Sympatric ray species show different temporal patterns for accessing provisioned food
Joni Pini-Fitzsimmons
A
B
C
D
Abstract
Food provisioning is widely used in elasmobranch tourism to elicit encounters between tourists and these typically elusive species. Wildlife tourism operations usually target a single species, although behavioural responses of these species often differ among provisioning locations. Likewise, provisioned foods are often consumed by multiple non-target species, which may also differ in their behavioural responses despite being exposed to the same provisioning event. Few studies have compared behaviour and movement patterns of multiple species in response to provisioning, particularly of those occupying similar niches.
This study aimed to compare the movement patterns of two sympatric ray species, the smooth stingray (Bathythosia brevicaudata) and the southern eagle ray (Myliobatis tenuicaudatus), around a site where they are fed as part of an unregulated but popular tourist attraction in south-eastern Australia.
Using passive acoustic telemetry, we compared the presence, duration of visits, and space use around the provisioning site for the two ray species.
Both species responded to provisioning at the site, but in different ways, suggesting different temporal use of the provisioning site (i.e. time-sharing). Southern eagle rays exhibited stronger attachment to the site, potentially indicating habituation to regular provisioning and a greater risk of being negatively affected than were smooth stingrays. Conversely, smooth stingrays appeared to focus their use of the site on periods of higher provisioning activity (i.e. daytime and on weekends) and may temporarily displace the smaller eagle rays during these times. Despite their attachment, both species made movements out of the study area, suggesting limited impacts on broader-scale behaviours.
Smooth stingrays and southern eagle rays exhibited distinct temporal patterns of site use in response to food provisioning, reflecting differences in their behavioural responses. These patterns suggest that even closely related and co-occurring species may adopt different approaches to accessing the same anthropogenic resource.
This research has highlighted the need for a broader approach to assessing and managing wildlife provisioning activities, that takes into account species-specific responses and interspecific interactions.
Keywords: acoustic telemetry, Batoidea, food provisioning, human-wildlife interactions, interspecific interactions, sympatric species, temporal space use, wildlife tourism.
Introduction
Nature-based tourism has increased significantly since the 1990s (Silva et al. 2023). Elasmobranch (shark and ray) tourism is a rapidly growing sector (Gallagher and Hammerschlag 2011; Gallagher et al. 2015) that often uses food provisioning to facilitate encounters for paying customers (Brena et al. 2015; Richards et al. 2015; Trave et al. 2017; Patroni et al. 2018). However, it has been shown that feeding wildlife can cause changes in species abundance, behaviour, movement patterns and community structure (reviewed in Trave et al. (2017), Brena et al. (2015) and Patroni et al. (2018)). However, there are some important social and economic benefits (Burgin and Hardiman 2015). For elasmobranchs, which are globally threatened (Dulvy et al. 2014; Pacoureau et al. 2021), such tourism has helped conservation by improving attitudes and highlighting the non-consumptive value of these animals (Brunnschweiler 2010; Clua et al. 2011; Gallagher and Hammerschlag 2011; Vianna et al. 2012). However, educational and financial benefits are typically only maximised if feeding is part of a regulated or managed activity (Dubois and Fraser 2013; Healy et al. 2020).
Wildlife feeding often occurs outside controlled contexts through unregulated tourist attractions, whereby wildlife may be attracted because of incidental provisioning activities, such as dumps or fishing discards (Oro et al. 2013), after which the public takes notice and begin feeding the animals to lure them closer. In these contexts, there are considerable risks to animal and human welfare because of a lack of codes of conduct guiding appropriate human behaviour or education around the risks (Healy et al. 2020). These risks are particularly concerning for elasmobranch tourism where target species can be potentially dangerous to people (e.g. stingray barbs, shark bites). However, the extent to which unmanaged provisioning of wildlife occurs is hard to determine (Dubois and Fraser 2013) and a lack of awareness of such activities leads to a deficiency in data to support monitoring and management and reduce long-term impacts. Research interest does not usually begin until an activity becomes commercialised and attracts public attention, such as when there is growing social and economic pressure to ensure the welfare of the target animals, safeguard the longevity of the activity, or to address emerging concerns such as injuries to or from animals. A prime example is the stingray-feeding tourism attraction at Stingray City Sandbar in the Cayman Islands (Vaudo et al. 2018). Southern stingrays (Hypanus americanus, formerly Dasyatis americana) were originally attracted to the site by fish waste discarded from fishing boats in the 1930s, and in the 1980s SCUBA divers began hand-feeding the stingrays (Shackley 1998). The activity was then commercialised and today is worth US$50 million and the site is visited by over one million tourists annually (Vaudo et al. 2018). However, the first research into potential impacts on the southern stingrays at the site was conducted only once tourist numbers reached ~100,000 annually and the number of stingrays had increased 10-fold (Shackley 1998), more than 50 years after the stingrays were first attracted to the site by commercial fishing activity.
Wildlife tourism often focuses on a single target species and there is a growing body of research into potential impacts on them (e.g. southern stingrays at Stingray City Sandbar, (Vaudo et al. 2018); white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) in the Neptune Islands, South Australia, (Bruce and Bradford 2013); tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier) at Tiger Beach in the Bahamas, (Hammerschlag et al. 2012); reviews: Brena et al. (2015) and Patroni et al. (2018)). However, provisioning rarely affects any one species in isolation. For example, eight species of sharks are provisioned for diving tourism at Shark Reef Marine Reserve, Fiji, and species abundance and group composition has changed over time owing to competitive exclusion and changes in provisioning activities (Brunnschweiler et al. 2014). At the Neptune Islands, South Australia, various pelagic fishes, reef fishes and rays forage on baits used for white shark cage diving in, but the consumption of baits differs among species (Meyer et al. 2020). These studies have highlighted that a broader, assemblage-level approach to assessing the impacts of wildlife provisioning is needed to aid in the development of more effective management strategies.
The limited research that does exist on multi-species groups has focussed on community composition and dynamics (Clarke et al. 2013; Brunnschweiler et al. 2014) or consumption (Meyer et al. 2020). There is very little research comparing the movement and site-use patterns of multiple species using the same provisioned resource. This lack of research is surprising, given that the majority of research on single provisioned species demonstrates that behavioural changes are widespread (reviewed in Brena et al. (2015), Trave et al. (2017) and Patroni et al. (2018)). However, the behavioural responses of provisioned elasmobranchs documented in the literature have been rather mixed, both among different species at the same site and the same species at different sites. For example, in Hamelin Bay, Western Australia, smooth stingrays (Bathytoshia brevicaudata), black stingrays (B. lata, formerly Dasyatis thetidis) and southern eagle rays (Myliobatis tenuicaudatus) are fed as part of an unregulated tourism attraction (Newsome et al. 2004). Although all species showed similar patterns in use of the site that were linked with tourist numbers, the two larger stingray species showed aggressive behaviour towards the smaller southern eagle rays during feeding (Newsome et al. 2004). In other locations where different populations of the same species are provisioned, behavioural responses have differed. For example, provisioning associated with cage-diving in South Africa has negligible effects on white shark foraging behaviour (Laroche et al. 2007), whereas white sharks in the Neptune Islands, Australia, exhibited considerable behavioural changes in response to increased intensity of cage-diving operations, including increased periods of residency, greater time spent near cage-diving vessels, and altered diel habitat use patterns (Bruce and Bradford 2013). This difference suggests that the impacts of provisioning are species-, site-, and/or context-specific (Hammerschlag et al. 2012), but these drivers, and the interplay among them are poorly understood. Assessing sympatric species exposed to the same provisioning conditions at the same location can help isolate species-specific behavioural responses from those driven by environmental factors, providing insight into the variability observed in responses to provisioning across different contexts, and potentially furthering our understanding of when the impacts of provisioning will be limited or more substantial.
This study aimed to compare the movement patterns of two sympatric ray species, the smooth stingray and southern eagle ray, around a site where they are fed as part of an unregulated but popular tourist attraction in south-eastern Australia. Using passive acoustic telemetry, we compared the presence, duration of visits, and activity spaces of the two ray species and how they relate to patterns in provisioning activity. On the basis of the previous research at Hamelin Bay, Western Australia (Newsome et al. 2004), where the context is similar, we expected both species to show similar patterns in presence and space use, and for these patterns to be strongly linked to when and where provisioning occurred. We also expected the larger smooth stingrays to have stronger attachment (i.e. higher presence, longer visits, and smaller activity spaces) during peak provisioning times (i.e. afternoons and weekends) as a result of competitive exclusion of the smaller eagle ray species.
Materials and methods
Study site
This study was conducted along the open coastline surrounding Boat Harbour Beach, Bendalong, New South Wales (NSW), Australia (35.245°S, 150.539°E; Fig. 1). Boat Harbour Beach is a 300 m long beach with two boat ramps and fish cleaning facilities on the rock platform at the eastern end (Fig. 1b). Smooth stingrays and southern eagle rays have been provisioned in the shallow waters at the eastern end of the beach for many years (Fig. 1b). Provisioning began with recreational anglers discarding fish cleaning waste from the fish cleaning tables at the eastern end, which led to the handfeeding of fish waste and commercially produced baits to the rays by the public. At the time of this study, the feeding of the rays was unregulated, and knowledge of the activity was largely spread by word-of-mouth (e.g. Trip Advisor Australia 2018).
(a) Map of the study location around Bendalong, NSW, Australia, with the positions of the 10 VR2W passive acoustic receivers used to track smooth stingrays and southern eagle rays. Inset shows geographical location of the study site in Australia. (b) Aerial photograph of Boat Harbour Beach in Bendalong, NSW, Australia, where smooth stingrays and southern eagle rays are provisioned. Aerial photograph sourced from Google Earth Pro ver. 7.3.3.7786 (imagery date: 24 February 2016).

We did not quantify when provisioning activity occurred during this study; however, there are specific temporal patterns inherent in recreational fishing and tourist activity at the site that are used as a proxy. First, provisioning occurs throughout the day but is higher in the afternoons, driven by tourists spending the day at the beach and recreational anglers returning to fish cleaning facilities in the afternoon (Pini-Fitzsimmons et al. 2018; Lynch et al. 2020). Second, because of the recreational nature, tourist numbers and fishing effort is higher on weekends than weekdays when people are not at work (Sunger et al. 2012; Finger and Lehmann 2012; Flynn et al. 2018; Kendall et al. 2021).
The study was primarily conducted during spring and summer months, which is a period of moderate to high tourism activity at the site. During this time, tourist numbers and provisioning activities typically increase, particularly during summer and school holidays, before decreasing during cooler months. While different seasons or holiday periods may lead to varying provisioning patterns and associated impacts on the rays, seasonal variation in provisioning was not directly quantified as part of this study.
Acoustic tagging and tracking
In August–September 2019, seven southern eagle rays and six smooth stingrays were tagged opportunistically at Boat Harbour Beach. Observations over 5 years (2017–2022) suggest these tagged individuals comprise the core population that regularly use the site, as determined through visual identification by using unique features such as colouration, spot patterns, and notches in fins and tails (J. Pini-Fitzsimmons, unpubl. data). All rays were tagged externally with Innovasea V9-2H 69 kHz coded acoustic transmitters with a random repeat interval of 100–160 s and expected battery life of 371 days (Innovasea Systems, Nova Scotia, Canada). Transmitters were tethered to nylon umbrella-style dart heads (M. Domeier, Hawaii, USA) using 200 lb braided Dacron and were inserted into the dorsal musculature where the pectoral fin meets the body of the rays by using a 3 m tagging pole (smooth stingrays) or handheld applicator (southern eagle rays). Transmitters were coated in PropSpeed™ (Oceanmax, Auckland, New Zealand) to reduce biofouling. At time of tagging, the sex (claspers present = male, claspers absent = female) was determined, and photographs and video were taken for individual identification and catalogued in a digital database.
Tagged rays were passively tracked using an array of 10 Innovasea VR2W 69 kHz acoustic receivers (Innovasea Systems) deployed approximately 300 m from the coastline between Berrara in the north and Green Island in the south (Fig. 1a). As part of this array, a receiver was strategically positioned to maximise coverage of the provisioning site at Boat Harbour Beach (Fig. 1b). Receiver moorings consisted of an 80 kg anchor, 16 mm nylon rope and a subsurface buoy, with receivers being affixed approximately 2 m above the substrate with the hydrophone facing up. The detection range of the receivers was estimated to be 200–300 m on the basis of range tests conducted in similar nearshore habitats nearby (see Swadling et al. (2020), Ferguson et al. (2013), Fetterplace (2017) and Pini-Fitzsimmons et al. (2023)).
Tagging and tracking were approved by the Macquarie University Animal Ethics Committee under ARA 2014/015 and NSW DPI Scientific Collection Permit Number P08/0010-4.6.
Data analysis
To remove potential influences of tagging on ray behaviour, acoustic detections occurring in the first 12 h post-tagging for each individual were excluded from analyses. The remaining acoustic detections were then passed through a quality control filter to remove potentially false detections (sensuHoenner et al. 2018) by using the remora package (ver. 0.7.1, https://imos-animaltracking.github.io/remora; Jaine et al. 2021) in R (ver. 4.0.2; R Core Team 2018). This process excluded detections with unrealistic timestamps (e.g. far in the past or future), duplicate detections, and entries with missing or erroneous metadata.
A detection index (Udyawer et al. 2018) was calculated to summarise the frequency with which tagged rays were detected by the acoustic array (i.e. detectability). The index represents the proportion of days an individual was detected within the array (on any receiver) divided by the total number of days tracked (i.e. days since 12 h post-tagging to last detection). Values therefore ranged from 0 (i.e. individual never detected) to 1 (i.e. individual detected every day). A Kruskal–Wallis test was used to determine whether median detection index differed between the two ray species. Because of external transmitter attachment, we assumed that detection duration was primarily limited by tag loss rather than individuals emigrating out of the study system, ray mortality, or tag battery life. This assumption was supported by re-sighting of numerous previously tagged individuals without tags following the study period (J. Pini-Fitzsimmons, pers. obs.).
