This series represents a secondary level of scientifiic publishing. It employs thorough internal

scientific review and technical and copy editing, but not necessarily external scientific review.

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Mickey Kantor, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

D. James Baker, Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service

Rolland A. Schmitten, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

Northeast Region

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Woods Hole, Massachusetts

May 1996

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-110

Length-Length and Length-Weight

Relationships for 13 Shark Species

from the Western North Atlantic

Nancy E. Kohler, John G. Casey, and Patricia A. Turner

National Marine Fisheries Service, Narragansett, RI 02882
Recent issues in this series:

93. Large Marine Ecosystems Monitoring Workshop Report: 13-14 July 1991, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. By

Kenneth Sherman and Thomas L. Laughlin, eds. October 1992. iii + 22 p., 2 tables, 2 app. NTIS Access. No. PB93-234284.

94. Summary of the Symposium on the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem: Stress, Mitigation, and Sustainabilty -- 12-15

August 1991, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, Rhode Island. By Kenneth Sherman, N. Jaworski, and T. Smayda,

eds. October 1992. v + 30 p., 3 app. NTIS Access. No. PB94-103439.

95. Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States for 1992. By Conservation and Utilization Division,

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. October 1992. iv + 133 p., 60 figs., 67 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB93-144103.

96. An Indexed Bibliography of Northeast Fisheries Science Center Publications and Reports for 1989. By Jon A. Gibson.

November 1992. iii + 20 p. NTIS Access. No. PB93-213601.

97. Water-column Thermal Structure in the Middle Atlantic Bight and Gulf of Maine during 1978-92. By Robert L. Benway,

Kevin P. Thomas, and Jack W. Jossi. March 1993. viii + 154 p., 147 figs., 2 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB93-223147.

98. Marine Invertebrate Cell Culture: Breaking the Barriers -- Proceedings of an International Workshop, 16 June 1991,

Anaheim, California. By Aaron Rosenfield, ed. March 1993. vi + 25 p., 2 tables, 3 app. NTIS Access. No. PB93-213593.

99. Sole Ownership of Living Marine Resources. By Steven F. Edwards, Allen J. Bejda, and R. Anne Richards. May 1993.

vii + 21 p., 6 figs., 1 table. NTIS Access. No. PB94-146651.

100. Emerging Theoretical Basis for Monitoring the Changing States (Health) of Large Marine Ecosystems -- Summary

Report of Two Workshops: 23 April 1992, National Marine Fisheries Service, Narragansett, Rhode Island, and 11- 12

July 1992, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. By Kenneth Sherman, ed. September 1993. iii + 27 p., 1 fig., 9 tables,

5 app. NTIS Access. No. PB94-157476.

101. Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States for 1993. By Conservation and Utilization Division,

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. October 1993. iv + 140 p., 62 figs., 70 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB94-142361.

102. Indexed Bibliography of Northeast Fisheries Science Center Publications and Reports for 1990-91. By Jon A. Gibson.

May 1994. iii + 40 p. NTIS Access. No. PB95-200838.

103. Marine Mammal Studies Supported by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center during 1980-89. By Gordon T. Waring,

Janeen M. Quintal, and Tim D. Smith. May 1994. iv + 27 p., 5 tables, 4 app. NTIS Access. No. PB95-108213.

104. Quantitative Effects of Pollution on Marine and Anadromous Fish Populations. By Carl J. Sindermann. June 1994. iii

+ 22 p., 12 figs. NTIS Access. No. PB95-138467.

105. Review of American Lobster (Homarus americanus) Habitat Requirements and Responses to Contaminant Exposures.

By Renee Mercaldo-Allen and Catherine A. Kuropat. July 1994. v + 52 p., 29 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB96-115555.

106. Selected Living Resources, Habitat Conditions, and Human Perturbations of the Gulf of Maine: Environmental and

Ecological Considerations for Fishery Management. By Richard W. Langton, John B. Pearce, and Jon A. Gibson, eds. August

1994. iv + 70 p., 2 figs., 6 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB95-270906.

107. Invertebrate Neoplasia: Initiation and Promotion Mechanisms -- Proceedings of an International Workshop, 23 June

1992, Washington, D.C. By A. Rosenfield, F.G. Kern, and B.J. Keller, comps. & eds. September 1994. v + 31 p., 8 figs.,

3 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB96-164801.

108. Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States for 1994. By Conservation and Utilization Division,

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. January 1995. iv + 140 p., 71 figs., 75 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB95-263414.

109. Proceedings of the Symposium on the Potential for Development of Aquaculture in Massachusetts: 15-17 February

1995, Chatham/Edgartown/Dartmouth, Massachusetts. By Carlos A. Castro and Scott J. Soares, comps. & eds. January

1996. v + 26 p., 1 fig., 2 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB97-103782.
Page iii

Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................................1

Materials and Methods ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Results and Discussion ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3

References Cited .................................................................................................................................................................................3

Tables

Table 1. Fork length - total length relationships for 13 shark species from the western North Atlantic,

based on FL = (a)TL + b ................................................................................................................................................4

Table 2. Predicted weight for various fork lengths of 13 shark species from the western North Atlantic .................................. 5

Table 3. Fork length - total weight relationships for 13 shark species from the western North Atlantic,

based on WT = (a)FLb ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 6

Table 4. Fork lengths, body and liver weights, and hepatosomatic indices for large white sharks

from the western North Atlantic ....................................................................................................................................7

Figures

Figure 1. Portrayal of measurements used in this study ............................................................................................................... 8

