# European_Red_List_2017_December

taxonomicNotes:
In the North Atlantic, this species is possibly caught as a bycatch in deepwater trawl fisheries but could be other Apristurus species. A careful examination of North Atlantic A. cf. microps should be compared to southern African forms. See Compagno (in prep. b) for further taxonomic notes.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC) Smalleye Catshark (Apristurus microps) is known from occasional captures in deepwater exploratory trawls at depths of 700−2,200 m. In the Northeast Atlantic, this species may be caught as bycatch in deepwater trawl fisheries. Future expansion of deepwater fisheries could pose a threat to this poorly known species, however, at present much of its range is below the depth of fishing activities so it can be inferred that the species faces a low risk of exploitation. It is therefore assessed as Least Concern in European waters.

range:
In the Northeast Atlantic, this catshark occurs between Scotland and Iceland (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). It is also found outside of Europe off South Africa and possibly in the Northwest Atlantic. Its depth range is 7002,200 m.

population:
The population trend is unknown for this species. The zero Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and zero bycatch allowance measures in place for certain deepwater sharks in European Commission waters may have lead to an increase in discarding and therefore fewer reports of the species (ICES 2013).

habitat:
This benthic catshark occurs on or near the bottom over the continental slope at depths of 7002,200 m. It is an egg-laying species that appears to deposit egg cases year-round. Males mature at ~ 4951 cm total length (TL) and females mature at 4749 cm TL. The maximum reported size for this species is 61 cm TL (Ebert and Stehmann 2013).

threats:
This catshark may be caught as bycatch and discarded by deepwater trawl fisheries, particularly in the North Atlantic. At present most of its depth range is outside the reach of deepwater fisheries. Expansion of fisheries may pose a threat in the future, but there is currently no indication of fishery expansion in the Northeast Atlantic.

conservationAction:
Based on advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea to end fishing for deepwater sharks, the European Union Fisheries Council established a TAC for this species in 2007 (CEC 2012). This TAC was gradually reduced and in 2010 it was set at zero. In 2011, the allowable bycatch was reduced from 10% to 3% of the 2009 TAC and in 2012 it was further reduced to zero (ICES 2013).Research should be conducted to determine if the North Atlantic and southern African forms of A. cf. micropsare conspecific. The harvest trends of the species should also be monitored. 


taxonomicNotes:
Previously this species was synonymized with Galeus melastomus, but it is now considered a valid species supported by both morphometric external field marks and genetic evidence (Muñoz-Chapuli and Perez-Ortega 1985; Rey et al. 2005, 2006, 2010; Castilho et al. 2007).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Near Threatened (NT)Atlantic Sawtail Catshark (Galeus atlanticus) is a little known and rare demersal catshark reported at depths ranging from 330−790 m, with a narrow extent of occurrence (approximately 50,000 km2). It is still probably misidentified as Blackmouth Catshark (Galeus melastomus) and African Sawtail Catshark (G. polli). It is taken as bycatch throughout its entire depth and geographic range by deepwater fisheries. It is usually discarded but post-release survival rates are unknown and assumed to be low, and larger individuals are retained for sale. The species is suspected to have undergone a decline of nearly 30% over the three-generation period (36-45 years), being close to qualifying as threatened under Criterion A2, and it is therefore assessed as Near Threatened due to the heavy fishing pressure it suffers throughout this small range. Catches of this species should be correctly identified and carefully monitored.

range:
This catshark has a very narrow range in all the regions in which it occurs. Some identification problems and possible confusion with Blackmouth Catshark (Galeus melastomus) and African Sawtail Catshark (G. polli) indicate that the range may be larger than currently known. The total extent of occurrence (EOO) is around 50,000 km2, from which approximately 25,000 km2 is in the Northeast Atlantic and 25,000 km2 is in the Mediterranean Sea. In the Northeast Atlantic this species has been reported off the southwest coast of Portugal (Coelho and Erzini 2008), where it is captured regularly. In the Eastern Central Atlantic, this shark has been reported off West Africa, but only from a single type specimen captured off Cape Spartel on northwest coast of Morocco, and from one specimen captured off Mauritania (Castilho et al. 2007). In the Mediterranean Sea it has been reported in Spanish waters, from the Gibraltar Strait in the west to Cape Gata to the east.Its depth range is 330-710 m.

population:
The International Trawl Survey in the Mediterranean (MEDITS) program covers the north Mediterranean coast almost continuously from western Morocco and Spain in the west to the Aegean Sea in the east. Six trawl surveys were carried out in the coastal areas of four arbitrary geographically defined areas: Western (Morocco, Spain, France), Western Central (Tyrrhenian, Corsican, Sardinia and Sicily coasts), Eastern Central (Adriatic, Ionian and Albanian coasts) and the Eastern (Aegean Sea). This catshark was only captured in one (0.01%) out of 6,336 tows performed between 1994 and 1999 at depths ranging from 10 to 800 m (Baino et al. 2001). However, it is likely that it was still being confused for Blackmouth Catshark at this time. Spanish MEDITS data indicate that it only occurs in the western Mediterranean Sea, from the Straits of Gibraltar to Cape Gata. High numbers of juveniles have only been reported from the Alboran Sea (Rey et al. 2005, 2010), and abundance decreases gradually towards Cape Gata (Rey et al. 2005, 2010). In the Eastern Central Atlantic this species has only been confirmed from West African waters from the holotype specimen that was captured off cape Spartel of northwest Morocco (Vaillant 1888), and from a specimen caught off Mauritania (Castilho et al. 2007). It is unknown if it is very rare in this area or is just misidentified as Blackmouth Catshark and African Sawtail Catshark. Based on the rarity of this catshark and the fact that it exists within a very narrow depth and geographic range that entirely overlaps with fisheries, the population is suspected to have undergone a decline of nearly 30% for the three generation period (36-45 years). While there have been no estimates of post-release survival rates after incidental capture and discarding, a precautionary assumption should be made that survival might be low.

habitat:
This catshark is a demersal species occurring at depths of 330−710 m (Compagno et al. 2005, Rey et al. 2005).This egg laying species produces egg cases that are 11−13 mm by 38−40 mm in size (Bauchot 1987) with up to nine egg cases in one female, suggesting a short hatching period outside the mother (Compagno et al. 2005). Bauchot (1987) measured a mature female of 39.8 cm total length (TL) and a male of 38.4 cm TL, while Compagno et al. (2005) estimated that females mature at sizes between 40 and 45 cm TL males mature between ~ 38 and 42 cm TL. Maximum size is ~ 45 cm TL (Compagno et al. 2005). Other similar-sized temperature Galeus species mature at 9.14 and 7.57 years for females and males respectively, and have a longevity of 20.9 and 12.4 years, which suggest generation spans of 9.98 and 15.02 years (Liu et al. 2011) Therefore the generation length of Galeus atlanticus is suspected to be between 12-15 years. 

threats:
This species apparently is commonly misidentified in fisheries data as Blackmouth Catshark as they are externally very similar. It is caught as bycatch by commercial trawl nets and bottom longlines on slope bottoms and it is a bycatch in the semi-industrial and artisanal trawl, gillnet and longline fisheries (Bauchot 1987, Serena 2005). Deepwater trawlers targeting crustaceans such as Norway Lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) and Red Shrimp (Aristeus antennatus) operate intensively throughout the Alboran Sea. This catshark is most abundant in the Alboran Sea and these trawlers operate throughout the entire depth range and area of occupancy of this species in this region, making it susceptible to capture throughout its entire AOO.  Off the south coast of Portugal (Algarve), this catshark is a bycatch of the deepwater longline fishery that targets Wreck Fish (Polyprion americanus) and Conger Eels (Conger conger), and of deepwater trawlers targeting crustaceans such as Norway Lobster, Red Shrimp and Pink Shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris; Coelho and Erzini 2008). Most specimens are discarded, although the larger specimens have some commercial value and may be sold for human consumption. Most of the discarded specimens are still alive when returned to sea, but usually have severe injuries that are likely to impair their survival. In Portuguese fisheries statistics from these fisheries, marketed specimens are mixed with and recorded as Blackmouth Catshark, making it impossible to discern trends of commercial captures through time. Currently, the entire AOO in the Northeast Atlantic is being heavily fished either by deepwater trawlers or deepwater longliners, so the entire population in this region is likely undergoing fishing mortality. Off cape Spartel, where the type specimen was recorded, there has been a deepwater longline fishery operating throughout this species’ depth range since 2001, targeting Black Scabbardfish (Aphanopus carbo). In the same area and depth range there is a deepwater trawl fishery targeting crustaceans. It is likely that both fisheries are taking this species as bycatch but data are unavailable.

conservationAction:
Based on advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to end fishing for deepwater sharks, the European Union (EU) Fisheries Council in 2007 established and began gradual reductions for a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) quota covering several shark species, not including Atlantic Sawtail Shark. In 2010, the EU Council added four deepwater shark species to the measure, and set the deepwater shark TAC at zero, starting in 2012.  In 2013, in response to ICES advice, the list of species covered by the deepwater shark TAC was amended to exclude Blackmouth Catshark. Owing to the lack of differentiation between Atlantic Sawtail Catshark and Blackmouth Catshark in commercial fisheries catch, strong fishing pressure is expected for this species within its restricted range. In this area (mainly Alboran Sea and south Portugal) mid- or long-term surveillance of abundance in fisheries (longline and bottom trawl) is necessary. Fishery observers should start separating this species from Blackmouth Catshark and African Sawtail Catshark. Further research should be conducted on the population size and trend of the species.

redListAssessors:
Coelho, R.P., Rey, J., Serena, F., Mancusi, C. & Guallart, J.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)Blackmouth Catshark (Galeus melastomus) is a small, common catshark that is wide ranging in the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea. This species occurs on continental shelves and upper slopes, mainly at depths of 200–500 m, although it has been recorded between 55 and 2,000 m. It is taken as bycatch in demersal trawl and longline fisheries and is generally discarded, although it is retained and used in some areas. Research surveys indicate that this species is relatively abundant in some areas, notably the area southwest of Iceland, on the Hatton Bank, northwest of Ireland and in the Alboran Sea in the western Mediterranean Sea. Various research survey and landings data show no evidence of any significant decline, and populations appear stable overall. The recently introduced ban on bottom trawling below 1,000 m depth in the Mediterranean Sea should also offer this species some refuge from fishing pressure at greater depths. Blackmouth Catshark is assessed as Least Concern on the basis of inferred population stability in the European region, but population trends should continue to be monitored.

range:
In the Northeast Atlantic, this species is found from the Faeroe Islands and off the coast of Trondheim, Norway, ranging westward to the northern area of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, Reykjanes Ridge, southwest Iceland and the Azores (Compagno 1984, Hareide and Garnes 2001). The range of this species extends southwards to the Eastern Central Atlantic, where it has been found off the coast of Senegal (Compagno 1984). This species is found throughout the Mediterranean Sea, excluding the northern Adriatic Sea, the northern Aegean Sea and the Black Sea (Bauchot 1987, Serena 2005). Its depth range is 55-2,000 m.

population:
Northeast Atlantic OceanGenerally this catshark is reported as common in the Northeast Atlantic, based on data observed during research surveys and inferred from landings. This species was one of the most abundant elasmobranchs recorded in the Norwegian Sea according to a series of Annual Autumn Bottom Trawl Surveys along the northern Norwegian Coast from 1992–2005 (ICES 2007). The total catch during these years was 8,376 individuals, with an average annual catch rate of 644.3 individuals, but fluctuating widely between 26 and 1,883 individuals caught per year (ICES 2007). This species is also abundant in the northern area of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, especially along the Reykjanes Ridge (southwest of Iceland) where the catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) can be as high as 58.5 kg/1,000 hooks (Hareide and Garnes 2001). Commercial longline vessels operating off southern Portugal (Algarve) from 1997 and 1998 (Erzini et al. 1999) compared to 2003 (Coelho et al. 2005) showed an increase of 151% in CPUE. This increase is somewhat supported by official fisheries landing statistics for this species in Algarve, which showed an increase of 48% from 1988–2001 (DGPA 2001), however this increase in landings is not necessarily reflective of an increase in captures. A decline in stocks of traditional target species has resulted in increased retention of this species. Despite this, off southern Portugal the population appears to be stable. Mediterranean SeaThis species is apparently relatively common in the Mediterranean Sea over a wide depth range. It occurred in ~ 27% of hauls during the International Trawl Survey in the Mediterranean (MEDITS) research surveys conducted throughout the northern Mediterranean Sea (Alboran to the Aegean Sea) from 1994–1999 at depths of 10–800 m (Baino et al. 2001). The abundance index for this species was > 100 kg/km2 in the Gulf of Lions and in Sardinian waters, and reached a maximum of 1,040 kg/km2 in the Alboran Sea. These maximum indices in the Alboran Sea were obtained both in 1997 and 2002, but no trend was observed (Rey et al. 2004). Similarly, trawl surveys conducted in the Adriatic Sea in both 1948 and 1998 showed no significant difference in the abundance indexes for this species on the continental slope (Jukić-Peladić et al. 2001). Additionally, MEDITS survey data showed no significant trend in density indices along the years (Bertrand et al. 2000), although in some parts of the Mediterranean Sea (Tyrrhenian Sea) this species showed a slight increasing trend with seasonal fluctuations in biomass, reaching a maximum in winter and a minimum in summer (Baino and Serena 2000). Data from surveys suggests that juveniles occur in shallower waters, and adults at greater depths. For example, in the Alboran Sea specimens captured at depths of 201–500 m were generally < 20 cm whereas specimens captured at depths of 501–800 m were generally > 20 cm (Rey et al. 2004). Specimens captured by deep bottom trawl nets (> 800 m) and bottom longline catches also tend to be of a larger mean size (Carrasson et al. 1992, Ungaro et al. 1999, Ungaro et al. 2001, Massutì and Moranta 2002). In addition, high concentrations of juveniles were found consistently found the same depth interval in Sardinian waters, the Alboran Sea and the southeast Tyrrhenian Sea (Serena et al. 2005).

habitat:
This catshark occurs mainly at depths of 200–500 m, although it has been recorded at depths from 55–2,000 m (Stefanescu et al. 1992, Moranta et al. 1998, Relini et al. 1996, Compagno et al. 2005). It is found on both the continental shelf and upper part of the continental slope, but predominantly occupies continental slope bottoms (Carrasson et al. 1992, Stefanescu et al. 1992, Tursi et al. 1993, Ungaro et al. 1994, Ungaro et al. 2001, Abella and Serena 2005). This is an egg laying species with yolk formation (vitellogenesis) occurring at any time of the year (Tursi et al. 1990). Eggs hatch mainly in the spring and summer with two to eight eggs produced per litter (Tortonese 1956, Bini 1967), and between 40 and 93 egg cases produced per year as a maximum (Capapé et al. 1984). Size at maturity in females is ranges between 38 and 51 cm total length (TL) and between 34 and 45 cm TL for males in the Mediterranean Sea (Bauchot 1987, Tursi et al. 1993, Ungaro et al. 1994, Rey et al. 2002). However, Capapé et al. (1984) reported slightly larger estimates of length at maturity in the northwest Mediterranean Sea, with females maturing between 52 and 61 cm TL and males maturing between 51 and 55 cm TL. The species reaches a maximum size of about 62–67 cm TL (Rey et al. 2002, Costa et al. 2005), although Compagno et al. (2005) reports a maximum size of 90 cm TL. This species is relatively productive with an estimated generation time of 5.7 year, and an intrinsic rate of population increase of 0.176 (17% per year), based on an age-structured matrix model assuming age at maturity of four years (Abella et al. 2011).

threats:
This catshark is both targeted and found as bycatch in demersal trawl and longline fisheries throughout large areas of its geographic range. Individuals taken as bycatch are generally discarded, with low survival rates, but in some areas large individuals are retained and their flesh is used for human consumption.Northeast AtlanticCommercial deepwater trawl fisheries that target this species catch mature individuals at the fishery’s shallowest depth range. In addition to target fisheries, this species is taken as bycatch where it is most often discarded live (Coelho et al. 2005) but with low probability of survival. However, declines in traditional target species during the last few years mean that fishermen are now landing larger quantities of “alternative” species, such as this catshark, so it may be increasingly retained and sold. Off the south coast of Portugal (Algarve), this species is captured in high quantities as bycatch of the bottom trawl fishery that targets the Norway Lobster (Nephrops norvegicus), Red Shrimp (Aristeus antennatus) and Deepwater Pink Shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris), and by the near bottom longline fishery that targets European Hake (Merluccius merluccius), Conger Eels (Conger conger) and Wreck Fish (Polyprion americanus).MediterraneanThe species is caught as bycatch by trawl and bottom longline fisheries on slope bottoms. It appears to suffer greater fishing pressure in the Ionian, south Adriatic and Aegean Seas, compared to along the coasts of Morocco, Spain, France and around Crete. Length Frequency Distributions show that along the coasts of Morocco, Spain, France and around Crete specimens were mostly larger than 30 cm (78% of the total), while only 23% of the specimens caught around the coasts of Corsica, Sicily and in the Ionian, South Adriatic and Aegean Seas were over 30 cm (Serena et al. 2005).In the Alboran Sea, where this catshark is abundant, it is a common bycatch species in the bottom trawl fishery targeting deepwater Red shrimp (Aristeus antennatus; Torres et al. 2001). It also makes up a large portion of the bycatch in the main fishery of the Northern Tyrrhenian and Ligurian Seas (data from 1990–2001). Landings were about 700 kg in 2002 and were dominated by larger individuals (TL > 40 cm), meaning that only a selected fraction of the bycatch was landed (Abella and Serena 2005). Most individuals were discarded due to limited market demand and low commercial value. Considering the depths at which this species was caught (250–800 m) and the poor condition of the individuals immediately after their capture, it is likely that survival following release is low. However, it should be noted that the fishing grounds of this fleet overlap only partially with this species’ range, and higher densities of mature adults can be found in deeper waters off northern Corsica, where fishing pressure is moderate. These deeper waters may act as a refuge for this species (Abella and Serena 2005). 

conservationAction:
Based on advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea to end fishing for deepwater sharks, the European Union Fisheries Council established a TAC (Total Allowable Catch) for this species in 2007 (CEC 2012). This TAC was gradually reduced and in 2010 it was set at zero. In 2011, the allowable bycatch was reduced from 10% to 3% of the 2009 TAC and in 2012 it was further reduced to zero (ICES 2013). Additionally, the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) banned bottom trawling below depths of 1,000 m in the Mediterranean Sea in February 2005 (Recommendation GFCM/2005/1). However this ban would only affect a small portion of this species’ range, as it is more commonly found at shallower depths. Monitoring should be undertaken on the harvest trends of this species. 

useAndTrade:
The species is utilized fresh or salt-dried for human consumption and for leather. In some locations in the Algarve, this species is traditionally eaten during the Christmas period after being salt-dried. During this period, this species can reach very high prices in the local fish markets (R. Coelho unpublished data). Only the largest specimens (about more than 40 cm TL) are regularly present on the fish markets of Tyrrhenian sea and Morocco. It is utilised as fresh meat, frozen, salted or dried (Bauchot 1987). It does not have a high commercial importance but in some Italian ports it is landed and sold fresh after the removal of the head and skin (Serena and Abella 1999).

redListAssessors:
Abella, A., Serena, F., Mancusi, C., Ungaro, N., Hareide, N.-R., Guallart, J., Coelho, R.P. & Crozier, P.


taxonomicNotes:
This species may have been confused with one other, and possibly two other species, causing uncertainty in some of the literature. Pristiurus jenseni Saemundsson, 1922, is considered a junior synonym of this species. Recent analyses indicate that life-history data collected from specimens of Galeus murinus are incompatible with Saemundsson’s (1922) description of Pristiurus jenseni and data on Galeus murinus, provided in Magnússon’s (2000) fishery survey. Consequently, two possibilities require investigation: (1) The synonym P. jenseni is a valid species from Iceland, larger than G. murinus, and commonly confused with it and/or (2) G. murinus is in part confused in Magnússon et al. (2000) with a larger species of Apristurus present in Iceland. Molecular phylogenetic analysis of G. murinus was conducted by Iglésias et al. (2005) and Pristiurus jenseni requires critical taxonomic examination.

redListCategoryRationale:
Mouse Catshark (Galeus murinus) is a relatively small (about 50 cm total length) deepwater catshark reported on the continental slope at depths of 380–1,250 m. This species may have been confused with one or two others, causing uncertainty in some of the literature and further investigation is required into its taxonomy. It is taken as bycatch by commercial deepwater trawlers operating on the Northeast Atlantic slope and by Spanish and Moroccan experimental fisheries off western Africa. However, this species is small and may be able to escape through the mesh of trawl nets used in the Northeast Atlantic. Like some other small catsharks, this species may be relatively fecund and therefore resilient to depletion in fisheries. Furthermore, its relatively wide depth and geographic range probably afford it refuge from fishing pressure in parts of its range. Given these factors there is no reason to suspect that it has declined and it is assessed as Least Concern.

range:
In the Northeast Atlantic this species is found off the west coast of Iceland to the Faroe Islands (Compagno et al. 2005), and more recently it has been found off Scotland, the Hebrides Islands, Ireland, France, and Spain (Rodríguez-Cabello et al. 2013). In the Eastern Central Atlantic, it is found off Morocco and the Western Sahara (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Its depth range is 380-1,250 m.

population:
All available information on population relative abundance for this species is from the Northeast Atlantic. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea’s (ICES) surveys of Subarea VII (Irish Sea, West of Ireland, Porcupine Bank, Eastern and Western English Channel, Bristol Channel, Celtic Sea North and South, and Southwest of Ireland - East and West) have reported this catshark in very low abundance (Velasco et al. 2010, Ruiz-Pico et al. 2012, Fernández-Zapico et al. 2013). Surveys from the 1970s to the 1990s obtained this species in the Rockall Trough and Porcupine Seabight during Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS) trawl surveys (Gordon 1999). In the Rockall Trough catches of this species were minimal, and at 1,250 m, 0.0003 individuals were caught per 1,000 m2.Over the past 14 years, the relative abundance of this species between depths of 500 and1,500 m from the Scottish deepwater survey was, on average, one individual per hour in ICES Subarea VI (Rockall, Northwest Coast of Scotland and North Ireland). In 2012, there were no catches of this species during surveys in Subarea VII (ICES 2013), nonetheless it is considered to be relatively common throughout its range (Rodríguez-Cabello et al. 2013). Preliminary analyses using negative binomial General Linear Modeling suggest no trend in relative abundance over time (ICES 2013).It can be inferred that this species’ population is stable in the Northeast Atlantic, as it is caught in such low numbers even in the deepest surveys and the rate of capture has remained stable since the 1970s.

habitat:
This small catshark is a bathydemersal, deepwater species known from the continental slopes and reported at depths of 3801,250 m (Compagno et al. 2005). Magnússon et al. (2000) reported it at depths of 6561,731 m, but the data most probably included another species that was confused with this species (see “Taxonomic Notes” section). In the Porcupine Seabight west of the British Isles, it has been caught between 1,000 and 1,250 m, but no deeper than this (Gordon 1999).This species is egg laying with a single egg case produced per oviduct and carried simultaneously (Iglésias et al. 2002). Size at birth is unknown but may be approximately 89 cm total length (TL), based on egg case sizes (Iglésias et al. 2002). Males mature between 50 and 63 cm TL while female size at maturity is unknown (Ebert and Stehmann 2013), and maximum size reported is at least 63 cm TL for males and 50 cm TL for females. However, taxonomic confusion has warranted previously published life history data for this species to be used with caution.

threats:
The species is a common bycatch of commercial deepwater trawlers operating on the Northeast Atlantic slope, with little economic value to fishers. While France and Spain have reported small quantities of bycatch, its small size means that it could potentially escape from the mesh of trawls and its deepwater habitat likely precludes it from being taken in large numbers in Northeast Atlantic waters. However, its range overlaps that of Blackmouth Catshark (Galeus melastomus) and it is likely that this species is a common component of mixed catshark catches that possibly also include Atlantic Sawtail Catshark (Galeus atlanticus) (ICES 2013).

conservationAction:
Based on advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea to end fishing for deepwater sharks, the European Union Fisheries Council established a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for this species in 2007 (CEC 2012). This TAC was gradually reduced and in 2010 set at zero. In 2011, the allowable bycatch was also reduced from 10% to 3% of the 2009 TAC and in 2012 it was further reduced to zero (ICES 2013). Additionally, the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission Recommendation 7 (2013) requires member Parties to prohibit vessels in the Regulatory Area from directed fishing for deepwater sharks. Further research should be conducted to clarify its taxonomic status.


taxonomicNotes:
May be some confusion with the larger and less common Scyliorhinus stellaris, which occurs within a similar range.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC) Small Spotted Catshark (Scyliorhinus canicula) is a small, common catshark, widespread in the eastern Atlantic, from Norway and the Shetland Islands to Senegal (possibly along the Ivory Coast), and throughout the Mediterranean and Black Seas. This is one of the most abundant elasmobranchs in the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea. Although localized depletions appear to have occurred in some areas (e.g., in the Wadden Sea and off Malta), scientific surveys throughout the majority of its range suggest that the population is stable or even increasing in some areas. Though commercial landings are reported and larger individuals are retained for human consumption, the species is often discarded and studies show that discard survival rates are high. Additionally, it appears to have life history characteristics that may allow it to withstand current levels of exploitation. The species is assessed as Least Concern because survey catch rates are either stable or increasing throughout the majority of its range in both the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea. Catches and population trends should continue to be monitored.

range:
This catshark is widespread in the Northeast and Eastern Central Atlantic. In the northern extent of its range, it can be found in the waters surrounding the Shetland Islands and Norway. Its range extends southwards towards West Africa. It is also found throughout the Mediterranean and Black Seas (Compagno et al. 2005, Serena 2005).