To compare overall space use between smooth stingrays and southern eagle rays, we estimated species-level utilisation distributions (UDs, km2) at the following two levels (overall activity spaces): the 50% core activity space and the 95% total activity space. If food provisioning was a major driver of space use for both species, we expected core activity spaces (representing areas of most frequent use) to be similar and centred around the provisioning site, with the greatest overlap for the two species to occur at the provisioning site. To estimate the core (50%) and total (95%) activity spaces for smooth stingrays and southern eagle rays, detection data for each individual were assigned to separate tracks using the runRSP() function in the RSP package (ver. 1.0.5, https://github.com/YuriNiella/RSP; Niella et al. 2020) in R. This function applies a least-cost analysis of constrained random walks that take land barriers into account to estimate the shortest in-water path between consecutive acoustic detections (Niella et al. 2020). Tracks were defined as sequences of detections with intervals of less than 24 h, and when an individual was not detected for a period longer than the maximum time, a new track was created. Using the dynBBMM() function in the RSP package (Niella et al. 2020), 50% and 95% UDs were then calculated for each individual from the track data by using dynamic Brownian Bridge Movement Models (dBBMM; Kranstauber et al. (2012)), which were then averaged to generate species-level UDs at the 50% and 95% contour levels, representing the core and total activity spaces for each species respectively.
The core and total activity spaces were then mapped and the extent to which the two species overlapped was calculated (area, km2). Although it is likely that tagged animals used areas outside of the study array, activity spaces calculated here estimate space use within the study array only and we do not attempt to estimate their broader space use or home ranges. Core and total overall activity spaces and associated overlaps were estimated using the actel (ver. 1.3.0, https://hugomflavio.github.io/actel-website/; Flávio and Baktoft 2020) and RSP (Niella et al. 2020) packages in R (ver. 4.0.2; R Core Team 2018).
If food provisioning was the major driver of smooth stingray and southern eagle ray use of the provisioning site, we expected patterns in their presence and duration of visits to the site to match temporal patterns in provisioning activity; i.e. presence would be higher and visits would be longer during the day generally, but more so in the afternoon, and on weekends than in weekdays. To investigate this relationship, two generalised linear mixed-effects models (GLMMs) were built to compare presence and duration of visits at the receiver closest to the provisioning site respectively, across four time periods (early morning (00:00 hours to 05:59 hours), morning (06:00 hours to 11:59 hours), afternoon (12:00 hours to 17:59 hours) and night (18:00 hours to 23:59 hours) local time), and two day types (weekday (Monday–Friday) and weekend (Saturday–Sunday)), by species, by using the following formula
Individual ID was included as a random variable to account for multiple observations of individual rays. Post hoc pairwise multiple comparison tests (estimated marginal means) were then conducted on the two interactions for both models to identify significant differences. The GLMMs were run using the glmer() and lmer() functions in the lme4 package (ver. 1.1-37, https://github.com/lme4/lme4/; Bates et al. 2015), and the post hoc pairwise comparisons were run using the emmeans package (ver. 1.10.2, https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/emmeans/index.html; Lenth 2024) in R (ver. 4.0.2; R Core Team 2018). The assumptions for both models were assessed using diagnostic plots (Q–Q plots, histograms of residuals, response vs fitted values, and linear predictors vs residuals).
Presence data were generated by categorising individual rays as either present (‘1’) or absent (‘0’) from the receiver closest to the provisioning site for each hour of their tracking period on the basis of whether at least two detections had been recorded within that hour or not respectively. The data were then categorised into the four time periods and two day types on the basis of the hour they occurred in. The GLMM was then built using a binomial error structure and log-link function.
For the duration of visits, visitation events were generated from detections on the receiver closest to the provisioning site by using the V-Track package (ver. 1.21, https://github.com/RossDwyer/VTrack; Campbell et al. 2012) in R (ver. 4.0.2; R Core Team 2018). A visitation event was defined as the period of time an individual spent within range of the receiver, with events beginning when a transmitter was first detected. A minimum of two consecutive detections was required to qualify as a visitation event. The event was then terminated either when the transmitter was detected on another receiver or after 15 min of no detections (i.e. sufficient time for a ray to move through the receiver detection range; Campbell et al. 2012). Visitation events of less than 5 min were not considered to represent meaningful site occupancy and were removed from the dataset. This threshold was chosen to emphasise visits that were likely to involve substantial interaction with the provisioning site. Shorter visits, of less than 5 min, are captured in the presence/absence analysis outlined above. Visitation events were then categorised into the four time periods and two day types on the basis of the time at which they began. The time that visits began was used because we expected longer visits to begin during or just prior to peak provisioning times. The visitation event data were Box–Cox transformed and the GLMM was built using a Gaussian error structure.
To investigate how space use differed between species in respect to temporal patterns in provisioning activity and proximity to the provisioning site, time period activity spaces were estimated. It was hypothesised that if food provisioning was a major driver of ray behaviour, space use would align with temporal patterns in provisioning activity. That is, space use would be centred around the provisioning site, and be more restricted during peak provisioning times (i.e. afternoon and weekends).
For each individual ray tracked, 95% activity spaces were calculated for the four time periods used in the models above for every day of their tracking period by using the dBBMM method detailed in the Overall space use section. For this, 95% activity spaces were used to capture the full extent of space use for each ray. Time period activity spaces were then categorised by the following two factors: (i) whether it occurred on a weekday (Monday–Friday) or weekend (Saturday–Sunday; day type) and (ii) whether it occurred around the provisioning site or not (inside). Occurrence around the provisioning site was determined by identifying whether a time period activity space overlapped with the GPS location of the provisioning site receiver. The overlap was established using a modified version of the getCentroids() function from the RSP package (Niella et al. 2020) in (R ver. 4.0.2; R Core Team 2018) (see Supplementary materials for details).
The area (km2) of time period activity spaces was then modelled against the following two three-way interactions: (i) species, inside, and time period to identify species-specific differences by time period and provisioning site proximity (inside); and (ii) species, inside, and day type to identify species-specific differences on weekends versus weekdays and provisioning site proximity (inside). A generalised linear model (GLM) with a gamma error structure and log-link function was used, using the glm() function from the lme4 package (Bates et al. 2015) in R (ver. 4.0.2; R Core Team 2018), and the model assumptions were assessed by inspecting diagnostic plots. Post hoc pairwise multiple comparison tests (estimated marginal means) were performed on both three-way interactions to identify significant between- and within-species differences by using the emmeans package (Lenth 2024) in R (ver. 4.0.2; R Core Team 2018). Although multiple activity spaces were created for each individual tagged, a GLM was necessary because of insufficient observations for each individual for every combination of predictor variables, preventing the use of a GLMM. Therefore, individual variation could not be accounted for this in this analysis.
Results
Acoustic tracking
All seven tagged southern eagle rays and six tagged smooth stingrays were detected on the acoustic tracking array post-tagging (Fig. 2). Following the removal of detections within the first 12 h following tagging, all recorded acoustic detections (n = 141,779) were considered valid and retained in subsequent analyses. Tagged smooth stingrays were tracked for an 232 ± 49.642 days (mean ± s.e.) and tagged southern eagle rays were tracked for 197 ± 49.123 days. The detection index for southern eagle rays was 0.823 ± 0.111, and for smooth stingrays it was 0.643 ± 0.130; however, this difference was not significant (Kruskal–Wallis test: χ2 = 2.947, P = 0.086).
