Ocean ecosystems are under pressure from overfishing, climate change, habitat destruction and pollution. These pressures have led to documented declines of some fishes in some places, such as those living in coral reefs and on the high seas. However, it is not clear whether these population declines are isolated one-off examples or, instead, if they are sufficiently widespread to risk the extinction of large numbers of species.

Most fishes have a skeleton that is made of bone, but sharks and rays have a skeleton that is made of cartilage. A total of 1,041 species has such a skeleton and they are collectively known as the Chondrichthyes. To find out how well these fish are faring, Dulvy et al. worked with more than 300 scientists around the world to assess the conservation status of all 1,041 species.

Based on this, Dulvy et al. estimate that one in four of these species are threatened with extinction, mainly as a result of overfishing. Moreover, just 389 species (37.4% of the total) are considered to be safe, which is the lowest fraction of safe species among all vertebrate groups studied to date.

The largest sharks and rays are in the most peril, especially those living in shallow waters that are accessible to fisheries. A particular problem is the ‘fin trade’: the fins of sharks and shark-like rays are a delicacy in some Asian countries, and more than half of the chondrichthyans that enter the fin trade are under threat. Whether targeted or caught by boats fishing for other species, sharks and rays are used to supply a market that is largely unmonitored and unregulated. Habitat degradation and loss also pose considerable threats, particularly for freshwater sharks and rays.

Dulvy et al. identified three main hotspots where the biodiversity of sharks and rays was particularly seriously threatened—the Indo-Pacific Biodiversity Triangle, Red Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea—and argue that national and international action is needed to protect them from overfishing.

Populations and species are the building blocks of the communities and ecosystems that sustain humanity through a wide range of services (Mace et al., 2005; Díaz et al., 2006). There is increasing evidence that human impacts over the past 10 millennia have profoundly and permanently altered biodiversity on land, especially of vertebrates (Schipper et al., 2008; Hoffmann et al., 2010). The oceans encompass some of the earth’s largest habitats and longest evolutionary history, and there is mounting concern for the increasing human influence on marine biodiversity that has occurred over the past 500 years (Jackson, 2010). So far our knowledge of ocean biodiversity change is derived mainly from retrospective analyses usually limited to biased subsamples of diversity, such as: charismatic species, commercially-important fisheries, and coral reef ecosystems (Carpenter et al., 2008; Collette et al., 2011; McClenachan et al., 2012; Ricard et al., 2012). Notwithstanding the limitations of these biased snapshots, the rapid expansion of fisheries and globalized trade are emerging as the principal drivers of coastal and ocean threat (Polidoro et al., 2008; Anderson et al., 2011b; McClenachan et al., 2012). The extent and degree of the global impact of fisheries upon marine biodiversity, however, remains poorly understood and highly contentious. Recent insights from ecosystem models and fisheries stock assessments of mainly data-rich northern hemisphere seas, suggest that the status of a few of the best-studied exploited species and ecosystems may be improving (Worm et al., 2009). However, this view is based on only 295 populations of 147 fish species and hence is far from representative of the majority of the world’s fisheries and fished species, especially in the tropics for which there are few data and often less management (Sadovy, 2005; Newton et al., 2007; Branch et al., 2011; Costello et al., 2012; Ricard et al., 2012).

Overfishing and habitat degradation have profoundly altered populations of marine animals (Hutchings, 2000; Lotze et al., 2006; Polidoro et al., 2012), especially sharks and rays (Stevens et al., 2000; Simpfendorfer et al., 2002; Dudley and Simpfendorfer, 2006; Ferretti et al., 2010). It is not clear, however, whether the population declines of globally distributed species are locally reversible or symptomatic of an erosion of resilience and chronic accumulation of global marine extinction risk (Jackson, 2010; Neubauer et al., 2013). In response, we evaluate the scale and intensity of overfishing through a global systematic evaluation of the relative extinction risk for an entire lineage of exploited marine fishes—sharks, rays, and chimaeras (class Chondrichthyes)—using the Red List Categories and Criteria of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). We go on to identify, (i) the life history and ecological attributes of species (and taxonomic families) that render them prone to extinction, and (ii) the geographic locations with the greatest number of species of high conservation concern.

Chondrichthyans make up one of the oldest and most ecologically diverse vertebrate lineages: they arose at least 420 million years ago and rapidly radiated out to occupy the upper tiers of aquatic food webs (Compagno, 1990; Kriwet et al., 2008). Today, this group is one of the most speciose lineages of predators on earth that play important functional roles in the top-down control of coastal and oceanic ecosystem structure and function (Ferretti et al., 2010; Heithaus et al., 2012; Stevens et al., 2000). Sharks and their relatives include some of the latest maturing and slowest reproducing of all vertebrates, exhibiting the longest gestation periods and some of the highest levels of maternal investment in the animal kingdom (Cortés, 2000). The extreme life histories of many chondrichthyans result in very low population growth rates and weak density-dependent compensation in juvenile survival, rendering them intrinsically sensitive to elevated fishing mortality (Musick, 1999b; Cortés, 2002; García et al., 2008; Dulvy and Forrest, 2010).

Chondrichthyans are often caught as incidental, but are often retained as valuable bycatch of fisheries that focus on more productive teleost fish species, such as tunas or groundfishes (Stevens et al., 2005). In many cases, fishing pressure on chondrichthyans is increasing as teleost target species become less accessible (due to depletion or management restrictions) and because of the high, and in some cases rising, value of their meat, fins, livers, and/or gill rakers (Fowler et al., 2002; Clarke et al., 2006; Lack and Sant, 2009). Fins, in particular, have become one of the most valuable seafood commodities: it is estimated that the fins of between 26 and 73 million individuals, worth US$400-550 million, are traded each year (Clarke et al., 2007). The landings of sharks and rays, reported to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), increased steadily to a peak in 2003 and have declined by 20% since (Figure 1A). True total catch, however, is likely to be 3–4 times greater than reported (Clarke et al., 2006; Worm et al., 2013). Most chondrichthyan catches are unregulated and often misidentified, unrecorded, aggregated, or discarded at sea, resulting in a lack of species-specific landings information (Barker and Schluessel, 2005; Clarke et al., 2006; Iglésias et al., 2010; Bornatowski et al., 2013). Consequently, FAO could only be ‘hopeful’ that the catch decline is due to improved management rather than being symptomatic of worldwide overfishing (FAO, 2010). The reported chondrichthyan catch has been increasingly dominated by rays, which have made up greater than half of reported taxonomically-differentiated landings for the past four decades (Figure 1B). Chondrichthyan landings were worth US$1 billion at the peak catch in 2003, since then the value has dropped to US$800 million as catch has declined (Musick and Musick, 2011). A main driver of shark fishing is the globalized trade to meet Asian demand for shark fin soup, a traditional and usually expensive Chinese dish. This particularly lucrative trade in fins (not only from sharks, but also of shark-like rays such as wedgefishes and sawfishes) remains largely unregulated across the 86 countries and territories that exported >9,500 mt of fins to Hong Kong (a major fin trade hub) in 2010 (Figure 1C).

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

In a world of limited funding, conservation priorities are often based on immediacy of extinction, the value of biodiversity and conservation opportunity (Marris, 2007). In this study, we provide the first estimates of the threat status and hence risk of extinction of chondrichthyans. Our systematic global assessment of the status of this lineage that includes many iconic predators reveals a risky combination of high threat (17% observed and 23.9% estimated), low safety (Least Concern, 23% observed and >37% estimated), and high uncertainty in their threat status (Data Deficient, 46% observed and 8.7% estimated). Over half of species are predicted to be threatened or Near Threatened (n = 561, 53.9%, Table 1). While no species has been driven to global extinction—as far as we know—at least 28 populations of sawfishes, skates, and angel sharks are locally or regionally extinct (Dulvy et al., 2003; Dulvy and Forrest, 2010). Several shark species have not been seen for many decades. The Critically Endangered Pondicherry shark (Carcharhinus hemiodon) is known only from 20 museum specimens that were captured in the heavily-fished inshore waters of Southeast Asia: it has not been seen since 1979 (Cavanagh et al., 2003). The now ironically-named and Critically Endangered Common skate (Dipturus batis) and Common angel shark (Squatina squatina) are regionally extinct from much of their former geographic range in European waters (Cavanagh and Gibson, 2007; Gibson et al., 2008; Iglésias et al., 2010). The Largetooth sawfish (Pristis pristis) and Smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) are possibly extinct throughout much of the Eastern Atlantic, particularly in West Africa (Robillard and Séret, 2006; Harrison and Dulvy, 2014).

