ArticleScientific reports2017
Impact of biology knowledge on the conservation and management of large pelagic sharks.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evidence of Genetic Continuity in the Shortfin Mako Shark (Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Discovery of a potential open ocean nursery for the endangered shortfin mako shark in a global fishing hotspot.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A diverse assemblage ofCretaceous research · 2023Article
- Juvenile survival and movements of two threatened oceanic sharks in the North Atlantic Ocean inferred from tag-recovery data.Ecology and evolution · 2023Article
- The extinct shark,Journal of vertebrate paleontology · 2023Article
- Demographic Analysis of Shortfin Mako Shark (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Population growth rate, which depends on several biological parameters, is valuable information for the conservation and management of pelagic sharks, such as blue and shortfin mako sharks. However, reported biological parameters for estimating the population growth rates of these sharks differ by sex and display large variability. To estimate the appropriate population growth rate and clarify relationships between growth rate and relevant biological parameters, we developed a two-sex age-structured matrix population model and estimated the population growth rate using combinations of biological parameters. We addressed elasticity analysis and clarified the population growth rate sensitivity. For the blue shark, the estimated median population growth rate was 0.384 with a range of minimum and maximum values of 0.195-0.533, whereas those values of the shortfin mako shark were 0.102 and 0.007-0.318, respectively. The maturity age of male sharks had the largest impact for blue sharks, whereas that of female sharks had the largest impact for shortfin mako sharks. Hypotheses for the survival process of sharks also had a large impact on the population growth rate estimation. Both shark maturity age and survival rate were based on ageing validation data, indicating the importance of validating the quality of these data for the conservation and management of large pelagic sharks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.