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.

Reply to: Shark mortality cannot be assessed by fishery overlap alone

The Original Article was published on 07 July 2021

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Spatial distributions and overlap of sharks and longline fishing vessels.
Fig. 2: Effect of scale on the position and extent of FEI hotspots and areas free from AIS longline fishing effort.

Data availability

Data used in linear-regression modelling are available on GitHub ( Data used to prepare the maps (shark relative spatial density, longline-fishing effort and shark–longline-fishing overlap and FEI) are available on GitHub (

Code availability

Code used to prepare the maps (shark relative spatial density, longline-fishing effort and shark–longline-fishing overlap and FEI) is available on GitHub (


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

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Murua, H. et al. Shark mortality cannot be assessed by fishery overlap alone. Nature (2021).

  3. 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 

  4. 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 

  5. Murua, H. et al. Updated Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) for shark species caught in fisheries managed by the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC). 21st Meeting of the Scientific Committee of the IOTC Document IOTC-2018-SC21-14 (Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, 2018).

  6. Ward, P. & Myers, R. A. Inferring the depth distribution of catchability for pelagic fishes and correcting for variations in the depth of longline fishing gear. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 62, 1130–1142 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Andrzejaczek, S., Gleiss, A. C., Pattiaratchi, C. B. & Meekan, M. G. Patterns and drivers of vertical movements of the large fishes of the epipelagic. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 29, 335–354 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. Report of the 2018 ICCAT Intersessional Meeting of the Sharks Species Group (2018).

  9. Coelho, R., Fernandez-Carvalho, J., Lino, P. G. & Santos, M. N. An overview of the hooking mortality of elasmobranchs caught in a swordfish pelagic longline fishery in the Atlantic Ocean. Aquat. Living Resour. 25, 311–319 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dapp, D. R., Walker, T. I., Huveneers, C. & Reina, R. D. Respiratory mode and gear type are important determinants of elasmobranch immediate and post-release mortality. Fish Fish. 17, 507–524 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gallagher, A. J., Serafy, J. E., Cooke, S. J. & Hammerschlag, N. Physiological stress response, reflex impairment, and survival of five sympatric shark species following experimental capture and release. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 496, 207–218 (2014).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hutchinson, M. R., Itano, D. G., Muir, J. A. & Holland, K. N. Post-release survival of juvenile silky sharks captured in a tropical tuna purse seine fishery. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 521, 143–154 (2015).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  13. Worm, B. et al. Global catches, exploitation rates, and rebuilding options for sharks. Mar. Policy 40, 194–204 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. McCauley, D. J. et al. Marine defaunation: animal loss in the global ocean. Science 347, 1255641 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references


Funding support was provided by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) (NE/R00997/X/1), European Research Council (ERC-AdG-2019 883583 OCEAN DEOXYFISH) (D.W.S.), Australian Research Council (ARC DP210103091) (A.M.M.S. and D.W.S.), Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia CEECIND/02857/2018 (N.Q.), PTDC/BIA-COM/28855/2017 (M.V.) and a 2020 Pew Fellowship in Marine Conservation (A.M.M.S.). This research is part of the Global Shark Movement Project (

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



N.Q. and D.W.S. planned the data analysis. N.Q. led the data analysis with contributions from M.V., A.M.M.S. and D.W.S. N.E.H. contributed analysis tools. A.M.M.S. undertook linear-regression modelling. D.W.S. led the manuscript writing with contributions from N.Q., N.E.H., A.M.M.S and all authors. Six of the original authors were not included in the Reply authorship; two authors retired from science and the remaining four, although supportive of our Reply, declined to join the authorship due to potential conflicts of interest with the authors of the Comment and/or their institutions.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David W. Sims.

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.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Table 1 Global and regional drivers of FEI hotspots
Extended Data Table 2 Examples of global and regional drivers of FEI hotspots for individual shark species
Extended Data Table 3 Spatial refuge of pelagic sharks in ABNJs
Extended Data Table 4 Comparison of spatial refuge estimated with AIS data 2012–2016 and 2012–2018

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Methods and Supplementary Tables 1-16.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Queiroz, N., Humphries, N.E., Couto, A. et al. Reply to: Shark mortality cannot be assessed by fishery overlap alone. Nature 595, E8–E16 (2021).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


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