population:
This species is one of the most abundant elasmobranchs in the Northeast Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea. In the Northeast Atlantic, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) recognizes multiple subpopulations because of perceived limited movements and migrations, in accordance with recommendations put forward by the Development of Elasmobranch Assessments project (DELASS; Heessen 2003). Survey trends in most shelf areas are either stable or increasing, including surveys from the North Sea, northwest Scotland, Irish Sea, English Channel, Celtic Sea and Cantabrian Sea (MacKenzie 2004, ICES 2013). This species is reportedly locally extinct from the Wadden Sea, between the Netherlands and Germany (Wolff 2000a,b), an area that is at the edge of its range. This local extinction is therefore not considered to have had a significant effect on the remainder of the Northeast Atlantic population. In the Mediterranean Sea, data from the International Trawl Survey in the Mediterranean recorded this species across a wide bathymetric range and in high abundance, particularly in the Gulf of Lions and the Catalan and Aegean Seas (Baino et al. 2001). Juveniles accounted for 78% of the entire sampled population, and maximum biomass indices were reported off northeast Corsica between 50 and 100 m depth (340 kg per km2; Baino et al. 2001). Abundance may also vary with depth, as standardized scientific surveys from the Aegean Sea between 1994 and 2008 showed that density was higher at depths ranging from 200−400 m in certain regions. Also in the Aegean Sea, abundance rates were relatively low from 2001−2004 and have successively increased, reaching a maximum in 2008 (Maravelias et al. 2012). In the Adriatic Sea two comparable trawl surveys from 1948 and 1998 showed no significant difference in range and abundance (Jukic-Peladic et al. 2001), although there is evidence of increasing trawl fishing pressure in this region. Survey data from the Northeast Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea estimate that this population is increasing in European waters.

habitat:
This is a small, temperate, bottom-dwelling catshark found from the shallow sub-littoral to the edge of the continental shelf. It is found at depths of at least 300 m in the north (Ellis et al. 2005a), and occurs in deeper waters further south and in the Mediterranean Sea. In the Northeast Atlantic this species is more common in waters < 150 m deep. It is widespread and abundant on a variety of substrates (sandy, coralline algal, gravelly or muddy bottoms). It is known to aggregate by sex and size, though it is unclear whether this sexual segregation is behavioural or habitat-linked. Within sea loughs, females exhibit strong philopatric behaviour to refuging sites, while males are wider ranging and less philopatric (Sims 2003). This is an egg laying species that deposits eggcases on macroalgae or sessile invertebrates in shallow coastal waters (Wheeler 1978, Compagno 1984, Capapé et al. 1991, Ellis and Shackley 1997, Rodriguez-Cabello et al. 2005). Captive studies have generated estimates of fecundity of 29−62 eggs per year for Northeast Atlantic populations (Ellis and Shackley 1997), and 45−190 eggs per year for Mediterranean Sea populations (Capapé 1977, Capapé et al. 1991) and fecundity has been shown to increase with maternal size (Capapé 1977, Ellis and Shackley 1997, Henderson and Casey 2001). Annual fecundity estimation based on production of both egg cases and oocytes in Aegean Sea specimens was higher, between 40 and 240 per year (Koustenia et al. 2010, Lupi 2008). Spawning can take place almost year round (Capapé 1977, Capapé et al. 1991, Ellis and Shackley 1997). Gestation period is eight to nine months on average, but can range from five to 11 months, and is reportedly shorter (five to six months) in the Northeast Atlantic (Ellis and Shackley 1997).  Size at birth is 7−11 cm total length (TL) (Ellis and Shackley 1997). Size at maturity reportedly ranges from 35−47 cm TL for females and 30−44 cm TL for males (Capapé 1977, 2000, Jardas 1979, Ungaro et al. 2002, Lupi 2008, Koustenia et al. 2010, Taleb Bendiab et al. 2012). In the Northeast Atlantic, Ellis and Shackley (1997) reported larger sizes at maturity, with females reportedly reaching maturity from 52−65 cm TL, and males from 49−55 cm TL. This supports the hypothesis of geographic variation in reproductive characteristics, which can probably be attributed to various environmental and geographic parameters (Leloup and Olivereau 1951, Capapé et al. 1991). Maximum sizes are reported to range between 80 cm TL (Ellis et al. 2005b, Relini et al. 1999) and 100 cm TL (Compagno et al. 2005). The species generally appears to reach a larger maximum length in the Northeast Atlantic than in the Mediterranean Sea (Compagno et al. 2005).

threats:
In the Northeast Atlantic, this catshark is taken as a bycatch in demersal trawl and gill net fisheries, yet it has high survivorship when discarded from trawl fisheries. A discard survival rate of 98% was reported from a western English Channel trawl fishery (Revill et al. 2005), a survival rate of 90% when discarded by commercial trawlers in the southern Bay of Biscay (Rodriguez-Cabello et al. 2005) and a survival rate of almost 100% in Mediterranean Sea otter trawl fisheries (Sanchez et al. 2000). However, in some areas larger specimens may be landed for human consumption or they may be landed as bait for whelk fisheries. Portuguese landings in the Algarve reported average annual landings of 115 tonnes from 1988−1990, compared to average annual landings of ~ 155 tonnes from 1999−2001 suggesting that reported landings have increased by 34.5% over the last decade. This increase in landings could mean that there has been a large reduction in discards or that reporting has improved. Although these landings data are grouped under the genus Scyliorhinus, bottom longline and trammel net surveys off the Algarve only reported catching this species (Erzini et al. 1999, 2001) therefore the huge majority of catshark landings from the Algarve are considered to be this species.In the Mediterranean Sea this catshark is a bycatch in various demersal fisheries and is retained for human consumption in some areas. It is a commercially valuable species in Italy and only individuals smaller than 36 cm TL are discarded (Abella and Serena 2005). Additionally, a semi-industrial fishery for this species operates in Spain, the Adriatic Sea, Sicily and Cyprus. It is regularly found in fish markets in countries around the Adriatic Sea, Greece and Malta, where it is sold under the generic name of Mazzola. Landings data from Malta indicate that catches fell from 1985−1995, but this might not indicate population decline. Although demersal fishing pressure is intense in many parts of the species range in the Mediterranean Sea, and local depletions may have occurred in some areas, this species has high survivorship following discard. 

conservationAction:
There are no species-specific conservation measures in place in European waters. Research should be conducted on the harvest trends of this species.

useAndTrade:
This species may be landed for human consumption both in the Northeast Atlantic and in the Mediterranean.

redListAssessors:
Serena, F., Ellis, J., Abella, A., Mancusi, C., Haka, F., Guallart, J., Ungaro, N., Coelho, R.P., Schembri, T. & Kirsteen, M.


taxonomicNotes:
Possibly sometimes confused with the smaller Scyliorhinus canicula.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Near Threatened (NT)Nursehound (Scyliorhinus stellaris) is a large-bodied catshark that occurs in coastal and inshore waters of the eastern Atlantic, between southern Scandinavia and Senegal, and is also present throughout the Mediterranean Sea. It is found at depths of less than five metres to at least 125 m, but is most common at depths of 20–63 m. It is locally abundant in certain areas of the Northeast Atlantic and may therefore be sensitive to localised exploitation. It is taken as bycatch in bottom trawl, gill net, and longline gears, and targeted by recreational fisheries. Trawl surveys do not sample the main habitats for this species, but catch rates are low and there is no evidence of decline or range contraction. In the Mediterranean Sea, limited data on the exploitation and trends in abundance indicate that this population is declining, particularly around the Balearic Islands and in the northwest Mediterranean Sea. The capacity for recovery is affected by potentially low levels of connectivity between discrete populations around islands far from the continental coast. This is a large bodied species that may therefore be more sensitive to exploitation than Small Spotted Catshark (Scyliorhinus canicula), which also occurs in the region. Given its large size, patchy range, and evidence for declines in areas of the Mediterranean Sea such as the Gulf of Lions, the species is estimated to have undergone a decline of nearly 30% over the three generation period (45-60 years). It is therefore assessed as Near Threatened as it is close to qualify for a threatened category under Criterion A2.

range:
In the eastern Atlantic this species occurs in coastal and shallow shelf seas from the Shetland Isles and southern Norway in the north, to northwest Africa in the south. Around the British Isles, it is uncommon throughout the North Sea but locally abundant in areas of the southern and western coasts. In particular, it seems most abundant in parts of the English Channel, Bristol Channel, Cardigan Bay and around the Lleyn Peninsula and Anglesey (Ellis et al. 2005). In the Mediterranean Sea it appears to be more abundant in the Adriatic and Ionian Seas and along the Albanian coast, compared to the western Mediterranean Sea (Baino et al. 2001). It was absent from trawl surveys conducted off the coasts of Morocco, Spain and France, and does not occur in the Black Sea (Compagno et al. 2005). Its depth limits are one to 409 m.

population:
No data on population size or structure are available for the Northeast Atlantic or the Mediterranean Sea. In the Mediterranean Sea, demersal trawl effort has increased both numerically and technologically in the shelf and slope areas. From 1974 to 1987 effort in trawl fisheries in the Gulf of Lions increased from a small, low powered fleet with a total of 2,700 hp (horse power) to a total of 19,940 hp. This increase in effort corresponded to a decrease in abundance of this species in a long-term groundfish diversity study, where abundance declined steadily from 1970 to the 1980s, and it became entirely absent from Gulf of Lions catches after 1988 (Aldebert 1997). In the Balearic Islands, 131 survey hauls were made between 40 and 1,800 m depth from 1996–2001, and while two other catshark species had the highest reported abundances of all elasmobranch species, this catshark was entirely absent (Massutí and Moranta 2003). More recently, 12 trammel net surveys carried out in the Balearic Islands between 2000 and 2003 also captured no specimens around the Balearic Islands (Morey et al. 2006). In the western half of the Adriatic Sea this species was considered rare as far back as 1987 (Jardas 1984), although it was recorded in trawl surveys carried out in 1948 and 1998, suggesting that it may still have been present in low numbers (Jukic-Peladic et al. 2001). Given the absence of this catshark in numerous trawl surveys, and reported abundance declines corresponding with increased fishing effort, it is estimated to be decreasing in the Mediterranean Sea. In the absence of species-specific data in the Northeast Atlantic, the population trend is unknown, but it is suspected that with similar fishing pressure the species is likely to be declining in these waters as well. Considering the abundance trends from Aldebert (1997), a decline of 94-98% of baseline levels is estimated for the three generation period (1957-2001, 1957-2016, 45-60 years) for the Gulf of Lions. However, according to Baino et al. (2001), this species is more rare in the western Mediterranean and more abundant in other regions in the Mediterranean Sea, and therefore the Gulf of Lions may not be representative of this species abundance in the Mediterranean, nor the Northeastern Atlantic (where no data are available). It is thus estimated that the species has declined by almost 30% in European waters for the three generation period (45-60 years).

habitat:
This catshark is found from the shallow subtidal to the continental platform, most commonly at depths of 20–63 m (Compagno et al. 2005), but with a maximum depth down to 400 m (Bauchot 1987, Serena 2005). Within the northern Tyrrhenian and southern Ligurian Seas, this species is distributed from 55-409 m depth (Baino and Serena 2000). It often occurs on rough or rocky inshore bottoms, or surfaces with algal cover. In the Mediterranean Sea it occurs on coralline algal substrates (Compagno et al. 2005), and reportedly has active breeding areas in the Ligurian Sea and in the waters surrounding the Tuscan archipelago (De Sabata and Clò 2013).This egg laying species deposits large, 10–13 cm long thick-walled egg cases on algae in the subtidal or lower intertidal zone during spring and summer (Ellis et al. 2005). Egg case deposits have been found on rocky reefs in the Mediterranean Sea, mostly between 30 and 50 m depth (De Sabata and Clò 2013). Once the eggs are deposited they take up to nine months to hatch with size at birth reportedly 10–16 cm total length (TL; Tortonese 1956, Bauchot 1987). Males mature at 77 cm TL and females at 79 cm TL (Bauchot 1987). The maximum reported length for this catshark in the Mediterranean Sea is 150 cm TL, and with a common average size of 40–55 cm TL (Bauchot 1987).  The generation length of this species is estimated to be 15.02-20 years, based on estimates of three Scyliorhinidae species (Galeus sauteri, Haploblepharus pictus, Poroderma pantherinum).

threats:
Overfishing appears to be the major cause driving the decline of this catshark in the Mediterranean region, and low connectivity may be limiting population recovery. It is taken as bycatch in several semi-industrial fisheries in Spain, the Adriatic Sea, Sicily and Cyprus. Artisanal fisheries catch this species elsewhere, as it is regularly present in fish markets in Malta, Tunisia, Greece, Cyprus and Turkey. Little information on landings and catches exists for this species, partly due to the lack of species-specific data. In many areas, for example the Balearic Islands fishery and in Italian waters, reported landings and catch data group this species with the more common Small Spotted Catshark (Scyliorhinus canicula) or even more generally with all other elasmobranch species.

conservationAction:
This species is protected in six marine reserves around the Balearic Islands, but no other species-specific conservation measures are in place throughout its range. Further monitoring and protection measures are therefore encouraged.

useAndTrade:
This species is a moderately important commercial species in European waters, particularly around the British Isles.

redListAssessors:
Ellis, J., Serena, F., Mancusi, C., Haka, F., Morey, G., Guallart, J. & Schembri, T.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Data Deficient (DD) Scalloped Hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini) is a coastal and semi-oceanic hammerhead shark that is circumglobal in coastal warm temperate and tropical seas, from the surface and intertidal to at least 275 m depth. Although it is wide ranging, there is genetic evidence for multiple subpopulations. All life-stages are sensitive to capture as both target and bycatch in fisheries: large numbers of juveniles are captured in a variety of fishing gears in near shore coastal waters, and adults are taken in gillnets and longlines along the shelf and offshore in oceanic waters. Population segregation and the species’ aggregating habit make large schools highly susceptible to fisheries exploitation and means that high catch per unit effort can be recorded, even when stocks are severely depleted. Population declines have been estimated, inferred and suspected in several regions over the past three generation period.There are no data on species-specific trends in abundance for this hammerhead in the Eastern Central Atlantic, but fishing pressure from pelagic longline fleets in this area is high and potentially comparable to that in the Northwest and Western Central Atlantic, where significant declines in abundance have been documented. There is also concern for Scalloped Hammerhead in this area and although it is still present in the catches, catches are comprised entirely of juveniles in some areas. The species has experienced continued high fishing pressure throughout its shelf habitat off West Africa, and there are declining trends observed in other areas of its range where it is fished, as nothing has changed in terms of fishing effort or management since the previous assessment. This hammerhead is most likely to be a vagrant species in the Mediterranean Sea, from the eastern Atlantic subpopulation. For the European region, this species is assessed as Data Deficient as there is not enough evidence to suggest that the same declines experienced in the Northwest Atlantic are true for the Northeast Atlantic.

range:
Scalloped Hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini) has a circumglobal range in coastal warm temperate and tropical seas (Ebert et al. 2013). It occurs in the Mediterranean Sea but may be a vagrant there, and in the Northeast Atlantic it is known from Spanish and Portuguese waters, and from around the Azores (Ebert and Stehmann 2013).Within the Mediterranean Sea it was believed that this hammerhead occurred only in the western area, from Gibraltar to the Balearic Islands (Compagno et al. 2005, Serena 2005). However, the only documented records are based on a specimen captured in the Mediterranean Sea and preserved in the British Museum (Tortonese 1956), and on an observation by Sperone et al. (2012) who encountered one specimen in San Lucido (Italy), in the southern Tyrrhenian Sea off the coast of Calabria. Di Natale (1998) also reported that this species was recorded by observers on board of the Italian driftnet fishery as part of a monitoring program from November 1990 to April 1992 in the Ligurian Sea, Tyrrhenian Sea, and Strait of Sicily (Di Natale 1998). Its depth range is zero to 275 m.

population:
Although it is wide ranging, there is genetic evidence for multiple subpopulations. The International Council for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna reported nominal catch of Scalloped Hammerheads totaling 15 tonnes between 2004 and 2011, by Spain (two tonnes in 2004), the United Kingdom (12 tonnes in 2009), and Morocco (one tonne in 2011) in the East Central Atlantic (ICCAT Task I). Data to indicate trends in abundance are generally not available for the Eastern Central Atlantic. Zeeberg et al. (2006) suggest that similar population trends for hammerheads (Sphyrna spp.) to those documented in the Northwest Atlantic are likely to be occurring in the eastern Atlantic, as there is a similar level of fishing effort. Indeed, there is anecdotal evidence for some declines in catches off Senegal and Gambia (M. Ducrocq pers. comm. 2006). Declines in the Northwest Atlantic range from 76-98% over 31 years (1975-2005, ~1.5 generations). However, there is not enough evidence to indicate that the same decline is true for the Northeast Atlantic. It is unclear whether this species is breeding in the Mediterranean Sea or just a vagrant, the population trend in these waters is unclear and cannot be inferred from elsewhere. For the purposes of this assessment, Scalloped Hammerhead is considered a vagrant in the Mediterranean Sea.

habitat:
This is a coastal and semi-oceanic pelagic shark, found over continental and insular shelves and in deepwater near to the shelf, ranging from the intertidal and surface to at least 275 m depth (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). This shark is viviparous, with yolk-sac placenta. The gestation period is approximately nine to 10 months with the number of young per litter ranging from 13 to 41. Size at birth is 38-56 cm total length (TL). Males reach maturity at 140-165 cm TL and reach at least 295 cm TL, while females mature around 212-250 cm TL and reach at least 370 cm TL. Maximum TL is approximately 370 cm, but might be over 400 cm (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Growth parameters have not been calculated specific to the eastern Atlantic subpopulation, but it can be assumed that the life history is very similar to other subpopulations for which such data are available. The generation length of this species is 22 years (Cortés et al. 2010, Piercy et al. 2007).

threats:
Scalloped Hammerhead is taken as both a target and bycatch by trawls, purse seines, gillnets, fixed bottom longlines, pelagic longlines and inshore artisanal fisheries. The latter catch large numbers of pups and juveniles in some regions. The species’ aggregating habit makes it susceptible to capture in large schools. This also means that they may appear more abundant in landings, where they are caught in high, localised concentrations. Intense fishing pressure can deplete regional stocks rapidly, and re-colonization of depleted areas from neighboring regions is expected to be a slow and complex process. This species is expected to have a low resilience to exploitation because of its life-history characteristics (Maguire et al. 2006). Eastern AtlanticAs longline fleets in in the Northeast and Eastern Central Atlantic exert comparable fishing effort to those in the Northwest Atlantic, and effort is seen to shift from western to eastern Atlantic waters (Buencuerpo et al. 1998, Serafy et al. 2004, Zeeberg et al. 2006), population trends for hammerheads (Sphyrna spp.) are likely to be similar in these regions (Zeeberg et al. 2006). European industrial freezer trawlers targeting small pelagic fish (sardinella, sardine, and horsemackerel) operate on the northwest African shelf nearly year-round with five to ten large vessels (9,000-18,000 horse power). A study of bycatch rates in more than 1,400 trawl sets off Mauritania from 2001 - 2005, showed that hammerheads combined represented 42% of total bycatch during this period (Zeeberg et al. 2006).Scalloped Hammerhead occurs in purse seine catches of Spanish and French fleets fishing off West Africa. It accounts for 3.2 and 5% in number and weight respectively of the shark bycatch recorded by these fisheries (that translates to 0.2 tonnes of bycatch in the period 2003-2007) (Amandè et al. 2010). It is also taken by the Japanese longline fishery operating in the Eastern Central Atlantic. Nominal catch rate in 1995 was 0.13 per thousand hooks (Matsushita and Matsunaga 2002).Hammerheads are caught by both inshore artisanal fisheries and offshore European fisheries operating along the coast of West Africa. The Subregional workshop for sustainable management of sharks and rays in West Africa, 26-28 April 2000 in St Louis, Senegal noted the high threat to sharks in the West African region and a noticeable decline in the catch per unit effort of total sharks and rays. Walker et al. (2005) also noted that there is concern for this species off Mauritania, with catches comprised exclusively of juveniles, often newborn. Increased targeting of sharks began in the 1970s, when a Ghanaian fishing community settled in the Gambia and established a commercial network throughout the region, encouraging local fishermen to target sharks for exportation to Ghana. By the 1980s many fishermen were specialising in catching sharks, resulting in a decline in overall shark populations (Walker et al. 2005). There has been rapid growth in the shark fin market in this region, for export to the Far East, and yearly production of dried fins exported from Guinea-Bissau alone is estimated at 250 t (dry weight) (Walker et al. 2005).This species is frequently caught along the West African coast and is heavily targeted by driftnets and fixed gillnets from Mauritania to Sierra Leone (M. Ducrocq pers. comm. 2006). Juveniles are very susceptible to coastal fisheries using drift or fixed gill nets such as sole, sciaenid and Sepia spp. fisheries (M. Ducrocq pers. comm. 2006). They were taken as bycatch in the milk shark fishery and in the Banc d'Aguin national park, Mauritania, until the fishery was stopped in 2003 and they are still caught in large quantities in the sciaenid fishery. A specialized artisanal fishery for carcharhinid and sphyrnid species was introduced in Sierra Leone in 1975, and since then fishing pressure has been continuous (M. Seisay pers. obs. 2006).

conservationAction:
Scalloped hammerhead is a member of the family Sphyrnidae, which is listed on Annex I, Highly Migratory Species, of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. In 2012, Costa Rica listed the hammerhead shark in CITES Appendix III, thereby requiring CITES export permits for all hammerhead products leaving Costa Rica, and a certificate of origin for hammerhead imports from all other CITES Parties. Scalloped, Smooth and Great Hammerheads were listed in Appendix II of CITES in 2013. The convention requires the trade of any parts of these species to be strictly regulated in order to prevent the use of such parts at a level that is incompatible with their survival.In 2013, the European Union (EU) banned the removal of shark fins on board vessels through Regulation No. 605/2013, in line with advice from the IUCN SSG and other shark fishery experts, in order to enhance enforcement of the 2003 EU ban on shark finning (Regulation No. 1185/2003) and facilitate improved shark fishery data collection.In 2010, the International Commission for Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) adopted a binding hammerhead Recommendation that applies only to ICCAT-managed fisheries. The measure banned retention, transshipment, landing, storage, and sale of species in the family Sphyrnidae, with exemptions for developing countries that ensure hammerhead fins are not traded. The EU has prohibited retention of hammerhead sharks in pelagic Atlantic fisheries, in line with this measure.  Scalloped Hammerhead is listed in Appendix II of the Barcelona Convention, affording it protection from fishing activities taking place in the Mediterranean region. All species listed in Appendix II must be released unharmed and alive to the extent possible, therefore cannot be retained on board, transshipped, landed, transferred, stored, sold, displayed or offered for sale (Recommendation GFCM/36/2012/1). The recommendation continues to stipulate that all vessels encountering these species must record information on fishing activities, catch data, incidental taking, release and/or discarding events in a logbook or similar document, then all logged information must be reported to national authorities. Finally, additional measures should be taken to improve such data gathering in view of scientific monitoring of the species.Spain prohibited the retention of all species of hammerhead sharks in 2009.

useAndTrade:
This shark's fins are highly valued and they are being increasingly targeted in some areas in response to increasing demand for shark fins. Hammerhead shark species S. zygaena and S. lewini were found to represent at least 4-5% of the fins auctioned in Hong Kong, the world's largest shark fin trading center (Clarke et al. 2006a). Hammerhead shark fins are generally high value compared to other species because of their high fin ray count (S. Clarke unpubl. data). It is estimated that between 1.3 and 2.7 million S. zygaena or S. lewini are represented in the shark fin trade each year or, in biomass, 49,000 to 90,000 mt (Clarke et al. 2006b).

redListAssessors:
Ferretti, F., Walls, R.H.L., Soldo, A., Baum, J.K., Clarke, S.C., Domingo, A., Ducrocq, M., Gaibor, N., Graham, R., Jorgensen, S., Kotas, J., Medina, E., Martinez-Ortiz, J., Morales, M., Navarro, S., Ruiz, C., Smith, W., Valenti, S., Vooren, C.M., Pérez-J


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Data Deficient (DD) The Great Hammerhead is a large, widely distributed, tropical hammerhead shark that is largely restricted to continental shelves. In the European region the species is only known with certainty from off the Atlantic coasts of mainland Spain and Portugal, with possible records from off the Canaries, and from two, probably vagrant, records from the Mediterranean Sea (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). The Great Hammerhead is highly valued for its fins (in target and incidental fisheries), suffers very high bycatch mortality, and has a slow life history, making it vulnerable to overexploitation and population depletion. It is generally regarded as solitary, and is therefore unlikely to be abundant wherever it occurs. Difficulties in species identification and accurate recording make an assessment of this species very difficult, however low survival at capture makes it highly sensitive to fishing pressure, whether directed or incidental. Previously observed from Mauritania to Angola, reportedly abundant from November to January in Senegal, and in October in Mauritania; stocks have since collapsed and it is recognized as one of the four most threatened species by member states of the Sub-Regional Fishing Commission (SRFC) in West Africa. Although there are very few species-specific data available, the absence of recent records from the eastern Atlantic Ocean give cause to suspect that this species meets the threshold for Critically Endangered in the east Atlantic (Denham et al. 2007), as significant declines have occurred in areas of this species range where data are available. In European waters, large declines of this species are suspected, however we do not have enough evidence to support a threatened category based on these suspected declines. There is likely a single subpopulation throughout the eastern Atlantic, including European waters (southern northeast Atlantic, eastern central Atlantic, and possibly, the Mediterranean Sea), however the proportion of the global population present in European waters is unknown and may be very small. Additionally, the species is likely a vagrant in the Mediterranean Sea, although further research is required to confirm this. For these reasons the Great Hammerhead is considered Data Deficient in the European region. In European waters there are a number of conservation measures in place for the species (see Conservation Actions section), however in other parts of the eastern Atlantic, fishing proceeds unmanaged and unmonitored. Additional measures should be taken to improve data gathering and scientific monitoring of the species.