Figure 2. Linear regression lines and equations for fork length - total length relationships

 by family for 13 shark species from the western North Atlantic .................................................................................. 9

Figure 3. Relationship between fork length and total body weight (sexes combined)

for the bigeye thresher (Alopias superciliosus) from the western North Atlantic ....................................................... 10

Figure 4. Relationship between fork length and total body weight (sexes combined)

for the thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) from the western North Atlantic ................................................................ 11

Figure 5. Relationship between fork length and total body weight (sexes combined)

for the white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) from the western North Atlantic ....................................................... 12

Figure 6. Relationship between fork length and total body weight (sexes combined)

for the shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) from the western North Atlantic ............................................................... 13

Figure 7. Relationship between fork length and total body weight (sexes combined)

for the porbeagle (Lamna nasus) from the western North Atlantic ............................................................................. 14

Figure 8. Relationship between fork length and total body weight (sexes combined)

for the bignose shark (Carcharhinus altimus) from the western North Atlantic ......................................................... 15

Figure 9. Relationship between fork length and total body weight (sexes combined)

for the silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) from the western North Atlantic ........................................................ 16

Figure 10. Relationship between fork length and total body weight (sexes combined)

for the dusky shark (Carcharhinus obscurus) from the western North Atlantic ........................................................ 17

Figure 11. Relationship between fork length and total body weight (sexes combined)

for the sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus) from the western North Atlantic ..................................................... 18

Figure 12. Relationship between fork length and total body weight (sexes combined)

for the night shark (Carcharhinus signatus) from the western North Atlantic ........................................................... 19

Figure 13. Relationship between fork length and total body weight (sexes combined)

for the tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier) from the western North Atlantic ................................................................... 20

Figure 14. Relationship between fork length and total body weight (sexes combined)

for the blue shark (Prionace glauca) from the western North Atlantic ....................................................................... 21

Figure 15. Relationship between fork length and total body weight (sexes combined)

for the scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini) from the western North Atlantic ...................................................... 22
Page iv

Acronyms

API = (NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center) Apex Predator Investigation

FL = fork length

FMP = fishery management plan

HSI = hepatosomatic index

NMFS = (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service

TL = total length

WT = body weight
Page v

Note on Species Names

The NMFS Northeast Region’s policy on the use of species names in all technical communications is to follow the American Fisheries

Society’s (AFS) lists of scientific and common names for fishes (Robins et al. 1991)a

, mollusks (Turgeon et al. 1988)b, and decapod

crustaceans (Williams et al. 1989)c

, and to follow the American Society of Mammalogists’ list of scientific and common names for marine

mammals (Wilson and Reeder 1993)d

. This policy applies to all issues of the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE series.

a

Robins, C.R. (chair); Bailey, R.M.; Bond, C.E.; Brooker, J.R.; Lachner, E.A.; Lea, R.N.; Scott, W.B. 1991. Common and scientific

names of fishes from the United States and Canada. 5th ed. Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 20; 183 p.

b

Turgeon, D.D. (chair); Bogan, A.E.; Coan, E.V.; Emerson, W.K.; Lyons, W.G.; Pratt, W.L.; Roper, C.F.E.; Scheltema, A.; Thompson,

F.G.; Williams, J.D. 1988. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: mollusks. Amer.

Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 16; 277 p.

c

Williams, A.B. (chair); Abele, L.G.; Felder, D.L.; Hobbs, H.H., Jr.; Manning, R.B.; McLaughlin, P.A.; Pérez Farfante, I. 1989.

Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: decapod crustaceans. Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec.

Publ. 17; 77 p.

d

Wilson, D.E.; Reeder, D.M. 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Washington, DC: Smithsonian

Institution Press; 1206 p.
Page 1

measured from the tip of the snout to the fork of the tail. Total length

(TL) is defined as the distance from the snout to a point on the

horizontal axis intersecting a perpendicular line extending downward from the tip of the upper caudal lobe to form a right angle

(Figure 1).

Total weight (WT) of each shark was measured to the nearest

pound and converted to kilograms. The majority of fish were

weighed while hanging by the caudal peduncle which allowed any

water in the stomach and, in some cases, stomach contents to drain

out prior to weighing. Many fish were examined internally; if

unusually large amounts of water or contents were found in the

stomach or abdominal cavity, the weights of such were subtracted

from the overall weight to obtain a more accurate measurement.

Fork length-to-total length relationships for 13 shark species

(n = 5065) were determined by the method of least squares to fit a

simple linear regression model. Linear regressions of fork length-tototal length were calculated with their corresponding regression

coefficients, sample sizes, and mean lengths. These data are

combined into four family groups: Alopiidae (thresher sharks),

Lamnidae (mackerel sharks), Carcharhinidae (requiem sharks), and

Sphyrnidae (hammerhead sharks). These combined data are then

graphed for comparison.

An allometric length-weight equation was calculated using the

method of Pienaar and Thomson (1969) for fitting a nonlinear

regression model by least squares. The form of the equation is WT

= (a)FLb

, where WT = total weight (kg), FL = fork length (cm), and

a and b are constants for each species. Length-weight relationships,

mean lengths and weights, and size ranges were determined for 13

shark species (n = 9512). Literature values for maximum fork length

and fork length at maturity were also included. These length-weight

relationships were graphed with the size-at-maturity estimates

indicated on each figure. Weight (in pounds) was calculated for every

6 inches (15 cm) of length over our size range of each of the 13 shark

species to construct a chart that can be used by anglers and

tournament officials for setting minimum size limits on their catches.