Detection plots for individual (a) southern eagle rays and (b) smooth stingrays tagged in this study. VR2W passive acoustic receivers on which the rays were detected are ordered from north to south on the y-axis for each plot and date (local time) is given on the x-axis. Points indicate that the individual was detected on that day on the given receiver and lines between them connect consecutive detections. Vertical dashed lines indicate the date of tagging. The receiver closest to the provisioning site at Boat Harbour Beach, Bendalong, NSW, Australia, is highlighted by the horizontal red dashed line.

Overall space use
Both core and total overall activity spaces were larger for smooth stingrays (core = 5.248 km2, total = 14.795 km2) than for southern eagle rays (core = 0.859 km2, total = 7.397 km2), with southern eagle rays exhibiting more restricted space use centred around the provisioning site (Fig. 3). The extent of overlap for the two species encompassed the provisioning site for both core and total overall activity spaces (Fig. 3). The area of overlap of core overall activity space for the two species was 0.843 km2, encompassing 98.2% of the southern eagle ray and 16.1% of the smooth stingray activity spaces (Fig. 3a). The area of overlap of total overall activity space for the two species was 7.389 km2, encompassing 99.9% of the southern eagle ray and 49.9% of the smooth stingray activity spaces (Fig. 3b). Smooth stingrays, therefore, travelled further within the acoustic array than did southern eagle rays, which showed higher attachment to the provisioning site.
Maps denoting areas of the (a) core (50%) and (b) total (95%) overall activity spaces for smooth stingrays and southern eagle rays, highlighting areas used by each species and areas where they overlapped. Note that for southern eagle rays, 98.2% of the core activity space and 99.9% of the total activity space overlapped with the core and total activity spaces of smooth stingrays.

Presence and duration of visits
At the receiver closest to the provisioning site, 6435 hourly presences and 30,580 hourly absences were recorded for southern eagle rays, and 2469 hourly presences and 26,211 hourly absences for smooth stingrays. In total, 5480 visitation events were recorded on the receiver closest to the provisioning site (smooth stingrays = 1470, southern eagle rays = 4010). These visitation events lasted between 5 min and 7.5 h (mean ± s.e. = 22.5 min ± 44 s) for smooth stingrays and between 5 min and 10.5 h (mean ± s.e. = 37.1 min ± 347 s) for southern eagle rays.
The GLMM modelling the drivers of presence (n = 65,695 presences/absences) explained 20.5% of the observed variance. Southern eagle rays showed significantly higher probability of presence at the provisioning site than did smooth stingrays across time period, with the exception of night (Fig. 4a), and across different day types (Fig. 4b). By time period, southern eagle rays had the highest probability of being present in the morning, followed by the afternoon and lowest probability in the early morning and night (Fig. 4a), but showed no variation across day type (Fig. 4b). In contrast, smooth stingrays had the highest probability of being present in the afternoon, followed by the morning, night, and then early morning (Fig. 4a), and had a higher probability of presence on weekends (Fig. 4b).
Estimated marginal means (±s.e., reverse-transformed) for the probability of smooth stingray (red) and southern eagle ray (blue) (a–b) presence and (c–d) duration of visitation events at the receiver closest to the provisioning site (Boat Harbour Beach, Bendalong, NSW, Australia) by (a, c) time period and (b, d) day type on the basis of the respective generalised linear mixed-effects models. Significant differences, as outlined in the post hoc summaries given in Table S2 (presence) and Table S4 (duration of visitation events) respectively, are denoted by brackets: significant between-species comparisons are denoted by black brackets and significant within-species comparisons are given by colour-coded brackets. Note: overlapping error bars do not necessarily indicate a non-significant difference (see Lenth 2024).

The GLMM modelling the duration of visitation events at the provisioning site (n = 5480) explained 8.3% of the variance observed. Similarly to the presence model above, southern eagle rays had longer visitation events than did smooth stingrays at the provisioning site across day type (Fig. 4d) and time period, with the exception of the night-time period (Fig. 4c). The duration of smooth stingray visitation events did not vary across time period (Fig. 4c) or day type (Fig. 4d), but southern eagle rays had significantly longer visitation events when they began in the morning, followed by the early morning, afternoon and night (Fig. 4c).
In conjunction, the results of these two models indicate that southern eagle rays were more likely to be present and remain longer at the provisioning site than did smooth stingrays overall, particularly in the mornings. In contrast, smooth stingrays did not vary in the length of time they stayed at the provisioning site over time, but the frequency of their visits (presence) was higher in the afternoon and on weekends.
Temporal activity spaces
The GLM modelling time period activity spaces (n = 6892) explained 9.9% of the observed variance (R2 = 0.099). Activity spaces away from the provisioning site were consistent in size for southern eagle rays across all time periods and day types, whereas smooth stingrays had larger activity spaces at night than in the early morning and morning time periods, but showed no difference between day types (Fig. 5a, c). In contrast, around the provisioning site, smooth stingrays showed reduced activity spaces during daylight hours (morning and afternoon) and southern eagle ray showed reduced activity spaces in the morning (Fig. 5b). For smooth stingrays, activity spaces during the afternoon and night were significantly smaller around the provisioning site than were those away from it for the same time period, whereas early morning activity spaces were larger (Fig. 5a, b). Further, their weekday activity spaces were significantly smaller around the provisioning site than for those away from it (Fig. 5c, d). Southern eagle rays had consistently smaller activity spaces than did smooth stingrays for all time periods and day types both around and away from the provisioning site (Fig. 5). Overall, the model indicates a timing and location effect at the provisioning site that is more pronounced for smooth stingrays (Fig. 5).
Effect plots (estimated marginal means ± s.e., reverse-transformed) for the generalised linear model comparing the area of time period activity spaces (km2) of individual smooth stingrays and southern eagle rays by whether (b, d) or not (a, c) they occurred around the provisioning site during the time period (a, b) and day type (c, d) for which the area was calculated. Significant between-species post hoc comparisons are given by black brackets and significant within-species post hoc comparisons are given by colour-coded brackets (bold brackets indicate within-species comparisons between locations). Details are given in Table S6. Note that overlapping error bars do not necessarily indicate a non-significant difference (see Lenth 2024).

Discussion
There is a growing body of research assessing the movements of marine species targeted for wildlife tourism that uses food provisioning; however, most studies focus on a single species or contexts that are at least partially regulated or managed. Still, conflicting behavioural responses are commonly documented, including among different species at the same sites (e.g. rays at Hamelin Bay, Western Australia; Newsome et al. 2004). These inconsistencies highlight the need for multi-species studies to better understand when provisioning activities might result in limited or more substantial impacts. We used passive acoustic telemetry to compare the movements of two sympatric ray species, the smooth stingray and the southern eagle ray, at an unregulated ray-feeding tourist attraction in Bendalong, NSW, Australia. Our findings indicated that both species respond to unregulated food provisioning at the study site, but in different ways. Southern eagle rays showed greater philopatry to the site, whereas smooth stingrays showed lower attachment, but their presence peaked during periods of high provisioning activity (i.e. afternoons and weekends). Despite this, the amount of time smooth stingrays spent at the provisioning site did not vary with patterns in provisioning activity, suggesting that smooth stingrays may only make short visits that increase in frequency during high provisioning periods. Further, the two species overlapped in their space use, mostly around the provisioning site, with smooth stingrays showing reduced activity spaces during daylight hours and southern eagle rays in the morning compared with away from the site, indicating a strong association with the location and timing of provisioning activity.
