Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PeerJ logoLink to PeerJ
. 2019 Jun 11;7:e7110. doi: 10.7717/peerj.7110

Spotting the “small eyes”: using photo-ID methodology to study a wild population of smalleye stingrays (Megatrygon microps) in southern Mozambique

Atlantine Boggio-Pasqua 1,2, Anna L Flam 1, Andrea D Marshall 1,✉
Editor: Guillaume Rieucau
PMCID: PMC6568249  PMID: 31218135

Abstract

Background

The smalleye stingray (Megatrygon microps) is a large and rare dasyatid ray, patchily distributed across the Indo-West Pacific. Free-swimming individuals have regularly been recorded in Southern Mozambican coastal waters utilizing different inshore environments. Distinctive features of the species include latitudinal rows of white spots on the dorsal surface of their pectoral disc.

Methods

This study aimed to determine if the natural spot patterns on M. microps are sufficiently unique and stable to use in photo-identification studies of wild populations. Research dive logs were combined with opportunistic photographs from local dive centers and recreational divers to create a photographic database from the Inhambane Province coastline.

Results

Seventy different individuals were identified over a 15-year period, all exhibiting uniquely identifiable patterns. Stingrays were easily identifiable over a period of six years with multiple re-sightings of the same individuals recorded. Analysis of encounters across the Inhambane coastline revealed that individual rays regularly use inshore reefs along a 350 km stretch of coastline. Fifteen stingrays were re-sighted during the study period, including one showing a 400 km return movement between Tofo Beach and the Bazaruto Archipelago, which is the longest distance traveled by a dasyatid ray on record. Several presumably pregnant females have also been recorded in the Bazaruto Archipelago National Park.

Keywords: Smalleye stingray, Megatrygon microps, Photo-identification, Mozambique, Population, Habitat, Movement, Natural markings, Pattern validation, Migration

Introduction

Megatrygon microps (Dasyatis microps, Annandale, 1908; Megatrygon in revised classification of Last, Naylor & Manjaji-Matsumoto (2016) is commonly described as the largest marine stingray in the world, reaching disc widths of up to 222 cm (Garman, 1913). In the literature M. microps has been reported in estuaries, river mouths, and inshore coastal waters. Very little is known about the species’ biology, behavior, range, abundance, population trends, reproduction, or threats. Consequently, smalleye stingrays remain listed as “Data Deficient” in the IUCN Red List Threatened Species (Fahmi et al., 2016). While its reported range is vast throughout the Indo-West Pacific (Purushottama et al., 2018), it is now believed that this species may be patchily distributed within this region and have fragmented populations. Historically, it has been reported in the Bay of Bengal (Kapoor, Dayal & Ponniah, 2002), the Arabian Gulf, the Arabian Sea (Osmany, Moazzam & Ayub, 2015), the Maldives, South-East Asia, and North-East Australia (Meekan et al., 2016). M. microps was first recorded in Mozambique in 2004 off Tofo Beach (Pierce, White & Marshall, 2008) where free-swimming individuals were encountered using the same cleaning stations as manta rays. Since then, these rays have been regularly observed by divers along the coast who have encountered them from the Bazaruto Archipelago National Park in the north of the Inhambane Province to Zavora the southernmost extent of the province.

The primary aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of photographic identification methodology to study wild populations of M. microps. Photographic identification or “photo-ID” refers to a methodology whereby individual animals are identified and tracked using their unique natural patterns and/or other distinct features. It has been successfully used in a variety of marine species to learn more about wild populations, including many species of rays like manta rays (Marshall, Dudgeon & Bennett, 2011), skates (Benjamins et al., 2018), and eagle rays (González-Ramos et al., 2016; Flowers et al., 2017; Cerutti-Pereyra et al., 2018). Conventional tagging studies can be invasive, at times affecting natural behaviour and individual fitness (Manire & Gruber, 1991; Fouts & Nelson, 1999; Feldheim, Gruber & Ashley, 2002; Dicken, Booth & Smale, 2006; Wilson & McMahon, 2006). They also depend on the application of temporary physical tags which can be expensive, may require surgery or if externally placed can be easily shed, removed, damaged or biofouled (Barrowman & Myers, 1996; Kohler & Turner, 2001; Feldheim, Gruber & Ashley, 2002; Dicken, Booth & Smale, 2006; Pierce & Bennett, 2009). In comparison, photo-ID methods are relatively non-invasive, rely on natural and more permanent markings, which can last over the course of an animal’s life and can be easily performed with affordable photographic equipment (Pierce et al., 2018). Photo-ID methods thus present an attractive alternative or complement to conventional tagging studies, with potential applications including the evaluation of site affinity, inter-site movements, population size, and demographics (Marshall & Pierce, 2012).

The use of photo-ID methodology is only suitable in species that (a) have distinct, long-term markings, (b) frequent areas accessible to observers, and (c) are reasonably easy to approach and photograph (Marshall & Pierce, 2012). Smalleye stingrays observed off the southern coast of Mozambique seem to fit many of these requirements in that they are easy to approach and are regularly encountered on inshore reefs (Andrea D. Marshall, pers. comm., 2018). This study aimed to test the final assumption, that: individuals can be both reliably distinguished from one another and re-identified over short and long periods of time (Marshall & Pierce, 2012).

