ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025
Reconstructing historical catch trends of threatened sharks and rays based on fisher ecological knowledge.
Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reconstructing historical catch trends of threatened sharks and rays based on fisher ecological knowledge.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Small-scale fisheries often lack historical shark and ray catch information, hampering their management. We reconstructed historical catch trends and current fishing pressure by combining local ecological knowledge, satellite-based vessel counts, and a short-term landing-site survey. To test the effectiveness of this method, we focused on the Bijagós Archipelago (Guinea-Bissau, West Africa), where historical fisheries data are lacking. Benthic rays (stingrays [Dasyatidae] and butterfly rays [Gymnura spp.]), benthopelagic rays (duckbill eagle rays [Aetomylaeus bovinus] and cownose rays [Rhinoptera marginata]), guitarfish (Glaucostegus and Rhinobatos spp.), requiem sharks (Carcharhinidae), and hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna spp.) declined in abundance by 81.5-96.7% (species dependent) from 1960 to 2020. Fishing effort increased annually: fishing trip duration by 42.0% (SE 3.4), numbers of fishing vessels at sea as perceived by fishers by 36.3% (1.0) (1960-2020), and number of vessels by 12.0% (1.1) (2007-2022). We estimated that in 2020, fishing vessels collectively captured 61-264 sharks and 522-2194 rays per day in the archipelago, depending on the proportion of the fishing fleet that was active (i.e., low fleet activity of 18% and high fleet activity of 80%). We advocate for reducing shark and ray catches by regulating fleet size, reinforcing boundaries of protected areas, and collecting fisher-dependent information on shark and ray landings to safeguard these vulnerable species and coastal livelihoods. We demonstrated the effectiveness of using this 3-pronged approach to provide baseline data on shark fisheries, a common challenge in areas with small-scale fisheries and limited research capacity.
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.