Animals can quickly learn associations with food when it is predictably available in time and space (Reebs 1993; Mulder et al. 2013). Food provisioning for tourism leverages this ability, and elasmobranchs have been shown to learn these associations very quickly (Guttridge et al. 2009; Heinrich et al. 2020, 2021). Previous studies have reported strong site attachment in both smooth stingrays and southern eagle rays at provisioning sites (Newsome et al. 2004; Pini-Fitzsimmons et al. 2018). Thus, it is unsurprising that both species showed attachment in this study. However, like these earlier studies, our study lacked data from non-provisioned control populations, limiting our ability to attribute observed behaviours solely to provisioning. This absence of baseline information on natural space use is an important caveat when assessing site attachment.
Despite the observed attachment by smooth stingrays and southern eagle rays in the present study, the two species exhibited different usage patterns. It is possible they may be avoiding competition over provisioned resources through differential temporal use of the provisioning site (e.g. Every et al. 2019; and Kinney et al. 2011). Our findings suggest that smooth stingrays and southern eagle rays may have adopted different temporal patterns for accessing provisioned food (i.e. time-sharing). Smooth stingrays were generally more absent from the provisioning site, had consistently shorter visits, and larger activity spaces, but their presence at the provisioning site peaked during the day and on weekends when provisioning is generally more intense. Smooth stingrays may therefore be maximising their chances of obtaining provisioned food by focussing on peak provisioning times with frequent visits. Given their larger size (Last et al. 2016), likely higher energy requirements, and provisioned food being a limited resource, it makes sense for them to concentrate their efforts during peak times. In contrast, southern eagle rays showed more consistent presence at the provisioning site, with longer stays and restricted activity spaces, suggesting they may be habituated to the study site, whereby their constant presence allows them to quickly access provisioned food when it is available.
Southern eagle ray presence and visit duration also peaked in the morning, coinciding with smaller activity spaces, possibly indicating anticipation of increased provisioning during the day. Indeed, anticipatory behaviour of provisioning events by rays has been documented previously (Gaspar et al. 2008; Corcoran et al. 2013; Pini-Fitzsimmons et al. 2018). Although, we might also expect similar increased presence in the afternoon because of higher provisioning, their presence actually decreased, and their activity spaces increased. Spending less time at the provisioning site could suggest that they are being competitively excluded from the site by the larger smooth stingrays during this period, when smooth stingray presence is highest, and their activity spaces are smallest at the provisioning site. Competitive exclusion of southern eagle rays by larger stingrays has been observed at Hamelin Bay, Western Australia, where larger smooth stingrays and black stingrays actively displace southern eagle rays in a similar provisioning context (Newsome et al. 2004). Although Newsome et al. (2004) observed active chasing of southern eagle rays, they did not observe a decrease in the total number of eagle rays present with increasing numbers of larger stingrays. In contrast, our tracking data indicated that tagged southern eagle rays reduced their time at the site when smooth stingray presence was highest. However, this difference may reflect methodological differences, whereby Newsome et al. (2004) looked at total numbers of individuals, whereas we tracked the movements of a subset of individual animals. The Newsome et al. (2004) study took place during the summer holiday period when tourist numbers peak and it may be that there was enough provisioning occurring at Hamelin Bay to support both species. Whereas rays for our study were tracked predominantly during spring (September–November; Fig. 2) when tourism is moderate, so the amount of provisioned food would be more limited and thus competition may be greater. Competitive exclusion based on size has also been identified as a potential mechanism for changing abundances of shark species at Shark Reef Marine Reserve, Fiji (Brunnschweiler et al. 2014). It could be argued that if smooth stingrays were competitively excluding southern eagle rays, we might also expect to see southern eagle ray presence and duration of visits decrease on weekends and activity spaces to increase when smooth stingray presence increases; however, this was not observed. Although, weekend provisioning is likely to be more intense than is afternoon provisioning because tourist numbers would be higher for much of the day on weekends, and the biomass of food provisioned may be sufficient to support individuals of both species, as may be the mechanism at Hamelin Bay. Because these patterns are not especially clear from this study, additional monitoring involving direct observations of behaviour over different times of the year (low and high tourist/provisioning activity), coupled with active tracking, would help clarify how smooth stingrays and southern eagle interact over provisioned resources in this system.
Differences in the behavioural ecology of the two species might also explain their different temporal use of the provisioning site. Southern eagle rays may naturally forage in the morning, whereas smooth stingrays may normally forage during the day, resulting in their presence peaking in the morning and across the day respectively. Similarly, being a large species, smooth stingrays may normally have larger activity spaces or move around more continuously than do the smaller southern eagle rays (e.g. Crook et al. 2022), despite eagle rays (Myliobatidae) being considered to have greater swimming efficiencies than do stingrays (Dasyatidae) (Rosenberger 2001). However, not enough is known about the natural space use and ecology of these species to discuss such circumstances with any certainty. Filling these knowledge gaps should therefore be the objective of future research.
Although our data suggest that smooth stingrays and southern eagle rays are responding to unregulated provisioning activities at Boat Harbour Beach, albeit with southern eagle rays showing stronger attachment and potential habituation, it has been argued that if provisioned animals maintain regular movements away from provisioning sites for other purposes (e.g. reproduction), the potential for longer-term impacts owing to provisioning may be limited (e.g. Brunnschweiler and Barnett 2013;Huveneers et al. 2013;Meyer et al. 2009;Maljković and Côté 2011; and Hammerschlag et al. 2012). Research from New Zealand has suggested that smooth stingrays aggregate offshore to breed in summer (Le Port et al. 2012). For the present study, smooth stingrays were detected for 2/3 (~64%) of their days tracked, and preliminary evidence suggests that some made large-scale movements out of the study array in spring–early summer (J. Pini-Fitzsimmons, unpubl. data), including one individual that showed a clear transition from frequent detections to a period of reduced and more sporadic activity before largely disappearing from the array (individual #18131; Fig. 2). This shift in space use may reflect a departure from the provisioning site to fulfil other ecological needs, such as reproduction or seasonal migration. These data support the possibility that unregulated food provisioning at Boat Harbour Beach may not be affecting the broader movements of smooth stingrays. Confirmation of the purpose of the long-distance movements by smooth stingrays is of management interest, and given that only a single reproductive site has been identified for this species (New Zealand; Le Port et al. 2012), and that there is limited gene flow between the Australian and New Zealand populations of smooth stingrays (Le Port and Lavery 2012), identification of breeding sites is of conservation interest.
Southern eagle rays are also suggested to make annual inshore or southward migrations during summer (Potter and Hyndes 1994; Cadwallader 2020), but the purpose is unclear. In New Zealand, southern eagle rays have highest inshore densities in autumn and possible mating in summer (Hartill 1989), indicating that these movements may relate to breeding behaviour. Our data showed large gaps in detections for some individuals and increased variability for others in summer to autumn. Disappearance from the array indicates that despite their strong attachment to the provisioning site, southern eagle rays may still be making regular movements out of the immediate provisioning area, but it is unlikely that they are making large-scale migrations. In general, migratory behaviour and the normal movement patterns of this species in natural contexts are poorly understood. Characterising these movements is necessary to fully understand the influence food provisioning may be having on their broader behaviour and ecology.
