scholarly journals Limitations on inferring shark vulnerability from spatial habitat protection. Response to Shark conservation hindered by lack of habitat protection

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. e01219
Author(s):  
J. Matias Braccini ◽  
Stephen J. Newman
Keyword(s):  
Habitat Protection ◽  
Shark Conservation ◽  
Spatial Habitat

scholarly journals Shark conservation hindered by lack of habitat protection

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. e00862 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte A. Birkmanis ◽  
Julian C. Partridge ◽  
Leigh W. Simmons ◽  
Michelle R. Heupel ◽  
Ana M.M. Sequeira
Keyword(s):  
Habitat Protection ◽  
Shark Conservation

scholarly journals Response to Limitations on inferring shark vulnerability from spatial habitat protection

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. e01466
Author(s):  
Charlotte A. Birkmanis ◽  
Leigh W. Simmons ◽  
Ana M.M. Sequeira
Keyword(s):  
Habitat Protection ◽  
Spatial Habitat

scholarly journals The role and value of science in shark conservation advocacy

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
David S. Shiffman ◽  
Catherine C. Macdonald ◽  
S. Scott Wallace ◽  
Nicholas K. Dulvy
Keyword(s):  
Conservation Status ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Global Management ◽  
Fisheries Resources ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
Shark Conservation ◽  
Scientific Results ◽  
State Of The Science ◽  
Key Questions

AbstractMany species of sharks are threatened with extinction, and there has been a longstanding debate in scientific and environmental circles over the most effective and appropriate strategy to conserve and protect them. Should we allow for sustainable fisheries exploitation of species which can withstand fishing pressure, or ban all fisheries for sharks and trade in shark products? In the developing world, exploitation of fisheries resources can be essential to food security and poverty alleviation, and global management efforts are typically focused on sustainably maximizing economic benefits. This approach aligns with traditional fisheries management and the perspectives of most surveyed scientific researchers who study sharks. However, in Europe and North America, sharks are increasingly venerated as wildlife to be preserved irrespective of conservation status, resulting in growing pressure to prohibit exploitation of sharks and trade in shark products. To understand the causes and significance of this divergence in goals, we surveyed 155 shark conservation focused environmental advocates from 78 environmental non-profits, and asked three key questions: (1) where do advocates get scientific information? (2) Does all policy-relevant scientific information reach advocates? and (3) Do advocates work towards the same policy goals identified by scientific researchers? Findings suggest many environmental advocates are aware of key scientific results and use science-based arguments in their advocacy, but a small but vocal subset of advocates report that they never read the scientific literature or speak to scientists. Engagement with science appears to be a key predictor of whether advocates support sustainable management of shark fisheries or bans on shark fishing and trade in shark products. Conservation is a normative discipline, and this analysis more clearly articulates two distinct perspectives in shark conservation. Most advocates support the same evidence-based policies as academic and government scientists, while a smaller percentage are driven more by moral and ethical beliefs and may not find scientific research relevant or persuasive. We also find possible evidence that a small group of non-profits may be misrepresenting the state of the science while claiming to use science-based arguments, a concern that has been raised by surveyed scientists about the environmental community. This analysis suggests possible alternative avenues for engaging diverse stakeholders in productive discussions about shark conservation.

Biology of four species of Whiting (Pisces: Sillaginidae) in Botany Bay, NSW

1988 ◽  
Vol 39 (6) ◽  
pp. 709 ◽  
Author(s):  
JJ Burchmore ◽  
DA Pollard ◽  
MJ Middleton ◽  
JD Bell ◽  
BC Pease
Keyword(s):  
New South ◽  
Abundant Species ◽  
Male And Female ◽  
Fish Size ◽  
South Wales ◽  
Gonadal Maturity ◽  
Habitat Differences ◽  
Temporal And Spatial ◽  
First Maturity ◽  
Spatial Habitat

Four species of whiting (Family Sillaginidae) were collected from Botany Bay, New South Wales, between 1977 and 1979: Sillago ciliata (sand whiting), S. maculata maculata (trumpeter whiting), S. robusta (stout whiting) and S. bassensis flindersi (eastern school whiting). Sillago ciliata was the most abundant species over-all. Sillago ciliata was caught in greatest numbers in Zostera seagrass and shallow sandy habitats, whereas S. m. maculata, S. robusta and S. b. flindersi were most abundant over deeper muddy and sandy habitats. Sillago ciliata and S. b. flindersi were present mainly as juveniles. Gonosomatic indices and gonadal maturity stages of S. ciliata and S. m. maculata peaked around February. These species probably spawn within the Bay. Length to caudal fork at first maturity was 24 cm for male and female S. ciliata, 19 cm for male and female S. m. maculata, 17 cm for male and 18 cm for female S. robusta, and 14 cm for male and female S. b. flindersi. Although all species fed mainly on polychaetes and crustaceans, there was little overlap in specific dietary items between species. Variations observed in diet were due to fish size and temporal and spatial habitat differences within and among species.

Economic targeting of nonpoint pollution abatement for fish habitat protection

1989 ◽  
Vol 25 (12) ◽  
pp. 2399-2405 ◽  
Author(s):  
John B. Braden ◽  
Edwin E. Herricks ◽  
Robert S. Larson
Keyword(s):  
Fish Habitat ◽  
Pollution Abatement ◽  
Nonpoint Pollution ◽  
Habitat Protection
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document