Our analysis provides an unprecedented understanding of how many chondrichthyan species are actually or likely to be threatened. A very high percentage of species are DD (46%, 487 species); that is one of the highest rates of Data Deficiency of any taxon to date (Hoffmann et al., 2010). This high level of uncertainty in status further elevates risk and presents a key challenge for future assessment efforts. We outline a first step through our estimation that 68 DD species are likely to be threatened based on their life histories and distribution. Numerous studies have retrospectively explained extinction risk, but few have made a priori predictions of risk (Dulvy and Reynolds, 2002; Davidson et al., 2012). Across many taxa, extinction risk has been shown to be a function of an extrinsic driver or threat (Jennings et al., 1998; Davies et al., 2006) and the corresponding life history and ecological traits: large body size (low intrinsic rate of population increase, high trophic level), small geographic range size, and ecological specialization. Maximum body size is an essential predictor of threat status, we presume because of the close relationship between body size and the intrinsic rate of population increase in sharks and rays (Smith et al., 1998; Frisk et al., 2001; Hutchings et al., 2012). Though we note that this proximate link may be mediated ultimately through the time-related traits of growth and mortality (Barnett et al., 2013; Juan-Jordá et al., 2013). Our novel contribution is to show that depth-related geographic traits are more important for explaining risk than geographic range per se. The shallowness of species (minimum depth limit) and the narrowness of their depth range are important risk factors (Figure 3). We hypothesize that this is so because shallower species are more accessible to fishing gears and those with narrower depth ranges have lower likelihood that a proportion of the species distribution remains beyond fishing activity. For example, the Endangered Barndoor skate (Dipturus laevis) was eliminated throughout much of its geographic range and depth distribution due to bycatch in trawl fisheries, yet may have rebounded because a previously unknown deepwater population component lay beyond the reach of most fisheries (Dulvy, 2000; Kulka et al., 2002; COSEWIC, 2010). We find that geographic range (measured as Extent of Occurrence) is largely unrelated to extinction risk. This is in marked contrast to extinction risk patterns on land (Jones et al., 2003; Cardillo et al., 2005; Anderson et al., 2011a) and in the marine fossil record (Harnik et al., 2012a, 2012b), where small geographic range size is the principal correlate of extinction risk. We suggest that this is because fishing activity is now widespread throughout the world’s oceans (Swartz et al., 2010), and even species with the largest ranges are exposed and often entirely encompassed by the footprint of fishing activity. By contrast, with a few exceptions (mainly eastern Atlantic slopes, Figure 7E), fishing has a narrow depth penetration and hence species found at greater depths can still find refuge from exploitation (Morato et al., 2006; Lam and Sadovy de Mitcheson, 2010).

The status of chondrichthyans is arguably among the worst reported for any major vertebrate lineage considered thus far, apart from amphibians (Stuart et al., 2004; Hoffmann et al., 2010). The percentage and absolute number of threatened amphibians is high (>30% are threatened), but a greater percentage are Least Concern (38%), and uncertainty of status is lower (32% DD) than for chondrichthyans. Our discovery of the high level of threat in freshwater chondrichthyans (36%) is consistent with the emerging picture of the intense and unmanaged extinction risk faced by many freshwater and estuarine species (Darwall et al., 2011).

Our threat estimate is comparable to other marine biodiversity status assessments, but our findings caution that ‘global’ fisheries assessments may be underestimating risk. The IUCN Global Marine Species Assessment is not yet complete, but reveals varying threat levels among taxa and regions (Polidoro et al., 2008, 2012). The only synoptic summary to-date focused on charismatic Indo-Pacific coral reef ecosystem species. Of the 1,568 IUCN-assessed marine vertebrates and invertebrates, 16% (range: 12–34% among families) were threatened (McClenachan et al., 2012). This is a conservative estimate of marine threat level because although they may be more intrinsically sensitive to extinction drivers, charismatic species are more likely to garner awareness of their status and support for monitoring and conservation (McClenachan et al., 2012). The predicted level of chondrichthyan threat (>24%) is distinctly greater than that provided by global fisheries risk assessments. These studies provide modeled estimates of the percentage of collapsed bony fish (teleost) stocks in both data-poor unassessed fisheries (18%, Costello et al., 2012) and data-rich fisheries (7–13%, Branch et al., 2011). This could be because teleosts are generally more resilient than elasmobranchs (Hutchings et al., 2012), but in addition we caution that analyses of biased geographic and taxonomic samples may be underestimating risk of collapse in global fisheries, particularly for species with less-resilient life histories.

Our work relies on consensus assessments by more than 300 scientists. However, given the uncertainty in some of the underlying data that inform our understanding of threat status, such as fisheries catch landings data, it is worth considering whether these uncertainties mean our assessments are downplaying the true risk. While there are methods of propagating uncertainty through the IUCN Red List Assessments (Akcakaya et al., 2000), in our experience this approach was uninformative for even the best-studied species, because it generated confidence intervals that spanned all IUCN Categories. Instead it is worth considering whether our estimates of threat are consistent with independent quantitative estimates of status. The Mediterranean Red List Assessment workshop in 2005 prompted subsequent quantitative analyses of catch landings, research trawl surveys, and sightings data. Quantitative trends could be estimated for five species suggesting they had declined by 96% to >99.9% relative to their former abundance suggesting they would meet the highest IUCN Threat category of Critically Endangered (Ferretti et al., 2008). By comparison the earlier IUCN regional assessment for these species, while suggesting they were all threatened, was more conservative for two of the five species: Hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna spp.)—Critically Endangered, Porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus)—Critically Endangered, Shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus)—Critically Endangered, Blue shark (Prionace glauca)—Vulnerable, and Thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus)—Vulnerable.

We can also make a complementary comparison to a recent analysis of the status of 112 shark and ray fisheries (Costello et al., 2012). The median biomass relative to the biomass at Maximum Sustainable Yield (B/B_MSY) of these 112 shark and ray fisheries was 0.37, making them the most overfished groups of any of the world’s unassessed fisheries. Assuming B_MSY occurs at 0.3 to 0.5 of unexploited biomass then the median biomass of shark and ray fisheries had declined by between 81% and 89% by 2009. These biomass declines would be sufficient to qualify all of these 112 shark and ray fisheries for the Endangered IUCN category if they occurred within a three-generation time span. By comparison our results are considerably more conservative. Empirical analyses show that an IUCN threatened category listing is triggered only once teleost fishes (with far higher density-dependent compensation) have been fished down to below B_MSY (Dulvy et al., 2005; Porszt et al., 2012). Hence, our findings are consistent with only around one-quarter of chondrichthyan species having been fished down below the B_MSY target reference point. While there may be concern that expert assessments may overstate declines and threat, it is more likely that our conservative consensus-based approach has understated declines and risk in sharks and rays.

For marine species, predicting absolute risk of extinction remains highly uncertain because, even with adequate evidence of severe decline, in many instances the absolute population size remains large (Mace, 2004). There remains considerable uncertainty as to the relationship between census and effective population size (Reynolds et al., 2005). Therefore, Red List categorization of chondrichthyans should be interpreted as a comparative measure of relative extinction risk, in recognition that unmanaged steep declines, even of large populations, may ultimately lead to ecosystem perturbations and eventually biological extinction. The Red List serves to raise red flags calling for conservation action, sooner rather than later, while there is a still chance of recovery and of forestalling permanent biodiversity loss.

Despite more than two decades of rising awareness of chondrichthyan population declines and collapses, there is still no global mechanism to ensure financing, implementation and enforcement of chondrichthyan fishery management plans that is likely to rebuild populations to levels where they would no longer be threatened (Lack and Sant, 2009; Techera and Klein, 2011). This management shortfall is particularly problematic given the large geographic range of many species. Threat increased only slightly when geographic range is measured as the Extent of Occurrence; however, geographic range becomes increasingly important when it is measured as the number of countries (legal jurisdictions) spanned by each species. The proportion of species that are threatened increases markedly with geographic size measured by number of Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) spanned; one-quarter of threatened species span the EEZs of 18 or more countries (Figure 10). Hence, their large geographic ranges do not confer safety, but instead exacerbates risk because sharks and rays require coherent, effective international management.

Figure 10

Download asset Open asset

With a few exceptions (e.g., Australia and USA), many governments still lack the resources, expertise, and political will necessary to effectively conserve the vast majority of shark and rays, and indeed many other exploited organisms (Veitch et al., 2012). More than 50 sharks are included in Annex I (Highly Migratory Species) of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, implemented on the high seas under the 1992 Fish Stocks Agreement, but currently only a handful enjoy species-specific protections under the world’s Regional Fishery Management Organizations (Table 6), and many of these have yet to be implemented domestically. The Migratory Sharks Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) adopted by the Parties to the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) so far only covers seven sharks, yet there may be more than 150 chondrichthyans that regularly migrate across national boundaries (Fowler, 2012). To date, only one of the United Nations Environment Programme’s Regional Seas Conventions, the Barcelona Convention for the Conservation of the Mediterranean Sea, includes chondrichthyan fishes and only a few of its Parties have taken concrete domestic action to implement these listings. Despite two decades of effort, only ten sharks and rays had been listed by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) up to 2013 (Vincent et al., 2014). A further seven species of shark and ray were listed by CITES in 2013—the next challenge is to ensure effective implementation of these trade regulations (Mundy-Taylor and Crook, 2013). OSPAR (the Convention for the Protection of the marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic) lists many threatened shark and ray species, but its remit excludes fisheries issues. Many chondrichthyans qualify for listing under CITES, CMS, and various regional seas conventions, and should be formally considered for such action as a complement to action by Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) (Table 6).

Bans on ‘finning’ (slicing off a shark’s fins and discarding the body at sea) are the most widespread shark conservation measures. While these prohibitions, particularly those that require fins to remain attached through landing, can enhance monitoring and compliance, they have not significantly reduced shark mortality or risk to threatened species (Clarke et al., 2013). Steep declines and the high threat levels in migratory oceanic pelagic sharks suggest raising the priority of improved management of catch and trade through concerted actions by national governments working through RFMOs as well as CITES, and CMS (Table 7).

A high proportion of catch landings come from nations with a large number of threatened chondrichthyans and less-than-comprehensive chondrichthyan fishery management plans. Future research is required to down-scale these global Red List assessments and analyses to provide country-by-country diagnoses of the link between specific fisheries and specific threats to populations of more broadly distributed species (Wallace et al., 2010). Such information could be used to focus fisheries management and conservation interventions that are tailored to specific problems. There is no systematic global monitoring of shark and ray populations and the national fisheries catch landings statistics provide invaluable data for tracking fisheries trends in unmanaged fisheries (Newton et al., 2007; Worm et al., 2013). However, the surveillance power of such data could be greatly improved if collected at greater taxonomic resolution. While there have been continual improvements, catches are under-reported (Clarke et al., 2006), and for those that are reported only around one-third is reported at the species level (Fischer et al., 2012). To complement improved catch landings data, we recommend the development of repeat regional assessments of the Red List Status of chondrichthyans to provide an early warning of adverse changes in status and to detect and monitor the success of management initiatives and interventions. Aggregate Red List Threat indices for chondrichthyans, like those available for mammals, birds, amphibians, and hard corals (Carpenter et al., 2008) would provide one of the few global scale indicators of progress toward international biodiversity goals (Walpole et al., 2009; Butchart et al., 2010).

Our global status assessment of sharks and rays reveals the principal causes and severity of global marine biodiversity loss, and the threat level they face exposes a serious shortfall in the conservation management of commercially-exploited aquatic species (McClenachan et al., 2012). Chondrichthyans have slipped through the jurisdictional cracks of traditional national and international management authorities. Rather than accept that many chondrichthyans will inevitably be driven to economic, ecological, or biological extinction, we warn that dramatic changes in the enforcement and implementation of the conservation and management of threatened chondrichthyans are urgently needed to ensure a healthy future for these iconic fishes and the ecosystems they support.

1. 1. The International Union for Conservation of Nature

   (2013) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

   Publicly available.

   http://www.iucnredlist.org/

1. 1. Akcakaya HR
   2. Ferson S
   3. Burgman MA
   4. Keith DA
   5. Mace GM
   6. Todd CR

   (2000) Making consistent IUCN classifications under uncertainty

   Conservation Biology 14:1001–1013.

   https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99125.x

   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Anderson SC
   2. Farmer RG
   3. Ferretti F
   4. Houde ALS
   5. Hutchings JA

   (2011a) Correlates of vertebrate extinction risk in Canada

   Bioscience 61:538–549.

   https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.7.8

   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Anderson SC
   2. Flemming JM
   3. Watson R
   4. Lotze HK

   (2011b) Serial exploitation of global sea cucumber fisheries

   Fish and Fisheries 12:317–339.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2010.00397.x

   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Barker MJ
   2. Schluessel V

   (2005) Managing global shark fisheries: suggestions for prioritizing management strategies

   Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 15:325–347.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.660

   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Barnett LAK
   2. Winton MV
   3. Ainsley SM
   4. Cailliet GM
   5. Ebert DA

   (2013) Comparative demography of skates: life-history correlates of productivity and implications for management

   PLOS ONE 8:e65000.

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065000

   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Bates D
   2. Maechler M
   3. Bolker B

   (2011)

   lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes

   R package version 0.999999-2.

   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Bornatowski H
   2. Braga RR
   3. Vitule JRS

   (2013) Shark mislabeling threatens biodiversity

   Science 340:923.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.340.6135.923-a

   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Branch TA
   2. Jensen OP
   3. Ricard D
   4. Ye Y
   5. Hilborn R

   (2011) Contrasting global trends in marine fishery status obtained from catches and from stock assessments

   Conservation Biology 25:777–786.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01687.x

   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Butchart SHM
   2. Walpole M
   3. Collen B
   4. van Strien A
   5. Scharlemann JPW
   6. Almond REA
   7. Baillie JEM
   8. Bomhard B
   9. Brown C
   10. Bruno J
   11. Carpenter KE
   12. Carr GM
   13. Chanson J
   14. Chenery AM
   15. Csirke J
   16. Davidson NC
   17. Dentener F
   18. Foster M
   19. Galli A
   20. Galloway JN
   21. Genovesi P
   22. Gregory RD
   23. Hockings M
   24. Kapos V
   25. Lamarque JF
   26. Leverington F
   27. Loh J
   28. McGeoch MA
   29. McRae L
   30. Minasyan A
   31. Morcillo MH
   32. Oldfield TEE
   33. Pauly D
   34. Quader S
   35. Revenga C
   36. Sauer JR
   37. Skolnik B
   38. Spear D
   39. Stanwell-Smith D
   40. Stuart SN
   41. Symes A
   42. Tierney M
   43. Tyrrell TD
   44. Vie JC
   45. Watson R

   (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines

   Science 328:1164–1168.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1187512

   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Camhi MD
    2. Valenti SV
    3. Fordham SV
    4. Fowler SL
    5. Gibson C

    (2009)

    The conservation status of pelagic sharks and rays: Report of the IUCN shark specialist group pelagic shark red list workshop

    78, Newbury, UK, IUCN Species Survival Commission Shark Specialist Group.

    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Cardillo M
    2. Mace GM
    3. Jones KE
    4. Bielby J
    5. Binida-Edmonds ORP
    6. Sechrest W
    7. Orme CDL
    8. Purvis A

    (2005) Multiple causes of high extinction risk in large mammal species

    Science 309:1239–1241.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1116030

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Carpenter KE
    2. Abrar M
    3. Aeby G
    4. Aronson RB
    5. Banks S
    6. Bruckner A
    7. Chiriboga A
    8. Cortes J
    9. Delbeek JC
    10. DeVantier L
    11. Edgar GJ
    12. Edwards AJ
    13. Fenner D
    14. Guzman HM
    15. Hoeksema BW
    16. Hodgson G
    17. Johan O
    18. Licuanan WY
    19. Livingstone SR
    20. Lovell ER
    21. Moore JA
    22. Obura DO
    23. Ochavillo D
    24. Polidoro BA
    25. Precht WF
    26. Quibilan MC
    27. Reboton C
    28. Richards ZT
    29. Rogers AD
    30. Sanciangco J
    31. Sheppard A
    32. Sheppard C
    33. Smith J
    34. Stuart S
    35. Turak E
    36. Veron JEN
    37. Wallace C
    38. Weil E
    39. Wood E

    (2008) One-third of reef-building corals face elevated extinction risk from climate change and local impacts

    Science 321:560–563.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1159196

    • Google Scholar
13. Book

    1. Cavanagh RD
    2. Fowler SL
    3. Camhi MD

    (2008)

    Pelagic sharks and the FAO international plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks

    In: Camhi MD, Pikitch EK, Babcock EA, editors. Sharks of the open ocean. Biology, fisheries and conservation. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 478–492.

    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Cavanagh RD
    2. Gibson C

    (2007)

    Overview of the conservation status of cartilaginous fishes (Chondrichthyans) in the Mediterranean Sea

    42, Gland, Switzerland and Malaga, Spain, IUCN Species Survival Commission Shark Specialist Group.

    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Cavanagh RD
    2. Kyne PM
    3. Fowler SL
    4. Musick JA
    5. Bennett MB

    (2003)

    The conservation status of Australasian chondrichthyans: Report of the IUCN shark specialist group Australia and Oceania regional red list workshop

    170, Brisbane, Australia, The University of Queensland, School of Biomedical Sciences.

