Ocean-wide tracking of pelagic sharks reveals extent of overlap with longline fishing hotspots

Edited by Steven D. Gaines, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, and accepted by the Editorial Board December 18, 2015 (received for review May 26, 2015)
January 25, 2016
113 (6) 1582-1587

Significance

Shark populations are declining worldwide because of overexploitation by fisheries with unknown consequences for ecosystems. Although the harvest of oceanic sharks remains largely unregulated, knowing precisely where they interact with fishing vessels will better aid their conservation. We satellite track six species of shark and two entire longline fishing vessel fleets across the North Atlantic over multiple years. Sharks actively select and aggregate in space-use “hotspots” characterized by thermal fronts and high productivity. However, longline fishing vessels also target these habitats and efficiently track shark movements seasonally, leading to an 80% spatial overlap. Areas of highest overlap between sharks and fishing vessels show persistence between years, suggesting current hotspots are at risk, and arguing for introduction of international catch limits.

Abstract

Overfishing is arguably the greatest ecological threat facing the oceans, yet catches of many highly migratory fishes including oceanic sharks remain largely unregulated with poor monitoring and data reporting. Oceanic shark conservation is hampered by basic knowledge gaps about where sharks aggregate across population ranges and precisely where they overlap with fishers. Using satellite tracking data from six shark species across the North Atlantic, we show that pelagic sharks occupy predictable habitat hotspots of high space use. Movement modeling showed sharks preferred habitats characterized by strong sea surface-temperature gradients (fronts) over other available habitats. However, simultaneous Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking of the entire Spanish and Portuguese longline-vessel fishing fleets show an 80% overlap of fished areas with hotspots, potentially increasing shark susceptibility to fishing exploitation. Regions of high overlap between oceanic tagged sharks and longliners included the North Atlantic Current/Labrador Current convergence zone and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge southwest of the Azores. In these main regions, and subareas within them, shark/vessel co-occurrence was spatially and temporally persistent between years, highlighting how broadly the fishing exploitation efficiently “tracks” oceanic sharks within their space-use hotspots year-round. Given this intense focus of longliners on shark hotspots, our study argues the need for international catch limits for pelagic sharks and identifies a future role of combining fine-scale fish and vessel telemetry to inform the ocean-scale management of fisheries.

Continue Reading

Acknowledgments

Funding was provided by the UK Natural Environment Research Council Oceans 2025 Strategic Research Programme (D.W.S.), the Save Our Seas Foundation (D.W.S.), a Marine Biological Association Senior Research Fellowship (D.W.S.), European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) via the Programa Operacional Competitividade e Internacionalizacao (COMPETE), National Funds via Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) under PTDC/MAR/100345/2008 and COMPETE FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-010580 (to N.Q. and D.W.S.), Project Biodiversity, Ecology and Global Change cofinanced by North Portugal Regional Operational Programme 2007/2013 (ON.2—O Novo Norte), under the National Strategic Reference Framework via the European Regional Development Fund (N.Q.), FCT Investigator Fellowships IF/01611/2013 (to N.Q.) and IF/00043/2012 (to F.P.L.), FCT Doctoral Fellowships SFRH/BD/68717/2010 (to L.L.S.) and SFRH/BD/68521/2010 (to R.S.) and by the Disney Worldwide Conservation Fund, Batchelor Foundation, and West Coast Inland Navigation District in Florida (N.H.). This research was part of the European Tracking of Predators in the Atlantic initiative. This paper is dedicated to the memory of our colleague P. Alexandrino, who supported the initial work.

Supporting Information

Appendix (PDF)
Supporting Information

References

1
DJ McCauley, et al., Marine defaunation: Animal loss in the global ocean. Science 347, 1255641 (2015).
2
B Worm, et al., Global catches, exploitation rates, and rebuilding options for sharks. Mar Policy 40, 194–204 (2013).
3
JA Hutchings, RA Myers, VB García, LO Lucifora, A Kuparinen, Life-history correlates of extinction risk and recovery potential. Ecol Appl 22, 1061–1067 (2012).
4
JK Baum, et al., Collapse and conservation of shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic. Science 299, 389–392 (2003).
5
RA Myers, JK Baum, TD Shepherd, SP Powers, CH Peterson, Cascading effects of the loss of apex predatory sharks from a coastal ocean. Science 315, 1846–1850 (2007).
6
JK Baum, W Blanchard, Inferring shark population trends from generalized linear mixed models of pelagic longline catch and effort data. Fish Res 102, 229–239 (2010).
7
MD Camhi, E Lauck, EK Pikitch, EA Babcock, A global overview of commercial fisheries for open ocean sharks. Sharks of the Open Ocean: Biology, Fisheries and Conservation, eds MD Camhi, EK Pikitch, EA Babcock (Blackwell, Oxford), pp. 166–192 (2008).
8
; International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT), Report of the 2004 Inter-sessional Meeting of the ICCAT sub-committee on by-catches: Shark stock assessment. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT 58, 799–890 (2005).
9
; International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT), Report of the 2008 shark stock assessment meeting. Collect Vol Sci Pap ICCAT 64, 1343–1491 (2009).
10
; International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT), Report of the 2012 shortfin mako stock assessment and ecological risk assessment meeting. Olhão, Portugal. www.iccat.int/Documents/Meetings/Docs/2012_SHK_ASS_ENG.pdf. (2012).
11
DW Sims, Tracking and analysis techniques for understanding free-ranging shark movements and behaviour. Biology of Sharks and their Relatives, eds J Carrier, M Heithaus, J Musick (CRC, Boca Raton, FL) Vol II, 351–392 (2010).
12
BA Block, et al., Tracking apex marine predator movements in a dynamic ocean. Nature 475, 86–90 (2011).
13
JK Baum, DG Kehler, RA Myers, Robust estimates of decline for pelagic shark populations in the northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Fisheries (Bethesda, Md) 30, 27–29 (2005).
14
N Queiroz, NE Humphries, LR Noble, AM Santos, DW Sims, Spatial dynamics and expanded vertical niche of blue sharks in oceanographic fronts reveal habitat targets for conservation. PLoS One 7, e32374 (2012).
15
B Worm, HK Lotze, RA Myers, Predator diversity hotspots in the blue ocean. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100, 9884–9888 (2003).
16
P Miller, Composite front maps for improved visibility of dynamic sea-surface features on cloudy SeaWiFS and AVHRR data. J Mar Syst 78, 327–336 (2009).
17
N Bez, E Walker, D Gaertner, J Rivoirard, P Gaspar, Fishing activity of tuna purse seiners estimated from vessel monitoring system (VMS) data. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 68, 1998–2010 (2011).
18
SC Votier, et al., Individual responses of seabirds to commercial fisheries revealed using GPS tracking, stable isotopes and vessel monitoring systems. J Appl Ecol 47, 487–497 (2010).
19
JSE Lea, et al., Repeated, long-distance migrations by a philopatric predator targeting highly contrasting ecosystems. Sci Rep 5, 11202 (2015).
20
N Hammerschlag, AJ Gallagher, DM Lazarre, C Slonim, Range extension of the endangered great hammerhead shark Sphyrna mokarran in the Northwest Atlantic: Preliminary data and significance for conservation. Endanger Species Res 13, 111–116 (2011b).
21
A Getis, JK Ord, The analysis of spatial association by use of distance statistics. Geogr Anal 24, 189–206 (1992).
22
A Walli, et al., Seasonal movements, aggregations and diving behavior of Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) revealed with archival tags. PLoS One 4, e6151 (2009).
23
DP Tittensor, et al., Global patterns and predictors of marine biodiversity across taxa. Nature 466, 1098–1101 (2010).
24
F Vandeperre, et al., Movements of blue sharks (Prionace glauca) across their life history. PLoS One 9, e103538 (2014).
25
SE Campana, et al., Migration pathways, behavioural thermoregulation and overwintering grounds of blue sharks in the Northwest Atlantic. PLoS One 6, e16854 (2011).
26
P Ward, RA Myers, Shifts in open-ocean fish communities coinciding with the commencement of commercial fishing. Ecology 86, 835–847 (2005).
27
MD Camhi, Conservation status of pelagic elasmobranchs. Sharks of the Open Ocean: Biology, Fisheries and Conservation, eds MD Camhi, EK Pikitch, EA Babcock (Blackwell, Oxford), pp. 397–417 (2008).
28
S Fossette, et al., Pan-atlantic analysis of the overlap of a highly migratory species, the leatherback turtle, with pelagic longline fisheries. Proc Biol Sci 281, 20133065 (2014).
29
JH Roe, et al., Predicting bycatch hotspots for endangered leatherback turtles on longlines in the Pacific Ocean. Proc Biol Sci 281, 20132559 (2014).
30
SJ Jorgensen, et al., Philopatry and migration of Pacific white sharks. Proc Biol Sci 277, 679–688 (2010).
31
UR Sumaila, D Zeller, R Watson, J Alder, D Pauly, Potential costs and benefits of marine reserves in the high seas. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 345, 305–310 (2007).
32
AC Godin, T Wimmer, JH Wang, B Worm, No effect from rare-earth metal deterrent on shark bycatch in a commercial pelagic longline trial. Fish Res 143, 131–135 (2013).
33
SE Campana, W Joyce, MJ Manning, Bycatch and discard mortality in commercially caught blue sharks Prionace glauca assessed using archival satellite pop-up tags. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 387, 241–253 (2009).
34
JM Marzluff, JJ Millspaugh, P Hurvitz, MS Handcock, Relating resources to a probabilistic measure of space use: Forest fragments and Steller’s jays. Ecology 85, 1411–1427 (2004).

Information & Authors

Information

Published in

The cover image for PNAS Vol.113; No.6
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Vol. 113 | No. 6
February 9, 2016
PubMed: 26811467

Classifications

Submission history

Published online: January 25, 2016
Published in issue: February 9, 2016

Keywords

  1. animal telemetry
  2. distribution
  3. conservation
  4. fisheries
  5. predator–prey

Acknowledgments

Funding was provided by the UK Natural Environment Research Council Oceans 2025 Strategic Research Programme (D.W.S.), the Save Our Seas Foundation (D.W.S.), a Marine Biological Association Senior Research Fellowship (D.W.S.), European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) via the Programa Operacional Competitividade e Internacionalizacao (COMPETE), National Funds via Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) under PTDC/MAR/100345/2008 and COMPETE FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-010580 (to N.Q. and D.W.S.), Project Biodiversity, Ecology and Global Change cofinanced by North Portugal Regional Operational Programme 2007/2013 (ON.2—O Novo Norte), under the National Strategic Reference Framework via the European Regional Development Fund (N.Q.), FCT Investigator Fellowships IF/01611/2013 (to N.Q.) and IF/00043/2012 (to F.P.L.), FCT Doctoral Fellowships SFRH/BD/68717/2010 (to L.L.S.) and SFRH/BD/68521/2010 (to R.S.) and by the Disney Worldwide Conservation Fund, Batchelor Foundation, and West Coast Inland Navigation District in Florida (N.H.). This research was part of the European Tracking of Predators in the Atlantic initiative. This paper is dedicated to the memory of our colleague P. Alexandrino, who supported the initial work.

Notes

This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. S.D.G. is a guest editor invited by the Editorial Board.

Authors

Affiliations

Nuno Queiroz
Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, The Laboratory, Plymouth PL1 2PB, United Kingdom;
Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos/Research Network in Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology, Campus Agrário de Vairão, Universidade do Porto, 4485-668 Vairão, Portugal;
Nicolas E. Humphries
Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, The Laboratory, Plymouth PL1 2PB, United Kingdom;
Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos/Research Network in Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology, Campus Agrário de Vairão, Universidade do Porto, 4485-668 Vairão, Portugal;
Centro Tecnológico del Mar, 36208, Vigo, Spain;
Neil Hammerschlag
Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Miami, Miami, FL 33149;
Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos/Research Network in Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology, Campus Agrário de Vairão, Universidade do Porto, 4485-668 Vairão, Portugal;
Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth PL1 3DH, United Kingdom;
Institute of Marine Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064;
Environmental Research Division, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Monterey, CA 93940;
Peter I. Miller
Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth PL1 3DH, United Kingdom;
Lara L. Sousa
Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, The Laboratory, Plymouth PL1 2PB, United Kingdom;
Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos/Research Network in Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology, Campus Agrário de Vairão, Universidade do Porto, 4485-668 Vairão, Portugal;
Ocean and Earth Science, National Oceanography Centre Southampton, Waterfront Campus, University of Southampton, Southampton SO14 3ZH, United Kingdom;
Rui Seabra
Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos/Research Network in Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology, Campus Agrário de Vairão, Universidade do Porto, 4485-668 Vairão, Portugal;
Departamento de Biologia, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade do Porto, 4169-007 Porto, Portugal;
David W. Sims1 [email protected]
Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, The Laboratory, Plymouth PL1 2PB, United Kingdom;
Ocean and Earth Science, National Oceanography Centre Southampton, Waterfront Campus, University of Southampton, Southampton SO14 3ZH, United Kingdom;
Centre for Biological Sciences, Highfield Campus, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom

Notes

1
To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: [email protected].
Author contributions: D.W.S. conceived the study; N.Q. and D.W.S. designed research; N.Q., G.M., N.H., and D.W.S. organized fieldwork and performed tagging; N.E.H., F.P.L., K.L.S., P.I.M., and R.S. contributed analytic tools; N.Q., N.E.H., G.M., F.P.L., L.L.S., R.S., and D.W.S. analyzed data; and N.Q. and D.W.S. wrote the paper with input from all authors.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Note: The article usage is presented with a three- to four-day delay and will update daily once available. Due to ths delay, usage data will not appear immediately following publication. Citation information is sourced from Crossref Cited-by service.


Altmetrics

Citations

Export the article citation data by selecting a format from the list below and clicking Export.

Cited by

    Loading...

    View Options

    View options

    PDF format

    Download this article as a PDF file

    DOWNLOAD PDF

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Personal login Institutional Login

    Recommend to a librarian

    Recommend PNAS to a Librarian

    Purchase options

    Purchase this article to access the full text.

    Single Article Purchase

    Ocean-wide tracking of pelagic sharks reveals extent of overlap with longline fishing hotspots
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
    • Vol. 113
    • No. 6
    • pp. 1459-E813

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share article link

    Share on social media

    Further reading in this issue