Research dive logs were combined with opportunistic photographs from local dive centers and recreational divers to provide additional information about the ecology and behavior of this elusive ray. Furthermore, we provide the first information on the range, abundance, habitat use, migratory capabilities including rate of movement, of this rare species in Mozambique.

Materials & Methods

Study sites

Opportunistic photographs of the dorsal surfaces of free-swimming stingrays were collected year-round by local researchers, dive operators and recreational divers in three main regions (Zavora, Tofo Beach/Barra, and the Bazaruto Archipelago National Park) of the Inhambane Province from May 2003 to November 2018 (Fig. 1). Opportunistic photographs were also taken of two individuals landed intentionally or as by-catch during the study period.

Figure 1. Location of the three study sites in the Inhambane Province coastline, Mozambique.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Tofo Beach (23°85′S, 35°54′E) and Barra (23°80′S, 35°52′E) lie on the Southern Mozambican coast, on Ponta da Barra peninsula in Inhambane Province. Tofo Beach/Barra dive sites are comprised mostly of rocky reefs with associated corals rising from the sandy seabed. Many of the reefs serve as year-round cleaning stations for elasmobranchs, most notably both species of manta rays (Mobula alfredi and Mobula birostris). The majority of the reefs can be found at depths between 22 and 32 m.

Zavora (24°23′S, 35°43′E) is located on the same coast, 80 km south west of Tofo Beach. Zavora dive sites are very similar to those found in Tofo Beach/Barra with the additional presence of kelp on the deep reefs. Reefs in this region also support year-round cleaning stations for elasmobranchs and are typically situated between 12 and 35 m of depth.

The Bazaruto Archipelago National Park (BANP) is a 1,583 km2 area encompassing five sand dune islands situated approximately 15 km from the coast, off the mainland city of Vilankulos (22°00′S, 35°32′E). Unlike the two other study sites, the Bazaruto Archipelago has more diverse tropical reef systems. Deeper reefs are similar to those in the south of the Province only with more coral cover, particularly soft corals. Shallow reefs comprise significantly more hard corals than in the south regions and the inside of the archipelago is mainly tidal sand flats with deep connecting channels to the ocean (South African Association for Marine Biological Research, 2008).

Photographic identification

M. microps are medium-brown in colour, with a longitudinal row of large white spots on either side of the disc at about two-thirds distance from the dorsal midline to pectoral-fin apex (Fig. 2). Additional large white spots are lateral to the eyes and on either side of the mid-disc. Several rows of small white spots are located on either side of the base of the tail and of the disc, at about one third distance from the dorsal midline to pectoral-fin apex (Pierce, White & Marshall, 2008).

Figure 2. Variation in the natural spot patterns across the dorsal surface of Megatrygon microps from the Inhambane Province, Mozambique.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

ID-photos of (A) smalleye #070 off Tofo, September 27th 2007, (B) smalleye #052 in the BANP, May 6th 2017, (C) smalleye #023 off Tofo, May 4th 2013, and (D) smalleye #020 off Tofo, October 24th 2012. Photo credit: (A) & (B) Andrea Marshall; (C) Tom Horton; (D) Libby Bowles.

In order to investigate the variability of these natural spot patterns and monitor the longevity of markings, an image of the entire dorsal surface of the animal was attempted at every encounter. This region became the standardized identification area (ID-area), as the use of the entire spot patterns area across the flattened dorsal plane allows for efficient visual comparison between individuals with a higher degree of confidence than any one region alone (Fig. 3A).

Figure 3. Standardized ID-area and attributes observed on encountered smalleye stingrays.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Full dorsal (A) and partial (B) ID-photos of smalleye #023. (C) Males’ claspers are often obscured by the pelvic fins and the tail. (D) Distended abdomen of smalleye #052 suggesting gestation. Photo credit: (A) & (B) Tom Horton; (C) & (D) Andrea Marshall.

Photographs of this standardized ID region (ID-photos) were taken from still photographs, with or without flash, or from video screenshots, with or without video lights. Only photographs of good quality were used for this study (147 out of 178 photographs in the study set). These images were in focus, clearly showed the natural spot patterns of the ray, e.g., was not obscured by sediment or associating fish, and had enough resolution to clearly distinguish the details of the spot patterns. However, photographs with only one side of the ID-area visible (partial ID-photos) were still usable for re-sightings: if a partial ID-photo was matched to an initial ID-photo with at least 10 spots clearly visible, the partial ID-photo was accepted as a re-sighting (Figs. 3A and 3B). Once appropriate ID-photos were secured, the sex of the animal was determined through the presence or absence of male reproductive organs (claspers) located on the pelvic fins (Fig. 3C). Scars, bite marks and deformities were also noted to provide a useful secondary verification of an ID, thus bolstering confidence in the accuracy of this validation study.

Matching was performed by visual pairwise comparison (two pictures side by side on the same screen), by one or two researchers. Each photograph was compared at least twice to the entire photo-database. Photographs were matched visually with no ambiguity, e.g., all visible natural markings were matched prior to confirming a re-sighting.

New identifications were cumulatively plotted over time in a discovery curve to show the rate at which newly identified individuals were recruited into the population database (Fig. 4A). Re-sighting events were characterized by the positive identification of a previously identified individual more than 24 h after it was initially seen (e.g., not on consecutive dives) or at a different dive site. Rate of movement was calculated as the minimum time required to travel from one known location to another as confirmed by positive identification of individuals.

