"Seasonal and Long-Term Changes in Relative Abundance of Bull Sharks from a Tourist Shark Feeding Site in Fiji" Evaluation

Summary:
     Feeding sharks and rays have become a popular activity for tourist. Some are concerned that feeding the sharks can be harmful to the population of sharks. This study count bull sharks at a marine Reserve in Fiji. The main goal was to answer the following questions: 1) What are the changes of abundance of the bull shark? 2) How many sharks use the feeding site? 3) What is the female to male ratio of sharks? 4) How does the reproductive cycle vary each season? From the results of these questions show how the number of sharks going to the site change each year and what the reproductive cycle of the shark is.
     In order to attract sharks at this site, a diver dives down to different levels and releases food into the water. Sharks come because they are attracted to the chum and then the tourist can feed the sharks. From 2003 to 2009, bull sharks were counted and observed at each feeding. They counted how many bull sharks came, what sex they were, if they were pregnant, if there were any mating scars and if they had any other type of distinguishing features. Some sharks were named and they observed when that specific shark would come back.
    The results showed that each day 0 to 40 sharks would come to the feeding site. Over the long term there was an increase in sharks. The average female to male ratio was 3:4 but the overall was 3:6. Females had mating wounds from December to February. After the females left pregnant in the months October through December she would come back having gave birth.

Evaluate:
     The article is accurate because it goes into detail about the study that the report was on. It does not stray from the main topic at all. The authors are specific and the study has a clear purpose. The report on the study is broken down into headings that make it clear as to how they conducted the study, why, and what the results were. The way the report was written was slightly confusing at first but once they clearly stated the purpose it was easier to follow. The report could have been more concise. There was some redundancy in the report. It could have been shorter and more to the point. The study was ethical. They did not harm the sharks or the people who were feeding the sharks. They simply observed and counted the bull sharks. Overall the readability was not at a low reading level. It was a little difficult to read. But it was still understandable. As a reader, I am satisfied with the report and how it was written.
      The intended purpose was made clear, which was to count and observe the bull sharks. They wanted to see if the population increased and what the reproduction cycle was like in the area. The audience was directed towards other scientist, and conservationists. Someone who was at least in 11th grade could understand the study. It was not a very complicated study but the report was not written for a lay audience. The organization of the document was very good. The sections were broken up. The results were broken up into subheadings which made it easy to see the findings.

Reference:
Brunnschweiler, J.M., & Baensch, H. (2011). Seasonal and Long-Term Changes in Relative   
      Abundance of Bull Sharks from a Tourist Shark Feeding Site in Fiji. Plos one,6(1), doi:  
      10.1371/journal.pone.0016597.