In addition to metric units (i.e., centimeters and kilograms),

figure scales are also shown in English units (i.e., feet and pounds)

to make them more useful for U.S. tournament officials, anglers, and

commercial fishermen. Regressions of the length-weight equations

expressed logarithmically were tested for significant differences

(p<0.05) between males and females using an analysis-of-covariance test for homogeneity of slopes.

Fork length is used throughout this report as the basis for all

conversions and comparisons. We have found fork length to be a

more precise measurement. For comparison purposes, all values

published elsewhere as total lengths were converted to fork lengths

using the species’ equations presented in this paper.

Minimum sizes at maturity reported here are from published

accounts with their original sources referenced, with the exception

of the thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) and white shark (Carcharodon

carcharias). Minimum size at maturity for the thresher shark and

the male white shark were determined by H.L. Pratt, Jr. (pers.

comm.; Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Narragansett, RI, May 1993), using

the following criteria: smallest male with calcified claspers that

rotate at the base, and smallest gravid female. When considerable

variation occurred among published accounts, traditional sizes at

maturity were chosen primarily from Atlantic populations. MaxiINTRODUCTION

The rapid expansion of sport and commercial fisheries for

sharks in the western North Atlantic has created the need to manage

the stocks of several species of large sharks. In response to this need,

a fishery management plan (FMP) for sharks within the U.S.

Exclusive Economic Zone of the Atlantic Ocean (U.S. Department

of Commerce 1992) was implemented in 1993. The 39 shark species

included in the FMP are not managed on an individual species basis,

but are aggregated into three species groups -- large coastal, small

coastal, and pelagic. Basic biological data needed for stock assessment are lacking for many of these Atlantic sharks, including size

values (i.e., minimum, maximum, and average) and size relationships/conversions (i.e., length-to-weight and fork length-to-total

length). These data are essential for understanding growth rate, age

structure, and other aspects of population dynamics.

Size conversions have a practical value in fisheries. One

measure currently in practice at nearly all shark tournaments on the

Atlantic Coast is the establishment of minimum size limits, usually

a minimum weight. Since sizes must be estimated at sea, means for

converting lengths to weights are essential to anglers. Moreover, the

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) conducts an extensive

Atlantic Shark Tagging Program using volunteer assistance of

recreational and commercial fishermen. Commercial fishermen

generally are more confident in estimating the weight of sharks being

released, while recreational fishermen estimate lengths. Conversions are needed to change these estimates into common size units

for analysis.

Thus, in response to the immediate needs of tournament

officials and fishermen, and for management initiatives, we present

length and weight data for 13 species of large Atlantic sharks

collected over a 29-yr period by the NMFS Apex Predator Investigation (API) at Narragansett, RI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Length and weight data were collected from sharks caught by

recreational and commercial fishermen and by biologists along the

U.S. Atlantic Coast from the Gulf of Maine to the Florida Keys

during 1961-89. Sharks were caught primarily on rod and reel at

sport fishing tournaments and on longline gear aboard research

vessels and commercial fishing boats. Some data were obtained from

sharks that were harpooned or taken in gill nets. Measurements from

a white shark captured off Rhode Island in 1991 were also included

in the analysis because of the specimen’s unusually large size. Data

were obtained opportunistically throughout each year, but most

(88%) were collected during June-August off the northeastern

United States between North Carolina and Massachusetts. Only

lengths and weights measured by the authors and other members of

the API or by cooperating biologists are included in this report.

Measurements of embryos and fish known to be pregnant were

excluded from the data set.

All lengths were taken with a metal measuring tape to the

nearest centimeter in a straight line along the body axis with the

caudal fin placed in a natural position. Fork length (FL) was
Page 2

mum sizes and maximum sizes at birth used here are summarized in

Pratt and Casey (1990).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Linear regressions of fork length-to-total length for the 13 shark

species are presented in Table 1, and linear regressions for the four

shark family groups are portrayed in Figure 2. Slopes of the

regression lines of the four families decrease with increasing length

of the upper caudal lobe (Figure 2). The mackerel sharks (line 1) have

lunate tails with the upper and lower caudal lobes almost equal in

size. The requiem (line 2), hammerhead (line 3), and thresher (line

4) sharks have heterocercal tails with the upper lobe longer than the

lower. The latter group have very long upper caudal lobes with the

fork length approximately 60% of the total length. Fork length

represents 92%, 84%, and 77% of total length for mackerel, requiem,

and hammerhead sharks, respectively.

A total of 9512 sharks representing 13 species were measured,

sexed, and weighed. There were no significant differences in slope

or intercept of the length-weight relationships between males and

females for any of the species. Therefore, one equation, calculated

with the sexes combined, was used to represent the data for each

species (Figures 3-15; Table 2).

Size at maturity for males and females is difficult to determine

for pelagic sharks, and can vary in different parts of the world (Pratt

and Casey 1990). The discrepancy is due, in part, to the use of

variable criteria in determining a precise length at sexual maturity

(Springer 1960; Clark and von Schmidt 1965; Pratt 1979), and thus

maturity is often reported as a size range rather than a specific length.

An individual author’s definition of maturity is sometimes ambiguous or obscure. The sizes at maturity (Table 3) are from multiple

reference sources, and therefore may be mixed in definition and

criteria. The original published sources should be consulted for the

basis for defining sexual maturity among different authors.