Figure 4. Recruitment of smalleye stingrays into the population database during the study period.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

(A) Discovery curves of new and re-sighted identified rays; (B) seasonal trends of encounters. The mean SPUE (number of sightings per dive) was computed for each month across all years of the study period. Sampling effort is indicated by the total number of dives/month.

Re-sighting events allowed us to reveal some philopatric behaviors. Philopatry is defined as individuals frequently returning to or staying within their home ranges, birthplaces, or other specific localities (Chapman et al., 2015; Flowers et al., 2016). Two types of philopatric behavior were observed in this study: site fidelity, e.g., when the individual makes a long-distance movement away from a defined location and then returns to it (Chapman et al., 2015), and site affinity, e.g., when there is no available evidence to distinguish between site fidelity and residency, e.g., individuals remaining in a defined location for at least 12 months (Couturier et al., 2011).

To examine seasonal trends, the sightings per unit of effort (SPUE), e.g., the number of rays seen per dive and per month, was calculated for each year of the study period and then pooled by calendar month across all years. The means were compared across calendar months (Fig. 4B). Bottom Sea Temperature (BST) was recorded on each research dive with dive computers.

Ethics statement

No approval or permits regarding human or animal ethics were required for this study as this was an analysis of publicly contributed photographs, collected non-intrusively, from recreational scuba divers. All data/photographs collected by authors were collected with special permissions from Bazaruto Archipelago National Park by the ANAC (Administração Nacional de Áreas de Conservação) of Mozambique and the Maritime Administration of Inhambane province.

Results

M. microps dorsal spot patterns showed sufficiently unique variability to allow individual identification without ambiguity (Fig. 2). Natural spot patterns also remained unchanged in all individuals re-sighted during the study period with a maximum re-sighting interval of 2,214 days (6 years and 23 days), e.g., the maximum time interval between two sightings of the same stingray. The unique spot patterns, being quite distinctive, were easy to match by eye and did not require the use of pattern matching algorithms to confidently determine re-sightings.

Using these natural spot patterns, a total of 70 individual M. microps were identified from 182 sightings between May 2003 and November 2018 (Table 1), including 23 females, 17 males and 30 individuals of undetermined sex. Determining the sex of an individual during an encounter was secondary to obtaining an ID. Because the pelvic fin region was often obscured by the tail in ID-photos or difficult to view given the animal’s relative positioning to the diver, a high proportion of individuals could not be sexed (Fig. 3C).

Table 1. The survey effort in Zavora, Tofo Beach/Barra and Bazaruto Archipelago-San Sebastian areas, including sighting records and number of smalleyes identified.

Main data come from research dives while bracketed numbers are the sightings provided by citizen contributions. SPUE (sightings per unit of effort) refer to the number of sightings of M. microps per dive, using research data only. Individuals encountered on different sites were counted in the site of the first encounter.

Year Zavora Tofo Beach/Barra Bazaruto Archipelago—San Sebastian Total
Sightings Dives SPUE Sightings Dives SPUE Sightings Dives SPUE Sightings Dives SPUE
2003 0 0 – 0 33 0.00 0 0 – 0 33 0.00
2004 0 0 – 1 96 0.01 0 0 – 1 96 0.01
2005 0 0 – 1 94 0.01 0 0 – 1 94 0.01
2006 0 0 – 1 91 0.01 0 0 – 1 91 0.01
2007 0 0 – 7 125 0.06 0 0 – 7 125 0.06
2008 0 0 – 2 50 0.04 0 0 – 2 50 0.04
2009 0 0 – 1 (2) 64 0.02 0 0 – 1 (2) 64 0.02
2010 0 14 0 6 (1) 162 0.04 0 0 – 6 (1) 176 0.03
2011 0 (4) 0 – 13 351 0.04 0 0 – 13 (4) 351 0.05
2012 0 0 – 17 (5) 380 0.04 0 1 0.00 17 (5) 381 0.04
2013 2 28 0.07 20 266 0.08 3 60 0.05 25 354 0.07
2014 0 11 0.00 16 299 0.05 3 163 0.02 19 473 0.04
2015 0 2 0.00 6 (3) 211 0.01 0 42 0.00 6 (3) 255 0.02
2016 0 (1) 2 0.00 17 358 0.05 0 4 0.00 17 (1) 364 0.05
2017 0 (2) 25 0.00 18 (2) 378 0.05 1 (1) 35 0.03 19 (5) 438 0.05
2018 0 (3) 5 0.00 20 (3) 432 0.05 0 13 0.00 20 (6) 450 0.06
Total 2 (10) 87 0.02 146 (16) 3390 0.04 7 (1) 318 0.02 155 (27) 3795 0.04
M. microps identified (N) 5 60 5 70
Open in a new tab

As expected, the majority of encounters and thus identified individuals were from the Tofo Beach/Barra region, where dive and monitoring efforts are significantly higher than other locations. All smalleye stingray encounters in this region occurred on reefs between 15 and 30 m, except for two individuals which were spotted just below the surface (2–4 m). In Zavora, smalleye stingrays were encountered on both shallow (12–24 m) and deep reefs (25–35 m). In the Bazaruto region, smalleye stingrays were observed both inside and outside the park with sightings concentrated on two deep reefs (26–36 m), both of which are surrounded by large flat sandy areas. Notably these reefs both host cleaning stations regularly used by manta (South African Association for Marine Biological Research, 2008) and other ray species (Murie & Marshall, 2016). We recorded two fished smalleyes in Tofo (2006) and Bazaruto (2013) areas but were unable to identify either with our ID photo catalogue.

