Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31891944›Full record

ReviewPloS one2019

From sea monsters to charismatic megafauna: Changes in perception and use of large marine animals.

Carlotta Mazzoldi, Giovanni Bearzi, Cristina Brito, Inês Carvalho, Elena Desiderà, Lara Endrizzi, Luis Freitas, Eva Giacomello, Ioannis Giovos, Paolo Guidetti and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Lessons from a Rubik's Cube to solve the biodiversity crisis.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.

Carlotta MazzoldiDepartment of Biology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2798-3030
Giovanni BearziDolphin Biology and Conservation, Cordenons, Italy.
Cristina BritoCHAM-Center for the Humanities, NOVA FCSH/Uaç, Lisbon, Portugal.
Inês CarvalhoAssociação para as Ciências do Mar, APCM, Lisbon, Portugal.
Elena DesideràDepartment of Biology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4704-3107
Lara EndrizziDepartment of Biology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Luis FreitasMuseu da Baleia da Madeira, Caniçal, Madeira, Portugal.
Eva GiacomelloMARE-Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, Horta, Portugal.
Ioannis GiovosiSea, Environmental Organisation for the Preservation of the Aquatic Ecosystems, Greece.
Paolo GuidettiCoNISMa (Interuniversitary Consortium of Marine Sciences), Rome, Italy.
Adriana RessurreiçãoMARE-Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, Horta, Portugal.
Malcolm TullMurdoch University, Perth, Australia.
Alison MacDiarmidNIWA, Wellington, New Zealand.
Associação Para as Ciências do MarCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRUniversidade dos Açores · PTUniversity of Padua · ITMurdoch University · AUNational Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Marine megafauna has always elicited contrasting feelings. In the past, large marine animals were often depicted as fantastic mythological creatures and dangerous monsters, while also arousing human curiosity. Marine megafauna has been a valuable resource to exploit, leading to the collapse of populations and local extinctions. In addition, some species have been perceived as competitors of fishers for marine resources and were often actively culled. Since the 1970s, there has been a change in the perception and use of megafauna. The growth of marine tourism, increasingly oriented towards the observation of wildlife, has driven a shift from extractive to non-extractive use, supporting the conservation of at least some species of marine megafauna. In this paper, we review and compare the changes in the perception and use of three megafaunal groups, cetaceans, elasmobranchs and groupers, with a special focus on European cultures. We highlight the main drivers and the timing of these changes, compare different taxonomic groups and species, and highlight the implications for management and conservation. One of the main drivers of the shift in perception, shared by all the three groups of megafauna, has been a general increase in curiosity towards wildlife, stimulated inter alia by documentaries (from the early 1970s onwards), and also promoted by easy access to scuba diving. At the same time, environmental campaigns have been developed to raise public awareness regarding marine wildlife, especially cetaceans, a process greatly facilitated by the rise of Internet and the World Wide Web. Currently, all the three groups (cetaceans, elasmobranchs and groupers) may represent valuable resources for ecotourism. Strikingly, the economic value of live specimens may exceed their value for human consumption. A further change in perception involving all the three groups is related to a growing understanding and appreciation of their key ecological role. The shift from extractive to non-extractive use has the potential for promoting species conservation and local economic growth. However, the change in use may not benefit the original stakeholders (e.g. fishers or whalers) and there may therefore be a case for providing compensation for disadvantaged stakeholders. Moreover, it is increasingly clear that even non-extractive use may have a negative impact on marine megafauna, therefore regulations are needed.

Indexed as

CetaceaElasmobranchiiPerceptionAnimalsConservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystem

Identifiers

PMID31891944
PMCPMC6938407
OpenAlexW2998097572

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.