An attempt was made to obtain samples representative of the

full size range of each species. Minimum, maximum, and mean

lengths and weights by species of sharks examined in this study are

reported (Tables 1 and 3). A reliable maximum size is difficult to

verify. Lengths and/or weights for large fish are often reported

inaccurately, and published accounts usually qualify maximum

lengths with “probably reach,” “possibly to,” or “may grow up to.”

Maximum lengths (FL) reported in Pratt and Casey (1990) are

included for comparison with sizes measured in this study (Table

3). With the exception of the porbeagle (Lamna nasus) and tiger

shark (Galeocerdo cuvier), our data are within 62 cm (2.5 ft) of

published maximum sizes. The porbeagle is less common in our

study area; fewer specimens were examined (< 30), and therefore the

full size range of this species is not represented. Although the tiger

shark is purported worldwide to grow to 469 cm FL (15.4 ft) (Castro

1983; Compagno 1984; Pratt and Casey 1990), Atlantic specimens

may not attain that size. Our longest tiger shark was 339 cm FL (11.1

ft) (Table 3). Maximum reported length examined by Branstetter

(1981) in a study of tiger sharks in the north central Gulf of Mexico

was 346 cm FL (11.4 ft). Maximum reported length for the U.S.

Atlantic Coast is 391 cm FL (12.8 ft) (Bigelow and Schroeder 1948).

These lengths are more in agreement with individuals sampled in this

study.

Specimens from three shark species exceeded the maximum

reported lengths (Table 3): sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus),

shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus), and scalloped hammerhead

(Sphyrna lewini). The 211 cm FL (6.9 ft) female sandbar shark in

this study (Table 1) was measured by one of the authors (J. Casey)

and is the largest measured sandbar reported to date. This fish was

caught in September 1964 by a sport fisherman approximately 10

mi east of Asbury Park, NJ. Unfortunately, the fish was not

weighed. Two shortfin makos measured in this study were longer

than the 336 cm FL (11.0 ft) maximum size fish published in the

literature. Both of these fish were 338 cm FL (11.1 ft) females caught

by sport fishermen south of Montauk Point, NY. One was landed

in July 1977 and weighed 471 kg (1039 lb). The other was caught

in August 1979 and weighed 382 kg (841 lb). The largest scalloped

hammerhead [243 cm (8.0 ft) FL and 166 kg (365 lb)] was measured

at a sportfishing tournament in July 1985, and was caught 36 mi

southeast of Highlands, NJ.

The lower ends of the length-weight curves also compare well

with published estimates of size at birth for each species of shark.

Pratt and Casey (1990) give maximum size at birth in TL for 11 of

the 13 species of sharks sampled here; all except the thresher shark

are within 40 cm (15.7 inches) of those sizes. Our smallest thresher

shark is 64 cm (25.2 inches) larger than the reported birth size.

All of the larger fish were female with the exception of the white

shark (Figure 5) and blue shark (Prionace glauca) (Figure 14). The

larger size attained by females is typical of sharks in general (Pratt

and Casey 1983; Hoenig and Gruber 1990), and thus larger female

blue and white sharks very likely occur outside of our western North

Atlantic sampling area which only covers a small portion of their

extensive oceanic range.

Factors Affecting Weight

Weights of individual sharks of the same length may differ

depending on several factors, including the amount of stomach

contents, stage of maturity, liver weight, and body condition.

Effects of stomach contents on the weight of the fish were minimal

in this study. In many instances, the sharks everted their stomachs

prior to being weighed. For the bigger fish, when large amounts of

food were present, the contents’ weight was subtracted to obtain the

total body weight. Since not every shark was examined internally,

some pregnant fish may have been inadvertently included in the data

base.

Differences in body weight also reflect differences in body

condition. Sharks have large livers which store high-energy, fatty

acids for buoyancy and use as a food reserve (Bone and Roberts

1969; Oguri 1990). The weight of this organ is thus a good indicator

of the health or condition of a shark (Springer 1960; Cliff et al. 1989).

The liver is the largest organ by weight in the shark and can vary from

2 to 24% of body weight depending on the species (Cliff et al. 1989;

Winner 1990). This variation in liver size accounted for the majority

of the weight difference in individuals of the same species with

corresponding lengths.
Page 3

Of the eight largest white sharks, six were measured for liver

weight; those liver weights ranged from 14.6 to 22.7% of body

weight (hepatosomatic index or HSI) (Table 4). The 458 cm (15.0

ft) FL white shark in this group had the lowest HSI value (14.6%)

although it was longer than four heavier fish. The difference in body

weight between the 458 cm (15.0 ft) FL and the 463 cm (15.2 ft) FL

fish is 360 kg (794 lb). When the body weights of these two fish -

- minus their liver weights -- are compared, the difference is reduced

to 239 kg (526 lb). Thus, liver weight accounted for 34% of the body

weight difference between these two sharks of similar length.

The same is true for large shortfin makos. The HSI for one of

the longest makos [338 cm (11.1 ft) FL and 382 kg (841 lb)] was

5.4%, as contrasted with 17.9% for the 323 cm (10.6 ft) FL fish

weighing 490 kg (1080 lb). When the body weights of these two fish

-- minus their liver weights -- are compared, the difference is reduced

from 108 kg (239 lb) to 41 kg (91 lb).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The data for this study could not have been collected without

the help and cooperation of thousands of fishermen who allowed us

to measure their shark catches over the last 29 yr. The scientists,

officers, and crew of several research vessels also assisted in

obtaining specimens during sampling cruises. We are particularly

grateful to tournament officials and participants from New York,

New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island from whose catches

a large part of the data were collected. Further, we would like to thank

the past and present members of the Apex Predator Investigation,

including Chuck Stillwell, Lisa J. Natanson, Ruth Briggs, H.L. Pratt,

Jr., and Gregg Skomal, for their assistance and support.