New individuals were steadily identified throughout the study period (Fig. 4A), with 70 individual M. microps ultimately identified between 2006 and 2018. Sightings occurred throughout the year in waters ranging between 18 and 28 °C. Peak encounters occurred between May and October (winter in southern Mozambique) and the most sightings per unit effort occurred in July with an average of 0.10 individuals sighted per dive (Fig. 4B).

Encountered M. microps individuals were always actively swimming and were never encountered resting on the seabed. Stingrays were generally solitary. Occasionally (18 dives during the study period) two or three individuals were sighted on the same dive and in some cases (8 dives during the study period) were seen swimming together in the same direction in apparent association. Encountered stingrays were often spotted at cleaning stations where small fish such as Heniochus acuminatus appeared to be removing parasites and other build-up from the ray’s skin (Fig. 3B). No foraging behaviour was observed during the study period.

A total of 15 of the 70 individuals identified (21.4%) were sighted more than once. Re-sighted individuals were seen on average 2.7 times during the study period (Fig. 5). The shortest time interval between a re-sighting of the same individual was 1 day, and the longest re-sighting occurred 2,214 days (6 years and 23 days) after the first sighting (Fig. 6). Most of the re-sightings occurred in Tofo Beach/Barra area, but this may be an artefact of greater effort in this region. Some of the re-sighted stingrays showed site affinity, with seven individuals observed on the same dive site over several years.

Figure 5. M. microps re-sighting records between 2003 and 2018 along Inhambane Province coastline.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Encounters (A) in the Bazaruto Archipelago National Park region and (B) in Tofo Beach/Barra and Zavora regions. Bracketed numbers are the years of sightings for each individual-dive site pair: “#014 (2012-2012)” means that the smalleye #014 was spotted twice on this dive site in 2012. Base map credits: NIWA, Esri, DeLorme, NaturalVue.

Figure 6. Smalleye #017, female encountered three times off Tofo, between 2012 and 2018.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

(A) July 21st 2012, (B) August 12th 2014, (C) and (D) August 13th 2018. Photo credit: (A) anonymous diver; (B) Libby Bowles; (C) & (D) Leslie Roberson.

Re-sighting data also revealed inter-site movements between Zavora, Tofo Beach/Barra and the Bazaruto Archipelago. One individual was seen twice off Tofo Beach in 2012 and 2014, and then was subsequently re-sighted off Zavora in 2017, a minimum straight-line distance of approximately 70 km traveled by the ray within 1151 days (Fig. 7). Female rays, which appeared pregnant due to their distended stomachs and backs (Fig. 3D), were sighted in all three of the main study sites. One female identified off Tofo Beach on the 24th of January 2017 was re-sighted just south of the BANP, near San Sebastian Point, having traveled a minimum straight-line distance of approximately 200 km in a minimum of 102 days. The re-sighting of this stingray back in Tofo waters in June 2018 reveals clear site fidelity to this area (Fig. 8). The stingray was no longer visibly pregnant.

Figure 7. Smalleye #014, female encountered several times off Tofo.

Figure 7

Open in a new tab

(A) March 21st 2012, (B) March 22nd 2012, (C) September 28th 2014. The last encounter occurred off Zavora on November 22nd 2017 (D). Photo credit: (A) Andrea Marshall; (B) Giles Winstanley; (C) Anna Flam; (D) Nakia Cullain.

Figure 8. Smalleye #052, female encountered in Tofo Beach/Barra and Bazaruto areas and showing a return movement between both sites.

Figure 8

Open in a new tab

(A) January 24th, 2017, off Tofo; (B) May 6th, 2017, near San Sebastian Point; (C) July 13th, 2018, off Tofo. Photo credit: (A) Michelle Carpenter; (B) Andrea Marshall; (C) Tyler Davis.

Discussion

The use of photo-ID for M. microps

True validation of photo-ID ideally requires double marking (e.g., conventional tagging and photo-ID) of the animals in order to have a reliable and independent confirmation of re-sighted individuals’ identities. Like in many terrestrial (Del Lama et al., 2011; Jackson et al., 2006) and marine studies using photo ID (Bansemer & Bennett, 2011; Domeier & Nasby-Lucas, 2007), this work did not include any conventional double marking techniques to validate patterns on individuals. However, enough data were presented to convincingly demonstrate the accuracy of matches, due namely to the clear and variable spot patterns on this species.

This study suggests adequate variability exists in the natural spot patterns on the dorsal surface of M. microps to reliably study wild populations with photo-ID methodology. These naturally occurring spot patterns were stable and unchanging over periods of up to six years, suggesting they are permanent and fixed, at least after maturity. Based on the stingrays’ disc width (>1m), it is likely that most if not all of the individuals encountered and identified during this study were mature. Further research is needed to confirm if this species undergoes ontogenetic changes in colouration like in many orectolobiform sharks (Dingerkus, 1986). Additional monitoring would be required to confirm the long-term stability of these natural markings over the lifespan of the individual, which is currently unknown. Given the variability and stability of these natural spot patterns and the ease of which they can be captured, we recommend that photo-ID methodology may be a good starting point for future studies on wild populations of M. microps.