range:
The Great Hammerhead (Sphyrna mokarran) ranges widely throughout the tropical waters of the world, from latitudes of 40°N to 35°S (Last and Stevens 1994). In European parts of the eastern Atlantic Ocean this shark occurs off the coasts of Spain and Portugal, and possibly off the Canary Islands, occurring outside the European region off Morocco and Senegal, and possibly off Gambia and Guinea (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). The species is very rare in the Mediterranean Sea, possibly a vagrant, with only a single specimen recorded in Camogli, Ligurian Sea, western Mediterranean Sea (Boero and Carli 1977), probably from the Atlantic Ocean via Gibraltar. It was also reported in Hadjichristophorou (2005) from off Cyprus but the information was taken from Compagno (1984) who indicated presence in a sector of the Mediterranean Sea adjacent to the southern part of the island.

population:
There are insufficient data available specific to European waters for this species, although it is assumed that the eastern Atlantic Ocean forms one subpopulation. Therefore, the information available from other parts of this region is applicable. Although there are very few species-specific data available, the absence of recent records and the region-wide recognition of the extent of the species’ population decline give cause to suspect that this subpopulation decreased by at least 80% over 25 years at the end of the 20th century. Since the last global Red List assessment of this species (Denham et al. 2007), nothing has changed in terms of fishing effort or frequency of sightings of the species to warrant a change in status. Furthermore, due to its nomadic and migratory nature and the presumed connected subpopulation throughout eastern Atlantic Ocean waters, it is assumed that the situation in European waters is the same as it is off West Africa. Therefore, the subpopulation is suspected to be declining in European waters to the point of near-local extinction as well, and indeed recent reports from the European area seem to include little to no information on this species, indicating a lack of encounters. In the Mediterranean Sea, the fish is apparently known from only two records and is probably vagrant there. The sub-regional plan of action for sharks of West Africa (member states of the Sub Regional Fishing Commission) states that landings of this species have collapsed and lists Sphyrna mokarran as one of the four most threatened species, deserving the greatest attention in the whole region (Ducrocq 2002). It was previously observed from Mauritania to Angola, reportedly abundant from November to January in Senegal, and in October in Mauritania (Cadenat and Blache 1981). However, more recent scientific trawl surveys off Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, Senegal, Gambia and Guinea-Conakry between 20 to 1,000 m have failed to record it, except in very low numbers off Guinea-Conakry and one record from Senegal in 1995 (Fishing Industry Science Alliance (FISA) unpublished data). Anecdotal evidence from interviews with fishermen in Senegal, Guinea-Bissau and Guinea suggest there was a large decline in all shark species during the 1990s and that Great Hammerhead is almost locally extinct from these areas (M. Ducrocq pers. obs. 2011).

habitat:
The Great Hammerhead is a coastal-pelagic and semi-oceanic tropical hammerhead occurring close inshore and well offshore, over the continental shelves, island terraces, and in passes and lagoons of coral atolls, as well as over deeper water near land, at depths ranging from near-surface to over 80 m (Compagno 1984). The maximum total size is reported as 550 to 610 cm total length (TL) by Compagno (1984), though 400 cm TL is more common for a mature adult (Last and Stevens 1994). Males mature at about 234-269 cm TL, and reach at least 380 cm TL, and females mature at about 250-300 cm TL and reach 550 cm TL (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). This species is viviparous, with a yolk-sac placenta. Litter size ranges from six to 42 pups after 11 months gestation (Compagno 1984). Size at birth is 50 to 70 cm TL. Females breed once every two years (Stevens and Lyle 1989). Pups are born in late spring to summer in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres (Compagno 1984, Last and Stevens 1994). Both males and females reach 50% maturity at around 227.9 cm TL and 8.3 years (Harry et al. 2011). Female maximum age from the same study was around 39.1 years, while the oldest male was 31.7 years. Piercy et al. (2010) found the oldest female individual to be 44 years, and 398.26 cm TL, while the oldest male was 42 years, and 379.46 cm TL. They also showed that growth band formation occurs annually for this species. Age at 50% maturity is 8.3 years, and maximum age is 31.7-39.1 years. Therefore, generation length can be estimated at 22.7-23.7 years.

threats:
Mainly taken by drift gillnets, bottom gillnets and longlines, hook and line, pelagic and bottom trawls (Schneider 1990, Petersen et al. 2009). This species is a bycatch in both the industrial and artisanal fisheries but a specialised artisanal fishery for charcharhinid and sphyrnid species was introduced in Sierra Leone in 1975, and since then fishing pressure has not decreased (M. Seisay pers. obs. 2007). The Subregional workshop for sustainable management of sharks and rays in West Africa (Ducrocq 2002) noted the high threat to sharks in the West African region and a noticeable decline in the catch per unit effort of total sharks and rays. Data are lacking as there are little species-specific data collection in the region, however this is a very distinctive species with a large dorsal fin which is highly valued for the shark fin trade. Increased targeting of sharks began in the 1970s, when a Ghanaian fishing community settled in the Gambia and established a commercial network throughout the region, encouraging local fishermen to target sharks for exportation to Ghana. By the 1980s many fishermen were specialising in catching sharks, resulting in a decline in overall shark populations (Walker et al. 2005). There has been rapid growth in the shark fin market in this region, for export to the Far East, and yearly production of dried fins exported from Guinea-Bissau alone is estimated at 250 tonnes dry weight (Walker et al. 2005). Sphyrna spp. combined represented 42% of bycatch in the European industrial pelagic trawl fishery off northwest Africa (Zeeberg et al. 2006). Whilst there is little information on threats to the species within the European region, since the fish is highly mobile, impacts outside the Europe regional are relevant.

conservationAction:
In 2012, Costa Rica listed the hammerhead shark in CITES Appendix III, thereby requiring CITES export permits for all hammerhead products leaving Costa Rica, and a certificate of origin for hammerhead imports from all other CITES Parties. Scalloped, Smooth and Great Hammerheads were listed in Appendix II of CITES in 2013. The convention requires the trade of any parts of these species to be strictly regulated in order to prevent the use of such parts at a level that is incompatible with their survival. This species is listed on Annex I, Highly Migratory Species, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which urges States to cooperate over the management of these species. Eastern Atlantic In 2013, the European Union (EU) banned the removal of shark fins on board vessels through Regulation No. 605/2013, in line with advice from the IUCN Shark Specialist Group (SSG) and other shark fishery experts, in order to enhance enforcement of the 2003 EU ban on shark finning (Regulation No. 1185/2003) and facilitate improved shark fishery data collection. In 2010, the International Commission for Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) adopted a binding hammerhead Recommendation that applies only to ICCAT-managed fisheries. The measure banned retention, transshipment, landing, storage, and sale of species in the family Sphyrnidae, with exemptions for developing countries that ensure hammerhead fins are not traded. The EU has prohibited retention of hammerhead sharks in pelagic Atlantic fisheries, in line with this measure. The Great Hammerhead is listed in Appendix II of the Barcelona Convention, affording it protection from fishing activities taking place in the Mediterranean region. All species listed in Appendix II must be released unharmed and alive to the extent possible, therefore cannot be retained on board, transshipped, landed, transferred, stored, sold, displayed or offered for sale (Recommendation GFCM/36/2012/1). The recommendation continues to stipulate that all vessels encountering these species must record information on fishing activities, catch data, incidental taking, release and/or discarding events in a logbook or similar document, then all logged information must be reported to national authorities. Spain prohibited the retention of all species of hammerhead sharks in 2009. Finally, additional measures should be taken to improve such data gathering in view of scientific monitoring of the species.

useAndTrade:
There are few data on utilisation of the fish in the European region, however it may taken as bycatch in both industrial and artisanal fisheries.

redListReviewers:
Simpfendorfer, C., Lawson, J. & Allen, D.J.

redListAssessors:
Asber, M., Bucal, D., Cliff, G., Denham, J., Ducrocq, M., Dulvy, N.K., Ferretti, F., Graham, R., Heupel, M.R., Lemine Ould Sidi, M., Litvinov, F., Morgan, A., Seisay, M., Soldo, A., Stevens, J.D., Tous, P., Valenti, S.V., Walls, R.H.L. & Martins, P.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Data Deficient (DD) Smooth Hammerhead (Sphyrna zygaena) is one of the larger hammerhead sharks, found world-wide in temperate and tropical seas, with a wider range than other members of its family. It is semipelagic and occurs on the continental shelf. Although few data are available on the Smooth Hammerhead’s life-history characteristics, it is presumably at least as biologically vulnerable as the Scalloped Hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini). This species is caught with a wide variety of gears in both coastal and oceanic fisheries, as bycatch and a target. Therefore in some areas, all size classes and reproductive stages are susceptible to capture. Smooth Hammerhead’s large fins are highly valued for their high fin ray count and they are being increasingly targeted in some areas in response to increasing demand for the fin trade. Few species-specific data are available to assess population trends because catches of hammerhead sharks are often grouped together under a single category. Very often these sharks are finned and the carcasses discarded. This species has sometimes been confused with Scalloped Hammerhead in the tropics and these two species are probably misidentified with each other in some areas. In the Mediterranean Sea, a meta-analysis of time series of standardized indices of abundance showed that hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna spp., mainly composed of Smooth Hammerhead) declined by > 99% in abundance and biomass since the early 19th century. As the situation here has not changed in terms of fishing effort, it is likely to still be threatened, given this steep decline. There are insufficient reliable data from the Northeast or Eastern Central Atlantic to identify the trend of this species in the Northeast Atlantic, and as it is unknown which region formerly held more individuals (Mediterranean Sea or Northeast Atlantic), it is not possible to infer that the trend for the Mediterranean Sea is true for the Northeast Atlantic. Therefore, the species is assessed as Data Deficient in European waters, pending further analyses of eastern Atlantic data.

range:
In the eastern Atlantic this species is known from the UK and as a vagrant in the North Sea, southwards, including the Mediterranean Sea, where it has been reported as more common in the western basin (Buencuerpo et al. 1998), to Mauritania, Senegal, Cape Verde Islands, Guinea, Cote d’Ivoire and Angola (Last and Stevens 1994). The depth range is one to 200 m.

population:
Specific data on subpopulations of this species are generally unavailable in many areas because hammerhead shark catches are often grouped to include several Hammerhead shark species. Furthermore, it has sometimes been confused with Scalloped Hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini) in the tropics and these two species are probably misidentified as each other.Ferretti et al. (2008) compiled nine time series of abundance indices from commercial and recreational fishery landings, scientific surveys and sighting records, to reconstruct long-term population trends of large sharks in the northwest Mediterranean Sea. Of the taxa for which there were enough data to investigate, hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna spp.) declined the fastest; they appeared to disappear from coastal waters after 1963 and catches declined consistently in pelagic waters in the early 1980s in all sectors. Meta-analysis showed an average instantaneous rate of decline of -0.17 (CI 95%: -0.34, -0.003; time range 178 years) in abundance and -0.36 (CI 95%: -0.56, -0.16; time range: 107 years) in biomass, which translated into an estimated species decline of >99.99% in both cases. Walker et al. (2005) also report that the species has virtually disappeared from the central-southern Mediterranean Sea since 1986.Megalofonou et al. (2000) only recorded four specimens during their survey of shark bycatch and discards in Mediterranean large pelagic fisheries in 1998-1999 (one in the Adriatic Sea, two in the Ionian Sea and one in Spanish Mediterranean waters). There are few recent records of Hammerhead species in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. A total of 16 records of this species were collected in the eastern Adriatic Sea from the 19th century to the 1950s, and the reported catches were distributed throughout the whole eastern coast. A higher number of records were reported during the 19th century in comparison to the 20th century (10 and six, respectively) and the species has not been reported in this area since 1956 (Soldo and Jardas 2002). Although it occurs in open waters of the southern Adriatic Sea, it is only caught very rarely (Bello 1999). Since 2004 only Portugal has reported 10 tonnes of landed Smooth Hammerhead (S. zygaena) between 2007 and 2012, ranging from one to three tonnes (t) per year with no specific trend (ICES 2013). Additionally, the International Council for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) reported a total nominal catch of 346 t of Smooth Hammerhead between 2000 and 2012, caught by Morocco (308 t in 2011 and 2012), Spain (20 t between 2000 and 2002, 2004, 2007 and 2009), Portugal (11 t in 2003, 2006 and 2010), and Senegal (seven tonnes in 2005) (ICCAT Task I). While the majority of this reported catch took place in 2011 and 2012, this is no representation of population trend. The Food and Agricultural Organisation’s (FAO) landings database (FishStat) recorded Portuguese landings of Smooth Hammerhead of eight tonnes in 1999, decreasing to four tonnes in 2001, then 20 t in 2004. Portuguese landings of the species have since ranged from three tonnes in 2005 to 13 t in 2006, and gradually down to four tonnes in 2010. Additionally, Spain reported low landings of Smooth Hammerhead ranging from five tonnes in 2004 to 10 t in 2005, and then remaining between less than 0.5 and three tonnes up to 2010. Again, no particular trend can be deduced from such a low quantity of presumably unrepresentative landings data. It is known that there is a subpopulation of Smooth Hammerheads in the eastern Atlantic, however it is difficult to assess its size or even exact range due to unreliable data from catches. Highest catches from the eastern Atlantic are from the West Africa coast and near the Strait of Gibraltar (Buencuerpo et al. 1998). There is insufficient reliable data from the Northeast or Eastern Central Atlantic to identify the trend of this species in the Northeast Atlantic, and as it is unknown which region formerly held more individuals (Mediterranean Sea or Northeast Atlantic), it is not possible to infer that the trend for the Mediterranean Sea is true for the Northeast Atlantic.

habitat:
The Smooth Hammerhead is a coastal-pelagic and semi-oceanic species and occurs on the continental shelf, to 200 m depth (Ebert 2003). Smale (1991) reported that large individuals were commonly found over deep reefs on the edge of the continental shelf. There are only limited published biological data on the Smooth Hammerhead, despite its widespread occurrence. Compagno (1984) reported that the species reaches a maximum size of 370-400 cm total length (TL). Coelho et al. (2011) collected 139 samples (74 males and 65 females). Female size ranged between 140 and 233 cm fork length (FL) and males ranged between 136 and 230 cm FL. The estimated age ranges were four to 21 years and four to 18 years in males and females, respectively. Specimens aged four years were 136 and 140 cm FL, and size at birth was estimated at 29 to 39 cm FL. Therefore, these younger individuals grew on average ~ 25 cm FL per year during these earlier stages. Its generation length is estimated to be 22 years.

threats:
Smooth Hammerhead is caught with a variety of gears, including with pelagic longlines, handlines, gillnets, purse-seines and pelagic and bottom trawls (Bonfil 1994, Maguire et al. 2006). In a review of world elasmobranch fisheries, Bonfil (1994) listed Smooth Hammerhead as being reported in catches from directed shark fisheries off Spain. This shark is undoubtedly caught in shark fisheries in European waters, but has rarely been reported separately from other hammerhead species. Very often these sharks are finned and the carcasses discarded. Bonfil (1994) also reported that this species is caught as bycatch in a number of non-shark fisheries, particularly pelagic longline and gillnet fisheries that operate close to temperate and subtropical continental shelves (e.g., Mediterranean drift net fishery, Spanish longline fishery operating in the Mediterranean Sea and eastern Atlantic Ocean). The capture of Smooth Hammerhead in many of these fisheries is infrequent (Bonfil 1994). Although size data are limited, catches in pelagic fisheries appear to be dominated by larger individuals, while juveniles are common in inshore shelf fisheries.Catches of Sphyrnidae have been reported only from the Atlantic Ocean since 1991 and these landings are undoubtedly under-reported. The catch was near 2,200 tonnes in 2004 (Maguire et al. 2006). Only Smooth and Scalloped Hammerheads are reported as individual species in the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) fisheries statistics, but hammerhead catches are often grouped in one category, as Sphyrna species, which makes identification of actual catches of Smooth Hammerheads difficult.Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean SeaSmooth Hammerhead appears to be less common in the central Mediterranean Sea, in comparison to the western regions of this sea. Buencuerpo et al. (1998) reported that 757 specimens were captured during their pelagic longline and gillnet survey from July 1991 to July 1992 off southern Spain. Most of these specimens were presumed to be part of the Atlantic subpopulation. In the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea this species is mainly caught by longlines and gillnets, particularly as bycatch in tuna and swordfish fisheries. Despite a ban on driftnetting in Mediterranean waters, this practice continues illegally (WWF 2005). A recent study of the Moroccan driftnet fleet operating in the Alboran Sea (southwest Mediterranean) and around the Strait of Gibraltar by Tudela et al. (2005) indicates that pelagic fishing pressure in this area is beyond the reproductive capacity of several other semi-oceanic shark species that were previously caught with the Smooth hammerhead (such as Common Thresher Shark (Alopias vulpinus)). Some of these vessels appear to be increasingly targeting sharks by deploying driftnets closer to shore (Tudela et al. 2005), but Smooth Hammerhead is not mentioned in this study. However, this species was reported in Buencuerpo et al. (1998) survey of longline and gillnet landings from the same area in 1992. Buencuerpo et al. (1998) report the highest catches of Smooth Hammerheads in the Spanish swordfish fishery from the West African coasts and near the Strait of Gibraltar.Mejuto et al. (2002) estimate landings of 240 t of Hammerheads and 1.1 t of Smooth Hammerhead in the North Atlantic for the Spanish surface longline fleet in 1999. De la Serna et al. (2002) reported only eight specimens of Smooth hammerheads (0.05%) in a total of 17,759 sharks caught during a survey of the Spanish Mediterranean fisheries from 1997-1999. This is significantly lower when compared to results of the same fishery along the West Africa coast and Iberian Peninsula (where 757 specimens in period July 1991 to July 1992 were caught).

conservationAction:
Smooth hammerhead is a member of the family Sphyrnidae, which is listed on Annex I, Highly Migratory Species, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It is essential to improve and sustain data collection and develop stock assessments for this species. Both the IUCN and TRAFFIC analyses and the FAO Expert Panel report noted that some hammerhead populations already meet the decline criteria for inclusion in Appendix I of the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES). Scalloped, Smooth and Great Hammerheads were listed in Appendix II of CITES in 2013.In 2013, the European Union (EU) banned removal of shark fins on board vessels through Regulation No. 605/2013, in line with advice from the IUCN SSC Shark Specialist Group and other shark fishery experts, in order to enhance enforcement of the 2003 EU ban on shark finning (Regulation No. 1185/2003) and facilitate improved shark fishery data collection.In 2010, the International Commission for Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) adopted a binding hammerhead Recommendation that applies only to ICCAT-managed fisheries. The measure banned retention, transshipment, landing, storage, and sale of species in the family Sphyrnidae, with exemptions for developing countries that ensure hammerhead fins are not traded. The EU has prohibited retention of hammerhead sharks in pelagic Atlantic fisheries, in line with this measure.Smooth Hammerhead is listed in Appendix II of the Barcelona Convention, affording it protection from fishing activities taking place in the Mediterranean region. All species listed in Appendix II must be released unharmed and alive to the extent possible, therefore cannot be retained on board, transshipped, landed, transferred, stored, sold, displayed or offered for sale (Recommendation GFCM/36/2012/1). The recommendation continues to stipulate that all vessels encountering these species must record information on fishing activities, catch data, incidental taking, release and/or discarding events in a logbook or similar document, then all logged information must be reported to national authorities. Finally, additional measures should be taken to improve such data gathering in view of scientific monitoring of the species.Croatia provides national strict protection for the Smooth Hammerhead. Spain prohibited the retention of all species of hammerhead sharks in 2009.

useAndTrade:
This species’ fins are highly valued and they are being increasingly targeted in some areas in response to increasing demand for shark fins. Smooth and Scalloped Hammerheads were found to represent at least 4-5% of the fins auctioned in Hong Kong, the world’s largest shark fin trading center (Clarke et al. 2006a). It is estimated that between 1.3 and 2.7 million Smooth and/or Scalloped Hammerheads are represented in the shark fin trade each year or, in biomass, 49,000 to 90,000 t (Clarke et al. 2006b).

redListAssessors:
Ferretti, F., Soldo, A., Walls, R., Casper, B., Domingo, A., Gaibor, N., Heupel, M.R., Kotas, J., Lamónaca, A., Smith, W.D., Stevens, J., Vooren, C.M. & Pérez-Jiménez, J.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Vulnerable (VU)Tope (Galeorhinus galeus) is a widespread, mainly coastal, temperate demersal shark that is fished throughout its range. It is caught as bycatch in mixed demersal and pelagic fisheries especially by French vessels fishing in the English Channel, Western Approaches and northern Bay of Biscay. In Europe, this species is important in recreational fisheries. Trends from 19 years of survey data of various parts from the Northeast Atlantic suggest this species is declining at a rate that would be consistent with a 38% decline over three generation spans (90 years), and even though little is known of this species in Mediterranean waters, the same decline is inferred to have occurred throughout its whole European distribution. Therefore, based on the estimated decline and the low productivity of this shark, it is assessed as Vulnerable in European waters under criterion A2bd.

range:
There is believed to be a single stock of Tope (Galeorhinus galeus) in the Northeast Atlantic, extending from southern Norway and Scotland, southwards to the coast of northwest Africa and the Mediterranean Sea (ICES 2012). Within this range, the North Sea, waters west of Scotland, the Celtic Sea, English Channel, Bay of Biscay region, Iberian waters and the Azores are believed to be important habitat for the species; whereas the Norwegian Sea, Baltic waters, Iceland and the Faroe Islands are considered areas where it is only an occasional vagrant. It is suggested that the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean stock is isolated from other stocks around the world, with little to no gene flow between them (Chabot and Allen 2009).Tagging studies (Central Fisheries Board, Ireland) have shown movements between the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea, also with wide ranging movements tagged off southwest Ireland to the Azores and Canary Islands (ICES 2007). Therefore this species is considered as one stock.

population:
Northeast AtlanticIn the Northeast Atlantic, research vessel survey data reveal a decline in abundance indices by 38% since 1993 (Dureuil 2013), which is also suspected to have occurred over three generation spans (90 years). The relative exploitation rates are at levels that, on average, have been greater than that which is sustainable since 1997. In accordance, the fishing mortality from 1992 to 2012 for the central North Sea may have been two to four times greater than sustainable levels. Therefore, the spawning stock size of a cohort would have been reduced to approximately 15% of its exploited spawning stock biomass (Dureuil 2013). Within the English Channel there has been a decline in survey catch per unit effort (CPUE) of approximately 66.6% over the period 1988 to 2008 (Martin et al. 2010). Tope landings throughout the Northeast Atlantic region have decreased by 83% in the past twenty years from a peak of 1,754 tonnes (t) in 1983 to the lowest record in the time series of 301 t in 2011 (ICES 2011). In the Baltic and North Sea region, landings steadily decreased between 1978 and 2011 (ICES 2012). Landings from waters off west Scotland, the Celtic Seas and the English Channel are relatively high, but also highly variable, with an overall decreasing trend since 1978 (ICES 2012).   MediterraneanThis species is now rare in the Mediterranean Sea, and while formerly common in the Adriatic Sea, it has not been captured there in the past half century. The analysis of the MEDITS program data from 1994-1999 shows a very low frequency of occurrence for this shark in the Mediterranean Sea (only five positive hauls or 0.05 %). Its overall biomass was estimated to be 0.2 kg/km2 for the Mediterranean Sea. The standing stock biomass was estimated at 126 t (0.23%) (Baino et al. 2001). Off Italy, Relini et al. (2000) reported catch in only one of the 11 zones studied as part of the Italian national project (9,281 hauls in total, around the Italian coast, from 1985-1998), although data on biomass for this species were not provided. Tuna trap data from the Northern Tyrrhenian Sea from 1898 to 1992 shows a steep decrease in abundance of catches (80 individuals between 1898 and 1905; only eight for the 1906 to 1913 period and zero from 1914 to 1922) (Vacchi et al. 2002). Data from the MEDITS program for the Adriatic Sea were compared with those from the survey Hvar, carried out in 1948 (Jukic-Peladic 2001). Although no data on individual species captured biomass are reported, Tope appeared in the 1948 survey, but not in the MEDITS program. In Tunisian waters, where there exists a lower fishing pressure than off the northern Mediterranean coasts, the species is considered to be very rare (Bradai 2000).Ferretti et al. (2013) noted that although offshore grounds of the Adriatic Sea remained almost unexploited until the end of World War II, the elasmobranch community surveyed was characterized by small, productive elasmobranchs. Larger, less resilient meso-predatory species such as Tope, which used to be common or seasonally abundant throughout the basin in the 19th and early 20th century (Marchesetti 1882, Ninni 1912, Paolucci 1901, Fortibuoni et al. 2010), were already scarce or under detectable levels (present in less than 5% of tows) likely due to decades of directed and incidental coastal fishing (Marchesetti 1882, Fortibuoni 2010). The Hvar and Zupanovic surveys operating in the Mediterranean Sea between 1948 and 1957 caught 18 Tope specimens in the Adriatic Sea, while the corresponding surveys since 1957 have never encountered the species again (Ferretti et al. 2013).No species-specific catch data for the Mediterranean Sea and off northwest Africa were available in 2012 (ICES 2012). Overall, available landings appear relatively stable between 1982 and 2003 at around 500 t per year and at 400 t per year since 2004, with a drop to 300 t in 2011. However, the absence of some recent national data restricts the interpretation of recent trends. These older survey data suggest early depletion of Tope at least in shallow waters in this area, which could also have occurred in other Mediterranean areas where similar practices historically operated. Considering that the stock of Tope is continuous throughout European waters, it is inferred that a similar decline to that of Northeast Atlantic waters is true for the Mediterranean Sea, therefore the species is inferred to have undergone a decline of 38% over the three-generation period through its European distribution.

