478 
Fishery Bulletin 113(4) 
Table 4 
Comparison of von Bertalanffy growth function (VBGF) parameters from studies (carried out worldwide) of age and growth 
of species of Alopias : bigeye thresher (A. superciliosus), common thresher shark (A. vulpinus), and pelagic thresher (A. 
pelagicus). The parameters presented in this table are asymptotic maximum length (L; n f) and growth coefficient per year 
(k). An asterisk (*) indicates data for sexes combined, and 2 asterisks (**) indicate sizes in precaudal length. NA=values 
not available. 
Study 
Sex 
Size range 
(FL, cm) 
Sample 
size (n) 
VBGF parameters ,, , 
Max. obs 
L { n f k age (y) 
Region 
Species 
This study 
Males 
94-260 
241 
245.6 
0.09 
25 
Atlantic wide 
A. superciliosus 
Females 
102-265 
258 
284.2 
0.06 
25 
Fernandez-Carvalho 
Males 
101-210 
42 
206.0 
0.18 
17 
NE Tropical 
A. superciliosus 
et al. (2011) 1 
Females 
115-242 
73 
293.0 
0.06 
22 
Atlantic 
Liu et al. (1998) 2 
Males 
NA-213.5 
214 
235.5 
0.09 
20 
NW Pacific 
A. superciliosus 
Females 
NA-256.5 
107 
241.7 
0.09 
21 
(Taiwan) 
Mancini (2005) 3 
Males 
162-232 
73 
272 
0.073 
18 
SW Atlantic 
A. superciliosus 
Females 
164-245 
87 
296 
0.06 
19 
Cailliet and Bedford 
Males 
35.1-312.7* 
143* 
271.1 
0.22 
15* 
NE Pacific 
A. vulpinus 
( 1983 ) 4 
Females 
345.2 
0.16 
( California/Oregon) 
Smith et al. (2008) 5 
Males 
NA 
83 
229.7 
0.19 
19 
NE Pacific 
A. vulpinus 
Females 
NA 
129 
253.9 
0.12 
22 
(California/Oregon) 
Gervelis and 
Males 
56.3-264.4* 
135 
227.9 
0.16 
22 
NW Atlantic 
A. vulpinus 
Natanson (2013) 6 
Females 
173 
274.5 
0.09 
24 
(NE USA) 
Liu et al. (1999) 7 
Males 
NA 
323 
182.2** 
0.12 
14 
NW Pacific 
A. pelagicus 
Females 
NA 
508 
197.2** 
0.09 
16 
(Taiwan) 
1 Fernandez-Carvalho, J., R. Coelho, K. Erzini, and M. N. Santos. 2011. Age and growth of the bigeye thresher shark, Alopias 
superciliosus, from the pelagic longline fisheries in the tropical northeastern Atlantic Ocean, determined by vertebral band 
counts. Aquat. Living Resour. 24:359-368. 
2 Liu, K.-M., P.-J. Chiang, and C.-T. Chen. 1998. Age and growth estimates of the bigeye thresher shark, Alopias superciliosus, 
in northeastern Taiwan waters. Fish. Bull. 96: 482-491. 
3 Mancini, P. L. 2005. Estudo Biologico-pesqueiro do tubarao-raposa, Alopias superciliosus (Lamniformes, Alopiidae) captura- 
do no sudeste-sul do Brasil. M.S. thesis, 195 p. Sao Paulo State Univ., Sao Paulo, Brazil. 
4 Cailliet, G. M., and D. W. Bedford. 1983. The biology of three pelagic sharks from California waters, and their emerging fisheries: 
a review. CalCOFI Rep. 24:57-69. 
5 Smith, S. E., R. C. Rasmussen, D. A. Ramon, and G. M. Cailliet. 2008. The biology and ecology of thresher sharks (Alopiidae). 
In Sharks of the open ocean: biology, fisheries and conservation (M. D. Camhi, E. K. Pikitch, and E. A. Babcock, eds.), p. 60-68. 
Blackwell Publ., Oxford, UK. 
6 Gervelis, B. J., and L. J. Natanson. 2013. Age and growth of the common thresher shark in the western North Atlantic Ocean. 
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 142:1535-1545. 
7 Liu, K.-M., C.-T. Chen, T.-H. Liao, and S.-J. Joung. 1999. Age, growth, and reproduction of the pelagic thresher shark, Alopias 
pelagicus in the northwestern Pacific. Copeia 1999:68—74. 
our estimates for both males and females (L\ n f=272 and 
296 cm FL) and similar k values for females (£=0.06/ 
year) and slightly lower values for males (£=0. 07/year). 
In age and growth studies, there is a high potential for 
bias in specimen sampling; therefore, these differences 
could be explained by the fact that our sample con- 
tained both female and male bigeye thresher of larger 
sizes and consequently of older ages than the males 
and females in the study in the northwestern Pacific 
Ocean (Liu et ah, 1998). 
The values of L m f obtained in our study were close 
to the maximum sizes of bigeye thresher reported in 
the literature (Gruber and Compagno, 1981; Moreno 
and Moron, 1992; Liu et ah, 1998; Mancini 2005). The 
k values obtained in our study (and by Mancini, 2005) 
for bigeye thresher are the lowest growth coefficients 
ever presented for this species and within the Alopi- 
idae (Table 4), highlighting the slow growth pattern of 
this species and its consequent vulnerability to fishing 
pressure and mortality. 
As has been described for other shark species, the 
growth of bigeye thresher was statistically different for 
males and females, with a lower k value and higher 
Linf value observed for females than for males (e.g., 