Interestingly, the provisioned populations of both species studied here are entirely female and mid- to late-stage gravid individuals are common (J. Pini-Fitzsimmons, pers. obs.). This female bias has been observed in other provisioned elasmobranch populations (e.g. rays: Newsome et al. 2004;Corcoran et al. 2013;Pini-Fitzsimmons et al. 2018; sharks: Maljković and Côté 2011;Hammerschlag et al. 2012;Brunnschweiler et al. 2014). Potential hypotheses include (i) competitive exclusion of smaller males by females for species with such sexual dimorphism (e.g. Corcoran et al. 2013;Newsome et al. 2004), (ii) females having increased energy requirements associated with reproduction (Wearmouth and Sims 2008) and using provisioned resources to supplement their diets (Hammerschlag et al. 2018), (iii) provisioning sites occurring in locations species use for gestation normally (e.g. shallow, inshore areas) (Hammerschlag et al. 2012; Sulikowski et al. 2016), or (iv) sexual segregation whereby females use inshore waters whereas males use deeper waters (Wearmouth and Sims 2008; e.g. McElroy et al. 2006;Knip et al. 2012; Werry and Clua 2013). Given gene flow in smooth stingrays around New Zealand is male-biased, suggesting that males are more transient than females (Roycroft et al. 2019), there is some support for the latter for smooth stingrays studied here. However, additional research is needed to understand this sex-bias, which is an important consideration for the management of provisioning activity and its potential broader effects on reproduction and population viability.
This study has provided novel insights into species-specific responses to food provisioning in a previously unstudied context; however, several limitations should be acknowledged. Many individuals were tracked for short periods (2–6 months), reducing our ability to assess seasonal and long-term responses. Tracking was also concentrated during spring, limiting inference during peak summer tourism. The absence of baseline data on natural space use patterns in non-provisioned environments further constrained our ability to fully attribute observed behaviours to provisioning. Although patterns in space use and visitation duration were observed, the models explained a low proportion of the variance, particularly for the duration of visits and size of temporal activity spaces both around and away from the provisioning site. This suggests that other unmeasured environmental or behavioural factors may also be influencing the observed patterns. Additionally, both smooth stingrays and southern eagle rays showed shifts in the use of the array during the study period, and some evidence of movements out of the array. Given the broader ecological functions of large-scale movements, including possible reproductive migrations, are not yet well understood, further investigation of natural drivers of behaviour in these species is required. These limitations highlight the need for longer-term studies incorporating both telemetry and behavioural observations to fully understand the consequences of unregulated provisioning on ray populations.
Currently, there is no management of the ray-feeding tourist attraction studied here. Left unmanaged, elasmobranch-feeding tourism carries the highest risks to animals and people when compared with other elasmobranch-focussed tourism activities such as cage diving, scuba diving and snorkelling (Healy et al. 2020). Lessons from Hamelin Bay, Western Australia, where management recommendations have been largely unmet (Lewis and Newsome 2003; Newsome et al. 2004; DeLorenzo and Techera 2019), highlight the need for effective oversight and monitoring. Our study has highlighted that while provisioning occurring at Boat Harbour Beach influences the smaller-scale space use of both smooth stingrays and southern eagle rays, broader impacts to the rays may be minimal. However, the growing popularity of ray-feeding at the site warrants continued monitoring of both ray behaviour and tourist numbers to enable rapid adoption of informed management protocols if necessary.
Conclusions
This acoustic telemetry study has provided insight into how two sympatric ray species use an unregulated ray-feeding tourism site. We demonstrated that both species respond spatio-temporally to provisioning, with southern eagle rays showing higher attachment and potential risk of habituation, which could lead to altered natural behaviours and increased dependency on provisioning. Smooth stingrays, which range over a larger area, primarily visit the provisioning site during periods of high provisioning activity and may temporarily displace the smaller eagle rays. Despite their attachment, both species appear to make movements out of the area, suggesting that the impacts to broader behaviour may be limited. Future research should focus on understanding the natural behaviours and movement patterns for both species to fully realise the extent to which their behavioural ecology is altered by the unregulated ray-feeding tourist attraction. Basic monitoring of tourist activity and the response of rays at the site should be implemented to assist in management of the activity. Our findings are unique because we have documented the impacts of provisioning during the early development of this tourism activity and provide a baseline on which continued monitoring can be conducted allowing full evaluation of the future impacts of this activity. Given that the behavioural responses of provisioned elasmobranch species reported previously have been mixed, by comparing sympatric species our findings may help in understanding when provisioning impacts may be limited or more substantial, and in turn inform how such contexts should be managed.
Data availability
The acoustic detection data that support the findings of this study are openly available in the Integrated Marine Observing System (IMOS) ATF Animal Tracking Database (https://animaltracking.aodn.org.au).
Declaration of funding
This project was supported by the Macquarie University Department of Biological Sciences, the Holsworth Wildlife Research Endowment and the Ecological Society of Australia, Integrated Marine Observing System Animal Tracking Facility (IMOS ATF), the Sydney Institute of Marine Science (SIMS) and the NSW Department of Primary Industries. J. Pini-Fitzsimmons was also supported by an Australian Government Research Training Pathway Scholarship. Receivers were provided through the IMOS ATF Acoustic Receiver Loan Pool, and Innovasea and IMOS ATF supplied acoustic transmitters through the Tag ‘Top Up’ Student Award awarded to J. Pini-Fitzsimmons.
Acknowledgements
Acoustic detection data were sourced from the IMOS ATF Animal Tracking Database (https://animaltracking.aodn.org.au) and the NSW DPI and associated NSW Shark Management Strategy. The authors are grateful for the continued support of IMOS ATF, SIMS, Innovasea and NSW DPI. We are particularly grateful to the staff at NSW DPI Huskisson for their logistical support in maintaining the acoustic array used for this study, along with the numerous volunteers who helped in the field.