habitat:
Tope is most abundant in cold to warm temperate continental seas, from very shallow water to well offshore (Ebert and Stehmann 2013), being primarily found near the bottom but ranges through the water column even into the pelagic zone. In the English Channel, Tope were most abundant in the west, particularly in the deeper waters of the ‘narrows’, between the Cherbourg Peninsula and Isle of Wight, where the seabed is pebbly and tidal currents strong (Martin et al. 2010). These species also showed patches of lower density in some shallower coastal waters in the eastern part of the English Channel. The maximum size varies considerably: the maximum size recorded is ~ 200 cm total length (TL) for females in the Mediterranean Sea (Capape and Mellinger 1988) and 169 cm TL for a female in the North Sea (McCully et al. 2013) but can be somewhat smaller in other areas (e.g., the Southwest Atlantic with a maximum size of 155 cm for females and 148 cm for males (Peres and Vooren 1991)). Differences are also apparent in the size at maturity in different regions. Size at sexual maturity ranges between 120 and 135 cm TL for males and 134 to 140 cm TL for females (Olsen 1954, Capape and Mellinger 1988, Peres and Vooren 1991, Freer 1992), although Ripley (1946) noted the onset of maturity at 150 cm TL for females and McCord (2005) reports that 50% of males are mature at 101 cm TL. The size at maturity of females in the Northeast Atlantic was suggested to be 155 cm TL for females and 121 cm TL for males (Dureuil 2013), based on data from the Azores, Madeira (Couto 2013) and the Mediterranean Sea (Capape and Mellinger 1988).This shark is live bearing without placenta, with average litters of 20 to 35 pups; as few as six and as many as 52 observed with an average of 35 in the Northeast Pacific (Ripley 1946, Ebert 2003). Parturition occurs in spring or early summer after a gestation period of ~ 12 months; the young vary in length at birth between 26 and 40 cm TL, depending on the region. The litter size increases in larger females. These may reflect real differences or may be due to the difficulties of sampling a species, which shows marked temporal and spatial sexual and size segregation, and which makes extensive movements. The generation length of this species is estimated to be around 30 years.The annual rate of population increase () has been estimated by Cortes (2002) at 1.077 (95% C.I. 1.037 to 1.128) and the natural mortality by Smith et al. (1998) at 0.113 year-1. The intrinsic rate of population increase for the Northeast Atlantic population was estimated at 0.062 year-1 and the natural mortality at 0.094 year-1 (Dureuil 2013).This species makes extensive migrations, for example, animals tagged in the United Kingdom and Ireland showing mixing throughout their Northeast Atlantic distribution and being recaptured as far away as to the north of Iceland (2,461 km), the Canary Islands (2,526 km) and the Azores (1,610 km off the coast of Portugal) (Fitzmaurice 1979, Holden and Horrod 1979, Stevens 1990).Little is known regarding critical habitats but nursery areas may occur off Portugal and around the Canary Islands (Muñoz-Chápuli 1984), in the southern North Sea, especially along the Frisian Islands (Dureuil 2013) and possibly in the Bristol Channel, United Kingdom (see Walker 1999 for further details). Greater abundances of mature individuals have been found off the northern Irish coast, the southern Irish Sea and the east coast of England (Dureuil 2013).

threats:
There is accidental capture of pups on nursery grounds in gillnets of small mesh size and recreational fishers operating in inshore shallow areas. Habitat degradation in potential nursery areas due to development and siltation may also negatively affect recruitment to populations of this species. Other threats are habitat degradation by the effects of trawling through disturbance of substrates (Walker 1998).Northeast AtlanticCurrently, Tope is typically a bycatch of mixed demersal and pelagic fisheries, especially French vessels fishing in the English Channel, Western Approaches and northern Bay of Biscay. Landings data are unreliable as many nations that land tope will report an unknown proportion of landings in aggregated landings categories, for example, ‘Dogfish and Hounds’ (ICES 2012). However, species-specific landings of Tope are available from 1975, with regularly reported catches from France, Portugal and the UK. Overall, reported Tope landings have varied around 500 t through 1990-2000s, but have slowly decreased from 713 t in 2000 to 333 t in 2012. The main proportion of Tope landings are made by France and the UK from the north and along the west coast of the British Isles, with landings ranging from 155-394 t from France and from 98 t to 15 t (2000-2012). In the late 1980s, Tope was among the most important species in commercial shark catches of France and catches were declining (Bonfil 1994). Similar declines in landings have been seen from Iberian waters with Portuguese landings decreasing from 142 t to 47 t (2000-2012).In demersal trawl fisheries, Tope of 50 to 94 centimetres TL are generally discarded, while those over 94 centimetres are often retained. In drift and fixed net fisheries, Tope are mostly retained and ranged mainly from 70 to 124 centimetres (ICES 2012). Tope is also an important target species in recreational sea angling and charter boat in several areas, with most anglers and angling clubs following catch and release protocols.MediterraneanAlthough no direct fisheries for Tope exist in the Mediterranean Sea, it was traditionally caught as bycatch in gillnets and trammel nets in the northern Adriatic Sea, also as bycatch of semi-industrial (Adriatic Sea and Sicily) and artisanal fisheries in pelagic and demersal nets, deep longlines, drift lines and troll lines (Fischer et al. 1987). A small directed gillnet fishery targeting Mustelus spp. and Squalus spp. operated off the Balearic Islands in the past which reported catches of Tope. In recent times, only bottom trawl and longline fisheries have reported continuous bycatch of Tope, and such reports are very rare nowadays. The development of the bottom trawl fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea over the first half of the 20th century in the northern range, and during the latter half in the southern range, is considered as one of the principal factors responsible of the decline of many demersal elasmobranch species. In this sense, both overfishing and habitat degradation must be considered as factors potentially responsible for declines.In Italian fish markets, the product labeled “palombo” is an umbrella term for numerous shark species, one of which has been identified as Tope by Barbuto et al. (2010). Out of the Triakidae species, only Common Smoothhound (Mustelus mustelus) is distinguishable from the others, raising concern as to how much Tope is being sold under the label “palombo”. The grouping of species under one name in this manner makes it impossible to deduce landings trends, as individual species trends are masked by those they are grouped with.

conservationAction:
In 2013, the EU banned removal of shark fins on board vessels (CEC 2013), in line with advice from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s Shark Specialist Group and other shark fishery experts, in order to enhance enforcement of the 2003 EU ban on shark finning (CEC 2003) and facilitate improved shark fishery data collection. In terms of UK fisheries Tope is prohibited other than using rod and line (with anglers fishing using rod and line from boats not allowed to land their catch) and a Tope bycatch limit of 45 kilograms per day for commercial fisheries targeting other species was established (Statutory Instrument Number 2008/691, ICES 2012).Tope is listed in Appendix II of the Barcelona Convention, affording it protection from fishing activities taking place in the Mediterranean region. Contracting Parties and Cooperating non-contracting Parties shall ensure that catches of Tope taken with bottom-set nets, longlines and in tuna traps shall be promptly released unharmed and alive to the extent possible, therefore cannot be retained on board, transshipped, landed, transferred, stored, sold, displayed or offered for sale (Recommendation GFCM/36/2012/1). All vessels encountering these species must record information on fishing activities, catch data, incidental taking, release and/or discarding events in a logbook or similar document, then all logged information must be reported to national authorities. Finally, additional measures should be taken to improve such data gathering in view of scientific monitoring of the species.

useAndTrade:
Tope has a long history of exploitation in target fisheries in most parts of its range where the species has been in demand for liver oil, meat and fins.

redListContributors:
Walker, T.I., Cavanagh, R.D., Stevens, J., Carlisle, A.B., Chiaramonte, G.E., Domingo, A., Ebert, D.A., Mancusi, C., Massa, A., McCord, M., Morey, G, Lawrence, J., Serena, F. & Vooren, C.M.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Near Threatened (NT) Starry Smoothhound (Mustelus asterias) is widespread on the continental shelf to a depth of 200 m, ranging from northern Europe to northwest Africa, including the Mediterranean Sea. The species is vulnerable to capture in trawl, gillnet, trammel net and line gear. In the Mediterranean Sea, smoothhounds (Mustelus spp.) are valued for human consumption and are often retained and marketed, whereas in the northern parts of the Northeast Atlantic they have little market value and are often discarded. No reliable species-specific fisheries catch data are available because landings data often refer to all smoothhounds combined, or even smoothhounds combined with Tope (Galeorhinus galeus) or spurdogs (Squalus spp.). The Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea are considered different subpopulations, based on differences in reproductive biology.Abundance trends in fishery independent survey data from northwestern European waters suggest that the Northeast Atlantic subpopulation is estimated to be increasing. However, there has been a corresponding increase in reported landings from this region, and given the absence of effective species-specific management for this subpopulation, abundance trends and catch volumes must be carefully monitored.In the Mediterranean Sea, abundance trends in fishery independent trawl survey data show that this subpopulation has been declining in both the Gulf of Lions and the Adriatic Sea over the past 50 years. Landings of all smoothhounds in the Mediterranean Sea declined by about 85% between 1994 and 2006. No information is currently available on subpopulation trends in the southern Mediterranean Sea and northwestern coasts of Africa, although this species is also caught and landed there in relatively intensive coastal fisheries. It is suspected to have undergone a decline of around 30% through the three-generation period (53 years).Considering the decline of the species in the Mediterranean Sea and its increasing trend in the Northeast Atlantic, this species is assessed as Near Threatened as it is close to meet the threshold for a threatened category under criterion A2. It should however be noted that the situation in the Mediterranean Sea may be worse than estimated given the grouping of smoothhounds in landings data and consequent masking of species-specific population trajectories. This European status must therefore not undermine the situation in these waters that needs to be addressed.

range:
This species’ northernmost range in the Northeast Atlantic extends to Scottish and southern Norwegian waters. The range extends southwards into the waters of Sweden, Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain and Portugal (Compagno et al. 2005). The range extends beyond the Northeast Atlantic into northwestern Africa in the Eastern Central Atlantic. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes (WGEF) considers there to be one management unit of this species in the continental shelf waters of the Northeast Atlantic (ICES 2012). This unit spans the North Sea, English Channel, waters west of Scotland, the Celtic Seas, the Bay of Biscay and Iberian waters. It is unknown if this stock management unit corresponds to a single biological population; tagging studies are ongoing. This smoothhound is found throughout the entire Mediterranean Sea, including the Black Sea (Eryılmaz et al. 2011). Its depth limit is one to 200 m.

population:
Northeast AtlanticWithin the coastal waters of the United Kingdom, this species can be found in the Outer Thames, Solent, Bristol Channel and Cardigan Bay (Ellis et al. 2005a). In Irish waters, it is most abundant in the western Irish Sea and the coastal waters of southeast Ireland (Farrell 2010). Martin et al. (2010) found that the mean density of this smoothhound more than doubled between 1988 and 2008 throughout the English Channel. Similar trends were reported from various trawl surveys in the Northeast Atlantic between 1992 and 2012, where the highest increase in abundance was observed in French surveys (Dureuil 2013).Although species-specific data are limited, data for all smoothhounds (Mustelus spp.) provides a good proxy for trends in landings and relative abundance. This is especially true for Starry Smoothhound (M. asterias), which is the most frequently encountered smoothhound species in the Northeast Atlantic (ICES 2013). In the Bay of Biscay landings have increased strongly from 151–499 tonnes (t) from 1996–2004, and have remained stable in Portuguese waters since an initial peak in 1999 (ICES 2007). Fishery independent surveys of the Celtic Seas, southern North Sea, English Channel and Irish Sea all suggest increasing trends in nominal catch per unit effort (CPUE; ICES 2010, 2013). For example, a fishery independent survey in the eastern English Channel and southern North Sea also found an increase in CPUE from about 0.1–0.3 individuals per hour in the early to mid-1990s to around 1.0–1.3 in 2009–2011.A relative abundance survey conducted by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) in the Celtic Sea recorded a peak in 2000 and again in 2004 over a 17-year time series, although the year 2000 peak was not found in a concurrent French survey (ICES 2007). Nonetheless, a United Kingdom beam trawl survey also found an increase in smoothhound relative abundance and frequency of occurrence (ICES 2011). The trend of the population in the Northeast Atlantic is therefore of an increase.Mediterranean SeaThis species is less common than Common Smoothhound (Mustelus mustelus) in the Mediterranean Sea, although the potential for misidentification should be noted. In the northern Mediterranean Sea, the International Bottom Trawl Survey in the Mediterranean (MEDITS) found that the frequency of occurrence was very low, with this smoothhound recorded in only five of 6,336 hauls conducted from 1994–1999 at 10–800 m depth (Baino et al. 2001). The occurrence of this species also decreased in trawl surveys conducted in 1948 and 1998 in the Adriatic Sea (Jukic-Peladic et al. 2001). Aldebert (1997) reports a clear decrease in abundance of smoothhounds in comparable surveys in the Gulf of Lions, southern France, from 1970–1995. In Hvar trawl surveys conducted in 1948 in the Adriatic Sea, occurrence of this smoothhound was about 1.0 (frequency log-transformed), compared to about 0.1 in comparable MEDITS surveys conducted in the same area in 1998, which shows a decline of 90% from 1948 to 1998. A decline of 91% is inferred for the three generation period of 53 years (1948-2001). Most recently, between 2006 and 2008, Fortuna et al. (2011) examined trawl fisheries in the Adriatic Sea, and found that this species was rarely caught as bycatch, with a catch rate of 0.0048 individuals per haul. In 2009 two specimens were caught in the southwestern Black Sea (Eryılmaz et al. 2011).Catch data should be examined with caution as the catches reported as smoothhounds often consist of an aggregation of small-sized demersal sharks. Data reported to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations show that smoothhound landings steadily increased between 1950 and 1978 to 14,000 t, after which they fluctuated between about 6,500 and 14,000 t from 1978–1994 (FAO 2008). After 1994, landings dropped significantly to 2,980 t in 1997 and did not exceed 2,200 t from 2001–2006 (FAO 2008). It is likely that this species has never been very abundant in the Mediterranean Sea. However, the available information on landings (although not species-specific) combined with the more detailed information derived from fishery-independent trawl surveys, suggest that this particular species has declined in abundance in the Mediterranean Sea. In some cases, as in the northern Tyrrhenian Sea, this species can be considered locally extinct due to overfishing (Ferretti et al. 2005, 2008).Considering the outlined declines through the Mediterranean Sea, the species is inferred to have undergone a decline of at least 30% over three generations (around 53 years) throughout its Mediterranean range. While in the Northeast Atlantic the population trend is of an increase and in the Mediterranean Sea the species seems to be decreasing, the overall trend is considered to be stable.

habitat:
This demersal smoothhound species is found at a maximum depth of about 200 m, on sandy and gravelly bottoms (Compagno 1984, Ellis et al. 2005a). In waters surrounding the United Kingdom, it seems to be most abundant in large bays, outer parts of large estuaries and in coastal areas (Ellis et al. 2005a). In Irish waters, this species is most abundant in the western Irish Sea particularly off the shallow sandy beaches (Farrell 2010). Recent tagging data suggest that it is seasonally migratory across its Northeast Atlantic range (Farrell et al. 2010b, Winter and van Oversee 2013).In the Northeast Atlantic, females give birth between April and July. No published information exists on the location of parturition and nursery areas, though neonates and juveniles are periodically abundant in shallow areas of the English Channel, southern North Sea/Thames Estuary and Bristol Channel (Ellis et al. 2005a,b; Dureuil 2013) and in shallow waters off sandy beaches on the southeast coast of Ireland (Farrell 2010). In the Irish Sea, large pregnant females are seasonally abundant in May off Holyhead, Wales (Farrell 2010). Mating may occur in the southern Celtic Sea in October (Dureuil 2013). The natural mortality rate of this species in the Northeast Atlantic was estimated at 0.219 per year and the intrinsic rate of population increase at 0.079 per year (Dureuil 2013). The reproductive biology of this live bearing with yolk sac species is variable between the Northeast Atlantic (Farrell et al. 2010b) and the Mediterranean Sea (Capapé, 1983). In the Northeast Atlantic, ovarian fecundity ranged from one to 28 oocytes and uterine fecundity from five to 20 embryos (ICES 2014). Average total length (TL) at birth is 30 cm (Compagno et al. 2005), though other estimates have ranged from 34.9–38.1 cm TL (Farrell et al. 2010a). Gestation period was about 12 months, followed by a resting period of about 12 months, resulting in a biennial reproductive cycle. Length and age at 50% maturity estimates for males and females were 78 cm TL and four to five years and 87 cm TL and six years, respectively (Ferrell et al. 2010b). Using sectioned vertebrate, asymptotic length and longevity estimates were 103.7 cm TL and 20.2 years in females and 123.5 cm TL and 11.8 years in males (Farrell et al. 2010a). In the Mediterranean Sea there are no published age or growth studies for this species, however there is some information on reproductive traits. Ovarian fecundity ranged from 10–45 oocytes and uterine fecundity from 10–35 embryos. Unlike the Northeast Atlantic subpopulation, females reportedly have an annual reproductive cycle in the Mediterranean Sea, and sexual maturity is attained at about 75 cm in males and about 96 cm TL in females (Capapé 1983). The species is inferred to have a generation length of 17.8 years, based on data from the closely related species Mustelus mustelus.

threats:
Northeast AtlanticThis smoothhound is caught seasonally as bycatch in trawl, gillnet and longline fisheries, some of which discard or land the species, depending on market demands (ICES 2012). There are areas of local abundance throughout its range. Preliminary analyses of bycatch data indicate that juveniles are typically discarded, but no evaluation of discard survival rate has been undertaken (ICES 2012). Fishing mortality was estimated from the catch ratio from surveys of the Northeast Atlantic across the sub-adult and adult age classes (5–13 years). Since 1992 the fishing mortality has been variable, but overall has declined from 0.25 to 0.15. Nonetheless, the current level may still be slightly above the fishing mortality that produces maximum sustainable yield (FMSY = 0.11; Dureuil 2013).In addition to being discarded as bycatch, this species may be landed for human consumption, and is used as bait for the inshore whelk fishery in England and Ireland. ICES landing statistics combine dogfish and smoothhounds together so there are little accurate data on Northeast Atlantic landings, and levels of bycatch are largely unknown. They are also an important sport angling fish in some areas, where most fish are returned to the sea, and often tagged. These areas include the Bristol and English Channels, the United Kingdom, the eastern and western Irish Sea, and off the coast of the Netherlands (ICES 2012).Mediterranean Sea There is a high level of exploitation on the continental shelf and upper slope to about 800 m depth in the Mediterranean Sea (Massuti and Moranta 2003, Ferretti et al. 2005). Smoothhounds are captured by demersal trawls, trammel nets, gillnets and longlines in this region (Bauchot 1987). Semi-industrial fisheries in the Adriatic Sea, off Sicily, Spain and Cyprus are known to take these species, and also artisanal fisheries elsewhere. Smoothhounds are retained and used in the Mediterranean Sea, where they are regularly sold for human consumption in many areas (Fischer et al. 1987).

conservationAction:
Northeast AtlanticThere is currently no restriction on catch. Based on its approach to data-limited stocks, ICES advised in 2012 that 2013–2014 catches should be reduced by 4%. Despite this advice and commitments to manage commercial fisheries, there are currently no European Union limits on landings or proposals for management.The European Community Council Regulations 850/98 for the ‘conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms’ details the minimum mesh sizes that can be used to target fish. Smoothhounds would be classed under ‘all other marine organisms’ and so can only be targeted in fixed nets of more than 220 millimeters (ICES 2012).Mediterranean SeaThere is currently no restriction on catch. Species-specific management measures are necessary to prevent further declines in this region, including improved data collection to species level for commercial landings. This species (M. asterias) is listed in Appendix III of the Barcelona Convention, which suggests it should be afforded regulations regarding exploitation in the Mediterranean Sea (Recommendation GFCM/36/2012/1). The listing directs the recording and reporting to national authorities of all encounters with the species (including catch, bycatch, discard) and encourages improved data collection and scientific monitoring. However, compliance with this directive has been poor, and thus Mediterranean data on this species remains seriously lacking. The Balearic Island Marine Reserves offer minimal protection to smoothhounds, as they are protected within the waters of the reserve.Further research should be conducted on the population size and trend of the species.

useAndTrade:
The species is commercially valuable in the Mediterranean Sea, where it is utilized fresh, frozen, or salted and dried for human consumption. It is regularly present on the Adriatic, Tyrrhenian, Tunisian and Turkish markets; and sold fresh, frozen, refrigerated or salted-dried (Fisher et al. 1987). Often discarded by commercial fisheries in the Northeast Atlantic, but the species is important for recreational fisheries in some areas of this region.

redListAssessors:
Farrell, E., McCully, S., Dulvy, N., Mancusi, C. & Ellis, J.


taxonomicNotes:
Mustelus mustelus and M. asterias are morphologically similar and may be misidentified. Many early works may refer to either of the two species (Wheeler 1978). Mustelus asterias is distinguished from M. mustleus by a narrower inter-narial space and the presence of white spots on the dorsal and upper lateral sides of the former. There is a demonstrated high level of contemporary and historical misidentification of unspotted Mustelus asterias as M. mustelus in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean region (Farrell et al. 2009, Farrell 2010). There are no reliably confirmed records of M. mustelus occurring north of Portuguese waters (Farrell 2010). Quignard and Capapé (1972) described a M. mustelus specimen from Portuguese Atlantic Ocean waters based on dermal denticle morphology and this remains the most northerly reliably identified record of this species.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Vulnerable (VU) This species is widespread, from southern Europe to South Africa, including the Mediterranean Sea. It is most commonly found in shallow waters between five and 50 m depth, although it occurs to at least 350 m depth. The species is vulnerable to capture in trawl, gillnet, trammel net and line gear. No species-specific fisheries catch data are available for Common Smoothhound (Mustelus mustelus) because landings data often refer to all Smoothhounds (Mustelus spp.) combined. In the Mediterranean Sea, it is valued for human consumption and often retained and marketed. Landings of all Smoothhounds (Common Smoothhound, Starry Smoothhound and Blackspotted Smoothhound), of which Common Smoothhound is the most common, in the Mediterranean Sea declined by approximately 85% between 1994 and 2006 (less than one generation; generation length = 17.8 years). Time series catch data from comparable trawl surveys and landings in the Gulf of Lions, Ligurian Sea, showed a clear decrease in the abundance of smoothhounds from 1970 onwards, although data from the Adriatic Sea suggest that the abundance of Common Smoothhound did not change from 1948–1998. While probably present in Portuguese waters (known from a single confirmed record), this species is considered absent from the northeast Atlantic Ocean. Both catch and fishery-independent scientific survey data available from the Mediterranean Sea and west Africa suggest that significant declines have occurred in these regions. The species is considered to meet the criteria for Vulnerable in these waters, based on estimated and inferred continuing declines over three generations (more than 50 years) of at least 30% across the European region. Catches and population trends need to be carefully monitored throughout the species range and management intervention is required.

range:
Distributed in the eastern Atlantic Ocean from Portuguese waters to South Africa (Eastern Cape of South Africa and Kwa-Zulu Natal), including the Canary Islands and throughout the Mediterranean Sea, but absent from the Black Sea (Whitehead et al. 1984, Compagno et al. 2005, Serena 2005). The reported occurrence of this species in the northeast Atlantic Ocean north of Portuguese waters (UK, Republic of Ireland, France, and Spain) is unconfirmed and likely the result of misidentification (Farrell et al. 2009, Farrell 2010).

population:
Mustelus mustelus is more common than M. asterias in the Mediterranean Sea. Surveys undertaken by the International Bottom Trawl Survey in the Mediterranean (MEDITS) in the northern Mediterranean Sea between 1994 and 1999 at 10-800 m depth recorded this species in 111 (2%) of 6,336 hauls, mostly between zero and 50 m depth (Baino et al. 2001). Aldebert (1997) reports a clear decrease in abundance of smoothhounds in comparable surveys in the Gulf of Lions, southern France, from 1970 onwards. The occurrence of Mustelus mustelus in comparable trawl surveys conducted on the shelf of the Adriatic Sea in 1948 and 1998 remained approximately the same (Jukic-Peladic et al. 2001). In Hvar trawl surveys conducted in 1948 on the shelf of the Adriatic Sea, occurrence (frequency log-transformed) was about 1.0, compared to about 0.1 in comparable MEDITS surveys conducted in the same area in 1998. In “Gruppo Nazionale Risorse Demersali” (GRUND) surveys conducted in Italian seas between 1985 and 1998, the percentage presence was 21.9%. Most of the population was concentrated in the Adriatic Sea and southern waters of Sicily, and the species was absent from the Ligurian Sea and from Sardinian waters (Relini et al. 2000). A fishery-independent survey in 2007 and 2008 in the Gulf of Gabès off Tunisia caught a mean of 2.2 individuals km-1 of gillnet per day (Echwikhi et al. 2013). Mustelus mustelus were more abundant in this study area compared to the northern coasts of the Mediterranean Sea (Echwikhi et al. 2013). Fortuna et al. (2011) observed trawl fisheries in the Adriatic Sea between 2006 and 2008 and noted that this species was rare, with a bycatch rate of 0.0256 individuals per haul within this time period. The annual bycatch estimate was 863 individuals (95% confidence intervals: 818 to 891 individuals). Tserpes et al. (2013) analysed data from the fishery-independent MEDITS surveys in the Aegean Sea between 1998 and 2008, finding very low levels of the species (zero to 14 individuals), with high variability in catch.