Furthermore, photo-ID suitability of this species makes it a good candidate for citizen science contributions. Both videos and still images provided high quality ID-photos. Videos often offered different angles of the animals and their pectoral disc, which proved useful in obtaining the best angle for a high-quality screengrab. Footage and photographs should ideally be taken from above the ray to see the full ID-area. Divers should abide by the following code of conduct: approaching slowly, staying 2–3 m away from the ray, and not chasing the animal. In this particular region, due to the wide-ranging nature of the species, their broad distribution along the coastline and increasing number of identified individuals, future research may explore the feasibility and accuracy of pattern matching algorithms (e.g., I3S or Wildbook®). Those may help to facilitate the development of local/regional databases and the incorporation of citizen science contributions.

Movement patterns and habitat usage

This study extends the known area of occurrence of M. microps in southern Mozambique and suggests that this species may be widespread in the south of the country. Opportunistic collection of photographs from divers helped establish connectivity along a 350 km stretch of coastline in the Inhambane Province, from Zavora in the south to Bazaruto Archipelago in the north. Individuals were found to travel long distances north and south along the coast over short and long periods of time, at least 200 kilometers in as little as 102 days, and 400 kilometers in 535 days which is the longest distance traveled by a dasyatid ray on record. The only similar numbers reported on a dasyatid ray’s movements range from 151 to 258 kilometers, distances traveled by four pelagic stingrays over the course of a 13-day satellite tag recording period (Weidner, Cotton & Kerstetter, 2014). The pelagic stingray however is likely to be more mobile than the smalleye stingray with suspected, but yet to be confirmed, seasonal migrations of hundreds to thousands of kilometers (Mollet, 2002).

M. microps’ ability to travel long distances bolsters the supposition that the species is semi-pelagic (Pierce, White & Marshall, 2008), providing further evidence that it rarely seems to rest on the seabed like most stingrays. Like manta rays, another large and highly mobile species, M. microps also utilizes a wide variety of habitats along the coastline. Furthermore, like manta rays in Inhambane they are most frequently encountered on small deep reefs (20–35 m), particularly those that are surrounded by sand and support cleaning stations for elasmobranch species (Marshall, 2008). Similar to manta rays (Marshall, Dudgeon & Bennett, 2011), some individual M. microps show site affinity to these preferred reefs along the coast.

Both male and female rays were encountered during this study suggesting this species does not segregate by sex. However, no young of the year or even juvenile rays were observed suggesting that either ontogenetic shifts in resource or habitat use is driving the segregation of smaller sizes classes from the adults, which is common among other ray species (Marshall, Dudgeon & Bennett, 2011; Yick, Tracey & White, 2011; Espinoza et al., 2015). Individuals were most often encountered alone, either swimming through or cleaning at deep water reefs in the region, suggesting that cleaning may be an important factor to their visits to these reefs. Visits to cleaning stations have been shown to be linked with social behavior, including mating: solitary, highly mobile species like manta rays appear to use these reefs as meeting points where males can more easily locate and court receptive mates (Jaine et al., 2012; Stevens, 2016). Juvenile M. microps may also have smaller parasite loads and not need to clean as frequently as adults, or they may not be driven to visit these areas for social reasons until they reach maturity.

As with many dorsally flattened rays, late stage or near-term pregnancies were easily distinguishable (Marshall & Bennett, 2010) by distended bellies and particularly backs (Fig. 3D). Only one caught pregnant female smalleye stingray of 206 cm DW was previously examined off the East Indian coast and contained a single, late-term male embryo of 33 cm DW (Nair & Soundararajan, 1976). With visibly pregnant females sighted in all three of the study regions in southern Mozambique, it is likely that this area is regularly used by females to gestate young and parturition may occur in the immediate area. The observed long-distance movement of a near-term pregnant female from Tofo Beach-Barra to Bazaruto Archipelago suggests that M. microps may move into the warmer shallower waters of the archipelago to give birth. However, with no records of juvenile M. microps being landed in artisanal fisheries (Andrea D. Marshall, pers. comm., 2018), it is equally likely that the depth range of this species extends into deeper water than can be accessed by recreational divers and females may be using deeper waters as pupping grounds.

While the discovery curve showed an increasing discovery rate since 2007, the relatively low sightings rate of this species indicates that it is rare, and that the population size off this coastline may be small. Increases in fishing pressure along this coast over the last decade have coincided with dramatic declines in other large ray species, like manta rays and devil rays (Rohner et al., 2013). M. microps are likely to be subject to similar pressures from targeted artisanal fishing and incidental capture in the gill and seine nets used extensively along the coast (Figs. 9A and 9B).

Figure 9. Human interactions with M. microps along southern Mozambican coastline.

Figure 9

Open in a new tab

Individuals landed in artisanal fisheries on (A) Vilankulos Beach (May 27th, 2013) and (B) Tofo Beach (August 15th, 2006). (C) and (D) show smalleye stingrays encountered during recreational and research dives. Photo credit: Andrea Marshall.