    • Google Scholar
16. 1. CCMLR

    (2011)

    Conservation Measure 41-10 (2010) Limits on the exploratory fishery for Dissostichus spp. in Statistical Subarea 88.2 in the 2010/11 season. Commission on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resource

    3, Hobart, Tasmania.

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Chin A
    2. Kyne PM
    3. Walker TI
    4. McAuley RB

    (2010) A new integrated risk assessment for climate change: analysing the vulnerability of sharks and rays on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef

    Global Change Biology 16:1936–1953.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02128.x

    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Clarke SC

    (2008) Use of shark fin trade data to estimate historic total shark removals in the Atlantic Ocean

    Aquatic Living Resources 21:373–381.

    https://doi.org/10.1051/alr:2008060

    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Clarke SC
    2. Harley SJ
    3. Hoyle SD
    4. Rice JS

    (2013) Population trends in Pacific oceanic sharks and the utility of regulations on shark finning

    Conservation Biology 27:197–209.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01943.x

    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Clarke SC
    2. McAllister MK
    3. Milner-Gulland EJ
    4. Kirkwood GP
    5. Michielsens CGJ
    6. Agnew DJ
    7. Pikitch EK
    8. Nakano H
    9. Shivji MS

    (2006) Global estimates of shark catches using trade records from commercial markets

    Ecology Letters 9:1115–1126.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00968.x

    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Clarke SC
    2. Milner-Gulland EJ
    3. Bjørndal T

    (2007)

    Social, economic and regulatory drivers of the shark fin trade

    Marine Resource Economics 22:305–327.

    • Google Scholar
22. Website

    1. CMS

    (2010) Memorandum of understanding on the conservation of migratory sharks. United nations environment programme, convention on migratory species

    http://www.cms.int/pdf/en/summary_sheets/sharks.pdf
23. 1. Collette BB
    2. Carpenter KE
    3. Polidoro BA
    4. J Jorda MJ
    5. Boustany A
    6. Die DJ
    7. Elfes C
    8. Fox W
    9. Graves J
    10. Harrison L
    11. McManus R
    12. Minte-Vera CV
    13. Nelson RJ
    14. Restrepo V
    15. Schratwieser J
    16. Sun C-L
    17. Amorim A
    18. Brick Peres M
    19. Canales C
    20. Cardenas G
    21. Chang S-K
    22. Chiang W-C
    23. de Oliveira Leite JN
    24. Harwell H
    25. Lessa R
    26. Fredou FL
    27. Oxenford HA
    28. Serra R
    29. Shao K-T
    30. Sumaila R
    31. Wang S-P
    32. Watson R
    33. Yáñez E

    (2011) High value and long-lived - double jeopardy for tunas and billfishes

    Science 333:291–292.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1208730

    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Compagno LJV

    (1990) Alternative life-history styles of cartilaginous fishes in time and space

    Environmental Biology of Fishes 28:33–75.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00751027

    • Google Scholar
25. Book

    1. Compagno LJV

    (2005)

    Checklist of living chondrichthyan fishes

    In: Fowler SL, Cavanagh R, Camhi M, Burgess GH, Caillet GM, Fordham S, Simpfendorfer CA, Musick JA, editors. Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras: the Status of the Chondrichthyan Fishes. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN/SSC Shark Specialist Group. pp. 401–423.

    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Cortés E

    (2000)

    Life history patterns and correlations in sharks

    Reviews in Fisheries Science 8:299–344.

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Cortés E

    (2002) Incorporating uncertainty into demographic modelling: application to shark populations and their conservation

    Conservation Biology 18:1048–1062.

    https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00423.x

    • Google Scholar
28. Book

    1. Cortés E

    (2008)

    Comparative life history and demography of pelagic sharks

    In: Camhi MD, Pikitch EK, Babcock EA, editors. Sharks of the Open Ocean. Biology, Fisheries and Conservation. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 309–322.

    • Google Scholar
29. 1. COSEWIC

    (2010)

    COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Barndoor skate (Dipturus laevis) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada

    Ottawa, Canada, p. xiii + 71.

    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Costello C
    2. Ovando D
    3. Hilborn R
    4. Gaines SD
    5. Deschenes O
    6. Lester SE

    (2012) Status and solutions for the world’s unassessed fisheries

    Science 338:517–520.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1223389

    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Darwall WRT
    2. Holland RA
    3. Smith KG
    4. Allen D
    5. Brooks EGE
    6. Katarya V
    7. Pollock CM
    8. Shi YC
    9. Clausnitzer V
    10. Cumberlidge N
    11. Cuttelod A
    12. Dijkstra KDB
    13. Diop MD
    14. Garcia N
    15. Seddon MB
    16. Skelton PH
    17. Snoeks J
    18. Tweddle D
    19. Vie JC

    (2011) Implications of bias in conservation research and investment for freshwater species

    Conservation Letters 4:474–482.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00202.x

    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Davidson AD
    2. Boyer AG
    3. Kim H
    4. Pompa-Mansilla S
    5. Hamilton MJ
    6. Costa DP
    7. Ceballos G
    8. Brown JH

    (2012) Drivers and hotspots of extinction risk in marine mammals

    Proceedings Of the National Academy Of Sciences Of the United States Of America 109:3395–3400.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1121469109

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Davies RG
    2. Orme CDL
    3. Olson V
    4. Thomas GH
    5. Ross SG
    6. Ding TS
    7. Rasmussen PC
    8. Stattersfield AJ
    9. Bennett PM
    10. Blackburn TM
    11. Owens IPF
    12. Gaston KJ

    (2006) Human impacts and the global distribution of extinction risk

    Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 273:2127–2133.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3551

    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Díaz S
    2. Fargione J
    3. Chapin FS III
    4. Tilman D

    (2006) Biodiversity loss threatens human well-being

    PLOS Biology 4:1300–1305.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040277

    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Dudley SFJ
    2. Simpfendorfer CA

    (2006) Population status of 14 shark species caught in the protective gillnets off KwaZulu-Natal beaches, South Africa, 1978-2003

    Marine and Freshwater Research 57:225–240.

    https://doi.org/10.1071/MF05156

    • Google Scholar
36. Website

    1. Dulvy NK

    (2000) Dipturus [Raja] laevis, Mitchill, 1818. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland

    http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/39771/0
37. 1. Dulvy NK
    2. Baum JK
    3. Clarke S
    4. Compagno LJV
    5. Cortés E
    6. Domingo A
    7. Fordham S
    8. Fowler S
    9. Francis MP
    10. Gibson C
    11. Martínez J
    12. Musick JA
    13. Soldo A
    14. Stevens JD
    15. Valenti S

    (2008) You can swim but you can’t hide: the global status and conservation of oceanic pelagic sharks

    Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 18:459–482.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.975

    • Google Scholar
38. Book

    1. Dulvy NK
    2. Forrest RE

    (2010)

    Life histories, population dynamics, and extinction risks in chondrichthyans

    Carrier JC, Musick JA, Heithaus MR, editors. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Dulvy NK
    2. Jennings SJ
    3. Goodwin NB
    4. Grant A
    5. Reynolds JD

    (2005) Comparison of threat and exploitation status in Northeast Atlantic marine populations

    Journal of Applied Ecology 42:883–891.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01063.x

    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Dulvy NK
    2. Reynolds JD

    (2002) Predicting extinction vulnerability in skates

    Conservation Biology 16:440–450.

    https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00416.x

    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Dulvy NK
    2. Sadovy Y
    3. Reynolds JD

    (2003) Extinction vulnerability in marine populations

    Fish and Fisheries 4:25–64.

    https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-2979.2003.00105.x

    • Google Scholar
42. 1. FAO

    (2010)

    The state of world fisheries and Aquaculture 2010. Food and Agriculture organization of the United nations

    197, Rome.

    • Google Scholar
43. 1. FAO

    (2011) FishSTAT capture production (1950-2009) database. Food and Agriculture organization of the United nations

    Rome, http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstat/en.

    http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstat/en

    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Ferretti F
    2. Myers RA
    3. Serena F
    4. Lotze HK

    (2008) Loss of large predatory sharks from the Mediterranean sea

    Conservation Biology 22:952–964.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00938.x

    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Ferretti F
    2. Worm B
    3. Britten GL
    4. Heithaus MR
    5. Lotze HK

    (2010) Patterns and ecosystem consequences of shark declines in the ocean

    Ecology Letters 13:1055–1071.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01489.x

    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Fischer J
    2. Erikstein K
    3. D‘Offay B
    4. Barone M
    5. Guggisberg S

    (2012)

    Review of the implementation of the international plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks. Food and Agriculture organization of the United nations

    125, Rome, C1076.