habitat:
This demersal coastal species is found on the continental shelves and uppermost slopes, from the intertidal to at least 350 m depth, but usually in shallow waters from 5-50 m on sandy and muddy substrates (Bauchot 1987, Notarbartolo di Sciara and Bianchi 1998, Compagno et al. 2005, Serena 2005). Reproduction is viviparous with yolk-sac placenta. Biological information is available from Tunisia and other areas of the Mediterranean Sea. Males mature at 70-112 cm total length (TL) and females at 107.5-124 cm TL (Da Silva 2007, Saïdi et al. 2008) and 80 cm TL reported elsewhere in the Mediterranean Sea (Whitehead et al. 1984, Bauchot 1987, Serena 2005). The length at 50% maturity for males and females was 97.1 and 117.2 cm respectively (Saïdi et al. 2008). Off Senegal, the length at 50% maturity was reported as 82 cm TL for males, and 95 cm TL for females (Capapé et al. 2006). From this study, litters of four to 21 embryos were reported. Saïdi et al. (2008) report that reproduction is annual with parturition taking place during late April and early May and mating during May and early June off Tunisia. Costantini et al. (2000) also confirm the period of May-June for the Adriatic Sea. The gestation period is nine to 11 months (Smale and Compagno 1997, Notarbartolo and Bianchi 1998, Da Silva 2007, Saïdi et al. 2008). Females give birth to four to 18 pups per litter and larger females have significantly larger litters (Fischer et al. 1987, Smale and Compagno 1997, Saïdi et al. 2008). Size at birth is 34-42 cm TL (Bauchot 1987, Notarbartolo and Bianchi 1998, Serena 2005, Saïdi et al. 2008). Da Silva (2007) studied the age and growth of this smoothhound off South Africa, and it can be assumed these values will be similar to those in the Mediterranean Sea. Maximum observed age was 25 years. Age at 50% maturity was determined at 10.75 years for females and 9.1 years for males. Natural mortality was estimated at 0.05 per year. Generation length is estimated at 17.8 years.

threats:
There is a high level of exploitation on the continental shelf and upper slope to about 800 m depth in the Mediterranean Sea (Massuti and Moranta 2003). Smoothhounds are captured with demersal trawls, trammel nets, gillnets and longlines in this region (Bauchot 1987). Semi-industrial fisheries in the Adriatic Sea, off Sicily, Spain and Cyprus take these species, and also artisanal fisheries elsewhere. Smoothhounds are retained and used in the Mediterranean Sea, where they are regularly sold for human consumption in many areas (Fischer 1987). Landings data reported to the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) show that landings of smoothhounds (probably including Common Smoothhound (M. mustelus), Starry Smoothhound (M. asterias) and Blackspotted Smoothhound (M. punctulatus), of which Common Smoothhound is the most common in this region) steadily increased between 1950 and 1978 to 14,000 tonnes (t), after which they fluctuated between approximately 6,500 t and 14,000 t from 1978-1994 (FAO 2008). After 1994, landings dropped significantly, decreasing to 2,980 t in 1997 and did not exceed 2,200 t from 2001-2006 (FAO 2008). Although these landings are not species-specific, combined with the results of fishery-independent trawl surveys described above, they also suggest that this species has declined in abundance in the Mediterranean Sea. There is taxonomic confusion between Common Smoothhound and Starry Smoothhound by fishermen and observers (Farrell 2010). Genetic analysis can be used to distinguish smoothhounds in landings, though this does not solve the issue of on-board misidentification in fisheries logbooks (Farrell et al. 2009, Moftah et al. 2011). In Italian fish markets, a product labelled “palombo” is an umbrella term for numerous shark species, one of which has been identified through DNA barcoding as Common Smoothhound (Barbuto et al. 2010). The grouping of species under one name in this manner makes it impossible to deduce landings trends, as individual species trends are masked by those they are grouped with.

conservationAction:
There are no specific management measures in place for Common Smoothhound throughout the majority of its range. Smoothhounds are protected within Balearic Island (Spain) marine reserves. Few species-specific landings data exist and improved data collection on commercial landings are needed in all areas of its range. Current catch levels appear to be unsustainable throughout the majority of this species’ range and management intervention is required to reduce catches. Da Silva et al. (2013) reported that size and fishing effort control methods might be most effective for Common Smoothhound. The European Community Council Regulations 850/98 for the ‘conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms’ details the minimum mesh sizes than can be used to target fish. Smoothhounds would be classed under ‘all other marine organisms’ and so can only be targeted in fixed nets of more than 220 mm (ICES 2012). Common Smoothhound is listed in Appendix III of the Barcelona Convention, affording it regulation of any exploitation taking place in the Mediterranean region (Recommendation GFCM/36/2012/1). All vessels encountering this species must record information on fishing activities, catch data, incidental taking, release and/or discarding events in a logbook or similar document, then all logged information must be reported to national authorities. Finally, additional measures should be taken to improve such data gathering in view of scientific monitoring of the species.

useAndTrade:
Commonly marketed in the Mediterranean Sea (Bauchot 1987), Western Africa and South Africa. It is valued for its white meat and the meat of other species, such as blue shark and sand tiger shark, are sometimes sold as this species.

redListAssessors:
Farrell, E.D., Dulvy, N.K. & Walls, R.H.L.


taxonomicNotes:
The distribution of the two other Mustelus species (M. asterias and M. mustelus) overlap with this species and misidentification is probably common.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Vulnerable (VU)Blackspotted Smoothhound (Mustelus punctulatus) is a poorly known demersal shark found on the continental shelf (to 300 m depth) in the Mediterranean Sea and off Western Sahara in the Eastern Central Atlantic. This species is frequently mistaken with another, more abundant smoothhound (Mustelus) species, particularly Common Smoothhound (Mustelus mustelus). Blackspotted Smoothhound appears to be very rare in the northern Mediterranean Sea, but more common in the south and on the coasts of Tunisia and Libya. Like other smoothhound species in this region, it is taken as bycatch in trawls and other demersal fisheries. Landing data are often grouped and therefore species-specific information is not currently available. Smoothhounds are retained and used for human consumption in many areas. Since this species is apparently rare, it may be unknowingly fished throughout its range; and there is evidence that other smoothhound species have declined, making further investigation a priority. Considering that the fishing effort in the Mediterranean has either stayed the same or increased, and taking into account the population decline data available for the period 2008-2012, a decline of at least 30% is inferred for 2013-2014 and projected to continue up to three generations into the future (53 years in total considering the past and the future). Therefore, the species is assessed as Vulnerable under Criterion A4d.

range:
This species occurs in the Northeast Atlantic from the British Isles to South Africa, including the Mediterranean Sea, but it is absent from the Black Sea (Compagno et al. 2005, Serena 2005). The species can be found as deep as 300 m.

population:
Very little information is available on populations of this species, partly due to confusion with the more common species of smoothhound within its range. It seems to be very rare in the northern Mediterranean Sea where surveys have been undertaken. It was recorded in only one of 6,336 hauls during the International Bottom Trawl Survey in the Mediterranean (MEDITS) programme (at depths of 50800 m) from 19941999 (Baino et al. 2001). Jukic-Peladic (2001) compared MEDITS catch data from the Adriatic Sea in 1998 with that from the Hvar survey in 1948. Blackspotted Smoothhound (Mustelus punctulatus) was not reported from either survey, although Common Smoothhound (Mustelus mustelus) and Starry Smoothhound (Mustelus asterias) were present in both. Blackspotted Smoothhound was also absent from bottom trawl surveys conducted off the Balearic Islands between 1998 and 2001, at depths of 401,800 m (Massutí and Moranta 2003).The Italian survey programme Gruppo Nazionale Risorse Dermerali (GRUND) carried out 22 surveys in Italian waters between 1985 and 1998. The percentage presence of this species was low (2.48%) and very few specimens were caught in the northern Tyrrhenian Sea, northern central Adriatic Sea and south of Sicily (Relini et al. 2000).This species is apparently more common in parts of the southern Mediterranean Sea. It is common along the Tunisian coasts and seems to be most abundant towards the south in the Gulf of Gabès and along the coast of Libya (Bradaï et al.2002).In Italian waters, scientific trawl surveys caught Blackspotted Smoothhound mostly in the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean Geographical Sub-areas 16 (Strait of Sicily) and 17 (northern Adriatic Sea) with the average catch rate per hour ranging between 0.6 and 1.7, respectively. From 2008 to 2012, the catch of this species progressively declined, especially in the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Division 37.1.3 (Sardinia) and 37.2.2 (Ionian Sea) areas where catches declined by 75% (from 1.43 to 0.36 tonnes per year) and 37% (from 33.32 to 20.87 tonnes per year), respectively. In FAO Division 37.2.1 (Adriatic Sea), the landings remained relatively consistent (between 172.0 and 311.0 tonnes per year; Serena et al. 2014).Considering the population decline data available for the period 2008-2012, a decline of at least 30% is projected to continue into the future, considering a total of three generations between the past and the future (53 years).

habitat:
This species occurs over the continental shelf, on sandy and gravelly substrates and sea grass beds, as deep as 300 m (Serena et al. 2014).The reproductive biology and diet have recently been described by Saïdi et al. (2009). This species’ reproductive mode is placental live-bearing with an annual reproductive cycle. Mating occurs in late May to June. Ovulation occurs from early July to mid-August with parturition occurring from mid-May to early June, after a gestation period of 11 months. Size at birth is estimated to be 24.5−30.5 cm total length (TL). Ovarian fecundity ranged from 14 to 32 and uterine fecundity from 12 to 27. Positive linear relationships were detected between the TL of mature females and ovarian and uterine fecundities. The maximum reported TL for males and females are 111 cm and 122 cm, respectively. Males mature between 76.0 and 88.5 cm TL, with a size at 50% maturity of 81.4 cm TL. Females mature between 88.0 and 100.0 cm TL, with a size at 50% maturity of 95.6 cm TL. Its generation length is estimated to be around 17.88 years.

threats:
This species is caught by demersal trawl and coastal small-scale fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea (STECF 2003). Trammel nets, gillnets, bottom trawls and longliners operate in this area. Although Bradaï (2000) observed that this species is common in the Gulf of Gabès, it seems to be scarce at least in the northern Mediterranean Sea. Smoothhounds have shown signs of depletion in the Mediterranean Sea, although they may be locally abundant in some areas (STECF 2003). Landings of smoothhounds are often grouped as “smoothhounds nei” in landing statistics and therefore no species-specific data are available. Furthermore, at least for Italian catches, reported catches do not correspond with the taxonomic group, but an aggregation of small demersal sharks, including true smoothhounds (Mustelusspp.), spurdogs (Squalusspp.), gulper sharks (Centrophorus spp.), Kitefin Shark (Dalatias licha), catsharks (Scyliorhinusspp.) and Blackmouth Catshark (Galeus melastomus). This is because these species are usually marketed headless, skinned and eviscerated, and sold under the commercial name of “palombo”, the Italian name for smoothhounds. Direct observations by experts are required to collect species-specific data for catches of true smoothhounds, as these species can be difficult to identify for non-biologist observers.

conservationAction:
No species-specific management or conservation measures are currently in place. The harvest trends of the species should monitored. 

useAndTrade:
Mustelus species are retained and marketed for human consumption in many parts of the Mediterranean Sea and probably on the western coasts of Africa.

redListContributors:
Serena, F., Mancusi, C., Haka, F., Morey, G & Schembri, T.


taxonomicNotes:
Chimaera monstrosa is a long established and well-recognized species. Reports of this species from other parts of the world (e.g., South Africa) are misidentifications. A long history of study indicates this species is restricted to the northeast Atlantic, northern part of the Eastern Central Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea, and the occurrence of populations of C. monstrosa outside this range is highly unlikely.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Near Threatened (NT) Rabbitfish (Chimaera monstrosa) is widespread throughout the Northeast Atlantic and fairly abundant throughout its range. Even though this is one of the better known and most studied chimaeroid species, data on population structure, biology and ecology is still limited. Like many deepwater chondrichthyans this species' low biological productivity makes it vulnerable to exploitation and population depletion. It is taken in deepwater trawl fisheries in the Northeast Atlantic, and it is either landed as or discarded. There is a continuing trend of increasing deepwater fishing activities in the North Atlantic, while regulation is often lagging. Rabbitfish had the largest discard biomass of all chondrichthyans in a study of the discards of the French bottom trawl fleet from the South Rockall Bank to the northerly slopes of the Wyville-Thomson Ridge and constitutes 13 to 15% of the discards in deepwater trawlers operating off the West Coast of Ireland. Survival rates of discards are likely low given the depths of capture and the fact that many discards are undersized or unmarketable individuals (suggesting damage). Increasing interest in the production of dietary supplements for human consumption derived from the liver oil of this species suggests that exploitation is likely to increase. Given that this species' preferred depth range is entirely within the range of current fishing activity, its slow life history, and the suspected high rate of mortality of discards, it is assessed as Near Threatened on the basis of a future suspected decline of > 20% in three generations (around 64 years), being close to qualify as threatened under Criterion A3bd, and leading to concern that it may soon qualify as threatened.

range:
Rabbitfish (Chimaera monstrosa) is widespread throughout the Northeast Atlantic from the southern Arctic to Morocco (about 80°N to 30°N latitude) including the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and the Mediterranean Sea. It is common in the western and central Mediterranean Sea, rare in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, and absent from the north and central Adriatic Sea. A single individual has been caught off Greenland (Moller et al. 2004). Its depth range is 300-1,663 m.

population:
Nothing is known of population structure but there may be two or more separate subpopulations (e.g., the Mediterranean Sea population may be separate from that found in the North Sea). The species is widespread throughout the Northeast Atlantic and fairly abundant throughout its range.

habitat:
Rabbitfish is a benthopelagic species that prefers upper to middle continental slope habitats from 300 to 500 m depth with a reported maximum depth of 1,663 m. Whitehead et al. (1984) reported this species occurs from 50 m to 1,000 m depth being most abundant between 300 and 500 m. Ehrich (1983) reported occurrence from 173 m to 1,663 m depth off the west of the British Isles, with highest densities found between 500 m and 700 m. Hareide et al. (1997) reported Rabbitfish from 630 m and 825 m depth on the western slope of Porcupine Bank, with none found between 825 m and 1,400 m. In the Mediterranean Sea this species is abundant in all areas from 100 m depth but is most abundant between 500 m and 800 m (Baino et al. 2001, MEDITS Program). Sion et al. (2004) reported several specimens from Balearic Sea at 650 m depth and from eastern Ionian Sea at 800 m depth. Off southern Sicily this species is widely distributed between 289 m and 799 m depth (Ragonese et al. 2013).Norwegian exploratory surveys of Hatton Bank conducted between 1998 and 2000 show a depth distribution of 590 m to 1,230 m, at temperatures of 4.7 to 8°C. Additional information on distribution by depth and area, length distributions and catch per unit effort (CPUE) data can be found from Irish and Norwegian trawl and longline survey data to the west of the British Isles and Hatton Bank. Summer inshore migrations to 40-100 m have been observed in some areas. Provisional age and growth characteristics determined by Calis et al. (2005) suggest that the maximum age estimates observed were 30 years for males and 26 years for females. However, these ages probably underestimate the true maximum age of this species, owing to the limited sample size examined. Estimated age at first maturity was 13.4 years for males and 11.2 years for females. The generation length of this species is calculated at 21.7 years.The species is egg laying, with an apparent spawning season in spring and summer. Nothing is known of early development. Appears to aggregate in groups like other chimaeroids and may segregate by age and sex.

threats:
Rabbitfish is taken incidentally in deepwater trawl fisheries throughout its range (Crozier 2006). In a study of discards of the French bottom trawl fleet from the South Rockall Bank to the northerly slopes of the Wyville-Thomson Ridge, Rabbitfish had the largest discard biomass of all chondrichthyans (Crozier 2006). It constitutes 13 to 15% of the discards in deepwater trawlers operating off the west coast of Ireland (Calis et al. 2005). Survival rates of discards are likely low given capture depths, and the fact that many discards are undersized or unmarketable individuals (suggesting damage). There is increasing interest in the production of dietary supplements for human consumption derived from the liver oil of this species, and a directed fishery has the potential to develop in areas of occurrence (Calis et al. 2005). In the Mediterranean Sea it is usually caught by offshore trawlers mostly between 500 and 800 m and immediately discarded. Commonly caught by trawlers off southern Sicily between 400 and 500 m depth (Ragonese et al. 2013).Rihan et al. (2005) have also reported this species as a bycatch from bottom gillnets retrieved from 648 nets recovered during a gill net retrieval survey of Rockall and Porcupine Bank at depths of 400 to 1,300 m during August-September 2005. Evidence of significant quantities of lost and abandoned gear in these areas and of excessive discarding in these fisheries due to long soak times lead to serious concerns about the impact of ghost fishing. There is a need for the immediate introduction of effective management measures in these fisheries to control the quantities of gear being fished and soak time (Rihan et al. 2005).Even though deepwater fisheries have decreased in effort gradually over the past decade (Dransfeld et al. 2013, STECF 2014), some areas of the Northeast Atlantic, for example the Rockall Trough, have been subject to a fairly rapid increase in deepwater fishing activities since the 1990s, raising concerns for the sustainability of local deepwater fish stocks (Gordon 2003). High catches of Rabbitfish occur between Rockall Bank, Faroe Bank, and Wyville-Thomson Ridge (Magnussen 2002, Crozier 2006), and this likely mirrors catches elsewhere.

conservationAction:
The General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) banned bottom trawling below depths of 1,000 m in the Mediterranean Sea. This measure was adopted by all members of the GFCM and came into force in September 2005. The development and implementation of management plans (national and/or regional e.g., under the FAO International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks: IPOA-Sharks) are required to facilitate the conservation and sustainable management of all chondrichthyan species in the region.Further information is required on deepwater fishing activities (including catch and bycatch levels, effort and trend monitoring) in the north Atlantic and the conservation status of this species should be reassessed without delay when such information is available. Both present and future fishing pressure may be shown to be unsustainable for this species, particularly given its preferred depth range. Deepwater fisheries should be monitored in case of future expansion, which could pose a threat to this chimaera. Continued monitoring of capture and collection of this species is recommended as well as data collection on locality, size, sex, reproductive condition and depth in order to better understand population structure and trends.

useAndTrade:
There is increasing interest in the production of dietary supplements for human consumption derived from the liver oil of this species, and a directed fishery has the potential to develop in areas of occurrence (Calis et al. 2005).


taxonomicNotes:
The Opal Chimaera (Chimaera opalescens Luchetti, Iglesias and Sellos 2011) and Cape Chimaera (Chimaera notafricana Kemper, Ebert, Compagno and Didier 2010) are both recently described species. Chimaera notafricana was recently described off Namibia and South Africa at depths of 680–1,000 m and C. opalescens occurs in the north eastern Atlantic at depths of 900 – 1,400 m. It is suspected that C. opalescens may become a junior synonym of C. notafricana.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least ConcernOpal Chimaera (Chimaera opalescens) is a deepwater ratfish reported from the Northeast Atlantic at depths of 900–1,400 m. The species is not targeted commercially, but is taken as bycatch by bottom trawlers. This species is assessed as Least Concern in the European region because the majority of its depth range is deeper (> 800 m) than the reach of most deepwater fisheries. 

range:
Opal Chimaera (Chimaera opalescens) has been reported in the Northeast Atlantic between 48° and 57°N latitude (Luchetti et al. 2011). The latitudinal segregation of trawls indicated the highest species concentration between 57° and 59°N (Holt et al. 2013). It is known to occur off the coasts of Ireland, the United Kingdom, France, Morocco, and Greenland. This species has been recorded off Greenland by Møller et al. (2004) under the name Rabbitfish (Chimaera monstrosa; Luchetti et al. 2010). Currently, its presence off of Spain, Portugal and Iceland is uncertain. Cape Chimaera (Chimaera notafricana) was recently described off Namibia and South Africa at depths of 680–1,000 m. If Opal Chimaera and Cape Chimaera are discovered to be synonymous, this species will be viewed as a species with a wide geographical range from the north eastern to south eastern Atlantic. The depth range is 900-1,400 m.

population:
There is no information available on the population size and trends.

habitat:
It is suspected that the maximum depth reported for the Rabbitfish (1,663 m; Dagit et al. 2007) should be attributed to the Opal Chimaera, which is known to occur at greater depths in the northeastern Atlantic. There appears to be sexual segregation between males and females; sub-adult and adult females occupy lower depths (1,400–1,480 m) than sub-adult and adult males (1,230–1,420 m). All sub-adults and adults were found to occupy deeper waters than juveniles (1,040–1,060 m; Holt et al. 2013).This species is thought to reach sexual maturity at > 50 cm total length (TL), sub-adults range between 42 and 50 cm TL and juveniles are considered to be smaller than 42 cm TL (Holt et al. 2013). The maximum described TL for males is 96.8 cm and 109.8 cm for females (Luchetti et al. 2011).

threats:
This species is not targeted commercially, nor is it commercially valuable, but it is taken as bycatch by bottom trawlers (Luchetti et al. 2011). Prior to the description of Opal Chimaera, this species was identified as Rabbitfish in fisheries bycatch (Lucchetti et al. 2011), therefore the number of Opal Chimaera specimens caught as by-catch may be underestimated as fishermen might misidentify them as Rabbitfish. Opal Chimaera represent ~20% of the specimens and 30% of the biomass landed under the name "Chimaera monstrosa" or "Chimaeidae/Rhinochimaeridae" in the French fish markets. In addition, there appear to be deepwater fisheries in the northeast Atlantic that reach the depth of 1,600 m. This could make Opal Chimaera potentially vulnerable to exploitation at all depths of the species’ range, and hence the effort and expansion of these deep fisheries should be monitored closely (Holt et al. 2013). 

conservationAction:
There are no conservation or fisheries management measures in place. The continued monitoring of commercial capture and collection of this species is recommended, as well as data collection on geographic range, size, sex, reproductive condition and depth in order to better understand population structure and trends. The correct recording of catches at a species-specific level is also needed to achieve a more accurate estimation of landings. The species requires further taxonomic research and the trends of harvesting require monitoring. 

useAndTrade:
The species is not utilised or traded commercially.

redListAssessors:
Buscher, E., Iglésias, S. & Luchetti, E.


taxonomicNotes:
Appearance is very similar to Hydrolagus pallidus. Hydrolagus affinis is distinguished primarily by its darker body color compared to the much paler H. pallidus (Hardy and Stehmann 1990).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)Smalleyed Rabbitfish (Hydrolagus affinis) inhabits deepwater slopes, seamounts and sea-plains at depths of 300–2,410 m, although it is most commonly found below 1,000 m. It is not commonly captured, except in deepwater research trawls and occasionally as bycatch in deepwater commercial trawls. It is potentially threatened by deepwater commercial trawl fisheries in the North Atlantic, but this species occurs deeper than the main fisheries operating within its range and may occur at greater depths than currently reported. It is therefore assessed to be of Least Concern in the European region. Although it is considered unlikely that fisheries will ever target this species given its low abundance, further study of population size, age and growth is highly recommended as this may be a slow-growing species that could be affected by bycatch.

range:
This species is widespread in the North Atlantic from west to east. In the Northeast Atlantic, it occurs off southwestern Greenland to Iceland and southwards to Portugal, the Azores and the Canary Islands (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). The depth range is 300–2,410 m.

population:
Nothing is known of population size or structure. Almost all captures are large adults or sub-adult juveniles that are &gt;100 cm total length (TL). Very few small juveniles have ever been collected, indicating that juveniles and adults may aggregate separately and occupy different habitats.

habitat:
This benthic species occurs on deepwater slopes, seamounts and sea-plains of the North Atlantic at depths of 300–2,410 m, generally in waters near or below 1,000 m (Stehmann and Bürkel 1984, Krefft 1990). Maximum TL with intact filamentous tail is ~147 cm and total body length (BDL) is ~96 cm. Maximum female TL is at least 125 cm (86 cm BDL). Maximum male TL is uncertain, but the largest BDL is 89 cm. Minimum size at maturity for a male is 66 cm BDL and 69 cm BDL for a female. Size at birth is uncertain, but the smallest free-swimming individual recorded was 32 cm TL (14 cm BDL). It is an egg-laying species with yolk-only nutrition, but nothing else is known of reproduction, spawning or growth. It is likely a slow-growing species with low fecundity (Ebert and Stehmann 2013).

threats:
This species is occasionally captured in deepwater research trawls and possibly as a bycatch in some deepwater trawls. At present, no known fisheries target this species and it is not likely to become a target in the future because of its low abundance. It could face a potential threat in the future if emerging deepwater commercial trawl fisheries capture this large species in large numbers; however, it is considered to occur deeper than the main fisheries in the Northeast Atlantic, offering a deep refuge from fishing pressure. As this species is thought to be slow growing with low fecundity, monitoring of deepwater fishing activities, including landings and discards, will be essential to ensure that it is not adversely affected. Areas of the Northeast Atlantic (e.g., the Rockall Trough) have been subject to a fairly rapid increase in deepwater fishing activities since the 1990s with overall concern for the sustainability of deepwater fish stocks (Gordon 2003). Since 1998, Norwegian trawlers and longliners have carried out trial and commercial fisheries in the Hatton Bank area (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Subdivision VIb and XII) at depths of 600–2,000 m (Kjerstad et al. 2003). However, the lower depth limit of the main fisheries in this region is ~1,500 m. This species is most commonly caught at depths >1,000 m, therefore, much of its range is beyond the reach of the main fisheries. 

conservationAction:
No management or conservation measures are known to be in place. Study of population size, age and growth of this species is recommended prior to initiating any target fishery as this may be a slow-growing species that would be highly threatened by overfishing. Management and monitoring of captures of this species should be a priority.

useAndTrade:
The species is not utilised nor trade commercially.