M. microps are large, charismatic, and easy to approach (Figs. 9C and 9D). As such, smalleye stingray encounters are highly sought after by divers (Steven Counsel, pers. comm., 2018). Like manta rays, which are attractions for diving tourism (Venables et al., 2016), it is likely that diving tourism is and will continue to be bolstered in this region by reliable encounters with this rare ray species. While the Bazaruto Archipelago National Park may offer a natural safe haven for these rays, it is recommended that management strategies be examined to increase protections of this lesser known, potentially threatened species throughout its range.

Conclusion

Findings from the present study suggest that M. microps natural spot patterns are suitable for photo-ID methodology. Photo-identified smalleye stingrays in southern Mozambique proved to be using a wide variety of habitats and to be highly mobile along the coastline, with re-sighting events revealing migrations of up to 400 kilometers. Further investigation is required to validate the use of photo-ID on a longer-term basis. In the future, the information provided by this method will help in expanding ecological and demographic information on M. microps, fundamental for the overall knowledge of the species and needed to establish appropriate management and conservation strategies along Mozambican coasts.

Supplemental Information

Data S1. Research dive logs and citizen contributed data.

The first two tabs show research dive logs and citizen scientist contributed data on encountered smalleye stingrays (raw data). The last two tabs provide sightings per year and region, and seasonal trends, based on research dive logs only.

Click here for additional data file. (341.8KB, xlsx)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7110/supp-1
Table S1. Identified smalleye stingrays and their sightings over the study period.

Basic information collected on the 70 identified individuals were computed in this table: sex, partial/full ID-photos, dates of sightings.

Click here for additional data file. (45.9KB, xlsx)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7110/supp-2

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the Bazaruto Archipelago National Park and ANAC for their support of this project. We also thank Casa Barry Lodge, Peri-Peri Divers, and Pestana Bazaruto for their logistical support. We deeply appreciate the contributions from citizen scientists, dive industry professionals, Marine Action Research, and Marine Megafauna Foundation volunteers who shared their photographs and videos.

Funding Statement

The authors received no funding for this work.

Additional Information and Declarations

Competing Interests

Anna Luci Flam and Andrea Denise Marshall are employed by Marine Megafauna Association. Atlantine Boggio-Pasqua is a volunteer at Marine Megafauna Association and a student at AgroParisTech.

Author Contributions

Atlantine Boggio-Pasqua, Anna L. Flam and Andrea D. Marshall conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Animal Ethics

The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

This photo-ID based study did not require approval from an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee or equivalent institution.

Field Study Permissions

The following information was supplied relating to field study approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

Field work and experiments were approved (i) in Inhambane province by the Maritime Administration of Inhambane province and (ii) in the Bazaruto Archipelago National Park by the ANAC (Administração Nacional de Áreas de Conservação) of Mozambique.

Data Availability

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

Raw data is provided in the Supplemental Files.

References

  • Annandale (1908).Annandale N. A new sting ray of the genus Trygon from the Bay of Bengal. Records of the Indian Museum. 1908;2:393–394. [Google Scholar]
  • Bansemer & Bennett (2011).Bansemer CS, Bennett MB. Sex- and maturity-based differences in movement and migration patterns of grey nurse shark, Carcharias taurus, along the eastern coast of Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research. 2011;62(6):596–606. doi: 10.1071/MF10152. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Barrowman & Myers (1996).Barrowman NJ, Myers RA. Estimating tag-shedding rates for experiments with multiple tag types. International Biometric Society. 1996;52:1410–1416. [Google Scholar]
  • Benjamins et al. (2018).Benjamins S, Dodd J, Thorburn J, Milway VA, Campbell R, Bailey DM. Evaluating the potential of photo-identification as a monitoring tool for flapper skate (Dipturus intermedius) Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 2018;28(6):1360–1373. doi: 10.1002/aqc.2937. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Cerutti-Pereyra et al. (2018).Cerutti-Pereyra F, Bassos-Hull K, Arvizu-Torres X, Wilkinson KA, García-Carrillo I, Perez-Jimenez JC, Hueter RE. Observations of spotted eagle rays (Aetobatus narinari) in the Mexican Caribbean using photo-ID. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 2018;101(2):237–244. doi: 10.1007/s10641-017-0694-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Chapman et al. (2015).Chapman DD, Feldheim KA, Papastamatiou YP, Hueter RE. There and back again: a review of residency and return migrations in sharks, with implications for population structure and management. Annual Review of Marine Science. 2015;7:547–570. doi: 10.1146/annurev-marine-010814-015730. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Couturier et al. (2011).Couturier LIE, Jaine FRA, Townsend KA, Weeks SJ, Richardson AJ, Bennett MB. Distribution, site affinity and regional movements of the manta ray, Manta alfredi (Krefft, 1868), along the east coast of Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research. 2011;62(6):628–637. doi: 10.1071/MF10148. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Del Lama et al. (2011).Del Lama F, Drumond Rocha M, Andrade MA, Barreto Nascimento L. The use of photography to identify individual tree frogs by their natural marks. South American Journal of Herpetology. 2011;6(3):198–204. doi: 10.2994/057.006.0305. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Dicken, Booth & Smale (2006).Dicken ML, Booth AJ, Smale MJ. Preliminary observations of tag shedding, tag reporting, tag wounds, and tag biofouling for raggedtooth sharks (Carcharias taurus) tagged off the east coast of South Africa. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 2006;63:1640–1648. doi: 10.1016/j.icesjms.2006.06.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Dingerkus (1986).Dingerkus G. Interrelationships of Orectolobiform sharks (Chondrichthyes: Selachii) In: Uyeno T, Arai R, Taniuchi T, Matsuura K, editors. Indo-Pacific fish biology: proceedings of the second international conference on indo-pacific fishes. Ichthyological Society of Japan; Tokyo: 1986. pp. 227–245. [Google Scholar]
  • Domeier & Nasby-Lucas (2007).Domeier ML, Nasby-Lucas N. Annual re-sightings of photographically identified white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) at an eastern Pacific aggregation site (Guadalupe Island, Mexico) Marine Biology. 2007;150(5):977–984. doi: 10.1007/s00227-006-0380-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Espinoza et al. (2015).Espinoza M, Munroe SEM, Clarke TM, Fisk A, Wehrtmann IS. Feeding ecology of common demersal elasmobranch species in the Pacific coast of Costa Rica inferred from stable isotope and stomach content analyses. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 2015;470:12–25. doi: 10.1016/j.jembe.2015.04.021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Fahmi et al. (2016).Fahmi, White WT, Manjaji Matsumoto BM, Pierce SJ. Megatrygon microps. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2016;2016:e.T161582A104166533. [Google Scholar]
  • Feldheim, Gruber & Ashley (2002).Feldheim KA, Gruber SH, Ashley MV. The breeding biology of lemon sharks at a tropical nursery lagoon. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. 2002;269:1655–1661. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2051. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Flowers et al. (2016).Flowers KI, Ajemian MJ, Bassos-Hull K, Feldheim KA, Hueter RE, Papastamatiou YP, Chapman DD. A review of batoid philopatry, with implications for future research and population management. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2016;562:251–261. doi: 10.3354/meps11963. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Flowers et al. (2017).Flowers KI, Henderson AC, Lupton JL, Chapman DD. Site affinity of whitespotted eagle rays Aetobatus narinari assessed using photographic identification. Journal of Fish Biology. 2017;91(5):1337–1349. doi: 10.1111/jfb.13452. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Fouts & Nelson (1999).Fouts WR, Nelson DR. Prey capture by the Pacific angel shark, Squatina californica: visually mediated strikes and ambush-site characteristics. Copeia. 1999;1999:304–312. doi: 10.2307/1447476. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Garman (1913).Garman S. The plagiostomia (shark, skates and rays) Benthic Press; Los Angeles: 1913. p. 511. [Google Scholar]
  • González-Ramos et al. (2016).González-Ramos MS, Santos-Moreno A, Rosas-Alquicira EF, Fuentes-Mascorro G. Validation of photo-identification as a mark–recapture method in the spotted eagle ray Aetobatus narinari. Journal of Fish Biology. 2016;90(3):1021–1030. doi: 10.1111/jfb.13215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Jackson et al. (2006).Jackson R, Roe JD, Wangchuk R, Hunter DO. Estimating snow leopard population abundance using photography and capture-recapture techniques. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 2006;34(3):772–781. doi: 10.2193/0091-7648(2006)34[772:ESLPAU]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Jaine et al. (2012).Jaine FRA, Couturier LIE, Weeks SJ, Townsend KA, Bennett MB, Fiora K, Richardson AJ. When giants turn up: sighting trends, environmental influences and habitat use of the manta ray Manta alfredi at a coral reef. PLOS ONE. 2012;7(10):e46170. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Kapoor, Dayal & Ponniah (2002).Kapoor D, Dayal R, Ponniah AG. Fish biodiversity of India. National Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources; Lucknow: 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • Kohler & Turner (2001).Kohler NE, Turner PA. Shark tagging: a review of conventional methods and studies. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 2001;60:191–223. doi: 10.1023/A:1007679303082. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Last, Naylor & Manjaji-Matsumoto (2016).Last PR, Naylor GJP, Manjaji-Matsumoto BM. A revised classification of the family Dayatidae (Chondrichthyes: Myliobatiformes) based on new morphological and molecular insights. Zootaxa. 2016;4139(3):345–368. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.4139.3.2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Manire & Gruber (1991).Manire CA, Gruber SH. Effect of M-type dart tags on the field growth of juvenile lemon sharks. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 1991;120:776–780. doi: 10.1577/1548-8659(1991)120<0776:EOMDTO>2.3.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Marshall (2008).Marshall AD. PhD Thesis. 2008. Biology and population ecology of Manta birostris in southern Mozambique. [Google Scholar]