REFERENCES CITED

Aasen, 0. 1961. Some observations on the biology of the porbeagle

shark (Lamna nasus [Bonnaterre]). ICES C.M. 1961/Near

Northern Seas Committee, No. 109; 7 p.

Bigelow, H.B.; Schroeder, W.C. 1948. Sharks. In: Tee-Van, J.;

Breder, C.M.; Hildebrand, S.F.; Parr, A.E.; Schroeder, W.C.,

eds. Fishes of the western North Atlantic. Part 1. Vol. 1. New

Haven, CT: Yale University, Sears Foundation for Marine

Research.

Bone, Q.; Roberts, B.L. 1969. The density of elasmobranchs. J.

Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 49:913-937.

Branstetter, S. 1981. Biological notes on the sharks of the north

central Gulf of Mexico. Contrib. Mar. Sci. 24:13-34.

Branstetter, S. 1987. Age, growth and reproductive biology of the

silky shark, Carcharhinus falciformis, and the scalloped hammerhead, Sphyrna lewini, from the northwestern Gulf of

Mexico. Environ. Biol. Fishes 19:161-173.

Branstetter, S.; Musick, J.A.; Colvocoresses, J.A. 1987. Age and

growth estimates of the tiger shark, Galeocerdo cuvieri, from

off Virginia and from the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Fish.

Bull. (U.S.) 85:269-279.

Casey, J.G.; Pratt, H.L., Jr. 1985. Distribution of the white shark,

Carcharodon carcharias, in the western North Atlantic.

Mem. South. Calif. Acad. Sci. 9:2-14.

Castro, J.I. 1983. The sharks of North American waters. College

Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press; 180 p.

Clark, E.; von Schmidt, K. 1965. Sharks of the central Gulf Coast

of Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 15:13-83.

Cliff, G.; Dudley, S.F.J.; Davis, B. 1989. Sharks caught in the

protective gill nets off Natal, South Africa. 2. The great white

shark Carcharodon carcharias (Linnaeus). South Afr. J. Mar.

Sci. 8:131-144.

Compagno, L.J.V. 1984. Sharks of the world: an annotated and

illustrated catalogue of the shark species known to date. FAO

Fish. Synop. 125(4, Parts 1 & 2); 655 p.

Hoenig, J.M.; Gruber, S.H. 1990. Life-history patterns in the

elasmobranchs: implications for fisheries management. In:

Pratt, H.L., Jr.; Gruber, S.H.; Taniuchi, T., eds. Elasmobranchs

as living resources: advances in biology, ecology, systematics

and status of the fisheries. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 90:1-

16.

Oguri, M. 1990. A review of selected physiological characteristics

unique to elasmobranchs. In: Pratt, H.L., Jr.; Gruber, S.H.;

Taniuchi, T., eds. Elasmobranchs as living resources: advances

in biology, ecology, systematics and status of the fisheries.

NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 90:49-54.

Pienaar, L.V.; Thomson, J.A. 1969. Allometric weight-length

regression model. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 26:123-131.

Pratt, H.L., Jr. 1979. Reproduction in the blue shark, Prionace

glauca. Fish. Bull. (U.S.) 77:445-469.

Pratt, H.L., Jr.; Casey, J.G. 1983. Age and growth of the shortfin

mako, Isurus oxyrinchus, using four methods. Can. J. Fish.

Aquat. Sci. 40:1944-1957.

Pratt, H.L., Jr.; Casey, J.G. 1990. Shark reproductive strategies as

a limiting factor in directed fisheries, with a review of Holden’s

method of estimating growth-parameters. In: Pratt, H.L., Jr.;

Gruber, S.H.; Taniuchi, T., eds. Elasmobranchs as living

resources: advances in biology, ecology, systematics and

status of the fisheries. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 90:97-109.

Randall, J.E. 1987. Refutation of lengths of 11.3, 9.0, and 6.4 m

attributed to the white shark, Carcharodon carcharias. Calif.

Fish Game 73(3):163-168.

Springer, S. 1960. Natural history of the sandbar shark Eulamia

milberti. Fish. Bull. (U.S.) 61:1-38.

Stevens, J.D. 1983. Observations on reproduction in the shortfin

mako, Isurus oxyrinchus. Copeia 1983(1):126-130.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1992. Fishery management plan

for sharks of the Atlantic Ocean. Silver Spring, MD: National

Marine Fisheries Service; 160 p.

Winner, B.L. 1990. Allometry and body-organ weight relationships

in six species of carcharhiniform sharks in Onslow Bay, North

Carolina. M.S. Thesis. Wilmington, NC: University of North

Carolina at Wilmington; 118 p.
Page 4

Table 1. Fork length (FL) - total length (TL) relationships for 13 shark species from the western North Atlantic, based on FL = (a)TL + b.