taxonomicAuthority:
Moura, Figueiredo, Bordalo-Machado, Almeida & Gordo, 2005

taxonomicNotes:
This species is most closely related to Hydrolagus affinis (Moura et al. 2005).

redListCategoryRationale:
Hydrolagus lusitanicus is a recently described species from the continental slope of Portugal. It is an infrequent bycatch of the directed Portuguese longline fishery for Black Scabbard Fish (Aphanopus carbo) with a bycatch of deepwater sharks. This fishery generally operates at depths of 800-1,200 m and is thought to only occasionally operate within this species’ range (below 1,500 m). It can therefore be inferred that these fisheries at their current capacity is not a significant threat to this species, so it is assessed to be Least Concern in the European region. Population trends should be monitored if deepwater fisheries expand to exploit greater depths in the Northeast Atlantic, and this assessment should be revisited as soon as further data become available.

range:
This species is found in the Northeast Atlantic on the Portuguese continental slope from the Figueira da Foz (northern Portugal, 40° 07’N, 9° 45’W) to the Algarve (southern Portugal 36° 35’N, 8° 35’W, Moura et al. 2005). The species is suspected to occur below depths of 1,600 m.

population:
The only information available is from capture in fisheries which may not operate throughout the species’ full bathymetric range. The species may be more common at depths of more than 1,600 m, however there are currently no research surveys that sample to such depths. It is discarded at sea if captured and therefore no information is available on the numbers caught. Discard survivorship is most likely very low for such a deep-living species and it may share the limiting life-history characteristics of other deepwater elasmobranchs (ICES 2007a).

habitat:
This egg-laying species is only known from 22 specimens, 13 of which were collected by commercial longline vessels at depths of c. 1,600 m on the Portuguese continental slope (Moura et al. 2005). Of these 13 specimens, females ranged from 98.6 to 117.7 cm pre-supra caudal fin length (PSCFL) and males ranged from 81.5 to 95.4 cm PSCFL (Moura et al. 2005). This species is most closely related to the Smalleyed Rabbitfish (Hydrolagus affinis), which most commonly occurs at depths between 1,000 and 2,410 m in the North Atlantic.

threats:
This species may be occasionally taken as bycatch by the directed Portuguese longline fishery for Black Scabbard Fish (Aphanopus carbo) with a bycatch of deepwater sharks, although the Portuguese monitoring program for Portuguese longline fleet discards has never reported it (ICES 2007b).The deepwater longline fishery generally operates at depths of 800–1,200 m and is thought to only occasionally fish within this species’ depth range (below 1,500 m) at present (Bordalo-Machado and Figueiredo 2007). This species occurs below the depths currently fished by the deepwater demersal trawl fishery that targets crustaceans off southern Portugal.Very little information is available on this recently described species, although it may have limiting life history characteristics (e.g., slow growth and late maturity) like other deepwater elasmobranchs, making it vulnerable to exploitation.

conservationAction:
No species-specific conservation measures are known to be in place. The harvest trends of the species should be monitored. 

useAndTrade:
The species is not utilised nor exploited commercially.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)Large-eyed Rabbitfish (Hydrolagus mirabilis) occurs over continental slopes at depths of 4501,933 m. Little is known about its population structure, ecology and reproduction, although its life history traits are probably similar to that of other Hydrolagus species, such as White-spotted Ratfish (H. colliei). Large-eyed Rabbitfish is not targeted by commercial fisheries. It may be caught as bycatch in deepwater fisheries, but no bycatch data currently exist and much of its depth range is likely outside the reach of deepwater fisheries. Based on the lack of catch records and its deep range, Large-eyed Rabbitfish is classified as Least Concern in European waters. Further research should be conducted and data collected from incidental captures to infer population trends for this species.

range:
Historical capture records suggest that this species is widespread; it is probably relatively common in the Northeast Atlantic and less common in the western and southern Atlantic (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). In the Northeast Atlantic, this species is known to occur from Iceland and the Irish Atlantic slope off Ireland, Scotland, the Hebrides (Whitehead et al. 1984), down to the north of Spain. In the Eastern Central Atlantic, it occurs off Morocco, Western Sahara, and further south (Quero et al. 1990). In 2013, a large female was recorded in the eastern Mediterranean Sea for the first time by Hassan (2013). Its depth rang is 4501,933 m. 

population:
No information is available on population size or structure of this species. Given its limited interaction with fisheries and its deep range, the European subpopulation is inferred to be stable.

habitat:
This deepwater ratfish occurs over deep slopes at 4501,933 m depth, but usually deeper than 800 m (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). It probably inhabits rock, rubble, or muddy bottoms and shares similar life history traits with other Hydrolagus species, such as White-spotted Ratfish (H. colliei). Juveniles are more common in deeper waters of the Northeast Atlantic, while sub-adults are more common in shallower waters (Holt et al. 2013). Adult males and females are segregated in relation to mean depth; adult males are more common in shallower waters, and adult females in deeper waters similar to that of juveniles (around 1,000 m) suggesting this depth may serve as a possible birthing ground for this egg-laying species. Nothing else is known about reproduction or spawning. Size at birth is unknown, but the smallest free-swimming neonate recorded was 18.2 cm total length (TL) and 6.7 cm body length (BDL). The maximum TL recorded is 80 cm and around 235 cm BDL. 

threats:
This species is taken as bycatch of deepwater fisheries, particularly bottom trawl fisheries in the Northeast Atlantic. It is probably often discarded. Deepwater chimaeras, like other deepwater chondrichthyans, likely have slow life history characteristics that make them vulnerable to depletion. If fisheries expand deeper into this species’ range, they may pose a threat (Gordon 2003), however there is no indication that deepwater fisheries are currently expanding. This species has also been caught in a bottom gillnet retrieval survey of Rockall and Porcupine Bank at depths of 4001,300 m during August and September of 2005 (Rihan et al. 2005). This suggests that it may be affected by the significant quantities of lost and abandoned gear in these areas. 

conservationAction:
No species-specific management or conservation measures are currently in place. A record of all incidental captures, including basic data on sex, size and depth, is recommended in order to infer population size, structure and life history. Management measures should be introduced to control the quantities of fishing gear being used and soak time. Monitoring of deepwater fishing activities, including landings and discards, are needed in the future.

redListContributors:
Dagit, D.D., Compagno, L.J.V. & Clarke, M.


taxonomicNotes:
Very similar to H. affinis, and also overlapping with this species in range. The primary difference between these two species is the paler color of H. pallidus. There has been some question on whether or not H. pallidus may actually be a color variant of H. affinis. However, recent research indicates that these two species can be further distinguished by the proportion of eye length (EYL) to head length (HDL) (Didier in prep).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC) Pale Ghost Shark (Hydrolagus pallidus) is a large benthic species that occurs at depths of 1,188−2,075 m, and possibly deeper. It was recognised as a distinct species from Smalleyed Rabbitfish (Hydrolagus affinis) only in the last 15 years. Its life history characteristics are probably similar to Smalleyed Rabbitfish (i.e., slow growing with low fecundity). Pale Ghost Shark is not targeted by commercial fisheries and it is unlikely to become a target in the future due to its low abundance. Much of its range is beyond the reach of the main fisheries, but bycatch in deepwater longline and trawl fisheries may pose a threat, particularly if they were to expand deeper into its depth range. Given its limited interaction with current fisheries and its perceived abundance in the Northeast Atlantic region, this species is assessed as Least Concern in European waters.

range:
This chimaera is probably widespread throughout the North Atlantic. In the Northeast Atlantic, it occurs from the southern Bay of Biscay to west of Scotland within the Rockall Trough (44° to 59° N), off Iceland, Greenland and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, including the Azores (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). It has also been reported from the Canary Islands (Brito et al. 2003). It can be found at depths ranging from 1,188-2,500 m, and perhaps even deeper.

population:
There is no information on population size or structure is currently available. This species appears to be rare in the Canary Islands and more common in the Northeast Atlantic, but this may be partly due to differences in fishery effort, including gear used and depth fished. The population is considered to be stable overall.

habitat:
This benthic species inhabits deepwater slopes and troughs at depths of 1,188−2,075 m in the Northeast Atlantic and depths of 1,352−1,912 m near the Canary Islands. It may be more common below 2,000 m and even occur at depths of > 2,500 m.  It is suspected that this is a slow-growing species with low fecundity and likely shares similar habitat and ecology to Smalleyed Rabbitfish (Hydrolagus affinis). It is an egg-laying species, but no eggs, hatchlings, or small juveniles have been collected. Maximum total length (TL) is at least 137.6 cm for females and 136 cm for males (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Size at maturity is 73 cm and 77 cm body length (BDL) for males and females, respectively. Size at birth is unknown, but the smallest free-swimming individual recorded was a 68 cm TL male (42 cm BDL).

threats:
This species is not targeted by fisheries, and not considered a likely target in the future given its low abundance, but it is often taken as bycatch in commercial deepwater longline fisheries and sometimes trawl fisheries. An increase in deepwater longline fishing efforts could pose a threat, but this species occurs deeper than the main fisheries in the Northeast Atlantic, and it may occur at even greater depths than currently reported. In the 1990s, areas of the Northeast Atlantic were subject to a fairly rapid increase in deepwater fishing activities causing overall concern for the sustainability of deepwater fish stocks (Gordon 2003). Since this species is thought to be slow growing with low fecundity like its congener, Smalleyed Rabbitfish, even incidental catch could adversely effect the population if fisheries expand further into its depth range. However, since the 1990s, deepwater fisheries have decreased their range and there are fewer fisheries operating, so the potential for expansion into deeper waters is unlikely for now.

conservationAction:
No species-specific management or conservation measures are in place. It is recommended that more specimens are collected for research, particularly for collecting life history data. The extent of deepwater fishing activities, bycatch and landings should also be monitored.


taxonomicNotes:
Two very small juveniles were originally described by Bigelow and Schroeder as H. raleighana. However, it was recognised by Karrer in her 1972 description of H. haeckli, and by others, that some references to H. raleighana from the Canary Islands may actually be referred to H. haeckeli.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)Smallspine Spookfish (Harriotta haeckeli) is a benthic chimaera that occurs on deepwater slopes and troughs at depths of 1,114−2,603 m. Capture records of this species from the Atlantic are rare, but it may be more abundant and widespread in deeper water, particularly in regions where surveys and deepwater fishing efforts are currently limited. This species is not known to be commercially fished, but it may be taken as bycatch in deepwater fisheries. Limited overlap between its habitat and the current scope of deepwater fisheries suggests that the risk of fisheries exploitation is low in the European region. For this reason, this species is assessed as Least Concern, but future expansion of deepwater fisheries (particularly around Macaronesia) should be monitored.

range:
In the Northeast Atlantic, this species has a patchy occurrence and has only been confirmed off southern Greenland. In the Eastern Central Atlantic, it occurs around the Canary Islands and possibly off northwest Africa (Didier 2006, Ebert and Stehmann 2013). The depth range is 1,114−2,603 m. It has also been found in the Southwest Pacific from New Zealand.

population:
Nothing is known about population size or structure for this species, as catch records from the Northeast and Eastern Central Atlantic are rare. Harriotta haeckeli may occur more widely in the North Atlantic than presently known, particularly at depths greater than 2,000 m. It is likely that a single panmictic population exists across the North Atlantic.

habitat:
This benthic chimaera occurs on deepwater slopes and troughs at depths of 1,114−2,603 m in the Northeast and Eastern Central Atlantic (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Little is known about the reproductive biology, but it is assumed to be similar to that of other chimaeras (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). It is an egg-laying species, although no egg capsules or embryos have been collected. The maximum recorded size for this species is ~72 cm total length (TL). Size at maturity is ~60 cm TL and ~25 cm body length (BDL) for females, and ~45 cm TL and ~20 cm BDL for males.

threats:
This species is not commercially fished, but may be caught in deepwater bottom trawls incidentally. Current evidence suggests that it is a rare species and populations may be threatened by deepwater fishing operations if they expand into its depth range. For this reason, the expansion of deepwater fisheries in the North Atlantic should be monitored, and this assessment reviewed if it occurs.

conservationAction:
No species-specific management or conservation measures are in place. The development and implementation of national and/or regional management plans (e.g., under the Fisheries and Agriculture Organisation’s International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks) are required to facilitate the conservation and sustainable management of all chondrichthyan species in the region.Additional information should also be collected for this species. Accurate reporting of all captures will enhance our understanding of its geographic range and deposition of specimens in museum collections will allow for further biological and molecular studies. 

useAndTrade:
The species is not utlised nor exploited commercially.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)Narrownose Chimaera (Harriotta raleighana) is a widespread chimaera that is captured in deepwater research trawls and as bycatch in deepwater commercial trawl fisheries. In European waters, this species is assessed as Least Concern because it is considered common in the North Atlantic, it has a wide distribution within the region, and much of its habitat falls outside the reach of deepwater fisheries. However, bycatch data from other fisheries and the monitoring of expanding deepwater fisheries are required as increased deepwater trawl fisheries could pose a potential threat in the future.

range:
The species is found globally in the Northern Atlantic and Western Pacific Oceans. In the Northeast Atlantic, this species occurs off of southeast Greenland, Iceland, and the Rockall Trough to the United Kingdom, and possibly to the Bay of Biscay, but this is not confirmed (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). This species has been recorded near the Canary Islands by Bigelow and Schroeder (1953), however these records may in fact refer to Smallspine Spookfish (Harriotta haeckeli). The depth range is 3802,600 m.

population:
This species appears to be fairly abundant where it is known to occur. Nothing is known about population structure.

habitat:
This oceanic species primarily occurs over continental slopes at depths of 380−2,600 m. It has been observed over soft mud and gravelly bottom substrates and sometimes in association with other deepwater chimaeras (Hydrolagus spp.) with remote operated vehicles. Similar to many other chimaeras, adults and juveniles may occupy different habitats. An ontogenetic shift occurs between 300 and 1,000 m depth with large individuals occurring deeper than smaller individuals (Ebert and Stehmann 2013).Females of this species grow larger than males. The maximum recorded size is 120 cm total length. Size at maturity is ~35 cm body length (BDL) for females and ~25−30 cm BDL for males. Size at birth is ~10−13 cm precaudal length (Ebert and Stehmann 2013).Little is known about the spawning and reproduction of this egg-laying species. Egg cases are small, ~16 cm in length (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). 

threats:
This species is not targeted by commercial fisheries, but it is caught as bycatch in commercial deepwater bottom trawls. It seems to be relatively common in deepwater survey trawls. Expansion of deepwater trawl fisheries could pose a potential threat to habitats and populations in the future, but this is unlikely to occur in the near future.

conservationAction:
No management or conservation measures are known to be in place. Data from specimens collected incidentally would be helpful in understanding population structure and life history of this species. Monitoring of the harvest trends should be conducted. The development and implementation of national and/or regional management plans (e.g., under the Fisheries and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations’ International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks) are required to facilitate the conservation and sustainable management of all chondrichthyan species in the region.


taxonomicNotes:
The distinction between R. atlantica and R. pacifica is problematic and based solely on the number of caudal tubercles, a highly variable and often overlapping characteristic (tends to be greater in R. atlantica). Resolution on the distinction of these two species will require examination of a larger series of specimens and potentially molecular data (Compagno et al. 1990).

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least ConcernStraightnose Rabbitfish (Rhinochimaera atlantica) is a deepwater chimaera that appears to be widespread throughout the Atlantic at depths of ~5001,500 m and may be more widespread in deeper waters than is presently known. Nothing is known with regard to behaviour, feeding and reproduction, and no information is available on population structure. It is not commercially exploited, nor currently reported as bycatch. However, this species does occasionally occur in deepwater research trawls and therefore almost certainly occurs as bycatch in some deepwater fishing activities. At present, it is likely to be most abundant beyond the range of most deepwater commercial fisheries. Straightnose Rabbitfish is therefore assessed as Least Concern in the European region. Fisheries bycatch may pose a threat in the future if deepwater demersal fisheries expand. Bycatch should be monitored and data on size, sex and depth should be collected to improve our understanding of population size and structure, and life history.  

range:
This chimaera is probably widely distributed throughout the Atlantic. In the Northeast Atlantic, it is known to occur from off southeast Greenland and Iceland to the Atlantic slope off Ireland, Scotland, the Hebrides, and the Bay of Biscay. Its range is likely continuous along the northwest African coast since it is also known from off Mauritania, Senegal, and Gambia (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). The depth range is 4001,500 m.

population:
Nothing is known of population size or structure.

habitat:
This benthic species occurs over deep slopes at recorded depths of 4001,500 m, likely on muddy or rubble/rock bottoms. It may be more abundant at even greater depths. Almost all specimens known are adults or sub-adult juveniles. Small juveniles are rarely captured. This may be due to fishing methods or more likely the aggregation of adults and juveniles in separate habitats and/or depths (Ebert and Stehmann 2013).This is an egg-laying chimaera, but nothing else is known about its reproductive cycle. Only a few egg capsules and at least one hatchling has been collected (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Size at birth is about 15 cm total length (TL). The maximum reported length for this species is ~140 cm TL and 90 cm precaudal length (PCL). Mature males measure ~107 cm TL (81.3 cm PCL, 47.3 cm body length [BDL]). Sub-adult males are ~105.5 cm in TL (80.3 cm PCL, 47.7 cm BDL), with a maximum TL of at least 112.7 cm (82.3 cm PCL, 46.6 cm BDL). Adult females measure ~127.4 cm TL (99.0 cm PCL, 59.0 cm BDL), and sub-adults are ~99.4 cm TL (75.0 cm PCL), with a maximum length of at least 140 cm TL.

threats:
No bycatch data currently exists for this species. It is occasionally caught in deepwater research trawls. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) did not report any individuals caught or landed in the relevant ICES zones of the Northeast Atlantic in 2013 (ICES 2013). The majority of this species’ range occurs beyond the maximum depth of the main fisheries. Fisheries bycatch, and possible habitat destruction, may pose a threat in future if deepwater demersal trawlers expand into deeper waters. 

conservationAction:
No management or conservation measures are in place. Increased data collection from any and all captures is recommended in order to obtain additional information on population size and structure and life history.  The development and implementation of management plans (national and/or regional e.g., under the FAO International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks: IPOA-Sharks) are required to facilitate the conservation and sustainable management of all chondrichthyan species in the region.


taxonomicNotes:
There is a possible subspecies or distinct but undescribed species off the Namibian and the southeast African coast (L. Compagno pers. comm.)

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)Frilled Shark (Chlamydoselachus anguineus) is a rare deepwater species. Although it is not targeted by any commercial fisheries, this deepwater species is likely to have little resilience to depletion as a result of non-targeted exploitation. In European waters, it may occur within reach of deepwater trawl and longline fisheries, but these fisheries have a zero bycatch allowance for deepwater sharks and therefore mortality is likely to be low. Despite the likelihood that it is biologically vulnerable to depletion, the paucity of records for this species since it was last assessed suggests the capture rate is very low and therefore it is assessed as Least Concern in the European region. 

range:
This widespread species has a patchy distribution, mostly found in the North Atlantic and the Pacific (Compagno et al. 2004). In the Northeast Atlantic, this species is known from northern Norway (Varanger Fjord), the Atlantic continental slope off northern Scotland and western Ireland, France, Spain, and Portugal, the Canary Islands, Madeira and along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge north of the Azores (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). The species is found globally but sporadically. The depth range is 100-1,500 m

population:
There is no information available on the population size or trends. It is generally rare, but there are a few localities where it is more common. 

habitat:
This benthopelagic species can be found on the upper and middle continental slope at depths of 100-1,500 m, but usually between 500-1,000 m. The maximum reported size for this species was a ~196 cm total length (TL) female. The males mature at 97−117 cm TL, and females mature at 135−150 cm TL. They are born at 40−60 cm TL. The reproductive mode is live-bearing with a yolk-sac and litters are six to 12 pups. It may have a long gestation period, but its life cycle is mostly unknown (Compagno et al. 2004).

threats:
Although fisheries do not target this species, it exists within the range of some deepwater trawl, longline and gillnet fisheries so it can be caught incidentally. In the Northeast Atlantic, European Union (EU) zero bycatch limitations were put in place in 2012.

conservationAction:
Based on advice from the International Council on the Exploration of the Sea to end fishing for deepwater sharks, the European Union (EU) Fisheries Council established a zero Total Allowable Catch (TAC) limitation for the sharks most vulnerable to overexploitation in 2007. In 2010, the EU Fisheries Council added Frilled Shark to this measure and set the deepwater shark TAC at zero, starting in 2012 (CECAF 2012). The EU also introduced a zero bycatch allowance on the same deepwater shark species in 2012. The harvest trends of this species require further monitoring.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Data Deficient (DD)Sharpnose Sevengill Shark (Heptranchias perlo) is a wide-ranging, deepwater demersal species. It occurs at the outer shelf, slope, and oceanic seamounts. It is likely to have a low rate of reproduction, and low resilience to depletion. Commercial fisheries do not target this species, but it is occasionally taken as bycatch in deepwater bottom trawl and longline fisheries, which may be causing population declines. Sharpnose Sevengill Shark is assessed as Data Deficient in European waters, based on the lack of catch and landings information available for inferring population trends. In the future, catches need to be monitored.

range:
This species occurs in the Northeast Atlantic off Ireland, England, Wales, south to the Bay of Biscay and Strait of Gibraltar. It also occurs in the Mediterranean Sea and the Eastern Central Atlantic from Morocco and southward off the African coast. It does not occur in the Black Sea (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Its depth range is 300-1,000 m.

population:
There are insufficient data on current or past catches for inferring population trends. This shark is relatively uncommon in most places where it occurs. In the Gulf of Gabès, it is sporadically reported by a variety of demersal fisheries south of Sicily. Indices of abundance were estimated to be low with 0.05 specimens caught per landing (Farrugio and Soldo 2014).

habitat:
This demersal to semi-pelagic deepwater shark occurs over the upper continental slope. It is most often taken at depths of 300600 m, but sometimes in water as deep as 1,000 m (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). This species may aggregate near seamounts. Occasionally, it is reported in shallow water, but these may be misidentifications.This shark reaches a maximum body size of about 140 cm total length (TL). Males mature at 7585 cm TL and females mature at 90105 cm TL. In this live bearing species, embryos rely solely on yolk for nutrition. Pups are born at around 25 cm TL, in litters of 620 (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Nothing else is known about this species’ reproductive cycle in European waters.

threats:
This species is taken as bycatch in deepwater bottom trawl and longline fisheries. It is sporadically reported by a variety of demersal fisheries from the Gulf of Gabès (Farrugio and Soldo 2014). It is aggressive when captured, and even if not retained, it is likely to be killed.

conservationAction:
There are no species-specific management or conservation measures in place, except in Croatian waters where this shark is strictly protected. In 2013, the European Commission banned the removal of shark fins on board vessels (CEC 2013), in line with advice from the International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission’s Shark Specialist Group and other shark fishery experts, in order to enhance enforcement of the 2003 EU ban on shark finning (CEC 2003) and facilitate improved shark fishery data collection. Monitoring of the harvest trends should be conducted, together with further research on the population size and trend of the species.

useAndTrade:
The species is used for human consumption and presumably for fishmeal.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)Bluntnose Sixgill Shark (Hexanchus griseus) is a deepwater, benthic, littoral and semipelagic shark. It is commonly caught in scientific surveys at the Porcupine Bank, Rockall, West of Scotland, in the Cantabrian and Galician Seas and North of the Azores, generally with stable catch trends in recent decades. This species is also caught as bycatch, and since the implementation of a zero Total Allowable Catch for deepwater sharks in European Union waters, discarding of this species has increased in the Azorean longline fishery and likely other fisheries throughout European waters. It has life history characteristics that make it sensitive to exploitation, but because there is no strong evidence of a historical decline and catch rates are low and stable in surveys, Bluntnose Sixgill Shark is assessed as Least Concern in European waters. Nonetheless, it should be monitored carefully because of its slow life history and potential for capture in deepwater fisheries.

range:
This shark has a patchy range in boreal, temperate and tropical seas (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). In the Northeast Atlantic it is found as far north as Iceland, Faroe Islands, Norway, northern North Sea, Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales, and southwards towards France, Spain and Portugal, and the Mediterranean Sea (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). On the Calabrian coast it is commonly found in both Ionian and Tyrrhenian waters (Sperone et al. 2012), and appears to be relatively abundant in the Adriatic Sea (Soldo 2006), especially in waters off Pescara, Italy, in the western Adriatic Sea (Cugini and De Maddalena 2003). In the Eastern Central Atlantic it is found in the waters surrounding the Azores and along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Its depth range is 217-2,500 m.

population:
This species represented a small percentage of relative abundance among all elasmobranchs caught during a Spanish survey at Porcupine Bank between 2001 and 2012 (ICES 2013). Biomass ranged between 0.5 and 1 kg per haul from 2001–2012 with an outlying peak in 2003 at 3 kg per haul. Estimates of relative abundance showed that between depths of 300-800 m less than one individual was encountered per hour on average (ICES 2013), suggesting no trend over the 14-year time series. Annual Spanish surveys of the Cantabrian Sea and Galician waters encountered this shark commonly in deeper hauls, but found this species was scarce or absent from the shallower catches. This survey showed that mean biomass has been stable from 1983–2012. Given the relatively deep range of this species, and the lack of trend in relative abundance and biomass in research surveys, it is estimated that the population is stable in European waters.