  • Marshall & Bennett (2010).Marshall AD, Bennett MB. Reproductive ecology of the reef manta ray (Manta alfredi) in southern Mozambique. Journal of Fish Biology. 2010;77:169–190. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02669.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Marshall, Dudgeon & Bennett (2011).Marshall AD, Dudgeon CL, Bennett MB. Size and structure of a photographically identified population of manta rays Manta alfredi in southern Mozambique. Marine Biology. 2011;158(5):1111–1124. doi: 10.1007/s00227-011-1634-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Marshall & Pierce (2012).Marshall AD, Pierce SJ. The use and abuse of photographic identification in sharks and rays. Journal of Fish Biology. 2012;80:1361–1379. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2012.03244.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Meekan et al. (2016).Meekan MG, Trevitt L, Simpfendorfer CA, White W. The piggybacking stingray. Coral Reefs. 2016;35:1011. doi: 10.1007/s00338-016-1429-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Mollet (2002).Mollet HF. Distribution of the pelagic stingray, Dasyatis violacea (Bonaparte, 1832), off California, Central America, and worldwide. Marine Freshwater Research. 2002;53(2):525–530. doi: 10.1071/MF02010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Murie & Marshall (2016).Murie CJ, Marshall AD. Mobula kuhlii cleaning station identified at an inshore reef in southern Mozambique. PeerJPrePrints. 2016;4:e1724v1. doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.1724v1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Nair & Soundararajan (1976).Nair RV, Soundararajan R. On the occurrence of the stingray Dasyatis (Dasyatis) microps (Annandale) on the Madras Coast and in the Gulf of Mannar. Indian Journal of Fisheries. 1976;23:273–277. [Google Scholar]
  • Osmany, Moazzam & Ayub (2015).Osmany HB, Moazzam M, Ayub S. New record of the small eye stingray, Dasyatis microps (Annandale, 1908) (Myliobatiformes: Dasyatidae) from the northern Arabian Sea. International Journal of Biology and Biotechnology. 2015;12:481–483. [Google Scholar]
  • Pierce & Bennett (2009).Pierce SJ, Bennett MB. Validated annual band pair periodicity and growth parameters of blue-spotted maskray (Neotrygon kuhlii) from southeast Queensland, Australia. Journal of Fish Biology. 2009;75:2490–2508. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2009.02435.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Pierce et al. (2018).Pierce SJ, Holmberg J, Kock AA, Marshall AD. Chapter 12: photographic identification of sharks. In: Carrier JC, Heithaus MR, Simpfendorfer CA, editors. Shark research: emerging technologies and applications for the field and laboratory. Taylor & Francis; Boca Raton: 2018. pp. 219–234. (CRC Marine Biology Series). [Google Scholar]
  • Pierce, White & Marshall (2008).Pierce SJ, White WT, Marshall AD. New record of the smalleye stingray, Dasyatis microps (Myliobatiformes: Dasyatidae), from the western Indian Ocean. Zootaxa. 2008;1734(6):65–68. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.1734.1.5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Purushottama et al. (2018).Purushottama GB, Thakurdas, Tandel Swapnil S, Mhatre Vaibhav D, Singh VV. Records of rare elasmobranchs and their biological observation from the north-eastern Arabian Sea, off Mumbai. Indian Journal of Geo-Marine Sciences. 2018;47(8):1566–1573. [Google Scholar]
  • Rohner et al. (2013).Rohner CA, Pierce SJ, Marshall AD, Weeks SJ, Bennett MB, Richardson AJ. Trends in sightings and environmental influences on a coastal aggregation of manta rays and whale sharks. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2013;482:153–168. doi: 10.3354/meps10290. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • South African Association for Marine Biological Research (2008).South African Association for Marine Biological Research, Oceanographic Institute . A natural history of bazaruto archipelago, Mozambique. South African Association for Marine Biological Research; Durban: 2008. Special Publication No 8. [Google Scholar]
  • Stevens (2016).Stevens GMW. PhD Thesis. 2016. Conservation and population ecology of Manta rays in the Maldives. [Google Scholar]
  • Venables et al. (2016).Venables S, Winstanley G, Bowles L, Marshall AD. A giant opportunity: the economic impact of manta rays on the mozambican tourism industry—an incentive for increased management and protection. Tourism in Marine Environments. 2016;12(1):51–68. doi: 10.3727/154427316X693225. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Weidner, Cotton & Kerstetter (2014).Weidner TA, Cotton C, Kerstetter DW. Habitat utilization and vertical movements of the pelagic stingray pteroplatytrygon violacea (Bonaparte, 1832) in the Western North Atlantic Ocean Using Short-Duration Pop-Up Archival Satellite Tags. Marine & Environmental Sciences Faculty Proceedings, Presentations, Speeches, Lectures; 2014. p. 227. [Google Scholar]
  • Wilson & McMahon (2006).Wilson RP, McMahon CR. Measuring devices on wild animals: what constitutes acceptable practice? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2006;4:147–154. doi: 10.1890/1540-9295(2006)004[0147:MDOWAW]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Yick, Tracey & White (2011).Yick JL, Tracey SR, White RWG. Niche overlap and trophic resource partitioning of two sympatric batoids co-inhabiting an estuarine system in southeast Australia. Journal of Applied Ichthyology. 2011;27(5):1272–1277. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0426.2011.01819.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Data S1. Research dive logs and citizen contributed data.

The first two tabs show research dive logs and citizen scientist contributed data on encountered smalleye stingrays (raw data). The last two tabs provide sightings per year and region, and seasonal trends, based on research dive logs only.

Click here for additional data file. (341.8KB, xlsx)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7110/supp-1
Table S1. Identified smalleye stingrays and their sightings over the study period.

Basic information collected on the 70 identified individuals were computed in this table: sex, partial/full ID-photos, dates of sightings.

Click here for additional data file. (45.9KB, xlsx)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7110/supp-2

Data Availability Statement

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

Raw data is provided in the Supplemental Files.

Articles from PeerJ are provided here courtesy of PeerJ, Inc

RESOURCES