(Fork length and total length means and ranges were taken from data presented in this study.)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mean Total Mean Fork FL = (a)TL + b

total length fork length

length range length range

Species N (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) a b r2

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bigeye thresher 56 312 155-371 192 100-228 0.5598 17.6660 0.8944

(Alopias superciliosus)

Thresher shark 13 373 291-450 211 168-262 0.5474 7.0262 0.8865

(A. vulpinus)

White shark 112 204 122-517 187 112-493 0.9442 -5.7441 0.9975

(Carcharodon carcharias)

Shortfin mako 199 171 70-368 157 65-338 0.9286 -1.7101 0.9972

(Isurus oxyrinchus)

Porbeagle 13 201 119-247 182 106-227 0.8971 1.7939 0.9877

(Lamna nasus)

Bignose shark 1 0 174 132-228 148 112-192 0.8074 7.7694 0.9872

(Carcharhinus altimus)

Silky shark 1 5 173 90-258 142 73-212 0.8388 -2.6510 0.9972

(C. falciformis)

Dusky shark 148 153 92-330 125 74-277 0.8396 -3.1902 0.9947

(C. obscurus)

Sandbar shark 3734 123 51-249 103 42-211 0.8175 2.5675 0.9933

(C. plumbeus)

Night shark 3 8 154 72-235 130 60-195 0.8390 0.5026 0.9883

(C. signatus)

Tiger shark 4 4 247 145-375 203 116-318 0.8761 -13.3535 0.9887

(Galeocerdo cuvier)

Blue shark 572 214 64-337 179 52-282 0.8313 1.3908 0.9932

(Prionace glauca)

Scalloped hammerhead 111 206 82-278 160 64-216 0.7756 -0.3132 0.9868

(Sphyrna lewini)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Page 5

Table 2. Predicted weight (lb) for various fork lengths (ft) of 13 shark species from the western North Atlantic. (Fork length ranges were taken from data

presented in this study.)
Page 6

Table 3. Fork length (FL) - total weight (WT) relationships for 13 shark species from the western North Atlantic, based on WT = (a)FLb. (Fork length and weight means and ranges were taken from data presented in this study. Maximum fork lengths and fork lengths at maturity were obtained from the literature.)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mean Fork Maximum Fork WT = (a)FLb

fork length fork length at Mean Weight length range length maturity weight range Species Sex N (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (kg) (kg) a b r2

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bigeye thresher Combined 55 190 100-228 270[a] 99 11-170 9.1069 x 10-6 3.0802 0.9059

(Alopias Male 34 188 100-221 180[a] 92 11-150

superciliosus) Female 21 194 123-228 214[a] 110 23-170

Thresher shark Combined 88 201 154-262 276[d] 122 54-211 1.8821 x 10-4 2.5188 0.8795

(A. vulpinus) Male 46 197 154-228 184[b] 116 54-181

Female 41 207 155-262 226[b] 129 59-211

White shark Combined 125 186 112-493 555[c] 141 12-1554 7.5763 x 10-6 3.0848 0.9802

(Carcharodon Male 65 203 117-493 332[b] 208 16-1554 carcharias) Female 59 168 112-310 454[l] 69 12-297

Shortfin mako Combined 2081 172 65-338 336[d] 63 2-531 5.2432 x 10-6 3.1407 0.9587

(Isurus Male 1007 169 70-260 179[e] 59 2-210 oxyrinchus) Female 1054 174 65-338 258[e] 68 3-531

Porbeagle Combined 15 185 106-227 329[a] 83 19-143 1.4823 x 10-5 2.9641 0.9437

(Lamna nasus) Male 13 180 106-216 159[f] 77 19-113

Female 2 214 201-227 204[f] 117 91-143

Bignose shark Combined 38 151 97-210 235[a] 42 6-143 1.0160 x 10-6 3.4613 0.8958

(Carcharhinus Male 12 158 115-205 182[g] 45 14-99 altimus) Female 26 148 97-210 190[g] 41 6-143

Silky shark Combined 85 118 73-212 253[h] 22 4-88 1.5406 x 10-5 2.9221 0.9720

(C. falciformis) Male 39 117 73-196 178[k] 22 4-88

Female 46 119 78-212 186[k] 22 4-88

Dusky shark Combined 247 162 79-287 303[g] 69 5-270 3.2415 x 10-5 2.7862 0.9649

(C. obscurus) Male 103 136 79-276 231[h] 39 5-216

Female 144 181 83-287 235[h] 90 6-270

Sandbar shark Combined 1548 129 44-201 198[g] 30 1-104 1.0885 x 10-5 3.0124 0.9385

(C. plumbeus) Male 577 115 45-183 150[h] 20 1-68

Female 961 138 44-201 152[h] 36 1-104

Night shark Combined 124 111 60-203 235[a] 15 3-102 2.9206 x 10-6 3.2473 0.9502

(C. signatus) Male 69 112 93-195 - 14 8-64 Female 55 111 60-203 150[g] 16 3-102

Tiger shark Combined 187 203 92-339 469[a] 110 5-499 2.5281 x 10-6 3.2603 0.9550

(Galeocerdo Male 92 209 95-318 258[i] 113 7-348

cuvier) Female 92 197 92-339 265[i] 107 5-499

Blue shark Combined 4529 195 52-288 320[a] 52 1-174 3.1841 x 10-6 3.1313 0.9521

(Prionace glauca)Male 3095 205 54-288 183[j] 59 1-174

Female 1398 172 52-273 185[j] 34 1-140

Scalloped Combined 390 158 79-243 239[k] 47 5-166 7.7745 x 10-6 3.0669 0.9255

hammerhead Male 189 166 107-224 139[k] 53 11-126

(Sphyrna lewini) Female 199 151 79-243 194[k] 41 5-166

________________________

[a] Castro (1983).

[b] H.L. Pratt, Jr., personal communication; National Marine Fisheries Service, Narragansett, RI; May 1993.

[c] Randall (1987).

[d] Pratt and Casey (1990).

[e] Stevens (1983).

[f] Aasen (1961).

[g] Compagno (1984).

[h] Springer (1960).

[i] Branstetter et al. (1987).

[j] Pratt (1979).

[k] Branstetter (1987).

[l] Casey and Pratt (1985).

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 7

Table 4. Fork lengths, body and liver weights, and hepatosomatic indices for large white sharks

 from the western North Atlantic

 Fork Whole body Liver Hepatosomatic

 length weight weight index

 (cm) (kg) (kg) (%)

463 1245 250 20.1

458 885 129 14.6

446 1261 206 16.3

444 1320 232 17.6

437 1084 246 22.7

425 941 179 19.0
Page 8

Figure 1. Portrayal of measurements used in this study.
Page 9

Figure 2. Linear regression lines and equations for fork length - total length relationships by family for 13 shark species from the western

North Atlantic.
Page 10

Figure 3. Relationship between fork length and total body weight (sexes combined) for the bigeye thresher (Alopias superciliosus) from the

western North Atlantic. (Dotted lines indicate fork length at maturity by sex:  = male, = female).

BIGEYE THRESHER (Alopias superciliosus)
Page 11

Figure 4. Relationship between fork length and total body weight (sexes combined) for the thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) from the western

North Atlantic. (Dotted lines indicate fork length at maturity by sex:  = male, = female).

THRESHER SHARK (Alopias vulpinus)
Page 12

Figure 5. Relationship between fork length and total body weight (sexes combined) for the white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) from the

western North Atlantic. (Dotted lines indicate fork length at maturity by sex:  = male, = female).

WHITE SHARK (Carcharodon carcharias)
Page 13

Figure 6. Relationship between fork length and total body weight (sexes combined) for the shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) from the western

North Atlantic. (Dotted lines indicate fork length at maturity by sex:  = male, = female).

SHORTFIN MAKO (Isurus oxyrinchus)
Page 14

Figure 7. Relationship between fork length and total body weight (sexes combined) for the porbeagle (Lamna nasus) from the western North

Atlantic. (Dotted lines indicate fork length at maturity by sex:  = male, = female).

PORBEAGLE (Lamna nasus)
Page 15

Figure 8. Relationship between fork length and total body weight (sexes combined) for the bignose shark (Carcharhinus altimus) from the

western North Atlantic. (Dotted lines indicate fork length at maturity by sex:  = male, = female).

BIGNOSE SHARK (Carcharhinus altimus)
Page 16

Figure 9. Relationship between fork length and total body weight (sexes combined) for the silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) from the

western North Atlantic. (Dotted lines indicate fork length at maturity by sex:  = male, = female).

SILKY SHARK (Carcharhinus falciformis)
Page 17

Figure 10. Relationship between fork length and total body weight (sexes combined) for the dusky shark (Carcharhinus obscurus) from the

western North Atlantic. (Dotted lines indicate fork length at maturity by sex:  = male, = female).

DUSKY SHARK (Carcharhinus obscurus)
Page 18

Figure 11. Relationship between fork length and total body weight (sexes combined) for the sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus) from the

western North Atlantic. (Dotted lines indicate fork length at maturity by sex:  = male, = female).

SANDBAR SHARK (Carcharhinus plumbeus)
Page 19

Figure 12. Relationship between fork length and total body weight (sexes combined) for the night shark (Carcharhinus signatus) from the western

North Atlantic. (Dotted lines indicate fork length at maturity by sex:  = male, = female).

NIGHT SHARK (Carcharhinus signatus)
Page 20

Figure 13. Relationship between fork length and total body weight (sexes combined) for the tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier) from the western

North Atlantic. (Dotted lines indicate fork length at maturity by sex: = male, = female).

TIGER SHARK (Galeocerdo cuvier)
Page 21

Figure 14. Relationship between fork length and total body weight (sexes combined) for the blue shark (Prionace glauca) from the western

North Atlantic. (Dotted lines indicate fork length at maturity by sex: = male, = female).

BLUE SHARK (Prionace glauca)
Page 22

Figure 15. Relationship between fork length and total body weight (sexes combined) for the scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini) from the

western North Atlantic. (Dotted lines indicate fork length at maturity by sex:  = male, = female).

SCALLOPED HAMMERHEAD (Sphyrna lewini)
Publishing in NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE

scientific manuscripts. NEFSC publication and report series

rely more on the CBE Style Manual, fifth edition.

For in-text citations, use the name-date system. A special

effort should be made to ensure that the list of cited works

contains all necessary bibliographic information. For abbreviating serial titles in such lists, use the most recent edition of the

Serial Sources for the BIOSIS Previews Database (Philadelphia, PA: Biosciences Information Service). Personal communications must include date of contact and full name and mailing

address of source.

For spelling of scientific and common names of fishes,

mollusks, and decapod crustaceans from the United States and

Canada, use Special Publications No. 20 (fishes), 16 (mollusks), and 17 (decapod crustaceans) of the American Fisheries

Society (Bethesda, MD). For spelling in general, use the most

recent edition of Webster’s Third New International Dictionary

of the English Language Unabridged (Springfield, MA: G. & C.

Merriam).

Typing text, tables, and figure captions: Text, including tables and figure captions, must be converted to WordPerfect

4.2, 5.0, or 5.1. In general, keep text simple (e.g., don’t switch

fonts, don’t use hard returns within paragraphs, don’t indent

except to begin paragraphs). Especially, don’t use WordPerfect

graphics for embedding tables and figures in text. If the

automatic footnoting function is used, also save a list of

footnotes as a separate WordPerfect file. When the final draft

is ready for review, save the text, tables, figure captions, table

titles, footnotes, and front matter as separate document files.

