1. Ecology
Download icon

Extinction Risk: Counting the cost of overfishing on sharks and rays

  1. Darcy Bradley  Is a corresponding author
  2. Steven D Gaines  Is a corresponding author
  1. Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, United States
  • Cited 6
  • Views 3,090
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2014;3:e02199 doi: 10.7554/eLife.02199


Over half of all shark and ray species are at risk of extinction or at least heading that way.

Main text

Chondrichthyans—the class of fish that includes sharks and rays—are in a bad, bad way. Their numbers have plummeted, mostly due to overfishing, which is largely driven by the demand for shark fin soup (Jackson et al., 2001; Myers and Worm, 2003). All attempts at saving species have fallen short, not because of a lack of concern, but instead because of a lack of data. It is difficult to know just how depleted sharks and rays are in number, just as it is difficult to determine how and where conservation efforts are most desperately needed. This is concerning not just for chondrichthyans, but also for entire ecosystems, because the removal of large-bodied predators, such as sharks, can cause entire food webs to collapse (Stevens et al., 2000; Mumby et al., 2006; Heithaus et al., 2008).

To address this knowledge gap, Nicholas Dulvy of Simon Fraser University and co-workers in Canada, UK, USA, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have performed a systematic evaluation of the relative extinction risk for more than 1000 species of sharks, rays and the less well known chimaeras (Dulvy et al., 2014). Their findings—which have been published in eLife—are alarming, but more importantly, the story they reveal helps to frame the chondrichthyan problem in ways that can help guide effective solutions.

Overfishing can be a threat anywhere, to any species, yet sharks and rays share characteristics that make them particularly vulnerable. They mature late, they have a long gestation period, and they create few offspring. Moreover, they have large ranges, often spanning waters belonging to more than one nation, so efforts to protect them require international coordination. Furthermore, as they are overfished and their populations drop, the commercial value of these fish only increases, incentivizing further overharvesting.

Dulvy et al. expose a staggering result: more than half of all chondrichthyan species are predicted to be ‘Threatened or Near Threatened’ according to the Red List maintained by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. By comparison, insects, mammals and amphibians are all under less threat (Figure 1).

Sharks and rays are more under threat than insects, mammals and amphibians.

According to the Red List of Threatened Species maintained by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 1148 species of insects (24.9% of the total), 1467 species of mammals (26.6%) and 2339 species of amphibians (36.5%) are ‘Threatened or Near Threatened’. Dulvy et al. estimate that for sharks and rays this figure is 562 species (53.9% of the total). The IUCN definition of Threatened includes species that are Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable.

Illustrations: Dru Drury, USDA APHIS, and Nobu Tamura. Photograph: Chris Huh.

One of the biggest challenges to compiling such estimates of global threat is that there are very limited data available for many species. Indeed, nearly half of the shark and ray species are formally classified as ‘Data Deficient’, which is one of the highest proportions of any class of species (Hoffmann et al., 2010). To overcome this challenge, which is common for all species at risk, Dulvy et al. used information about those species of sharks and rays for which abundant data were available to derive general patterns that are associated with a higher risk of extinction. By classifying the attributes of these different species—by answering questions such as, where do they live, how deep do they swim, what size are they—Dulvy et al. were able to generate model predictions for the likely status of species with more limited data.

They found that the most useful factors for determining if a particular species had an elevated risk of extinction was its maximum body size, the minimum depth of water in which it lived, and the range of depth—with larger species and those that swim in shallower waters having the largest risk. Although geographic range is closely linked to extinction risk in many groups of animals, it is largely unrelated to the extinction risk of sharks and rays. These threat patterns highlight the devastating impact of fishing on chondrichthyans—shark and ray fishing activity is now so ubiquitous that only species with broad depth ranges can escape from fishing gear.

Forecasting the extinction risk of sharks and rays can guide future management actions and policy decisions—especially for those species without sufficient data to allow more formal assessments of their status. For example, the enormous variation between regions in the status of sharks and rays evident in the findings of Dulvy et al. provides scope for setting region specific conservation priorities. It should also allow us to identify examples of current successes—where shark and ray populations are doing well—that we will need to replicate to secure the long-term future survival of these fish.

In addition, an important pattern that has emerged in global analyses of other fished species is that fisheries with more definite estimates of their stock status tend to be in substantially better condition than fisheries with limited information (Worm et al., 2009; Costello et al., 2012). This information is also valuable for conservation efforts, as it is hard to make effective decisions in the absence of fact. Although the estimates of species status in this new study still have large uncertainties, they do provide an important step towards gaining information that can drive more effective conservation and management decisions.

As we look to the future of sharks and rays, one key challenge lies in first developing species assessments with better estimates of the populations involved. These assessments can then be linked with effective management practices that have been successfully employed in large numbers of global fisheries. Dulvy et al. stress that it is unclear whether the declining populations of sharks and rays that live around the world can be reversed on a local scale. Instead, these trends could be symptomatic of some long-term and widespread accumulation of extinction risk across the world’s seas and oceans. The insight from this new global analysis enhances the chance for recovery if these findings help drive effective local and collaborative action.


  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
    The impact of conservation on the status of the world’s vertebrates
    1. M Hoffman
    2. C Hilton-Taylor
    3. A Angulo
    4. M Böhm
    5. TM Brooks
    6. SH Butchart
    7. KE Carpenter
    8. J Chanson
    9. B Collen
    10. NA Cox
    11. WR Darwall
    12. NK Dulvy
    13. LR Harrison
    14. V Katariya
    15. CM Pollock
    16. S Quader
    17. NI Richman
    18. AS Rodrigues
    19. MF Tognelli
    20. JC Vié
    21. JM Aguiar
    22. DJ Allen
    23. GR Allen
    24. G Amori
    25. NB Ananjeva
    26. F Andreone
    27. P Andrew
    28. AL Aquino Ortiz
    29. JE Baillie
    30. R Baldi
    31. BD Bell
    32. SD Biju
    33. JP Bird
    34. P Black-Decima
    35. JJ Blanc
    36. F Bolaños
    37. G W Bolivar-
    38. IJ Burfield
    39. JA Burton
    40. DR Capper
    41. F Castro
    42. G Catullo
    43. RD Cavanagh
    44. A Channing
    45. NL Chao
    46. AM Chenery
    47. F Chiozza
    48. V Clausnitzer
    49. NJ Collar
    50. LC Collett
    51. BB Collette
    52. CF Cortez Fernandez
    53. MT Craig
    54. MJ Crosby
    55. N Cumberlidge
    56. A Cuttelod
    57. AE Derocher
    58. AC Diesmos
    59. JS Donaldson
    60. JW Duckworth
    61. G Dutson
    62. SK Dutta
    63. RH Emslie
    64. A Farjon
    65. S Fowler
    66. J Freyhof
    67. DL Garshelis
    68. J Gerlach
    69. DJ Gower
    70. TD Grant
    71. GA Hammerson
    72. RB Harris
    73. LR Heaney
    74. SB Hedges
    75. JM Hero
    76. B Hughes
    77. SA Hussain
    78. M J Icochea
    79. RF Inger
    80. N Ishii
    81. DT Iskandar
    82. RK Jenkins
    83. Y Kaneko
    84. M Kottelat
    85. KM Kovacs
    86. SL Kuzmin
    87. E La Marca
    88. JF Lamoreux
    89. MW Lau
    90. EO Lavilla
    91. K Leus
    92. RL Lewison
    93. G Lichtenstein
    94. SR Livingstone
    95. V Lukoschek
    96. DP Mallon
    97. PJ McGowan
    98. A McIvor
    99. PD Moehlman
    100. S Molur
    101. A Muñoz Alonso
    102. JA Musick
    103. K Nowell
    104. RA Nussbaum
    105. W Olech
    106. NL Orlov
    107. TJ Papenfuss
    108. G Parra-Olea
    109. WF Perrin
    110. BA Polidoro
    111. M Pourkazemi
    112. PA Racey
    113. JS Ragle
    114. M Ram
    115. G Rathbun
    116. RP Reynolds
    117. AG Rhodin
    118. SJ Richards
    119. LO Rodríguez
    120. SR Ron
    121. C Rondinini
    122. AB Rylands
    123. Y Sadovy de Mitcheson
    124. JC Sanciangco
    125. KL Sanders
    126. G Santos-Barrera
    127. J Schipper
    128. C Self-Sullivan
    129. Y Shi
    130. A Shoemaker
    131. FT Short
    132. C Sillero-Zubiri
    133. DL Silvano
    134. KG Smith
    135. AT Smith
    136. J Snoeks
    137. AJ Stattersfield
    138. AJ Symes
    139. AB Taber
    140. BK Talukdar
    141. HJ Temple
    142. R Timmins
    143. JA Tobias
    144. K Tsytsulina
    145. D Tweddle
    146. C Ubeda
    147. SV Valenti
    148. PP van Dijk
    149. LM Veiga
    150. A Veloso
    151. DC Wege
    152. M Wilkinson
    153. EA Williamson
    154. F Xie
    155. BE Young
    156. HR Akçakaya
    157. L Bennun
    158. TM Blackburn
    159. L Boitani
    160. HT Dublin
    161. GA da Fonseca
    162. C Gascon
    163. TE Lacher Jnr
    164. GM Mace
    165. SA Mainka
    166. JA McNeely
    167. RA Mittermeier
    168. GM Reid
    169. JP Rodriguez
    170. AA Rosenberg
    171. MJ Samways
    172. J Smart
    173. BA Stein
    174. SN Stuart
    Science 330:1503–1509.
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Darcy Bradley

    Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, United States
    For correspondence
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Steven D Gaines

    Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, United States
    For correspondence
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Publication history

  1. Version of Record published: February 5, 2014 (version 1)


© 2014, Bradley and Gaines

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.


  • 3,090
    Page views
  • 263
  • 6

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, PubMed Central.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)