References
Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67, 1-48.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Brena PF, Mourier J, Planes S, Clua E (2015) Shark and ray provisioning: functional insights into behavioral, ecological and physiological responses across multiple scales. Marine Ecology Progress Series 538, 273-283.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Bruce BD, Bradford RW (2013) The effects of shark cage-diving operations on the behaviour and movements of white sharks, Carcharodon carcharias, at the Neptune Islands, South Australia. Marine Biology 160, 889-907.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Brunnschweiler JM (2010) The Shark Reef Marine Reserve: a marine tourism project in Fiji involving local communities. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18, 29-42.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Brunnschweiler JM, Barnett A (2013) Opportunistic visitors: long-term behavioural response of bull sharks to food provisioning in Fiji. PLoS ONE 8, e58522.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Brunnschweiler JM, Abrantes KG, Barnett A (2014) Long-term changes in species composition and relative abundances of sharks at a provisioning site. PLoS ONE 9, e86682.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Burgin S, Hardiman N (2015) Effects of non-consumptive wildlife-oriented tourism on marine species and prospects for their sustainable management. Journal of Environmental Management 151, 210-220.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Campbell HA, Watts ME, Dwyer RG, Franklin CE (2012) V-Track: software for analysing and visualising animal movement from acoustic telemetry detections. Marine and Freshwater Research 63, 815-820.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Clarke CR, Lea JSE, Ormond RFG (2013) Changing relative abundance and behaviour of silky and grey reef sharks baited over 12 years on a Red Sea reef. Marine and Freshwater Research 64, 909-919.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Clua E, Buray N, Legendre P, Mourier J, Planes S (2011) Business partner or simple catch? The economic value of the sicklefin lemon shark in French Polynesia. Marine and Freshwater Research 62, 764-770.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Corcoran MJ, Wetherbee BM, Shivji MS, Potenski MD, Chapman DD, Harvey GM (2013) Supplemental feeding for ecotourism reverses diel activity and alters movement patterns and spatial distribution of the southern stingray, Dasyatis americana. PLoS ONE 8, e59235.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Crook KA, Sheaves M, Barnett A (2022) Species-specific foraging behaviors define the functional roles of sympatric stingrays. Limnology and Oceanography 67, 219-230.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
DeLorenzo J, Techera EJ (2019) Ensuring good governance of marine wildlife tourism: a case study of ray-based tourism at Hamelin Bay, Western Australia. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 24, 121-135.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Dubois S, Fraser D (2013) A framework to evaluate wildlife feeding in research, wildlife management, tourism and recreation. Animals 3, 978-994.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Dulvy NK, Fowler SL, Musick JA, Cavanagh RD, Kyne PM, Harrison LR, Carlson JK, Davidson LNK, Fordham SV, Francis MP, Pollock CM, Simpfendorfer CA, Burgess GH, Carpenter KE, Compagno LJV, Ebert DA, Gibson C, Heupel MR, Livingstone SR, Sanciangco JC, Stevens JD, Valenti S, White WT (2014) Extinction risk and conservation of the world’s sharks and rays. eLife 3, e00590.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Every SL, Fulton CJ, Pethybridge HR, Kyne PM, Crook DA (2019) A seasonally dynamic estuarine ecosystem provides a diverse prey base for elasmobranchs. Estuaries and Coasts 42, 580-595.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Ferguson AM, Harvey ES, Taylor MD, Knott NA (2013) A herbivore knows its patch: luderick, Girella tricuspidata, exhibit strong site fidelity on shallow subtidal reefs in a temperate marine park. PLoS ONE 8, e65838.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Finger R, Lehmann N (2012) Modeling the sensitivity of outdoor recreation activities to climate change. Climate Research 51, 229-236.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Flávio H, Baktoft H (2020) actel: Standardised analysis of acoustic telemetry data from animals moving through receiver arrays. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 12, 196-203.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Flynn DJH, Lynch TP, Barrett NS, Wong LSC, Devine C, Hughes D (2018) Gigapixel big data movies provide cost-effective seascape scale direct measurements of open-access coastal human use such as recreational fisheries. Ecology and Evolution 8, 9372-9383.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Gallagher AJ, Hammerschlag N (2011) Global shark currency: the distribution, frequency, and economic value of shark ecotourism. Current Issues in Tourism 14, 797-812.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Gallagher AJ, Vianna GMS, Papastamatiou YP, Macdonald C, Guttridge TL, Hammerschlag N (2015) Biological effects, conservation potential, and research priorities of shark diving tourism. Biological Conservation 184, 365-379.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Gaspar C, Chateau O, Galzin R (2008) Feeding sites frequentation by the pink whipray Himantura fai in Moorea (French Polynesia) as determined by acoustic telemetry. Cybium 32, 153-164.
| Google Scholar |
Guttridge TL, Myrberg AA, Porcher IF, Sims DW, Krause J (2009) The role of learning in shark behaviour. Fish and Fisheries 10, 450-469.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Hammerschlag N, Gallagher AJ, Wester J, Luo J, Ault JS (2012) Don’t bite the hand that feeds: assessing ecological impacts of provisioning ecotourism on an apex marine predator. Functional Ecology 26, 567-576.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Hammerschlag N, Skubel RA, Sulikowski J, Irschick DJ, Gallagher AJ (2018) A comparison of reproductive and energetic states in a marine apex predator (the Tiger Shark, Galeocerdo cuvier). Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 91, 933-942.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Healy TJ, Hill NJ, Barnett A, Chin A (2020) A global review of elasmobranch tourism activities, management and risk. Marine Policy 118, 103964.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Heinrich DDU, Vila Pouca C, Brown C, Huveneers C (2020) Effects of reward magnitude and training frequency on the learning rates and memory retention of the Port Jackson shark Heterodontus portusjacksoni. Animal Cognition 23, 939-949.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Heinrich D, Dhellemmes F, Guttridge TL, Smukall M, Brown C, Rummer J, Gruber S, Huveneers C (2021) Short-term impacts of daily feeding on the residency, distribution and energy expenditure of sharks. Animal Behaviour 172, 55-71.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Hoenner X, Huveneers C, Steckenreuter A, Simpfendorfer C, Tattersall K, Jaine F, Atkins N, Babcock R, Brodie S, Burgess J, Campbell H, Heupel M, Pasquer B, Proctor R, Taylor MD, Udyawer V, Harcourt R (2018) Australia’s continental-scale acoustic tracking database and its automated quality control process. Scientific Data 5, 170206.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Huveneers C, Rogers PJ, Beckmann C, Semmens JM, Bruce BD, Seuront L (2013) The effects of cage-diving activities on the fine-scale swimming behaviour and space use of white sharks. Marine Biology 160, 2863-2875.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Jaine F, Jonsen I, Udyawer V, Dwyer R, Scales K, Maron-Perez F, Hoenner X, Huveneers C, Harcourt R (2021) remora: rapid extraction of marine observations for roving animals. Version 0.7.1. Available at https://imos-animaltracking.github.io/remora
Kendall MS, Williams BL, Winship AJ, Carson M, Grissom K, Rowell TJ, Stanley J, Roberson KW (2021) Winds, waves, warm waters, weekdays, and which ways boats are counted influence predicted visitor use at an offshore fishing destination. Fisheries Research 237, 105879.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Kinney MJ, Hussey NE, Fisk AT, Tobin AJ, Simpfendorfer CA (2011) Communal or competitive? Stable isotope analysis provides evidence of resource partitioning within a communal shark nursery. Marine Ecology Progress Series 439, 263-276.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Knip DM, Heupel MR, Simpfendorfer CA (2012) Habitat use and spatial segregation of adult spottail sharks Carcharhinus sorrah in tropical nearshore waters. Journal of Fish Biology 80, 767-784.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Kranstauber B, Kays R, Lapoint SD, Wikelski M, Safi K (2012) A dynamic Brownian bridge movement model to estimate utilization distributions for heterogeneous animal movement. Journal of Animal Ecology 81, 738-746.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Laroche RK, Kock AA, Dill LM, Oosthuizen WH (2007) Effects of provisioning ecotourism activity on the behaviour of white sharks Carcharodon carcharias. Marine Ecology Progress Series 338, 199-209.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Lenth RV (2024) emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package version 1.10.2. Available at https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans
Le Port A, Lavery S (2012) Population structure and phylogeography of the short-tailed stingray, Dasyatis brevicaudata (Hutton 1875), in the southern hemisphere. Journal of Heredity 103, 174-185.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Le Port A, Lavery S, Montgomery JC (2012) Conservation of coastal stingrays: seasonal abundance and population structure of the short-tailed stingray Dasyatis brevicaudata at a marine protected area. ICES Journal of Marine Science 69, 1427-1435.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Lewis A, Newsome D (2003) Planning for stingray tourism at Hamelin Bay, Western Australia: the importance of stakeholder perspectives. International Journal of Tourism Research 5, 331-346.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Lynch TP, Foster S, Devine C, Hegarty A, Mcennulty F, Burton M, Lyle JM (2020) Trail camera video systems: investigating their utility in interpreting patterns of marine, recreational, trailer-boat fishers’ access to an offshore Marine Park in differing weather conditions. ICES Journal of Marine Science 77, 3110-3126.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Maljković A, Côté IM (2011) Effects of tourism-related provisioning on the trophic signatures and movement patterns of an apex predator, the Caribbean reef shark. Biological Conservation 144, 859-865.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Mcelroy WD, Wetherbee BM, Mostello CS, Lowe CG, Crow GL, Wass RC (2006) Food habits and ontogenetic changes in the diet of the sandbar shark, Carcharhinus plumbeus, in Hawaii. Environmental Biology of Fishes 76, 81-92.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Meyer CG, Dale JJ, Papastamatiou YP, Whitney NM, Holland KN (2009) Seasonal cycles and long-term trends in abundance and species composition of sharks associated with cage diving ecotourism activities in Hawaii. Environmental Conservation 36, 104-111.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Meyer L, Whitmarsh SK, Nichols PD, Revill AT, Huveneers C (2020) The effects of wildlife tourism provisioning on non-target species. Biological Conservation 241, 108317.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Mulder CK, Gerkema MP, Van der Zee EA (2013) Circadian clocks and memory: time–place learning. Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience 6, 10.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Newsome D, Lewis A, Moncrieff D (2004) Impacts and risks associated with developing, but unsupervised, stingray tourism at Hamelin Bay, Western Australia. International Journal of Tourism Research 6, 305-323.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Niella Y, Flávio H, Smoothey AF, Aarestrup K, Taylor MD, Peddemors VM, Harcourt R (2020) Refined Shortest Paths (RSP): incorporation of topography in space use estimation from node-based telemetry data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 11, 1733-1742.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Oro D, Genovart M, Tavecchia G, Fowler MS, Martínez-Abraín A (2013) Ecological and evolutionary implications of food subsidies from humans. Ecology Letters 16, 1501-1514.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Pacoureau N, Rigby CL, Kyne PM, Sherley RB, Winker H, Carlson JK, Fordham SV, Barreto R, Fernando D, Francis MP, Jabado RW, Herman KB, Liu K-M, Marshall AD, Pollom RA, Romanov EV, Simpfendorfer CA, Yin JS, Kindsvater HK, Dulvy NK (2021) Half a century of global decline in oceanic sharks and rays. Nature 589, 567-571.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Patroni J, Simpson G, Newsome D (2018) Feeding wild fish for tourism – a systematic quantitative literature review of impacts and management. International Journal of Tourism Research 20, 286-298.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Pini-Fitzsimmons J, Knott NA, Brown C (2018) Effects of food provisioning on site use in the short-tail stingray Bathytoshia brevicaudata. Marine Ecology Progress Series 600, 99-110.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Pini-Fitzsimmons J, Knott NA, Brown C (2023) Recreational fishery discard practices influence use of tidal estuary by a large marine mesopredator. Marine and Freshwater Research 74, 320-334.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Potter IC, Hyndes GA (1994) Composition of the fish fauna of a permanently open estuary on the southern coast of Australia, and comparisons with a nearby seasonally closed estuary. Marine Biology 121, 199-209.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Reebs SG (1993) A test of time-place learning in a cichlid fish. Behavioural Processes 30, 273-281.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Richards K, O’Leary BC, Roberts CM, Ormond R, Gore M, Hawkins JP (2015) Sharks and people: insight into the global practices of tourism operators and their attitudes to shark behaviour. Marine Pollution Bulletin 91, 200-210.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Rosenberger LJ (2001) Pectoral fin locomotion in batoid fishes: undulation versus oscillation. Journal of Experimental Biology 204, 379-394.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Roycroft EJ, Le Port A, Lavery SD (2019) Population structure and male-biased dispersal in the short-tail stingray Bathytoshia brevicaudata (Myliobatoidei: Dasyatidae). Conservation Genetics 20, 717-728.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Shackley M (1998) ‘Stingray City’ – Managing the Impact of Underwater Tourism in the Cayman Islands. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 6, 328-338.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Silva S, Silva LF, Vieira A (2023) Protected areas and nature-based tourism: a 30-year bibliometric review. Sustainability 15, 11698.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Sulikowski JA, Wheeler CR, Gallagher AJ, Prohaska BK, Langan JA, Hammerschlag N (2016) Seasonal and life-stage variation in the reproductive ecology of a marine apex predator, the tiger shark Galeocerdo cuvier, at a protected female-dominated site. Aquatic Biology 24, 175-184.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Sunger N, Teske SS, Nappier S, Haas CN (2012) Recreational use assessment of water-based activities, using time-lapse construction cameras. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology 22, 281-290.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Swadling DS, Knott NA, Rees MJ, Pederson H, Adams KR, Taylor MD, Davis AR (2020) Seagrass canopies and the performance of acoustic telemetry: implications for the interpretation of fish movements. Animal Biotelemetry 8, 8.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Trave C, Brunnschweiler J, Sheaves M, Diedrich A, Barnett A (2017) Are we killing them with kindness? Evaluation of sustainable marine wildlife tourism. Biological Conservation 209, 211-222.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Trip Advisor Australia (2018) Bendalong Beach. Available at https://www.tripadvisor.com.au/Attraction_Review-g10850444-d4090710-Reviews-Bendalong_Beach-Bendalong_Shoalhaven_New_South_Wales.html [accessed 13 December 2019]
Udyawer V, Dwyer RG, Hoenner X, Babcock RC, Brodie S, Campbell HA, Harcourt RG, Huveneers C, Jaine FRA, Simpfendorfer CA, Taylor MD, Heupel MR (2018) A standardised framework for analysing animal detections from automated tracking arrays. Animal Biotelemetry 6, 17.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Vaudo JJ, Wetherbee BM, Harvey GCM, Harvey JC, Prebble AJF, Corcoran MJ, Potenski MD, Bruni KA, Leaf RT, Henningsen AD, Collie JS, Shivji MS (2018) Characterisation and monitoring of one of the world’s most valuable ecotourism animals, the southern stingray at Stingray City, Grand Cayman. Marine and Freshwater Research 69, 144.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Vianna GMS, Meekan MG, Pannell DJ, Marsh SP, Meeuwig JJ (2012) Socio-economic value and community benefits from shark-diving tourism in Palau: a sustainable use of reef shark populations. Biological Conservation 145, 267-277.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Wearmouth VJ, Sims DW (2008) Sexual segregation in marine fish, reptiles, birds and mammals: behaviour patterns, mechanisms and conservation implications. Advances in Marine Biology 54, 107-170.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Werry JM, Clua E (2013) Sex-based spatial segregation of adult bull sharks, Carcharhinus leucas, in the New Caledonian great lagoon. Aquatic Living Resources 26, 281-288.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |