Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. 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: Caution over the use of ecological big data for conservation

The Original Article was published on 07 July 2021

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Comparing AIS longline fishing datasets.
Fig. 2: Example effects of random deletions of fishing effort data on exposure risk patterns.

Data availability

Data used to prepare the maps (shark relative spatial density, longline-fishing effort and shark–longline-fishing overlap and FEI) are available on GitHub (https://github.com/GlobalSharkMovement/GlobalSpatialRisk).

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 (https://github.com/GlobalSharkMovement/GlobalSpatialRisk).

References

  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.

    Harry, A., Braccini, M. Caution over the use of ecological big data for conservation. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03463-w (2021).

  3. 3.

    Kroodsma, D. A. et al. Tracking the global footprint of fisheries. Science 359, 904–908 (2018).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    European Commission. European Union Fleet Register. version 1.0.8.8 https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fleet-europa/index_en (accessed 10 April 2020).

  5. 5.

    Stevens, J. D. Management of shark fisheries in Northern Australia. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 378/2 http://www.fao.org/3/x2097e/X2097E20.htm#ch16 (FAO, 1999).

  6. 6.

    Griffiths, S., Edgar, S., Wang, Y.-G. & Salini, J. Calculating recent foreign fishing vessel numbers using established estimators based on Coastwatch surveillance and apprehension data. Project Number 2007/836 (Australian Fisheries Management Authority 2008).

  7. 7.

    Field, I. C., Meekan, M. G., Buckworth, R. C. & Bradshaw, C. J. A. Protein mining the world’s oceans: Australasia as an example of illegal expansion-and-displacement fishing. Fish Fish. 10, 323–328 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Australian Fisheries Management Authority. Indonesian illegal fisher apprehended off Darwin convicted. https://www.afma.gov.au/news-media/media-releases/indonesian-illegal-fisher-apprehended-darwin-convicted (Australian Border Force and Australian Fisheries Management Authority, 1 November 2019).

  9. 9.

    Marshall, L. The Fin Blue Line: quantifying Fishing Mortality using Shark Fin Morphology. PhD Thesis, Univ. of Tasmania (2011).

  10. 10.

    Braccini, M., Molony, B. & Blay, N. Patterns in abundance and size of sharks in northwestern Australia: cause for optimism. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 77, 72–82 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Roff, G., Brown, C. J., Priest, M. A. & Mumby, P. J. Decline of coastal apex shark populations over the past half century. Commun. Biol. 1, 223 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Ferreira, L. C. & Simpfendorfer, C. Galeocerdo cuvier. e.T39378A2913541 (The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, 2019).

  13. 13.

    Pirog, A. et al. Genetic population structure and demography of an apex predator, the tiger shark Galeocerdo cuvier. Ecol. Evol. 9, 5551–5571 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Hays, G. C. et al. Translating marine animal tracking data into conservation policy and management. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 459–473 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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 (http://globalsharkmovement.org/).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

N.Q. and D.W.S. planned the data analysis. N.Q. led the data analysis with contributions from M.V. and D.W.S. N.E.H. contributed analysis tools. D.W.S. led the manuscript writing with contributions from N.Q., N.E.H. and all authors. Seven of the original authors were not included in the Reply authorship; two authors retired from science and the remaining five, 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 Fig. 1 Comparing shark exposure risk between AIS longline fishing effort datasets.

ad, Estimated exposure risk of sharks to capture by GFW AIS longline fishing effort across ocean regions for Queiroz et al.1 (a) compared with three improved data releases since the paper was published (bd). The plots show minor effects of any changes on estimates of shark exposure risk from AIS longline fishing effort and confirm the global results and conclusions of our paper. a, Data from Queiroz et al.1. b, Data from GWF 2012–2016. c, Data from GWF 2012–2018. d, Data from GWF 2018.

Extended Data Table 1 Mean monthly spatial overlap estimates (%) of pelagic shark space use and AIS longline fishing effort for different AIS datasets
Extended Data Table 2 Effect of 1% random deletion of fishing effort grid cells within each region on risk exposure estimates
Extended Data Table 3 Effect of 5% random deletion of fishing effort grid cells within each region on risk exposure estimates

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Figures 1 and 2, and Supplementary Tables 1-7.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Queiroz, N., Humphries, N.E., Couto, A. et al. Reply to: Caution over the use of ecological big data for conservation. Nature 595, E20–E28 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03464-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03464-9

Comments

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.

Search

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