    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Fowler S
    2. Séret B

    (2010)

    Shark fins in Europe: Implications for reforming the EU finning ban. European Elasmobranch Association and IUCN Shark Specialist Group

    27.

    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Fowler SL

    (2012)

    Background paper on the conservation status of migratory sharks. Convention on migratory species

    22, Bonn, Germany.

    • Google Scholar
49. Book

    1. Fowler SL
    2. Reed TM
    3. Dipper FA

    (2002)

    Elasmobranch Biodiversity, Conservation and Management

    Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN Species Survival Commission Shark Specialist Group.

    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Frisk MG
    2. Miller TJ
    3. Fogarty MJ

    (2001) Estimation and analysis of biological parameters in elasmobranch fishes: a comparative life history study

    Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:969–981.

    https://doi.org/10.1139/f01-051

    • Google Scholar
51. 1. García VB
    2. Lucifora LO
    3. Myers RA

    (2008) The importance of habitat and life history to extinction risk in sharks, skates, rays and chimaeras

    Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 275:83–89.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.1295

    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Gärdenfors U
    2. Hilton-Taylor C
    3. Mace GM
    4. Rodríguez JP

    (2001) The application of IUCN Red List Criteria regional levels

    Conservation Biology 15:1206–1212.

    https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.00112.x

    • Google Scholar
53. Book

    1. Gelman A
    2. Hill J

    (2006)

    Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchial models

    Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Gibson C
    2. Valenti SV
    3. Fowler SL
    4. Fordham SV

    (2008)

    The conservation status of Northeast Atlantic chondrichthyans. Report of the IUCN shark specialist group Northeast Atlantic red list workshop

    76, Newbury, UK, IUCN species survival Commission shark specialist group.

    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Harnik PG
    2. Lotze HK
    3. Anderson SC
    4. Finkel ZV
    5. Finnegan S
    6. Lindberg DR
    7. Liow LH
    8. Lockwood R
    9. McClain CR
    10. McGuire JL
    11. O’Dea A
    12. Pandolfi JM
    13. Simpson C
    14. Tittensor DP

    (2012a) Extinctions in ancient and modern seas

    Trends in Ecology & Evolution 27:608–617.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.07.010

    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Harnik PG
    2. Simpson C
    3. Payne JL

    (2012b) Long-term differences in extinction risk among the seven forms of rarity

    Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 279:4969–4976.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.1902

    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Harrison LR
    2. Dulvy NK

    (2014)

    Sawfish: a global Strategy for conservation

    112, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, International Union for the Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission’s Shark Specialist Group, ISBN: 978-0-9561063-3-9.

    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Heithaus MR
    2. Wirsing AJ
    3. Dill LM

    (2012) The ecological importance of intact top-predator populations: a synthesis of 15 years of research in a seagrass ecosystem

    Marine and Freshwater Research 63:1039–1050.

    https://doi.org/10.1071/MF12024

    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Hoffmann M
    2. Hilton-Taylor C
    3. Angulo A
    4. Bohm M
    5. Brooks TM
    6. Butchart SHM
    7. Carpenter KE
    8. Chanson J
    9. Collen B
    10. Cox NA
    11. Darwall WRT
    12. Dulvy NK
    13. Harrison LR
    14. Katariya V
    15. Pollock CM
    16. Quader S
    17. Richman NI
    18. Rodrigues ASL
    19. Tognelli MF
    20. Vie J-C
    21. Aguiar JM
    22. Allen DJ
    23. Allen GR
    24. Amori G
    25. Ananjeva NB
    26. Andreone F
    27. Andrew P
    28. Ortiz ALA
    29. Baillie JEM
    30. Baldi R
    31. Bell BD
    32. Biju SD
    33. Bird JP
    34. Black-Decima P
    35. Blanc JJ
    36. Bolanos F
    37. Bolivar-G W
    38. Burfield IJ
    39. Burton JA
    40. Capper DR
    41. Castro F
    42. Catullo G
    43. Cavanagh RD
    44. Channing A
    45. Chao NL
    46. Chenery AM
    47. Chiozza F
    48. Clausnitzer V
    49. Collar NJ
    50. Collett LC
    51. Collette BB
    52. Fernandez CFC
    53. Craig MT
    54. Crosby MJ
    55. Cumberlidge N
    56. Cuttelod A
    57. Derocher AE
    58. Diesmos AC
    59. Donaldson JS
    60. Duckworth JW
    61. Dutson G
    62. Dutta SK
    63. Emslie RH
    64. Farjon A
    65. Fowler S
    66. Freyhof J
    67. Garshelis DL
    68. Gerlach J
    69. Gower DJ
    70. Grant TD
    71. Hammerson GA
    72. Harris RB
    73. Heaney LR
    74. Hedges SB
    75. Hero J-M
    76. Hughes B
    77. Hussain SA
    78. Icochea MJ
    79. Inger RF
    80. Ishii N
    81. Iskandar DT
    82. Jenkins RKB
    83. Kaneko Y
    84. Kottelat M
    85. Kovacs KM
    86. Kuzmin SL
    87. La Marca E
    88. Lamoreux JF
    89. Lau MWN
    90. Lavilla EO
    91. Leus K
    92. Lewison RL
    93. Lichtenstein G
    94. Livingstone SR
    95. Lukoschek V
    96. Mallon DP
    97. McGowan PJK
    98. McIvor A
    99. Moehlman PD
    100. Molur S
    101. Muñoz Alonso A
    102. Musick JA
    103. Nowell K
    104. Nussbaum RA
    105. Olech W
    106. Orlov NL
    107. Papenfuss TJ
    108. Parra-Olea G
    109. Perrin WF
    110. Polidoro BA
    111. Pourkazemi M
    112. Racey PA
    113. Ragle JS
    114. Ram M
    115. Rathbun G
    116. Reynolds RP
    117. Rhodin AG
    118. Richards SJ
    119. Rodríguez LO
    120. Ron SR
    121. Rondinini C
    122. Rylands AB
    123. Sadovy de Mitcheson Y
    124. Sanciangco JC
    125. Sanders KL
    126. Santos-Barrera G
    127. Schipper J
    128. Self-Sullivan C
    129. Shi Y
    130. Shoemaker A
    131. Short FT
    132. Sillero-Zubiri C
    133. Silvano DL
    134. Smith KG
    135. Smith AT
    136. Snoeks J
    137. Stattersfield AJ
    138. Symes AJ
    139. Taber AB
    140. Talukdar BK
    141. Temple HJ
    142. Timmins R
    143. Tobias JA
    144. Tsytsulina K
    145. Tweddle D
    146. Ubeda C
    147. Valenti SV
    148. van Dijk PP
    149. Veiga LM
    150. Veloso A
    151. Wege DC
    152. Wilkinson M
    153. Williamson EA
    154. Xie F
    155. Young BE
    156. Akçakaya HR
    157. Bennun L
    158. Blackburn TM
    159. Boitani L
    160. Dublin HT
    161. da Fonseca GA
    162. Gascon C
    163. Lacher TE Jnr
    164. Mace GM
    165. Mainka SA
    166. McNeely JA
    167. Mittermeier RA
    168. Reid GM
    169. Rodriguez JP
    170. Rosenberg AA
    171. Samways MJ
    172. Smart J
    173. Stein BA
    174. Stuart SN

    (2010) The impact of conservation on the status of the world’s vertebrates

    Science 33:1503–1509.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1194442

    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government

    (2011) Census and statistics Department. Hong Kong special Administrative region government

    Hong Kong, http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/home/index.jsp.

    http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/home/index.jsp

    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Hutchings JA

    (2000) Collapse and recovery of marine fishes

    Nature 406:882–885.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/35022565

    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Hutchings JA
    2. Myers RA
    3. Garcia VB
    4. Lucifora LO
    5. Kuparinen A

    (2012) Life-history correlates of extinction risk and recovery potential

    Ecological Applications 22:1061–1067.

    https://doi.org/10.1890/11-1313.1

    • Google Scholar
63. 1. IATTC

    (2011)

    Resolution on the conservation of oceanic whitetip sharks caught in association with fisheries in the Antigua convention area. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC)

    2, La Jolla, USA, C-11-10.

    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Iglésias SP
    2. Toulhout L
    3. Sellos DP

    (2010) Taxonomic confusion and market mislabelling of threatened skates: Important consequences for their conservation status

    Aquatic Conservation - Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 20:319–333.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.1083

    • Google Scholar
65. 1. IOTC

    (2011)

    Report of the Fourteenth session of the IOTC scientific Committee. Indian ocean tuna Commission

    33, Mahé, Seychelles.

    • Google Scholar
66. 1. IUCN

    (2001)

    IUCN red list categories and criteria: version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission

    38, Gland Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

    • Google Scholar
67. 1. IUCN

    (2004)

    Guidelines for using the IUCN red list categories and criteria. IUCN Species Survival Commission

    87, Gland, Switzerland.

    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Jackson JBC

    (2010) The future of the oceans past

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365:3765–3778.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0278

    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Jennings S
    2. Reynolds JD
    3. Mills SC

    (1998) Life history correlates of responses to fisheries exploitation

    Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 265:333–339.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1998.0300

    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Jones KE
    2. Purvis A
    3. Gittleman JL

    (2003) Biological correlates of extinction risk in bats

    American Naturalist 161:601–614.

    https://doi.org/10.1086/368289

    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Juan-Jordá MJ
    2. Mosqueira I
    3. Freire J
    4. Dulvy NK

    (2013) Life in 3-D: life history strategies of tunas, bonitos and mackerels

    Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 23:135–155.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-012-9284-4

    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Kriwet J
    2. Witzmann F
    3. Klug S
    4. Heidtke UHJ

    (2008) First direct evidence of a vertebrate three-level trophic chain in the fossil record

    Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 275:181–186.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.1170

    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Kulka DW
    2. Frank KT
    3. Simon JE

    (2002)

    Barndoor skate in the northwest Atlantic off Canada: distribution in relation to temperature and depth based on commercial fisheries data

    17, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document, 2002/073.

    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Kyne PM
    2. Carlson JK
    3. Ebert DA
    4. Fordham SV
    5. Bizzarro JJ
    6. Graham RT
    7. Kulka DW
    8. Tewes EE
    9. Harrison LR
    10. Dulvy NK

    (2012)

    The Conservation Status of North American, Central American, and Caribbean chondrichthyans. IUCN Species Survival Commission Shark Specialist Group

    148, Vancouver, Canada.

    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Kyne PM
    2. Simpfendorfer CA

    (2007)

    A collation and summarization of available data on deepwater chondrichthyans: biodiversity, life history and fisheries. IUCN Species Survival Commission Shark Specialist Group

    137, Newbury, England.

    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Lack M
    2. Sant G

    (2009)

    Trends in global shark catch and recent developments in management. TRAFFIC International

    33, Cambridge.

    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Lam VYY
    2. Sadovy de Mitcheson Y

    (2010) The sharks of South East Asia – unknown, unmonitored and unmanaged

    Fish and Fisheries 12:51–74.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2010.00383.x

    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Lasram FBR
    2. Guilhaumon FO
    3. Albouy C
    4. Somot S
    5. Thuiller W
    6. Mouillot D

    (2010) The Mediterranean Sea as a ‘cul-de-sac’ for endemic fishes facing climate change

    Global Change Biology 16:3233–3245.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02224.x

    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Last PR

    (2007) The state of chondrichthyan taxonomy and systematics

    Marine and Freshwater Research 58:7–9.

    https://doi.org/10.1071/MF07003

    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Last PR
    2. Stevens JD

    (1994)

    Sharks and rays of Australia, CSIRO, Division of Fisheries

    Hobart, Australia.

    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Last PR
    2. Stevens JD

    (2009)

    Sharks and rays of Australia, CSIRO, Division of Fisheries

    Hobart, Australia.

    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Last PR
    2. White WT
    3. Pogonoski J

    (2008)

    Descriptions of new Australian chondrichthyans. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research Paper

    368, Hobart, Australia, 22.

    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Last PR
    2. White WT
    3. Pogonoski J

    (2008)

    Descriptions of new dogfishes of the genus Squalus (Squaloidea: Squalidae). CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research Paper

    136, Hobart, Australia, 14.

    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Last PR
    2. White WT
    3. Pogonoski J
    4. Gledhill DC

    (2008)

    Descriptions of new Australian skates (Batoidea: Rajoidea). CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research Paper

    187, Hobart, Australia, 21.

    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Lotze HK
    2. Lenihan HS
    3. Bourque BJ
    4. Bradbury RH
    5. Cooke RG
    6. Kay MC
    7. Kidwell SM
    8. Kirby MX
    9. Peterson CH
    10. Jackson JBC

    (2006) Depletion, degradation, and recovery potential of estuaries and coastal seas

    Science 312:1806–1809.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128035

    • Google Scholar
86. Book

    1. Mace G
    2. Masundire H
    3. Baillie J
    4. Ricketts T
    5. Brooks T

    (2005)

    Biodiversity

    In: Hassan R, Scholes R, Ash N, editors. Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends: findings of the condition and trends working group. Washington DC: Island Press. pp. 77–122.

    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Mace GM
    2. Collar NJ
    3. Gaston KJ
    4. Hilton-Taylor C
    5. Akcakaya HR
    6. Leader-Williams N
    7. Milner-Gulland EJ
    8. Stuart SN

    (2008) Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN’s system for classifying threatened species

    Conservation Biology 22:1424–1442.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01044.x

    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Mace PM

    (2004)

    In defence of fisheries scientists, single species models and other scapegoats: confronting the real problems

    Marine Ecology Progress Series 274:285–291.

    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Marris E

    (2007) Conservation priorities: what to let go

    Nature 450:152–155.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/450152a

    • Google Scholar
90. 1. McClenachan L
    2. Cooper AB
    3. Carpenter KE
    4. Dulvy NK

    (2012) Extinction risk and bottlenecks in the conservation of charismatic marine species

    Conservation Letters 5:73–80.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00206.x

    • Google Scholar
91. 1. Morato T
    2. Watson R
    3. Pitcher TJ
    4. Pauly D

    (2006) Fishing down the deep

    Fish and Fisheries 7:24–34.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2006.00205.x

    • Google Scholar
92. 1. Mundy-Taylor V
    2. Crook V

    (2013)

    Into the Deep: Implementing CITES measures for commercially-valuable sharks and manta rays. TRAFFIC

    106, Cambridge.

    • Google Scholar
93. 1. Musick JA

    (1999a) Criteria to define extinction risk in marine fishes

    Fisheries 24:6–14.

    https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446(1999)0242.0.CO;2

    • Google Scholar
94. Book

    1. Musick JA

    (1999b)

    Ecology and conservation of long-lived marine animals

    In: Musick JA, editors. Life in the slow lane: ecology and conservation of long-lived marine animals. Bethesda, Maryland: American Fisheries Society Symposium. pp. 1–10.

    • Google Scholar
95. 1. Musick JA
    2. Harbin MM
    3. Berkeley SA
    4. Burgess GH
    5. Eklund AM
    6. Findley L
    7. Gilmore RG
    8. Golden JT
    9. Ha DS
    10. Huntsman GR
    11. McGovern JC
    12. Parker SJ
    13. Poss SG
    14. Sala E
    15. Schmidt TW
    16. Sedberry GR
    17. Weeks H
    18. Wright SG

    (2000)

    Marine, estuarine, and diadromous fish stocks at risk of extinction in North America (exclusive of Pacific salmonids)

    Fisheries 25:6–30.

    • Google Scholar
96. 1. Musick JA
    2. Musick S

    (2011)

    Sharks (Special Topics C3), in review of the state of the world Marine fishery resources. Food and Agriculture organization of the United nations

    245–254, Rome, Italy, 569.

    • Google Scholar
97. 1. Myers N
    2. Mittermeier RA
    3. Mittermeier CG
    4. da Fonseca GAB
    5. Kent J

    (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities

    Nature 403:853–858.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501

    • Google Scholar
98. Website

    1. NAFO

    (2011) NAFO conservation and enforcement measures. North Atlantic fisheries Organisation

    http://www.nafo.int/fisheries/frames/regulations.html
99. 1. Nakagawa S
    2. Schielzeth H

    (2012) A general and simple method for obtaining R² from generalized linear mixed-effects models

    Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4:133–142.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x

    • Google Scholar
100. 1. Naylor GJP
     2. Caira JN
     3. Jensen K
     4. Rosana KAM
     5. White WT
     6. Last PR

     (2012) A DNA sequence-based approach to the identification of shark and ray species and its implications for global elasmobranch diversity and parasitology

     Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 367:1–262.

     https://doi.org/10.1206/754.1

     • Google Scholar
101. Website

     1. NEAFC

     (2009) Fisheries (High seas fishing Notifications—North East Atlantic fisheries Commission) Notice 2009

     http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2009/0138/latest/DLM3929500.html
102. 1. Neubauer P
     2. Jensen OP
     3. Hutchings JA
     4. Baum JK

     (2013) Resilience and recovery of overexploited marine populations

     Science 340:347–349.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230441

     • Google Scholar
103. 1. Newton K
     2. Côté IM
     3. Pilling GM
     4. Jennings S
     5. Dulvy NK

     (2007) Current and future sustainability of island coral reef fisheries

     Current Biology 17:655–658.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.02.054

     • Google Scholar
104. 1. Polidoro BA
     2. Brooks T
     3. Carpenter KE
     4. Edgar GJ
     5. Henderson S
     6. Sanciangco J
     7. Robertson DR

     (2012) Patterns of extinction risk and threat for marine vertebrates and habitat-forming species in the Tropical Eastern Pacific

     Marine Ecology-Progress Series 448:93–104.

     https://doi.org/10.3354/meps09545

     • Google Scholar
105. Book

     1. Polidoro BA
     2. Livingstone SR
     3. Carpenter KE
     4. Hutchinson B
     5. Mast RB
     6. Pilcher NJ
     7. Sadovy de Mitcheson Y
     8. Valenti SV

     (2008)

     Status of the world’s marine species

     In: Vié J-C, Hilton-Taylor C, Stuart SN, editors. Wildlife in a changing world: an analysis of the 2008 IUCN Red List of threatened species. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature. pp. 55–65.

     • Google Scholar
106. 1. Porszt E
     2. Peterman RM
     3. Dulvy NK
     4. Cooper AB
     5. Irvine JR

     (2012) Reliability of indicators of declines in abundance

     Conservation Biology 26:894–904.

     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01882.x

     • Google Scholar
107. 1. Reynolds JD
     2. Dulvy NK
     3. Goodwin NB
     4. Hutchings JA

     (2005) Biology of extinction risk in marine fishes

     Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 272:2337–2344.

     https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3281

     • Google Scholar
108. 1. Ricard D
     2. Minto C
     3. Jensen OP
     4. Baum JK

     (2012) Examining the knowledge base and status of commercially exploited marine species with the RAM Legacy Stock Assessment Database

     Fish and Fisheries 13:380–398.

     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2011.00435.x

     • Google Scholar
109. 1. Robillard M
     2. Séret B

     (2006)

     Cultural importance and decline of sawfish (Pristidae) populations in West Africa

     Cybium 30:23–30.

     • Google Scholar
110. 1. Sadovy Y

     (2005) Trouble on the reef: the imperative for managing vulnerable and valuable fisheries

     Fish and Fisheries 6:167–185.

     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2005.00186.x

     • Google Scholar
111. 1. Sahr K
     2. White D
     3. Kimerling AJ

     (2003) Geodesic discrete global grid systems

     Cartography and Geographic Information Science 30:121–134.

     https://doi.org/10.1559/152304003100011090

     • Google Scholar
112. 1. Salafsky N
     2. Salzer D
     3. Stattersfield AJ
     4. Hilton-Taylor C
     5. Neugarten R
     6. Butchart SHM
     7. Collen B
     8. Cox N
     9. Master LL
     10. O’Connor S
     11. Wilkie D

     (2008) A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: unified classifications of threats and actions

     Conservation Biology 22:897–911.

     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00937.x

     • Google Scholar
113. 1. Schipper J
     2. Chanson JS
     3. Chiozza F
     4. Cox NA
     5. Hoffmann M
     6. Katariya V
     7. Lamoreux J
     8. Rodrigues ASL
     9. Stuart SN
     10. Temple HJ
     11. Baillie J
     12. Boitani L
     13. Lacher TE Jnr
     14. Mittermeier RA
     15. Smith AT
     16. Absolon D
     17. Aguiar JM
     18. Amori G
     19. Bakkour N
     20. Baldi R
     21. Berridge RJ
     22. Bielby J
     23. Black PA
     24. Blanc JJ
     25. Brooks TM
     26. Burton JA
     27. Butynski TM
     28. Catullo G
     29. Chapman R
     30. Cokeliss Z
     31. Collen B
     32. Conroy J
     33. Cooke JG
     34. da Fonseca GAB
     35. Derocher AE
     36. Dublin HT
     37. Duckworth JW
     38. Emmons L
     39. Emslie RH
     40. Festa-Bianchet M
     41. Foster M
     42. Foster S
     43. Garshelis DL
     44. Gates C
     45. Gimenez-Dixon M
     46. Gonzalez S
     47. Gonzalez-Maya JF
     48. Good TC
     49. Hammerson G
     50. Hammond PS
     51. Happold D
     52. Happold M
     53. Hare J
     54. Harris RB
     55. Hawkins CE
     56. Haywood M
     57. Heaney LR
     58. Hedges S
     59. Helgen KM
     60. Hilton-Taylor C
     61. Hussain SA
     62. Ishii N
     63. Jefferson TA
     64. Jenkins RKB
     65. Johnston CH
     66. Keith M
     67. Kingdon J
     68. Knox DH
     69. Kovacs KM
     70. Langhammer P
     71. Leus K
     72. Lewison R
     73. Lichtenstein G
     74. Lowry LF
     75. Macavoy Z
     76. Mace GM
     77. Mallon DP
     78. Masi M
     79. McKnight MW
     80. Medellin RA
     81. Medici P
     82. Mills G
     83. Moehlman PD
     84. Molur S
     85. Mora A
     86. Nowell K
     87. Oates JF
     88. Olech W
     89. Oliver WRL
     90. Oprea M
     91. Patterson BD
     92. Perrin WF
     93. Polidoro BA
     94. Pollock C
     95. Powel A
     96. Protas Y
     97. Racey P
     98. Ragle J
     99. Ramani P
     100. Rathbun G
     101. Reeves RR
     102. Reilly SB
     103. Reynolds JE III
     104. Rondinini C
     105. Rosell-Ambal RG
     106. Rulli M
     107. Rylands AB
     108. Savini S
     109. Schank CJ
     110. Sechrest W
     111. Self-Sullivan C
     112. Shoemaker A
     113. Sillero-Zubiri C
     114. De Silva N
     115. Smith DE
     116. Srinivasulu C
     117. Stephenson PJ
     118. van Strien N
     119. Talukdar BK
     120. Taylor BL
     121. Timmins R
     122. Tirira DG
     123. Tognelli MF
     124. Tsytsulina K
     125. Veiga LM
     126. Vié JC
     127. Williamson EA
     128. Wyatt SA
     129. Xie Y
     130. Young BE

     (2008) The status of the world’s land and marine mammals: diversity, threat, and knowledge

     Science 322:225–230.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165115

     • Google Scholar
114. 1. Simpfendorfer CA
     2. Cortés E
     3. Heupel MR
     4. Brookes E
     5. Babcock EA
     6. Baum JK
     7. McAuley R
     8. Dudley SFJ
     9. Stevens JD
     10. Fordham S
     11. Soldo A

     (2008)

     An integrated approach to determining the risk of over-exploitation for data-poor pelagic Atlantic sharks. International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, Madrid, 2008/138/140

     1–14.

     • Google Scholar
115. 1. Simpfendorfer CA
     2. Hueter RE
     3. Bergman U
     4. Connett SMH

     (2002) Results of a fishery-independent survey for pelagic sharks in the western North Atlantic, 1977-1994

     Fisheries Research 55:175–192.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(01)00288-0

     • Google Scholar
116. 1. Simpfendorfer CA
     2. Kyne PM

     (2009) Limited potential to recover from overfishing raises concerns for deep-sea sharks, rays and chimaeras

     Environmental Conservation 36:97–103.

     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892909990191

     • Google Scholar
117. 1. Sing T
     2. Sander O
     3. Beerenwinkel N
     4. Lengauer T

     (2005) ROCR: visualizing classifier performance in R

     Bioinformatics 21:3940–3941.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bti623

     • Google Scholar
118. 1. Smith SE
     2. Au DW
     3. Show C

     (1998) Intrinsic rebound potentials of 26 species of Pacific sharks

     Marine and Freshwater Research 49:663–678.

     https://doi.org/10.1071/MF97135

     • Google Scholar
119. 1. Stevens JD
     2. Bonfil R
     3. Dulvy NK
     4. Walker P

     (2000) The effects of fishing on sharks, rays and chimaeras (Chondrichthyans), and the implications for marine ecosystems

     ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:476–494.

     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmsc.2000.0724

     • Google Scholar
120. Book

     1. Stevens JD
     2. Walker TI
     3. Cook SF
     4. Fordham S

     (2005)

     Threats faced by chondrichthyan fishes

     In: Fowler SL, Cavanagh R, Camhi M, Burgess GH, Caillet GM, Fordham S, Simpfendorfer CA, Musick JA, editors. Sharks, rays and chimaeras: the status of the Chondrichthyan fishes. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN Species Survival Commission Shark Specialist Group. pp. 48–57.

     • Google Scholar
121. 1. Stuart SN
     2. Chanson JS
     3. Cox NA
     4. Young BE
     5. Rodrigues ASL
     6. Fischman DL
     7. Waller RA

     (2004) Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide

     Science 306:1783–1786.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1103538

     • Google Scholar
122. 1. Swartz W
     2. Sala E
     3. Tracey S
     4. Watson R
     5. Pauly D

     (2010) The spatial expansion and ecological footprint of fisheries (1950 to Present)

     PLOS ONE 5:e15143.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015143

     • Google Scholar
123. 1. Techera EJ
     2. Klein N

     (2011) Fragmented governance: reconciling legal strategies for shark conservation and management

     Marine Policy 35:73–78.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010.08.003

     • Google Scholar
124. 1. Veitch L
     2. Dulvy NK
     3. Koldewey H
     4. Lieberman S
     5. Pauly D
     6. Roberts CM
     7. Rogers AD
     8. Baillie JEM

     (2012) Avoiding empty ocean commitments at Rio +20

     Science 336:1383–1385.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1223009

     • Google Scholar
125. 1. Vincent ACJ
     2. Sadovy de Mitcheson Y
     3. Fowler SL
     4. Lieberman S

     (2014) The role of CITES in the conservation of marine fishes subject to international trade

     Fish and Fisheries In press.

     https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12035

     • Google Scholar
126. 1. Wallace BP
     2. DiMatteo AD
     3. Hurley BJ
     4. Finkbeiner EM
     5. Bolten AB
     6. Chaloupka MY
     7. Hutchinson BJ
     8. Abreu-Grobois FA
     9. Amorocho D
     10. Bjorndal KA
     11. Bourjea J
     12. Bowen BW
     13. Dueñas RB
     14. Casale P
     15. Choudhury BC
     16. Costa A
     17. Dutton PH
     18. Fallabrino A
     19. Girard A
     20. Girondot M
     21. Godfrey MH
     22. Hamann M
     23. López-Mendilaharsu M
     24. Marcovaldi MA
     25. Mortimer JA
     26. Musick JA
     27. Nel R
     28. Pilcher NJ
     29. Seminoff JA
     30. Troëng S
     31. Witherington B
     32. Mast RB

     (2010)

     Regional management units for marine turtles: a novel framework for prioritizing conservation and research across multiple scales

     PLOS ONE 5:e15465.

     • Google Scholar
127. Book

     1. Wallace S
     2. Gisborne B

     (2006)

     Basking sharks: the slaughter of BC’s gentle giants

     Vancouver: New Star Books.

     • Google Scholar
128. 1. Walpole M
     2. Almond REA
     3. Besancon C
     4. Butchart SHM
     5. Campbell-Lendrum D
     6. Carr GM
     7. Collen B
     8. Collette L
     9. Davidson NC
     10. Dulloo E
     11. Fazel AM
     12. Galloway JN
     13. Gill M
     14. Goverse T
     15. Hockings M
     16. Leaman DJ
     17. Morgan DHW
     18. Revenga C
     19. Rickwood CJ
     20. Schutyser F
     21. Simons S
     22. Stattersfield AJ
     23. Tyrrell TD
     24. Vie JC
     25. Zimsky M

     (2009) Tracking progress toward the 2010 biodiversity target and beyond

     Science 325:1503–1504.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1175466

     • Google Scholar
129. 1. Ward RD
     2. Holmes BH
     3. White WT
     4. Last PR

     (2008) DNA barcoding Australasian chondrichthyans: results and potential uses in conservation

     Marine and Freshwater Research 59:57–71.

     https://doi.org/10.1071/MF07148

     • Google Scholar
130. 1. White WT
     2. Last PR

     (2012) A review of the taxonomy of chondrichthyan fishes: a modern perspective

     Journal of Fish Biology 80:901–917.

     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2011.03192.x

     • Google Scholar
131. 1. White WT
     2. Last PR
     3. Stevens JD
     4. Yearsley GK
     5. Dharmadi F

     (2006)

     Economically important sharks and rays of Indonesia, Australian Centre for international Agricultural research

     Canberra.

     • Google Scholar
132. 1. Worm B
     2. Davis B
     3. Kettemer L
     4. Ward-Paige CA
     5. Chapman D
     6. Heithaus MR
     7. Kessel ST
     8. Gruber SH

     (2013) Global catches, exploitation rates, and rebuilding options for sharks

     Marine Policy 40:194–204.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.12.034

     • Google Scholar
133. 1. Worm B
     2. Hilborn R
     3. Baum JK
     4. Branch TA
     5. Collie JS
     6. Costello C
     7. Fogarty MJ
     8. Fulton EA
     9. Hutchings JA
     10. Jennings S
     11. Jensen OP
     12. Lotze HK
     13. Mace PM
     14. McClanahan TR
     15. Minto C
     16. Palumbi SR
     17. Parma AM
     18. Ricard D
     19. Rosenberg AA
     20. Watson R
     21. Zeller D

     (2009) Rebuilding global fisheries

     Science 325:578–585.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1173146

     • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Nicholas K Dulvy

   1. IUCN Species Survival Commission Shark Specialist Group, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada
   2. Earth to Ocean Research Group, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada

   Contribution

   NKD, Conception and design, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article, Contributed unpublished essential data or reagents

   For correspondence

   dulvy@sfu.ca

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

2. Sarah L Fowler

   IUCN Species Survival Commission Shark Specialist Group, NatureBureau International, Newbury, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   SLF, Conception and design, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article, Contributed unpublished essential data or reagents

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

3. John A Musick

   Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, United States

   Contribution

   JAM, Acquisition of data, Drafting or revising the article

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

4. Rachel D Cavanagh

   British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   RDC, Conception and design, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

5. Peter M Kyne

   Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia

   Contribution

   PMK, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

6. Lucy R Harrison

   1. IUCN Species Survival Commission Shark Specialist Group, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada
   2. Earth to Ocean Research Group, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada

   Contribution

   LRH, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

7. John K Carlson

   Southeast Fisheries Science Center, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service, Panama City, United States

   Contribution

   JKC, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

8. Lindsay NK Davidson

   1. IUCN Species Survival Commission Shark Specialist Group, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada
   2. Earth to Ocean Research Group, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada

   Contribution

   LNKD, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

9. Sonja V Fordham

   Shark Advocates International, The Ocean Foundation, Washington, DC, United States

   Contribution

   SVF, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article, Contributed unpublished essential data or reagents

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

10. Malcolm P Francis

    National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Wellington, New Zealand

    Contribution

    MPF, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

11. Caroline M Pollock

    Global Species Programme, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Cambridge, United Kingdom

    Contribution

    CMP, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

12. Colin A Simpfendorfer

    1. Centre for Sustainable Tropical Fisheries and Aquaculture, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
    2. School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

    Contribution

    CAS, Conception and design, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

13. George H Burgess

    Florida Program for Shark Research, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainsville, United States

    Contribution

    GHB, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

14. Kent E Carpenter

    1. IUCN Species Programme Species Survival Commission, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, United States
    2. Conservation International Global Marine Species Assessment, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, United States

    Contribution

    KEC, Analysis and interpretation of data, Contributed unpublished essential data or reagents

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

15. Leonard JV Compagno

    Shark Research Center, Iziko, South African Museum, Cape Town, South Africa

    Contribution

    LJVC, Acquisition of data, Drafting or revising the article, Contributed unpublished essential data or reagents

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

16. David A Ebert

    Pacific Shark Research Center, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, Moss Landing, United States

    Contribution

    DAE, Drafting or revising the article, Contributed unpublished essential data or reagents

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

17. Claudine Gibson

    IUCN Species Survival Commission Shark Specialist Group, NatureBureau International, Newbury, United Kingdom

    Contribution

    CG, Acquisition of data, Drafting or revising the article

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

18. Michelle R Heupel

    School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Australia

    Contribution

    MRH, Drafting or revising the article, Contributed unpublished essential data or reagents

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

19. Suzanne R Livingstone

    Global Marine Species Assessment, Biodiversity Assessment Unit, IUCN Species Programme, Conservation International, Arlington, United States

    Contribution

    SRL, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

20. Jonnell C Sanciangco

    1. IUCN Species Programme Species Survival Commission, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, United States
    2. Conservation International Global Marine Species Assessment, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, United States

    Contribution

    JCS, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article, Contributed unpublished essential data or reagents

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

21. John D Stevens

    Marine and Atmospheric Research, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Hobart, Australia

    Contribution

    JDS, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article, Contributed unpublished essential data or reagents

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

22. Sarah Valenti

    IUCN Species Survival Commission Shark Specialist Group, NatureBureau International, Newbury, United Kingdom

    Contribution

    SV, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

23. William T White

    Marine and Atmospheric Research, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Hobart, Australia

    Contribution

    WTW, Drafting or revising the article, Contributed unpublished essential data or reagents

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

• 38,072

  views

• 5,727

  downloads

• 1,503

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.