habitat:
This species has a wide bathymetric and geographic range, suggesting that it may be capable of long distance migration in the open ocean (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). The depth range of this deepwater shark extends down to at least 2,500 m on the upper continental slope (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). There are occasional and scattered reports of this species at depths of 217–706 m in southern Sicily the area between Tunisia and Malta (Farrugio and Soldo 2013). Since this species preys on conspecifics opportunistically, size segregation occurs by depth (Ebert 1994). Young tend to be found in shallow waters often just offshore and move into successively deeper waters as they grow. For example, in the Sea of Marmara, Turkey, adult individuals have been mostly captured over the deeper parts of shelf and upper slope in the north, while young individuals have been captured in shallower waters (Kabasakal 2003). Adults and sub-adults tend to follow diurnal patterns of vertical range, sitting deep on the bottom by day and coming toward or to the surface at night to feed. Research suggests that this shark lives and reproduces off the Algerian and Tunisian coasts (Capapé et al. 2003). Pupping grounds apparently occur on the upper slopes and outer continental shelves.This live bearing with yolk sac shark produces large litters with 47–108 pups that range from 65–74 cm total length (TL) at birth. The reproductive cycle is possibly biannual with a 12 month resting period followed by 12 month gestation period (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). There is evidence of multiple paternities in this species with as many as nine males siring a single female’s litter (Larson et al. 2011). Males mature at about 315 cm TL and females at about 420 cm TL. 

threats:
This shark is taken as bycatch in handlines, longlines, gillnets, traps, trammel nets, and both mid-water and bottom trawls. It is retained for human consumption in parts of the world, although this has not been reported in European waters. Discarding rates are increasing, and are likely linked to recently introduced management measures, particularly the total allowable catch (TAC), minimum size, and fishing area restrictions. Such restrictions have changed the fleet behavior, and have resulted in an expansion to offshore seamounts and deeper strata. In particular, between 2004 and 2010 this species was frequently caught and discarded by the Azorean longline fishery, potentially having a significant effect on the population (Pinho and Canha 2011).

conservationAction:
Based on advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea to end fishing for deepwater sharks, the European Union Fisheries Council established a TAC (Total Allowable Catch) in 2007 (CEC 2012), but did not include this species. This TAC was gradually reduced and in 2010 it was set at zero. In 2010 this species was added to this TAC, which covered a group of deepwater shark species. In 2011, the allowable bycatch was reduced from 10% to 3% of the 2009 TAC and in 2012 it was further reduced to zero (ICES 2013). Additional protection has been offered by Croatia, which proclaims this species as strictly protected, and by the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (Recommendation 7 in 2013) which required Parties to prohibit directed fishing for deepwater sharks, including this species. If deepwater commercial fisheries expand deeper in a species range they could pose a threat. Careful monitoring should be conducted for this species.

useAndTrade:
It is retained for human consumption in parts of the world, although this has not been reported in European waters.

redListAssessors:
Walls, R., Soldo, A., Bariche, M., Buscher, E., Cook, S.F. & Compagno, L.J.V.


taxonomicNotes:
The species has often been misidentified as the larger Bluntnose Sixgill Shark, H. griseus leading to confusion and poor knowledge of its distribution, and little to no knowledge of population trends.  Ebert (1990) conducted a detailed systematic review of this species and redescribed it. On comparison of the type specimen from the U.S. National Museum Natural History, Smithsonian with material from Taiwan, Ebert (1990) concluded they were the same species, and resurrected the name H. nakamurai, reducing H. vitulus to a junior synonym.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessments: Data Deficient (DD) Bigeyed Sixgill Shark (Hexanchus nakamurai) is a little known, moderately large (up to 180 cm total length), deepwater cow shark. This species is probably mesopelagic to benthic in shelf and slope waters at depths of 90-621 m. The species has often been misidentified as the larger Bluntnose Sixgill Shark (Hexanchus griseus), leading to confusion about its range. Nothing is known of population trends as it is of relatively low importance to fisheries and rarely taken by bottom trawl and longline fisheries. Due to insufficient information this species cannot be assessed beyond Data Deficient for the European region. Species-specific catch data are required to better define this species’ range, population trends and threats, if any.

range:
This species has a globally patchy distribution in warm temperate and tropical waters in the Northeast Atlantic, Eastern Central Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea. In the Northeast Atlantic, it occurs in the Gulf of Gascony, the Bay of Biscay, and off France, Spain and Gibraltar. It is rare in the Mediterranean Sea, and thought to be restricted to small areas in the western part (Ebert 1990). One specimen was reported from the eastern part of the Aegean Sea in 2001 (Megalofonou et al. 2005), and another three were since reported from the southern and western part (Andaloro et al. 2012, Mancusi et al. 2014, Serena et al. 2014). Misidentification of Bigeyed Sixgill Shark (Hexanchus nakamurai) as Bluntnose Sixgill Shark (Hexanchus griseus) has generated some confusion about this species' range. It may be more common than currently known (Ebert and Stehmann 2013).The depth range 90-621 m.

population:
This species is relatively uncommon in the Northeast Atlantic (Ebert and Stehmann 2013) and rare in the Mediterranean Sea (Ebert 1990, Serena 2005). The number and size of subpopulations is unknown.  

habitat:
This is primarily a deepwater species, found on the continental and insular shelves and slopes at depths of 90−621 m, usually on or near the bottom, but occasionally closer to the surface or inshore in the tropics (Ebert 1990, Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Its habitat and range may be more restricted than the Bluntnose Sixgill Shark and less tolerant of conditions beyond offshore continental habitat in warmer seas. Reproductive mode is live-bearing with yolk-only nutrition. It produces 13−26 pups per litter, measuring 40−45 cm TL at birth (Whitehead et al. 1984, Ebert 1990, Compagno et al. 2005, Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Size at maturity is 142-178 cm total length (TL) in males and 123−157 cm TL in females, while maximum size on record is ~180 cm TL (Ebert 1990, Ebert and Stehmann 2013).

threats:
This species is probably a minor component of offshore demersal trawl and longline fisheries that operate within its range, but no catch data are available (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). 

conservationAction:
No species-specific conservation measures are in place at this time. This species is not included in the list of deepwater sharks protected by European Union zero Total Allowable Catch limitations in place since 2007. Like many deepwater species, more information on its biology, ecology and importance in fisheries is required to assess the threat status and any future conservation needs. Where taken, catches should be monitored, particularly as deepwater fisheries expand. The development and implementation of national and/or regional management plans (e.g., under the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations’ International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks) are required to facilitate the conservation and management of all chondrichthyan species in the region.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Endangered (EN) All thresher sharks (Alopias spp.) are inferred to be highly susceptible to overfishing on the basis of their life-history characteristics and low population productivity (two to four pups per litter; eight to 14 year generation period). Bigeye Thresher (Alopias superciliosus) is apparently a highly migratory, oceanic and coastal species found virtually circumglobally in tropical and temperate seas. It has low fecundity and an exceptionally low (0.002 year-1) potential annual rate of population increase compared with other thresher sharks. This species is especially susceptible to fisheries exploitation (target and bycatch) as its range overlaps with many largely unregulated gillnet and longline fisheries in which it is easily caught. Fishing pressure is unlikely to cease or decrease in the immediate future. There are insufficient data available on this species from the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea with which to estimate population trends because it is so rare in these waters. However, it can be inferred from (1) steep declines of Common Thresher (A. vulpinus) in the Mediterranean Sea over the last century, (2) the status in the Northwest Atlantic, (3) the slower rate of population increase of this species compared to other threshers, and (4) the regional Endangered status of Common Thresher, that Bigeye Thresher has undergone a decline of more than 50% over the last 42 years (three-generation span) in European waters, therefore qualifying as Endangered under Criterion A2bd.

range:
In the Northeast and Eastern Central Atlantic the species occurs from eastern Portugal and Spain, Madeira, near the Azores, Morocco and the Canary Islands, and it is also present in the Mediterranean Sea (Serena et al. 2014). In recent years there has been an increase in new records from the eastern Mediterranean Sea (sometimes multiple captures) to the east of Malta, off Israel (Levantine basin), the Ionian Sea, the Aegean Sea off Turkey and southern Greece, and off southern Crete (Golani 1996, Kabasakal and Karhan 2008, Clò et al. 2009).

population:
Records of thresher sharks (Alopias spp.) from the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea are usually mixed, therefore insufficient for estimating species-specific subpopulation size or trends. Additionally, as Bigeye Thresher (Alopias superciliosus) is so rare, it is likely that the majority of catch and landings records from coastal waters of this region are Common Thresher (A. vulpinus) (ICES 2013). The fact that thresher sharks as a group are in decline however allows us to infer that Bigeye Thresher is very likely declining as well, particularly as it has the slowest life history and rate of population increase of all thresher sharks. Landings of thresher sharks from the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea are reported irregularly and vary between reporting entities. The overall estimated national landings, as reported to the Working Group for Elasmobranch Fishes (WGEF) of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), ranged from just three tonnes in 1984 to 143 tonnes in 2005 (ICES 2013). However, landings reported to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) are far greater, with peak landings of 213 tonnes in 1998, and the lowest level of 60 tonnes in 2003. Better harmonisation between these data is required, but overall these data are considered unreliable and may not be indicative of population trends (Poisson and Séret 2009, ICES 2013).Thresher sharks are taken very occasionally in the North Sea, but the main Northeast Atlantic catches are from the Celtic Seas, Bay of Biscay, Iberian waters (ICES sub-areas VII, VIII and IX, respectively) and Mediterranean Sea. Small quantities (usually less than two tonnes) are reported occasionally by Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom, while the countries with more consistent estimated landings from the region are France, Portugal and Spain.The species has been poorly documented in the Mediterranean Sea and is considered scarce or rare (Barrull and Mate 2002, Mancusi et al. 2014, Serena et al. 2014). Evidence from offshore pelagic fisheries in southern Sicily and Malta indicate that it is caught in unknown numbers each year, but routinely discarded at sea (hence the vernacular name “False Thresher” because of a perceived low local value). Common Thresher has undergone steep declines over the last century in the Mediterranean Sea (Ferretti et al. 2008) and it is likely that similar declines have also occurred for the Bigeye Thresher. Considering the decline undergone by Alopias vulpinus, it is estimated that A. superciliosus has declined by more than 50% over the last 42 years (three-generation period) in European waters.It is believed that North and South Atlantic populations of this species are isolated from one another, in which case recruitment cannot alleviate population decline.

habitat:
The species is found in coastal waters over the continental shelves, sometimes close inshore in shallow waters, and on the high seas in the epipelagic zone far from land; also caught near the bottom in deep water on the continental slopes (Compagno 2001). It ranges from the surface to at least 500 m deep and has been recorded to 723 m deep (Nakano et al. 2003), mostly below 100 m depth (Compagno 2001). Mediterranean Sea captures are typically from offshore continental shelf waters. Anecdotal reports from Maltese fishermen suggest a strong association between these sharks and highly mobile scombroids such as Bullet Tuna (Auxis rochei) in the Mediterranean Sea.Size at first maturity (L50) was estimated at 206.09 cm total length (TL) for females and 159.74 cm TL for males in the North Atlantic (Fernandez-Carvalho et al. 2011a). Fernandez-Carvalho et al. (2011b) provide von Bertalanffy growth parameters for this species in the tropical Northeast Atlantic (See ICES 2013, Table 11.4 for details). The generation length of this species can be inferred from A. vulpinus, which is currently estimated at 8-14 years. Because A. superciliosus has a slower life history, it can be estimated on around 14 years.The largest specimen on record is 461 cm TL (Compagno 2001). Size at birth ranges from 64-140 cm TL (Bauchot 1987, Golani 1996, Chen et al. 1997). The gestation period is 12 months with an average litter size of two to four pups per litter, usually two (Compagno 2001). In the eastern Atlantic a nursery area occurs off the Straits of Gibraltar (Compagno 2001). Of the thresher sharks, Bigeye Thresher has the lowest rate of population increase, estimated at 0.016 year-1 under sustainable exploitation (Smith et al. 2008), or 0.002-0.009 year-1 (Cortés 2008, Dulvy et al. 2008).A tagging study of two Bigeye Threshers (one from Hawaii and the other from the Gulf of Mexico) indicates strong diel vertical migration (Weng and Block 2004). These sharks spent most of the night in waters warmer than 20°C and commonly spent eight or more hours during the daytime in waters cooler than 10°C, requiring them to be eurythermal.

threats:
Thresher sharks are taken as retained, valued bycatch in longline and driftnet fisheries. Both species in European waters (Bigeye and Common Thresher) are caught mainly in longline fisheries for tuna and swordfish but may also be taken in driftnet and gillnet fisheries (ICES 2013). This species’ epipelagic habitat occurs within the range of commercial longline fisheries by which it is easily caught. It has been taken in considerable numbers by Spanish longliners in the eastern Atlantic (Compagno 2001). Similarly in the Mediterranean Sea, thresher sharks are taken as retained, valued bycatch in various fisheries, including the Moroccan driftnet fishery in the southwest. They are bycatch of industrial and semi-industrial longline fisheries and artisanal gillnet fisheries targeting swordfish and other pelagic teleosts (bony fish) off southern Spain, Morocco, Algeria, Sicily and Malta. Off southern France, they are caught incidentally mainly by trawlers operating in the Gulf of Lions targeting small pelagic teleosts. Further bycatch of these species occurs in the Straits of Gibraltar, which they are thought to use as a nursery ground (ICES 2013).Catch reporting of thresher sharks in the European region is unreliable for three reasons, (1) because both Bigeye and Common Thresher are mixed in the records, even when recorded under separate names (ICES 2013); (2) there are large discrepancies between national landings data presented to ICES and that reported to ICCAT: data presented to ICCAT are much higher than that given to ICES; and (3) landings of thresher shark in coastal waters are most likely to represent Common Thresher, but some of these landings may be reported as ‘sharks nei’ (ICES 2013).

conservationAction:
Thresher sharks are listed on Annex I, Highly Migratory Species, of the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Law of the Sea, which urges States to cooperate over the management of these species. Precautionary adaptive collaborative management of target and bycatch fisheries is urgently needed for this biologically vulnerable shark. It is also essential to improve data collection and develop stock assessments for this species. Listing on international resource management agreements, such as the recent 2014 listing on Appendix II of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) could help to drive improvements in national and regional management and facilitate collaboration between states, for this species and other migratory sharks.Pursuant to decisions made by ICCAT and the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, European Union (EU) fishermen are prohibited from retaining, transshipping, or landing any part or whole carcass of Bigeye Thresher in any fishery, and from undertaking a directed fishery for any species of thresher shark. Fishing for thresher sharks is specifically banned in Spain.In 2013, the EU banned the removal of shark fins on board vessels through Regulation No. 605/2013, in line with advice from the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Shark Specialist Group and other shark fishery experts, in order to enhance enforcement of the 2003 EU ban on shark finning (Regulation No. 1185/2003) and facilitate improved shark fishery data collection. Further research is needed on the population size and trend of the species.

useAndTrade:
There is no information available on the use and trade of the species.

redListContributors:
Fordham, S., Amorim, A.F., Baum, J.K., Cailliet, G.M., Clò, S., Clarke, S.C., Fergusson, I., Gonzalez, M., Macias, D., Mancini, P.L., Mancusi, C., Myers, R., Reardon, M.B., Trejo, T. & Valenti, S.V.


taxonomicNotes:
A study using allozymes as a genetic marker (Eitner 1995) indicated that an unrecognized fourth species of Alopias may exist, however this claim was based on data from a single shark specimen likely to have been A. vulpinus. Recent work investigating population structure of all three Alopias species using mitochondrial DNA control region sequences (Trejo 2004) has found no evidence indicating that a fourth species of thresher sharks exists.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Endangered (EN) All thresher sharks (Alopias spp.) are inferred to be highly sensitive to overfishing on the basis of their life-history characteristics and low population productivity (two to four pups per litter; eight to 14 year generation period). Common Thresher (Alopias vulpinus) has a circumglobal distribution, including temperate waters. This species is inferred to be particularly susceptible to fisheries exploitation (target and bycatch) because its shelf and oceanic habitats occur within the range of many high seas pelagic fisheries and shelf fisheries. It is highly valued, and hence is retained when caught in pelagic swordfish and tuna fisheries. Available landings data for the Northeast Atlantic are considered unreliable, and accurate time series of abundance are not available. In the Mediterranean Sea, declines in catches have been observed over the last century. It has been assumed that the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea comprise the same subpopulation. Based on the declines of thresher sharks estimated in the Northwest Atlantic resultant from overexploitation and the similarity of fisheries exploitation across the Atlantic Ocean, it is suspected that Common Thresher has declined by at least 60% over three generations in the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea. Fisheries effort has not been reduced in this region, thus the species is assessed as Endangered in European waters under Criteria A2bd.

range:
This oceanic and coastal shark is virtually circumglobal in tropical to cold-temperate seas, but is most common in temperate waters, and widespread throughout the Atlantic (Castro 1983, Moreno et al. 1989, Compagno 2001). In the Northeast Atlantic it occurs from Norway southwards, including the Mediterranean and Black Seas, Madeira and the Azores (Moreno et al. 1989, Compagno 2001). Its depth range is zero to 366 m.

population:
Common Thresher appears to exhibit little to no movement between ocean basins based on limited tagging data from the Northwest Atlantic (Kohler et al. 1998). Differences in length at maturity and fecundity of specimens examined from different regions of the world also suggest the existence of subpopulations (Gubanov 1972, Moreno et al. 1989, Bedford 1992). In the absence of records of transatlantic migrations, a single stock spanning the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea is assumed (ICES 2013), which is also believed to extend into the Eastern Central Atlantic.There are very few species-specific data, hence inference has been drawn from the general trends of thresher shark catches and populations. Landings of thresher sharks (Alopias spp.) from the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea are reported irregularly and vary between reporting entities. The overall estimated national landings, as reported to the Working Group for Elasmobranch Fishes (WGEF) of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), ranged from just three tonnes in 1984 to 143 tonnes in 2005 (ICES 2013). However, landings reported to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) are far greater, with peak landings of 213 tonnes in 1998, and the lowest level of 60 tonnes in 2003. Better harmonisation between these data is required, but overall these data are considered unreliable and may not be indicative of population trends (Poisson and Seret 2009, ICES 2013).Thresher sharks are taken very occasionally in the North Sea, but the main catches are from the Celtic Seas, Bay of Biscay, Iberian waters (ICES sub-areas VII, VIII and IX, respectively) and Mediterranean Sea. Small quantities (usually < 2 tonnes) are reported occasionally by Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom, while the countries with more consistent estimated landings from the Northeast Atlantic are France, Portugal and Spain. Common Thresher was the third most frequently reported shark in eight out of nine Mediterranean Sea areas between 1998 and 2000 and accounted for 0.74% of the total shark catch (Megalofonou et al. 2005). This species was most frequently captured in the swordfish longline fishery with a mean catch per unit effort of 0.02 fish per 1,000 hooks and per area sampled in the Aegean Sea, reaching up to 0.05 fish per 1,000 hooks. Similar patterns were found in the western Mediterranean Sea in the Gibraltar Strait region, where one third of the specimens caught came from the Ionian driftnet fishery (Buencuerpo et al. 1998). In the eastern Mediterranean, half of the sharks caught were immature and 40% of females caught by commercial fisheries were < 315 cm while 50% of males were < 333 cm (Megalofonou et al. 2005). Hattour and Nakamura (2004) noted a few juvenile specimens were landed by Tunisian small-scale fisheries, and considered the species to have declined.Standardized catch rates from recreational fisheries, tuna traps and longline fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea suggest declines in abundance of > 99% in this thresher shark over 108 years (Ferretti et al. 2008). Rapid declines were observed in the Ionian Sea from catch per unit effort (CPUE) of the local longline fishery (99.19% in abundance and 96.96% in biomass over 21 years) and in Spanish waters by comparing historical and recent longline CPUEs (98.20% in biomass over 19 years). In the northern Adriatic Sea recreational catches of this species declined by about 80.82% over 11 years (Ferretti et al. 2008). Even though sharks are a secondary target or bycatch of the Moroccan swordfish driftnet fleet in the Alboran Sea, some boats deploy driftnets one to two miles from the coast where the chance of capturing pelagic sharks is higher. The catch rate for Common Thresher is higher in boats actively fishing for sharks (from 0.7 to 1.5 per fishing operation; 0.09 to 0.11 catch per km net). Both annual catches and mean weights of Common Thresher have fallen as a result of fishing mortality in the Moroccan driftnet fishery, illustrating the likely impact of this illegal fishery on stocks in the Alboran Sea and adjacent Atlantic (Tudela et al. 2005). Valeiras et al. (2003) also reported that pelagic sharks form an increasing proportion of the catch of Spanish swordfish sheets. Pelagic fishing pressure is high and ongoing throughout the Mediterranean Sea (Megalofonou et al. 2000, Tudela 2004).Off southern France this species is captured occasionally by pelagic trawlers that target small pelagic teleost (bony fish) species operating in the Gulf of Lions (ICES 2013). Fortuna et al. (2010) report a bycatch rate of 0.0045 individuals per haul in the pelagic trawl fishery operating in the Adriatic Sea. Sporadic catches of Common Thresher are reported from Turkish waters (Kabasakal 2007), Tunisia (Hattour and Nakamoura 2004), and in the Sardinian tuna trap fishery, where between 1990 and 2009, a catch of 11 individuals made Common Thresher the most commonly captured shark species (Storai et al. 2011). Although there is uncertainty in the catch rates and therefore in the status of Common Thresher in the Northeast Atlantic, the status of the European stock may be inferred from what has been reported of the Northwest Atlantic stock. Based on observer logbooks of the United States longline pelagic fishery, Baum et al. (2003) estimated an 80% decline (95% CI: 76 to 86%) in standardised catch rates of thresher sharks between 1986 and 2000. Following challenges to the methodology (Burgess et al. 2005), subsequent similar analyses on both logbook and observer data from the same fishery in the period 1992-2005 suggest the decline of threshers occurred from 1991-2 compared to the remainder of the time series to 2005 which remained fairly stable and possibly increased (Baum and Blanchard 2010). Babcock and Skomal (2008) reported an increasing trend in recreational fishery data in the Northwest Atlantic, despite catch trends for this species in commercial fisheries having declined in this region (Scott 1997, Baum et al. 2003, Cortés et al. 2007, Baum and Blanchard 2010). It is suspected that similar declines may have occurred in the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea.A recent Red List assessment of this shark in Italian waters listed it as Critically Endangered on the basis of past and ongoing declines, because it declined by over 80% in the last 50 years (Rondinini et al. 2013).Given these data, this species is suspected to have declined by at least 60% over three generations.

habitat:
While found both in coastal and oceanic waters, it is most abundant up to 40 or 50 miles offshore (Strasburg 1958, Gubanov 1972, Moreno et al. 1989, Bedford 1992). It ranges between surface waters and 366 m depth (Compagno 1984). The maximum recorded size varies with sex and geographic location and ranges from 415 to 573 cm total length (TL) (Gubanov 1972, Cailliet et al. 1983, Compagno 1984, Moreno et al. 1989). Females are reported to mature between 260 and 465 cm TL (Bigelow and Schroeder 1948, Strasburg 1958, Gubanov 1978, Cailliet and Bedford 1983, Cailliet et al. 1983, Ebert 2003) and males between 260 and 426.7 cm TL (Cailliet and Bedford 1983, Cailliet et al. 1983). Estimated age at maturity ranges from three to nine years in females (Bigelow and Schroeder 1948, Strasburg 1958, Gubanov 1978, Cailliet and Bedford 1983, Cailliet et al. 1983, Hanan 1984) and three to seven years in males (Cailliet and Bedford 1983, Cailliet et al. 1983). The species reaches a maximum age of at least 24 years (Gervelis and Natanson 2013). The estimated generation time (assuming maturity of seven years and longevity of 24 years) is about 15 years.This shark is live bearing, with oophagy and a gestation period of nine months (Gubanov 1978, Cailliet et al. 1983, Moreno et al. 1989, Bedford 1992, Gilmore 1993). Mating occurs in middle to late summer and parturition occurs during the spring (Moreno et al. 1989, Bedford 1992). Pregnant females have also been noted in August and November indicating that birth of young can occur throughout the year (Gubanov 1978). Litter sizes range between three and seven in the Northeast Atlantic (Gubanov 1972, Gubanov 1978, Cailliet and Bedford 1983, Hanan 1984, Holts 1988, Moreno et al. 1989). Size at birth varies considerably, from 100 to 158 cm TL with slight variations among geographical locations (Cailliet et al. 1983, Compagno 1984, Hanan 1984, Moreno et al. 1989). In all locations, the young generally remain close to shore after parturition and during their first few years (Moreno et al. 1989). Small individuals, with the estimated length at birth, have been recorded in the southern North Sea during the summer (Ellis 2004). Moreno et al. (1989) noted a high degree of sexual and size segregation in the Northeast Atlantic during pupping season. This species is thought to have some important parturition and nursery areas in the Mediterranean Sea, specifically in the Adriatic and Alboran Seas (Notarbartolo di Sciara and Bianchi 1998, Soldo 2006).

threats:
Common Thresher is taken as retained, valued bycatch mainly by longline fisheries for tuna and swordfish, but also by driftnet and gillnet fisheries. Catch reporting of thresher shark in the European region is unreliable for three reasons, (1) because both species Bigeye Thresher (Alopias superciliosus) and Common Thresher are mixed in the records, even when recorded under separate names (ICES 2013), (2) there are large discrepancies between national landings data presented to the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and that reported to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT); data presented to ICCAT is much higher than that given to ICES, and (3) landings of thresher shark in coastal waters are most likely to represent Common Thresher, but some of these landings may be reported as ‘sharks nei’ (ICES 2013).Adult and juvenile Common Thresher are caught mainly in longline, purse seine and mid-water fisheries throughout the Mediterranean Sea, including in the present day disappearing Moroccan driftnet fishery in the southwest Mediterranean Sea, as well as in recreational fisheries (Lipej et al. 2004, Saidi and Bradaï 2008, ICES 2013). Even though driftnetting is banned in Mediterranean waters, this method may be used in Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fisheries (Tudela 2003). The Moroccan swordfish driftnet fleet in the Alboran Sea has been operating year round, resulting in high annual effort levels (Tudela et al. 2005). These sharks are incidentally caught by industrial and semi-industrial longliners, artisanal gillnet fisheries, and off southern France mainly by trawlers operating in the Gulf of Lions targeting small pelagic teleosts. Further bycatch of these sharks occurs in the Straits of Gibraltar. Although referred to as bycatch this species is normally retained, given its high commercial value. Thresher sharks have a slow life history, which combined with high levels of largely unmanaged and unreported mortality in fisheries makes them highly vulnerable to overexploitation. The meat and fins are both of high value. The largely unregulated shark fin trade therefore also represents a serious threat to thresher sharks, and Clarke et al. (2006) reported that thresher sharks comprised 2-6% of the trade in a market study using DNA-based species identification techniques. A recent review of the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations about the status of highly migratory pelagic species states: “unless demonstrated otherwise, it is prudent to consider Alopias spp. as being fully exploited or overexploited globally” (Maguire et al. 2006).The species is also affected by the establishment of tourism and recreational areas, oil and gas drilling and the establishment of shipping lanes.