Tables should be prepared using all tabs or all spaces

between columnar data, but not a combination of the two.

Figures must be original (even if oversized) and on paper; they

cannot be photocopies (e.g., Xerox) unless that is all that is

available, nor be on disk. Except under extraordinary circumstances, color will not be used in illustrations.

Manuscript Submission

Authors must submit one paper copy of the double-spaced

manuscript, one magnetic copy on a diskette, and original

figures (if applicable). NEFSC authors must include a completely signed-off “NEFSC Manuscript Submission Form.”

Non-NEFSC authors who are not federal employees will be

required to sign a “Release of Copyright” form.

Send all materials and address all correspondence to:

Jon A. Gibson, Technical Editor

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

166 Water Street

Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026 USA

(508) 495-2228

Manuscript Qualification

This series represents a secondary level of scientific

publishing in the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

It employs thorough internal scientific review and technical and

copy editing, but not necessarily external scientific review.

Manuscripts that may warrant a primary level of scientific

publishing should be initially submitted to one of NMFS’s

primary series (i.e., Fishery Bulletin, NOAA Technical Report

NMFS, or Marine Fisheries Review). See the outside back cover

of this document for a fuller description of Northeast Fisheries

Science Center (NEFSC) publication series.

Identical, or fundamentally identical, manuscripts should

not be concurrently submitted to this and any other publication

series. Manuscripts which have been rejected by any primary

series strictly because of geographic or temporal limitations

may be submitted to this series.

Manuscripts by NEFSC authors will be published in this

series upon approval by the NEFSC Science & Research

Director. Manuscripts by non-NEFSC authors may be published in this series if: (1) the manuscript serves the NEFSC’s

mission; (2) the manuscript meets the Science & Research

Director’s approval; and (3) the author arranges for the printing

and binding funds to be transferred to the NEFSC’s Research

Communications Unit account from another federal account.

For all manuscripts submitted by non-NEFSC authors and

published in this series, the NEFSC will disavow all responsibility for the manuscripts’ contents; authors must accept such

responsibility.

The ethics of scientific research and scientific publishing

are a serious matter. All manuscripts submitted to this series

are expected to adhere -- at a minimum -- to the ethical

guidelines contained in Chapter 1 (“Ethical Conduct in Authorship and Publication”) of the CBE Style Manual, fifth edition

(Chicago, IL: Council of Biology Editors). Copies of the manual

are available at virtually all scientific libraries.

Manuscript Preparation

Organization: Manuscripts must have an abstract, table

of contents, and -- if applicable -- lists of tables, figures, and

acronyms. As much as possible, use traditional scientific

manuscript organization for sections: “Introduction,” “Study

Area,” “Methods & Materials,” “Results,” “Discussion” and/or

“Conclusions,” “Acknowledgments,” and “References Cited.”

Style: All NEFSC publication and report series are

obligated to conform to the style contained in the most recent

edition of the United States Government Printing Office Style

Manual. That style manual is silent on many aspects of

NORTHEAST FISHERIES SCIENCE CENTER

Michael P. Sissenwine, Science & Research Director

Mary G. Laird, Program Support Staff Chief

Teri L. Frady, Research Communications Unit Chief

Jon A. Gibson, Technical Editor
Research Communications Unit

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

166 Water St.

Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026

To obtain a copy of a technical memorandum or a reference document, or to subscribe to an information

report, write: Research Communications Unit, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water St., Woods

Hole, MA 02543-1026. An annual list of NEFSC publications and reports is available upon request at the

above address. Any use of trade names in any NEFSC publication or report does not imply endorsement.

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE--This irregular series includes: data reports of long-term or large area

studies; synthesis reports for major resources or habitats; annual reports of assessment or monitoring programs;

documentary reports of oceanographic conditions or phenomena; manuals describing field and lab techniques; literature

surveys of major resource or habitat topics; findings of task forces or working groups; and summary reports of scientific

or technical workshops. Issues receive thorough internal scientific review and technical and copy editing. Limited free

copies are available from authors or the NEFSC. Issues are also available from the National Technical Information Service,

5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161.

THIRD CLASS MAIL

Information Reports--These reports are issued in several series, including: Research Highlights, News Release,

Fishermen's Report, and The Shark Tagger. Content is timely, special-purpose data and/or information. Level of scientific

review and technical and copy editing varies by series. All series available through free subscription except for The Shark

Tagger which is available only to participants in the NMFS Cooperative Shark Tagging Program.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document--This irregular series includes: data reports on field and

lab observations or experiments; progress reports on continuing experiments, monitoring, and assessments; and

background papers for scientific or technical workshops. Issues receive minimal internal scientific review and no technical

or copy editing. No subscriptions. Free distribution of single copies.

Publications and Reports

of the

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) seeks to "achieve a continued optimum utilization of living marine

resources for the benefit of the Nation." As the research arm of the NMFS's Northeast Region, the Northeast Fisheries

Science Center (NEFSC) supports the NMFS mission by "planning, developing, and managing multidisciplinary

programs of basic and applied research to: (1) better understand the living marine resources (including marine

mammals) of the Northwest Atlantic, and the environmental quality essential for their existence and continued

productivity; and (2) describe and provide to management, industry, and the public, options for the utilization and

conservation of living marine resources and maintenance of environmental quality which are consistent with national

and regional goals and needs, and with international commitments." To assist itself in providing data, information,

and advice to its constituents, the NEFSC issues publications and reports in three categories: