Skip to main content

Interspecific foraging association of a nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum) with bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus)


Animals sometimes forage in mixed species groups, where an individual of a “follower” species actively trails a foraging individual of another “nuclear” species to benefit from the latter’s foraging strategy. Here, we report on a serendipitous observation of a large, benthic, reef-associated predator, the nurse shark (G. cirratum) following a pod of bottlenose dolphins (T. truncatus) in an apparent attempt to feed on benthic prey disturbed by dolphin foraging. Data from a shark-borne camera, accelerometer, depth, and temperature datalogger package show the nurse shark following the dolphin pod for a period of 15 min and performing multiple, rapid vertical ascents from a depth of 24 m to near the surface following dolphins. The shark performed gliding descents behind dolphins back to the benthos and repeatedly swam through clouds of sand that were produced from dolphin crater feeding behavior. The dolphins appeared to ignore the shark except for three occasions when they struck the shark in the head with their caudal flukes. The shark eventually appeared to locate a benthic prey item as it turned sharply, stopped swimming, and performed what appeared to be suction feeding near the bottom, with clouds of sand rapidly expelled from its gills. This is the first report of rapid vertical ascents and interspecific foraging in a nurse shark.


Finding and capturing heterogeneously distributed prey is a constant challenge for predators, and the presence of competitors is often used to signal prey availability [1, 2]. This transfer of information is known as local enhancement and can lead to group or social foraging [1, 2]. Group foraging is often more efficient (decreasing search times, increasing capture probability) for some or all members of the group and can also reduce predation risk while foraging [3]. In marine ecosystems, predators have a complex three-dimensional space to search for food and, where prey is abundant, there is often a high density and diversity of predators that are competing for food as well as facilitating prey capture.

Following behavior is a common mechanism of group cohesion and is used during interspecific foraging. During this behavior, a “follower” individual tracks a focal “nuclear” individual as it forages [4]. The goal of the follower is to capitalize on prey that are flushed out by the nuclear animal. For example, ant birds (family Formicariidae) in the tropics follow swarming groups of ants to capture flushed out prey [5, 6] and various teleost species commonly follow octopus or moray eels as they forage over coral reefs [4, 7, 8]. The follower species receives a benefit, but for the nuclear species these associations can either result in benefit (mutualism), no effect (commensalism), or harm (parasitism; [9]).

Here, we document a prolonged interaction between a nurse shark (G. cirratum) and a pod of bottlenose dolphins (T. truncatus; Additional file 1: Video S1), two commonly observed megafauna species in the Florida Keys [10,11,12]. The nurse shark is a large (> 2 m), common coastal species in southern Florida and is frequently observed resting near coral reefs solitarily or in groups during daylight hours [11]. As a benthic shark species, they have a low metabolic rate [13] and are thought to be sedentary and ill-adapted for efficient swimming [11]. However, Pratt et al. [14], have reported individuals making annual migrations over 600-km roundtrip, suggesting that this species is a capable swimmer. As a generalist predator, the nurse shark diet contains both vertebrate and invertebrate prey, which are captured through suction feeding [15] that is presumed to occur mainly at night, with no reports of group foraging between individuals [11].

In contrast, bottlenose dolphins are strong swimmers that forage both individually and in cooperative social groups [16, 17]. While dolphins are commonly recorded with sharks and tuna in fisheries data [18], the degree of group foraging and mechanism of cohesion in these interspecific groups is not understood. Traditionally, the relationship between sharks and dolphins is viewed as predator–prey; however, sharks and dolphins are also recognized as competitors [19]. Bottlenose dolphins and nurse sharks have considerable diet overlap with shared teleost and invertebrate prey items [11, 19, 20]. Here, we present the first evidence of putative interspecific foraging between a nurse shark and a pod of bottlenose dolphins.


A 235-cm total length male nurse shark was tagged on 26th June 2021 in the Dry Tortugas National Park, Florida, where nurse sharks aggregate and mate in the shallows every summer [21,22,23]. The animal was captured in shallow water using a large dip net, and restrained in the shallows for measurement, sampling, and tagging [14]. A custom datalogger package was applied to the dorsal fin that contained an accelerometer, depth, temperature datalogger (Axy-depth, Technosmart, Rome, Italy), a VHF transmitter (MM 180b, Advanced Telemetry Systems, Isanti, MN) as well as a custom-made digital camera logger with a 120-degree lens (oriented vertically) recording at 1280 × 720 pixels and 20 frames per second. The float and camera logger were designed and built by the lead author and attached to the shark’s first dorsal fin with zip ties connected in series to a 1-day galvanic timed release (Undersea Release Devices, New Zealand) following methods described in Whitmore et al. [24]. The animal was released at 13:54 h and was directly observed swimming in the shallows for several minutes before it disappeared into deeper water. After corrosion of the galvanic link, the datalogger floated to the surface and was recovered with VHF telemetry following methods described in Lear and Whitney [25].

The datalogger package stayed on the shark for 13.3 h, all of which were recorded by the acceleration, depth, temperature logger, with the first 9.2 h also recorded by the camera logger before the memory filled. All reported results were documented by the camera logger and corroborated by the acceleration, depth, and temperature logger where appropriate. Data analyses were conducted in R (version 4.0.4). Static and dynamic acceleration were separated from the raw acceleration using a 3-s running mean and were used to calculate the overall dynamic body acceleration (ODBA). Tailbeat frequency was calculated using a continuous wavelet transform of the dynamic sway axis using the biwavelet package [26].

Results and discussion

Camera logger video showed that, upon release, the shark remained in shallow water (< 3 m) for 40 min where it encountered a variety of species in the shallows, including a Caribbean reef shark (C. perezi), a lemon shark (N. brevirostris), several juvenile green sea turtles (C. mydas), and multiple other nurse sharks. Over the next four hours the shark intermittently rested and swam, utilizing both shallow and deeper (~ 20 m) habitats. Four and a half hours after it was tagged the shark gradually descended through reef and soft coral habitat until it reached an unconsolidated sediment bottom habitat (sand/mud) in approximately 24 m of water.

After swimming along the bottom at this depth for 13 min, the shark swam through a cloud of disturbed sediment, then made a rapid ascent toward the surface, at which point the caudal fluke of a bottlenose dolphin could be seen several meters ahead (Fig. 1a). The shark followed the dolphin near the surface for 52 s before the dolphin descended to the seafloor (Table 1). The shark immediately changed its pitch angle and began a passive gliding descent (few or no tailbeats; Fig. 1b).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Overview of nurse shark interaction with bottlenose dolphins. The depth (color coded by vertical velocity), body pitch and tail beat period spectrogram (warm colors represent increased signal strength, white points represent estimates of tail beat period), before during and after interacting with the dolphins. Grey vertical shading represents time when dolphins were visible in the camera frame. Video frames were extracted (ai) and show dolphins at the surface (a, d, h), descending (b, e) and on the bottom (c, f, g, i), with letters corresponding to the portion of the depth plot labeled with each letter. A dolphin can be observed crater feeding (c) and preparing to strike the shark with its caudal fluke (e)

Table 1 Chronology of nurse shark behavior and association with bottlenose dolphins, including the shark’s overall dynamic body acceleration (ODBA), tailbeat frequency, body pitch, vertical velocity, and percent of time that dolphins were visible in the camera frame for each behavioral period

Once on the bottom, the shark continued behind the dolphin, swimming along the seafloor. After 10 s, the dolphin was observed in a vertical orientation with its rostrum pressed into the seafloor, indicative of crater foraging (Fig. 1c). Upon the dolphin’s ascent to the surface, the shark ascended to the surface for a second time where it began to swim with a pod of at least four dolphins (Fig. 1d).

After one minute at the surface, a dolphin began descending to the seafloor, and the shark immediately descended. Nine seconds into the shark’s descent, a dolphin came into view (Figs. 1e and 2) and appeared to strike the shark with its caudal fluke. Five seconds later, a second dolphin was observed in the camera frame and struck the shark with its caudal fluke. Both strikes were recorded as abrupt acceleration spikes with the shark subsequently rolling to one side (Fig. 2), and the second strike was forceful enough to bend the pectoral fin so that the ventral side was visible to the camera. Despite these two strikes, the shark continued following the dolphins as they swam along the seafloor. Approximately 17 s later, two dolphins passed in front of the shark and one of them rolled on its side and struck the shark with its fluke (Fig. 1f). The shark continued swimming with these dolphins after being struck. After a 4-min period of swimming along the bottom (bottom phase, Table 1) a dolphin could be seen swimming to the surface and the shark subsequently began its third ascent (Fig. 1g). The shark remained at the surface with the dolphins for 51 s (Fig. 1h) before descending with the dolphins to the seafloor (Fig. 1i). Two minutes after the shark descended to the seafloor, the dolphins were visible on the video for the last time. Two minutes later the shark appeared to suction feed; it stopped swimming and repeatedly flexed its gill slits in a forceful manner, generating a large sediment cloud. This behavior lasted for 40 s before the shark continued swimming. Thirty-three minutes after this putative foraging event and 35 min after the dolphins last appeared in the video, the shark swam back into shallower (< 13 m) reef habitat for the remainder of the 13.3 h datalogger deployment.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Bottlenose dolphin caudal strikes on a nurse shark. The depth (shaded by vertical velocity), body pitch (black line), body roll (blue line) and lateral acceleration (sway; red line) over a 60-s period of the shark’s second descent during which it is struck twice by the dolphins as it follows them. Grey boxes indicate the moments of impact when the dolphins struck the shark with their caudal flukes. A dolphin can be seen descending from the surface (a), and the shark begins following it closely as they descend (b). This dolphin proceeds to strike the shark in the head with its caudal fluke. A dolphin moves into a head-down orientation and prepares to strike the shark (c) for the second time, and the shark continues to follow the dolphins (d) once it gets to the seafloor

The shark was associated with the dolphins for a total of 15 min (first to last sighting of a dolphin on the camera logger video). During this period, dolphins were observable in the camera frame 47.2% of the time. Vertical movements to and from the surface appeared to be initiated by the dolphins. On two of the three ascents, and on all three of the descents, a dolphin was observed starting an ascent or descent immediately before the shark did. The shark appeared to be directly following the dolphins as they were within the camera frame for the majority of time during the descents (39, 94, 70% visible, Table 1).

During each of the three ascents the nurse shark displayed extreme body pitch (− 58, − 41, − 59 degrees), vertical velocities (− 1.3, − 1.1, − 1.2 ms−1) and tailbeat frequencies (max = 1.3, 1.3, 1.3 Hz) (Table 1). Similarly, during descents, the shark also displayed extreme maximum body pitch (41, 69, 64 degrees) and vertical velocities (1.1, 1.2, 1.6 ms−1) (Table 1). Throughout the rest of the shark’s deployment, body pitch ranged from − 30 to 38 degrees, while vertical velocity ranged from − 0.3 to 0.45 ms−1. The vertical velocity of these ascents and descents is similar to that of diving dolphins [27] and represent a departure from nurse shark routine behavior. Considering there was no evidence of surface foraging, the shark likely followed the dolphins to the surface to maintain contact with them as dolphins were almost always visible while the shark was close to the surface (96, 98, 69%, mean = 82.7%, Table 1). Although dolphins were only visible 28% (27, 44, 26%, Table 1) of the time in which the shark was swimming along the seafloor, this was likely due to reduced field of vision, lower light availability, and reduced visibility caused by clouds of sediment from the dolphins’ foraging. We believe the shark was in close proximity to the dolphins throughout this time.

The camera logger recorded at least three instances of dolphins benthically foraging in a behavior known as crater feeding, common of bottlenose dolphins in the Florida Keys and The Bahamas [28]. During crater feeding, a dolphin uses echolocation to probe the seafloor for organisms beneath the sediment; when a dolphin locates a prey item, it buries its rostrum into the sediment in an attempt to capture it, leaving behind a crater [28]. This behavior generates large visible clouds of stirred sediment which are known to attract numerous follower species in reef habitats [8].

We believe that the nurse shark was following the dolphins to capitalize upon prey items that were displaced by the dolphins foraging, indicating nuclear following behavior. Previous evidence of sharks employing this strategy is limited and largely anecdotal. For instance, oceanic whitetip sharks (C. longimanus) have been observed following pilot whales (G. macrorhynchus) in a presumed foraging association [29,30,31]. Another study has quantitatively documented interspecific foraging with grey reef sharks (C. amblyrhynchos) following whitetip reef sharks (T. obesus) while they foraged in holes on a coral reef in Fakarava atoll, French Polynesia [32]. As generalist predators [11, 33], nurse sharks are capable of ingesting a diversity of displaced organisms, a common characteristic among follower species [4].

During the 15-min period in which it was associated with the dolphins, the shark showed the highest average ODBA (0.158 g) of any period during its deployment. It was 27% higher than the shark’s routine swimming ODBA and approximately double the average ODBA over the shark’s entire deployment. This high activity level, coupled with the vertical movements displayed by the shark, suggests considerable effort to maintain proximity to the dolphins. Despite being repeatedly struck by dolphins, the shark continued to follow them, suggesting that the shark was attempting to maintain contact. Dolphins have several characteristics including echolocation, social foraging, and lateral transfer of knowledge that allow them to use group tactics to find patches of high prey density [34]. It therefore seems likely that the nurse shark was attempting to take advantage of these behaviors and maximize its own foraging efficiency in anticipation of a substantial prey reward.

Although this foraging association lasted only 15 min, most nuclear associations on reefs last less than one minute, with the longest following associations lasting 18 min [4]. Circumstantial evidence suggests that the nurse shark was tiring by the end of the associative behavior. On its last dive, the shark had a slower ascent, a faster descent, and maintained dolphins in the camera’s field of view for a reduced percentage of time during the bottom phase. As ascents are energetically costly behaviors [35], reducing the ascent rate might be symptomatic of fatigue.

This putative foraging event contradicts a hypothesis put forward by Springer [36] who, based on the observation of thin livers with reduced oil content, suggested that male sharks do not feed during the mating season. Although male nurse sharks show reduced girth and loose skin [23], suggesting loss of mass during the mating season, this may be caused by excessive patrolling and devoting energy to sperm production [22] rather than prolonged fasting.

Our findings highlight the benefit of using video loggers and the importance of placing observed behaviors in context to understand their motivations and drivers of behavior [37]. While traditionally viewed as sedentary animals, these results show that nurse sharks are capable swimmers and can engage in brief periods of highly active foraging.

Availability of data and materials

All the data sets are available from the lead author upon request.


  1. Waite TA, Grubb TC Jr. Copying of foraging locations in mixed-species flocks of temperate-deciduous woodland birds: an experimental study. Condor. 1988;90(1):132–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gil MA, Emberts Z, Jones H, St. Mary CM. Social information on fear and food drives animal grouping and fitness. Am Nat. 2017;189(3):227–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lang SD, Farine DR. A multidimensional framework for studying social predation strategies. Nat Ecol Evol. 2017;1(9):1230–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Strand S. Following behavior: interspecific foraging associations among Gulf of California reef fishes. Copeia. 1988;18:351–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Willis EO. Interspecific competition and the foraging behavior of plain-brown woodcreepers. Ecology. 1966;47(4):667–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Willis EO, Oniki Y. Birds and army ants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1978;9:243–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bshary R, Hohner A, Ait-el-Djoudi K, Fricke H. Interspecific communicative and coordinated hunting between groupers and giant moray eels in the Red Sea. PLoS Biol. 2006;4(12):e431.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Sazima C, Krajewski JP, Bonaldo RM, Sazima I. Nuclear-follower foraging associations of reef fishes and other animals at an oceanic archipelago. Environ Biol Fishes. 2007;80(4):351–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Iyengar EV. Kleptoparasitic interactions throughout the animal kingdom and a re-evaluation, based on participant mobility, of the conditions promoting the evolution of kleptoparasitism. Biol J Linn Soc. 2008;93(4):745–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bigelow HB. Fishes of the western North Atlantic. Lancelets. Mem Sears Found Mar Res. 1948;1:1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Castro JI. The biology of the nurse shark, Ginglymostoma cirratum, off the Florida east coast and the Bahama Islands. Environ Biol Fishes. 2000;58(1):1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lewis JS, Schroeder WW. Mud plume feeding, a unique foraging behavior of the bottlenose dolphin in the Florida Keys. Gulf M Sci. 2003;21(1):9.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Whitney NM, Lear KO, Gaskins LC, Gleiss AC. The effects of temperature and swimming speed on the metabolic rate of the nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum, Bonaterre). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol. 2016;477:40–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pratt HL, Pratt TC, Morley D, Lowerre-Barbieri S, Collins A, Carrier JC, et al. Partial migration of the nurse shark, Ginglymostoma cirratum (Bonnaterre), from the Dry Tortugas Islands. Environ Biol Fishes. 2018;101(4):515–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Motta PJ, Hueter RE, Tricas TC, Summers AP. Kinematic analysis of suction feeding in the nurse shark, Ginglymostoma cirratum (Orectolobiformes, Ginglymostomatidae). Copeia. 2002;2002(1):24–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Herzingl D, Johnsonz C. Interspecific interactions between Atlantic spotted dolphins (Stenella frontalis) and bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the. Aquat Mamm. 1997;23:85–99.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Herzing DL, Moewe K, Brunnick BJ. Interspecies interactions between Atlantic spotted dolphins Stenella firontalis and bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, on Great Bahama Bank. Aquat mamm. 2003;29:335–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Au D. Polyspecific nature of tuna schools: sharks, dolphin, and seabird associates. Fish Bull. 1991;89:343–54.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Heithaus MR. Predator–prey and competitive interactions between sharks (order Selachii) and dolphins (suborder Odontoceti): a review. J Zool. 2001;253(1):53–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Eierman LE, Connor RC. Foraging behavior, prey distribution, and microhabitat use by bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus in a tropical atoll. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2014;503:279–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Carrier JC, Pratt HL Jr, Martin LK. Group reproductive behaviors in free-living nurse sharks Ginglymostoma cirratum. Copeia. 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pratt HL, Carrier JC. A review of elasmobranch reproductive behavior with a case study on the nurse shark Ginglymostoma cirratum. Environ Biol Fishes. 2001;60(1):157–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Pratt HL Jr, Pratt TC, Knotek RJ, Carrier JC, Whitney NM. Long-term use of a shark breeding ground: three decades of mating site fidelity in the nurse shark Ginglymostoma cirratum. PLoS ONE. 2022.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Whitmore BM, White CF, Gleiss AC, Whitney NM. A float-release package for recovering data-loggers from wild sharks. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol. 2016;475:49–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lear KO, Whitney NM. Bringing data to the surface: recovering data loggers for large sample sizes from marine vertebrates. Anim Biotelemetry. 2016;4(1):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gouhier TC, Grinsted A, Simko V, Gouhier MTC, Rcpp L. Package ‘biwavelet.’ Spectrum. 2013;24:2093–102.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Skrovan RC, Williams T, Berry P, Moore P, Davis R. The diving physiology of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). II. Biomechanics and changes in buoyancy at depth. J Exp Biol. 1999;202(20):2749–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Rossbach KA, Herzing DL. Underwater observations of benthic-feeding bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) near Grand Bahama Island, Bahamas. Mar Mamm Sci. 1997;13(3):498–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Shallenberger EW. The status of Hawaiian cetaceans. Washington: US Government Printing Office; 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Stafford-Deitsch J. Shark: a photographer’s story. London: Headline; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Migura KA, Meadows DW. Short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus) interact with melon-headed whales (Peponocephala electra) in Hawaii. Aquat Mamm. 2002;28(3):294–7.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Labourgade P, Ballesta L, Huveneers C, Papastamatiou Y, Mourier J. Heterospecific foraging associations between reef-associated sharks: first evidence of kleptoparasitism in sharks. Ecology. 2020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rivera-López J. Studies on the biology of the nurse shark, Ginglymostoma cirratum Bonnaterre and the tiger shark Galeocerdo cuvieri Perón and Le Sueur. San Juan: University of Puerto Rico; 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Lewis J, Wartzok D, Heithaus M. Individuals as information sources: could followers benefit from leaders’ knowledge? Behaviour. 2013;150(6):635–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gleiss AC, Norman B, Wilson RP. Moved by that sinking feeling: variable diving geometry underlies movement strategies in whale sharks. Funct Ecol. 2011;25(3):595–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Springer S. Social organization of shark population. In: Gilbert PW, Mathewson RF, Rall DP, editors. Sharks, skate and rays. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press; 1967. p. 149–74.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Papastamatiou YP, Meyer CG, Watanabe YY, Heithaus MR. Animal-borne video cameras and their use to study shark ecology and conservation. Shark Res: Emerg Technol Appl F Lab. 2018;3:83–91.

    Google Scholar 

Download references


We would like to thank the Alliance for South Florida National Parks, the National Park Service and the New England Aquarium for financial support. We thank personnel of the National Park Service at Dry Tortugas and Everglades for logistical support and research permits, particularly G. Simpson, C. Pollack, M. Johnson, C. Hull, T. Howington, T. Gottschall, J. Aronoff and B. Koch. We thank G. Lauder for support and advice, M. Blumstein and R. Knotek for providing helpful comments on early versions of the manuscript and two anonymous reviewers who provided constructive edits that have improved the manuscript.


The Alliance for South Florida National Parks, the National Park Service, and the New England Aquarium provided financial support for this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



All authors (CFW, NMW, HLP, TCP) participated in idea conception and data collection. Data analysis was performed by CFW, and manuscript writing was conducted by CFW and NMW. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Connor F. White.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval and consent to participate

All research procedures were reviewed and approved under protocol #2019-05 by The New England Aquariums Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) and protocol #FL_DRTO_Whitney_NurseShark_2021.A2 at the National Park Service.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1. The video clip from the animal borne video logger documenting the entire interaction with the dolphins. 

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

White, C.F., Pratt, H.L., Pratt, T.C. et al. Interspecific foraging association of a nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum) with bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Anim Biotelemetry 10, 35 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: