Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Shark mortality cannot be assessed by fishery overlap alone

Matters Arising to this article was published on 07 July 2021

The Original Article was published on 24 July 2019

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Match or mismatch between FEI hotspots or shark density hotspots, and fishing effort hotspots.

Data availability

To prepare Table 1 and linear regressions between North Atlantic annual shark landings (FAO total capture production) and shark FEI as calculated by Queiroz et al.1, FAO statistics available from were used following the description of the data by Queiroz et al.1. To produce Table 2 and Fig. 1, data from Queiroz et al.1 were used from


  1. 1.

    Queiroz, N. et al. Global spatial risk assessment of sharks under the footprint of fisheries. Nature 572, 461–466 (2019).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Hobday, A. J. et al. Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing. Fish. Res. 108, 372–384 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Gallagher, A. J., Kyne, P. M. & Hammerschlag, N. Ecological risk assessment and its application to elasmobranch conservation and management. J. Fish Biol. 80, 1727–1748 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Hilborn, R. & Walters, C. J. Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment, Choice, Dynamics and Uncertainty (Chapman and Hall, 1992).

  5. 5.

    Weng, K. C. & Block, B. A. Diel vertical migration of the bigeye thresher shark (Alopias superciliosus), a species possessing orbital retia mirabilia. Fish Bull. 102, 221–229 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Queiroz, N., Humphries, N. E., Noble, L. R., Santos, A. M. & Sims, D. W. Short-term movements and diving behaviour of satellite-tracked blue sharks Prionace glauca in the northeastern Atlantic Ocean. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 406, 265–279 (2010).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Cortés, E. et al. Expanded ecological risk assessment of pelagic sharks caught in Atlantic pelagic longline fisheries. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT 71, 2637–2688 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Foster, D. G., Epperly, S. P., Shah, A. K. & Watson, J. W. Evaluation of hook and bait type on the catch rates in the Western North Atlantic Ocean pelagic longline fishery. Bull. Mar. Sci. 88, 529–545 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Cortés, E. et al. Ecological risk assessment of pelagic sharks caught in Atlantic pelagic longline fisheries. Aquat. Living Resour. 23, 25–34 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Ellis, J. R., McCully Phillips, S. R. & Poisson, F. A review of capture and post-release mortality of elasmobranchs. J. Fish Biol. 90, 653–722 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Gallagher, A. J., Orbesen, E. S., Hammerschlag, N. & Serafy, J. E. Vulnerability of oceanic sharks as pelagic longline bycatch. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 1, 50–59 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Pacoureau, N. et al. Half a century of global decline in oceanic sharks and rays. Nature 589, 567–571 (2021).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Poisson, F. et al. Technical mitigation measures for sharks and rays in fisheries for tuna and tuna-like species: turning possibility into reality. Aquat. Living Resour. 29, 402 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Doherty, P. D. et al. Big catch, little sharks: insight into Peruvian small-scale longline fisheries. Ecol. Evol. 4, 2375–2383 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Alfaro-Shigueto, J. et al. Where small can have a large impact: structure and characterization of small-scale fisheries in Peru. Fish. Res. 106, 8–17 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019).

Download references


We thank M. J. Williams for useful suggestions on a previous version of the Comment, which were very helpful in improving the manuscript. The views expressed by E.C. herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the agency of E.C.

Author information




H.M., S.P.G. and V.R. conceived the study; H.M., S.P.G., A.J.H., S.C.C., E.C. and E.L.G. wrote the manuscript with further input and revisions from all authors; H.M., S.P.G. and J.S. performed the data analyses and produced the figures and tables; all authors contributed to the interpretation and discussion of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hilario Murua.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Murua, H., Griffiths, S.P., Hobday, A.J. et al. Shark mortality cannot be assessed by fishery overlap alone. Nature 595, E4–E7 (2021).

Download citation


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing