.
Title
Line 2: species name lacks of descriptor. Please, consider to add " Péron & Lesueur, 1822"
Introduction
Line 64: Check the reference order (Hollensead et al. 2018; Froeschke et al. 2010; Macdonald et al. 2021).
Line 70: Please, add the descriptor to the nominal species.
Materials and Methods
Line 112: replace ";" with ","
Results
Figures 1 and 2, captions (lines 267 and 287): Galeocerdo cuvier not in Italics. Please, verify all the captions.
Discussion
Line 411: numbers from one to ten should be reported in letters; from 10 to N using digits. Please, check throughout the manuscript.
Author Response
Attached is PDF with comprehensive responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