conservationAction:
Thresher sharks are listed on Annex I, Highly Migratory Species, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which urges States to cooperate over the management of these species. No such management yet exists. Precautionary adaptive collaborative management of target and bycatch fisheries is urgently needed for this biologically vulnerable shark. It is also essential to improve data collection and develop stock assessments for this species. Listing on international resource management agreements, such as the recent 2014 listing on Appendix II of the Convention on Migratory Species could help drive improvements in national and regional management for this species and other migratory sharks, and facilitate collaboration between states.Article 23 of European Commission (EC) Regulation Number 43/2014 prohibits European vessels having a directed fishery for thresher sharks in the ICCAT convention area. Fishing for thresher sharks is specifically banned in Spain.In 2013, the European Union (EU) banned the removal of shark fins on board vessels through Regulation No. 605/2013, in line with advice from the IUCN Shark Specialist Group and other shark fishery experts, in order to enhance enforcement of the 2003 EU ban on shark finning (Regulation No. 1185/2003) and facilitate improved shark fishery data collection. Appendix III of the Barcelona Convention of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) affords regulation of any exploitation of Common Thresher that takes place in the Mediterranean region (Recommendation GFCM/36/2012/1). All vessels encountering this species must record information on fishing activities, catch data, incidental taking, release and/or discarding events in a logbook or similar document, then all logged information must be reported to national authorities. Finally, additional measures should be taken to improve such data gathering in view of scientific monitoring of the species. These regulations are usually perceived - at least in several places along the Spanish Mediterranean coasts and in the Adriatic Sea - as a direct prohibition of catch and thus incidental catch in surface longlines may be regularly underreported. This species is protected from driftnetting under the amended EC Regulation 894/97 (Fortuna et al. 2010).

useAndTrade:
The meat is highly prized fresh for human consumption and is also eaten smoked and dried salted. The fins are valuable for shark-fin soup, the hide is usable for leather and the liver oil can be processed for vitamins (Compagno 2001). Thresher sharks are one of the most important and prized species in recreational fisheries.

redListReviewers:
Vacchi, M., Mancusi, C., Dulvy, N. & Mazzoldi, C.

redListAssessors:
Ellis, J., Ferretti, F., Soldo, A. & Walls, R.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Endangered (EN) Basking Shark (Cetorhinus maximus) is a large pelagic migratory species that filter-feeds in cold waters and is widely distributed. It is only repeatedly seen in a few coastal locations and is probably never abundant. Most documented fisheries have reported marked and sustained declines in landings due to the targeted removal of hundreds to low thousands of individuals over significantly less than one generation span. This species is now legally protected throughout the European Union, Norway and the Mediterranean Sea. It is still found in bycatch, although levels are uncertain because landings are prohibited, yet its fins are among the most valuable in international trade. Mortality from bycatch is, however, probably not significant enough to prevent population recovery. There are some indications of increasing trends in sightings, at least in some areas, although there remains debate whether this is due to increased sightings effort, or increasing population size. Furthermore, average shark sizes reported in public sightings schemes in the United Kingdom are increasing, which may indicate a recovering population. There were no known target fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea, where records of this species appear far less common than in Atlantic waters, but incidental catches continue despite prohibition, although release rates are increasing. There are very few trend data in the Mediterranean Sea, with sightings showing variation between areas and years. Compared to trends for other large sharks, sightings have been increasing in the Adriatic Sea since a historic baseline in the mid 19th century. Following the closure of former Northeast Atlantic target fisheries and broad prohibitions on landing and using bycatch, as well as research cruise encounter rates compared with historical target fisheries catch rates, it is suspected that Basking Shark has declined by greater than 50% over the past three generation spans (> 100 years), classifying the species as Endangered under Criterion A2abd.

range:
This shark species occurs in temperate and boreal oceans. In the Northeast Atlantic, it is found from the transition between Atlantic and Arctic waters, including south and west of Iceland and off the North Cape of Norway and the Russian White Sea (southern Barents Sea) to the Mediterranean Sea, and occasionally as far south as Senegal (Konstantinov and Nizovtsev 1980, Compagno 1984). Most records occur between 8°–17° Celsius (C) in the United Kingdom, but this species has been recorded in water temperatures up to 24°C in the Mediterranean Sea. Trans-equatorial migrations, trans-Atlantic migrations and migrations into tropical areas and mesopelagic depths have been reported in the North Atlantic, including southward movements to areas off North Africa (Madeira) for overwintering (Sims et al. 2003, Gore et al. 2008, Witt et al. 2013). While most sightings and incidental catch records are from surface waters during spring and summer, some records suggest that during the winter these sharks occur mainly in deep shelf waters (Sims et al. 2003). Surface sightings in western Scotland, Isle of Man and southwest England occur in the spring and summer (Southall et al. 2005, Witt et al. 2012). In the Mediterranean Sea, surface sightings occur in late winter and early spring, in such areas as the Balearic Islands, off the north and east coasts of Sardinia (de Sabata et al. 2013), and the Ionian coast of Italy (Sperone et al. 2012, de Sabata et al. 2014). Most reported captures are from the western and central regions of the Mediterranean Sea (Mancusi et al. 2005), particularly off the Maghreb coast (Capapé et al. 2005), Sardinia (de Sabata et al. 2013), on the Ionian coast of Italy (de Sabata et al. 2014) and in the Adriatic Sea (Lipej et al. 2000, Soldo et al. 2008). This species is less frequently captured in the eastern Mediterranean Sea from the Turkish coast (Kabasakal 2002, Kabasakal and Kabasakal 2004, Golani et al. 2006) to Levant Basin (Golani 2005). One or two incidental catches have been reported annually from both Lebanon and Syria (Ali et al. 2012).

population:
Northeast Atlantic fisheries that targeted this species in Norway, Ireland, and Scotland suggest that annual caught numbers declined by 90% in some areas over approximately half a generation. These declines occurred in known feeding and breeding aggregation sites, resulting in long-term reductions in catches by the removal of large numbers of mature individuals. Sims and Reid (2002) estimate that between 1946 and 1986, the three main Northeast Atlantic fisheries for this species in Norway, Scotland and Ireland took an average of 77,204 individuals per year. In more recent years, from 1989–1997, Norway landed an average of ~ 3,565 individuals per year. Some evidence exists for unpredictable cycles in coastal areas, with certain years reported large influxes of sharks to some United Kingdom areas, while in other years the numbers recorded are low (Fairfax 1998, Kunzlik 1988, Speedie 1998, Southall et al. 2005). The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes considers the Northeast Atlantic as a single management unit (ICES 2012).Targeted fisheries for this species along the west coast of Ireland and in Norwegian waters reported catch decline of > 50%. Along the Irish west coast, the Century Sunfish Bank and Century Achill Island fishery targeted this species for oil during the late 18th and early 19th century (Parker and Stott 1965). Between 1770 and 1830 at least 1,000 sharks seem likely to have been taken each year at the height of the fishery, despite the fishing season only lasting a few weeks. Catches began to dwindle in the early 1830s, and the fishery collapsed in the second half of the 19th century. This scarcity of sharks lasted for several decades until the 1950s, when the fisheries re-opened. From 1951–1955 an average of 1,475 sharks were taken annually, but a significant decline in catch records occurred from 1956 onwards. Average annual catches were 489 from 1956–1960, 107 from 1961–65, and then about 50–60 in the remaining years of the fishery until it closed in the early 1970s (Kunzlik 1988, Sims and Reid 2002). The Achill Island fishery in particular caused a local reduction in catch > 80% in less than ten years, which has still not recovered 40 years later, indicating a fishery collapse. These declines occurred despite an increase in fishing effort in the early 1970s. A total of 12,360 fish had been taken in 29 years in this region, with 10,676 of these caught from 1949–58. Parker and Stott (1965) and Horsman (1987) attributed the decline and collapse of this fishery to overfishing. Also in the Northeast Atlantic, a Norwegian fleet targeted this species from the Barents Sea to the Kattegat, across the North Sea to the south and west of Ireland, west coast of Scotland, Iceland and Faeroe (Pawson and Vince 1998). Catches were at their highest (> 1,000 to > 4,000 individuals) between 1959 and 1980 (ICES 1995). Landings data shows a persistent decline from the early 1970s to the early 1990s, despite an increased demand for shark oil and an expansion of the fishery. Nominal value of fins also increased dramatically between 1979 and 1992, but decreased after 2005. Since the closure of this directed fishery in 2006–2007, yearly landings have been < 40 tonnes in Norway. This species is found as bycatch in demersal trawls, and is entangled in nets and lines despite closures and legal protection measures. Bycatch mostly occurs during the summer months when basking sharks are inshore. In the Celtic Sea, Berrow (1994) estimated 77–120 sharks were caught annually in the gillnet fishery, while 28 entanglement reports were recorded around the Irish coast in 1993 (Berrow and Heardman 1994). In the Isle of Man, bycatch in herring fisheries and entanglement in fish pot ropes amounts to 14–20 sharks annually. Near the Scottish coast, this species is sometimes brought up from deepwater trawls in winter (Fairfax 1998), and in Spain 12 individuals were caught in fixed entanglement nets from 1988–1998 (Valeiras et al. 2001). Annual reported landings have been < 40 tonnes in Norway, and between 0.3–2.0 tonnes in Portugal and France. Similar to landings, incidental capture data have also decreased markedly. Since 2006, Scotland and Norway have reported fewer than ten individuals annually in incidental catches. A French fleet operating in the Irish Sea, Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea reported incidental captures of only 15 sharks. There has been a reported increase in the proportion of medium-sized sharks and decrease in small sharks between 1988 and 2008 in the United Kingdom (Witt et al. 2012). This may suggest population recovery following systematic harvesting in the 20th century, but when current research survey encounter rates are compared with historical target fishery catch rates, the population is estimated to be well below 30% of historical abundance. Given that directed fisheries for this species have ceased, and current bycatch levels are likely not significant enough to prevent recovery, this population is suspected to be stable, possibly increasing, in European waters.Population trends from the Mediterranean Sea are unknown, in part due to relatively low levels of sightings and few observations of aggregations. A breeding population is also believed to be present in the Mediterranean Sea, with juveniles and young of the year reported from Corsica and Italy, synchronous spring/summer surface sightings throughout the Mediterranean, and sporadic records at other times of the year. It is suspected that, in European waters, Basking Shark has declined by greater than 50% over the past three generation time span (>100 years).

habitat:
This shark is named from its habit of "basking" on the surface in good weather conditions, usually alone or in small groups, although it also carries out extensive vertical migrations between the surface and deep water on the continental shelf and shelf edge (Sims et al. 2003). Different satellite tagging studies conducted in the Northeast Atlantic confirm the presence of basking shark on the continental shelf of Europe all through the year, undertaking active vertical daily movements (Shepard et al. 2006; Sims and Quayle 1998; Sims et al. 2003, 2005). Seasonal migrations have been reported in the Northeast Atlantic, are often associated with high levels of chlorophyll and surface aggregations of zooplankton (Kunzlik 1988). Northern movements towards western Scotland begin in spring to early summer from Biscay, the English Channel and the Celtic Sea. Southward movements have been recorded in autumn and winter periods (Sims et al. 2003, Priede and Miller 2009, Berrow and Johnson 2010). Some long distance migrations have been recorded: a 3,000 km seasonal movement from the Inner Hebrides (West Scotland) to the West African coast near the Canary Islands in 135 days in November (Witt et al. 2013) and one trans-Atlantic migration from the Isle of Man to west Newfoundland, a 9,895 km horizontal distance with a maximum depth record of 1,264 m (Gore et al. 2008).Assuming that this species shares the reproductive strategy of other lamnoid sharks, this species is live bearing with embryonic ovophagy (Kunzlik 1988) where a single functional ovary contains a very large number of small eggs. Pairing takes place in early summer following courtship and breeding (Matthews 1950, Sims et al. 2000) and pregnant females probably migrate to deep water. Gestation period is estimated to range from 12–36 months (Parker and Stott 1965; Pauly 1978, 2002; Compagno 1984), and it is likely that a two year resting interval occurs between litters (Parker and Stott 1965; Pauly 1978, 2002; Compagno 1984). Based on observations from a single specimen size at birth was reported to be between 1.5 and 2 m TL (total length; Sund 1943), with the smallest recorded free swimming individuals ranging from 1.7–1.8 m TL (Parker and Stott 1965, Sims et al. 1997). Size at maturity is between 5–7 m TL at an estimated age of 12–16 years, and between 8.1–9.8 m TL at an estimated age of 16–20 years, in males and females respectively (Pauly 1978, Compagno 1984). Theoretical maximum length is estimated at 12.76 m TL (Parker and Stott 1965) and 13.72 m TL (Holden 1974), with an estimated longevity of 40–50 years (Garcia et al. 2008). The generation length of this species is estimated in 34 years.

threats:
The most recent estimates of population resilience or productivity are among the lowest calculated for a commercially fished marine species (Smith et al. 1998). Estimates of natural and fishing mortality strongly suggest this species is unable to withstand targeted exploitation, and confirm that stock depletion is likely to be the major factor affecting fisheries yields (Pauly 1978, 2002). The species has been exploited for several centuries to supply liver oil for lighting and industrial use, skin for leather and flesh for food or fishmeal. Modern fisheries yielded liver oil, fins, meat and cartilage (Rose 1996). The large fins of this shark fetch extremely high prices in international trade to East Asia (Fleming and Papageorgiou 1996, Fairfax 1998). Targeted fisheries have all ceased in Norwegian and European waters and are prohibited throughout the Mediterranean Sea by the General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean, and in the NEAFC Convention Area. These sharks are still taken as bycatch, and may be landed and sold illegally when there is a market for the products and prohibitions on landings are not enforced. However, some areas of the Mediterranean Sea are reporting increased live releases of incidental catches, due to greater public awareness.The Norwegian quota for this species in European Community waters was 800 tonnes (liver weight) in 1982 and was reduced to 400 tonnes (approximately 800–1,000 sharks) in 1985. In the early 1990s landings rose when the fishery was being sustained by high fin prices (ICES 1995), but landings subsequently declined to very low levels, despite steeply increasing fin values. In 2001, the Norwegian quota was reduced to zero tonnes. In 2006 ICES issued a ban on targeted fishing this species in all European Union (EU) and non-EU waters. A Total Allowable Catch covering all areas of the Northeast Atlantic was set to zero in 2007. Because Norway prohibits discards, bycatch is landed, but market value is not paid and fishermen will avoid catching this species wherever possible.

conservationAction:
Several national, regional and international biodiversity conservation and fisheries management measures protect the Basking Shark throughout the territorial waters of European Union Member States (since 2007), in Norwegian waters (since 2006), in the United Kingdom (since 1998) and on the high seas of the Northeast Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea (2012). In 2003, the European Commission (EC) prohibited EC vessels and non-EC vessels in EC water from removing shark fins and subsequent discarding of the body, and landed sharks needed to have a fin-to-carcass ratio of 5% of the shark’s whole (theoretical) weight. Member States could issue Special Fishing Permits allowing the removal of shark fins on board, which lead to difficulties enforcing the fin-to-carcass ratio and potentially allowed finning to go undetected. In 2013, the EU banned the removal of shark fins on board vessels (CEC 2013), in line with advice from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s Shark Specialist Group and other shark fishery experts, in order to enhance enforcement of the 2003 EU ban on shark finning (CEC 2003) and facilitate improved shark fishery data collection.On the high seas, this species is protected under the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) Recommendation 4: 2012 under which Contracting Parties have agreed that no directed fishery for basking shark shall be undertaken in the Convention Area from 2012 to 2014. It is also protected under GFCM Recommendation GFCM/36/2012/1, which implements the listing in Annex II of the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean of the Barcelona Convention from 2012. This listing requires that all individuals caught in the Mediterranean Sea to be released unharmed and alive to the extent possible, therefore catches cannot be retained on board, transshipped, landed, transferred, stored, sold, displayed or offered for sale. Since 2007, the EU has followed ICES advice by prohibiting fishing for, retaining on board, transshipping or landing basking sharks by any vessel in EU waters or EU vessels fishing anywhere (Council regulation (EC) No 41/2006). Norway also adopted this advice in 2006.This species is listed on numerous international agreements, including Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). This requires international trade to be monitored and sourced only from sustainably managed fisheries. This species is also listed on Appendices I and II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species (CMS) and the CMS Migratory Sharks Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). The CMS Appendix I listing requires Parties to protect the Basking Shark within their territorial waters, while the CMS Appendix II listing and the MoU require Parties and Signatories to undertake collaborative actions for its conservation and management. Nonetheless, there are still reports every year of illegal landings and sale of this species in EU small-scale fisheries. The OSPAR Convention on the protection of the marine environment of the Northeast Atlantic includes this species on the OSPAR list of threatened and/or declining species. Lastly, the Mediterranean Sea population only is listed on Appendix I of the Bern Convention for the Conservation of European Wildlife and Habitats.National measures have also been put into place in multiple countries within the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea. In waters surrounding the Isle of Man and Guernsey (United Kingdom dependent territories), and in British waters, this species has been strictly protected since 1998 within 12 nautical miles of the coastline, prohibiting killing, taking, disturbance, possession and sale. In 2006, all directed fisheries and landings were banned in the Norwegian Economical Zone and in ICES Areas I–XIV. Sweden has prohibited catches since 2004.The ICES Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes considers that no directed fishery should be permitted unless a reliable estimate of a sustainable exploitation rate is available. Proper quantification of bycatch and discarding both in weight and numbers of this species in the entire ICES area is required. Where national legislation prohibits landing of incidentally caught basking sharks, measures should be put in place to ensure that incidental catches are recorded in weight and numbers, and carcasses or biological material made available for research.Further research is needed on the population size and trend of the species.

useAndTrade:
This shark has been exploited for several centuries to supply liver oil for lighting and industrial use, skin for leather and flesh for food or fishmeal. Modern fisheries yielded liver oil, fins, meat and cartilage (Rose 1996). The large fins of this shark fetch extremely high prices in international trade to East Asia (Fleming and Papageorgiou 1996, Fairfax 1998).

redListAssessors:
Sims, D., Fowler, S.L., Clò, S., Jung, A., Soldo, A. & Bariche, M.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Critically Endangered (CR)Little is known about the biology of Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias), though it has a low intrinsic rebound potential and long generation length of 23 years. This shark is subject to both incidental and deliberate fishing mortality, not just because of human attacks but also as it has a reputation for damaging fishing gear and scavenging hooked fish. Great White Sharks in the Mediterranean Sea have recently been revealed as a separate subpopulation from the rest of the Atlantic. The apparent genetic isolation of the Mediterranean Sea subpopulation means it is at greater risk of local extinction than once thought. Records of the species show a declining trend since the 1970s, with a complete absence from several areas during the 1990s. There have since been a number of more recent records in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, mainly of juveniles. The genetic isolation of this subpopulation, its slow life history, past and ongoing population decline, its negative reputation, and the declining status of all large sharks in the Mediterranean Sea owing to a lack of effective management measures support an assessment of Critically Endangered for this species under Criterion C2a(ii). A continuing decline in the number of mature individuals is inferred, it is suspected that there are less than 250 mature individuals in European waters, and the percentage of mature individuals in one subpopulation is 90-100%, as the majority of the specimens of Great White Shark in European waters are present in the Mediterranean. A similar trend to the Mediterranean one is inferred to be true for the eastern Atlantic subpopulation, as similar threats exist for this subpopulation as well.

range:
Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) occupies a global range throughout most seas and oceans with concentrations in temperate coastal seas (Compagno 2001), possibly a result of subtropical submergence (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). In the eastern Atlantic it is found in the Bay of Biscay, and along the coastline from France to Gibraltar. It is also found in the waters surrounding the Azores, Madeira Islands, and the Canary Islands (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). A recent study revealed that the Mediterranean Sea subpopulation is genetically distinct from the Atlantic subpopulation (Gubili et al. 2011), therefore it would be useful to assess both subpopulations separately. Within the Mediterranean Sea this shark is found most frequently in the strait of Sicily and the Adriatic Sea (Fergusson 1996, Bradaï and Saïdi 2013) and more recently in the Aegean Sea (Kabasakal and Gedikoglu 2008, Kabasakal et al. 2009). Its depth range is zero to 250 m.

population:
Given recent evidence that supports that the subpopulation in the Mediterranean Sea is separate from the subpopulation found in the eastern Atlantic, information on the subpopulations is presented separately. Northeast and Central AtlanticLittle information is currently available on population size or structure for this species in the eastern Atlantic, and landings data are too sparse to infer trends. From 1997-2011 only sporadic landings of this species were reported to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna database from France (< 0.5 tonnes in 2011), Morocco (92 tonnes in 2011) and Senegal (18 tonnes in 2010; ICES 2013).Mediterranean SeaThe size of the Mediterranean Sea subpopulation is unknown. Incomplete and somewhat anecdotal records from longstanding Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus thynnus) trap fisheries (“tonnara”) in Sicily, southern Sardinia, Tunisia and the Balearic Islands (“almadraba”) suggest that incidental captures of adult Great White Sharks were not uncommon during the first six decades of the 20th century, with a general theme of declining records post-1970, often accompanied by the cessation of these fisheries themselves (Fergusson 2002, Morey et al. 2003).In Italian waters at the Favignana tonnara, a number of adult specimens were landed between 1950 and 1982 and others observed but not caught. The last specimen encountered inside the trap nets was in May 1987 (Fergusson 2002). Similarly in traps off the Balearic Islands, 27 sharks were recorded between the 1920s and 1970s (Morey et al. 2003). A similar picture of increasingly sporadic records is repeated in the tonnara at Sidi Daoud, Tunisia, where a number of captures were made from the 1950s up to 1979, followed by lengthy periods with no specimens caught or observed. A total of 59 reliable captures of the species were reported along the Tunisian coasts from 1953 to 2012; 57% of them were registered after 2000 (Bradaï and Saïdi 2013). More recently, based on the capture of a pregnant female in the Gulf of Gabès (Saïdi et al. 2005) and other subsequent records, Bradaï and Saïdi (2013) suggested that Tunisian waters are a nursery area for this species.In the Croatian Adriatic Sea, reports average at 0.0-0.4 sharks per year from the 1960s-1990s (De Maddalena 2000). Soldo and Jardas (2002a,b) reported a significant decline in Great White Shark records during the last decades of the 20th century compared to its occurrence since the mid-19th century. Hence, a disappearance of the species from Croatian Adriatic coastal waters was related to the disappearance of tuna due to new offshore tuna fishing practices that were introduced in the 1970s (Soldo and Jardas 2002a,b).In the Sicilian Channel between 1950 and 2000, landing rates averaged around two specimens per year, but there have been no records since the mid 1990s from this area. In the eastern Mediterranean Sea (Aegean Sea and Levant) only one specimen was reported since 1993 from waters eastwards of the Ionian Sea, until 2008 when two new-borns were captured off the coast of Altnoluk (Edremit Bay, north Aegean Sea), by a commercial gillnet and a bottom longline (Kabasakal and Gedikoglu 2008). Two juvenile females were also captured in coastal waters of the northeast Aegean Sea in 2009 (Kabasakal et al. 2009). These records support the presumption of a breeding ground for Great White Shark in the northeast Aegean Sea, extending from Edremit Bay to the north of Gokceada (Kabasakal et al. 2009). Small numbers of juvenile and neonatal specimens have been reported since the mid 1970s by demersal trawlers operating through the Sicilian Channel (Vacchi and Serena 1997) and small individuals have often been landed in parts of Tunisia by surface and demersal longliners (Fergusson 2002). However, confusion of young Great White Sharks with other mackerel sharks (lamnids) is common in Mediterranean fisheries (Fergusson 1996).More recent records include a newborn female that was caught by trawl net in waters surrounding the island of Lampedusa during 2009. Maliet et al. (2013) also reported the capture of a juvenile male off the Corsican coast in 2012, along with previous records from 1976 and 2011.Records of Great White Sharks in the Mediterranean Sea are declining despite an increase in monitoring effort (Soldo et al. 2014). The Mediterranean Sea subpopulation may be considered a consequence of historical accident and female philopatry, rather than contemporary immigration from the Atlantic subpopulation, revealing it to be at greater risk of local extinction than previously thought (Gubili et al. 2011).

habitat:
Great White Shark is principally known as a pelagic dweller of temperate continental shelf waters, but also ranges into the open ocean far from land and near oceanic islands, and the coastal tropics. It is found from the surf-line and the intertidal zone to far offshore, and from the surface down to > 250 m depth. It does not occur in fresh water, but penetrates saline bays and estuaries and during high tide it may swim into bays that have no water at low tide.Maximum size is undetermined, but estimated at 600-640 cm total length (TL). Males mature between 360 and 400 cm TL with a maximum length of ~ 550 cm. Female size at maturity is uncertain, but thought to be between 450 and 500 cm TL, with a maximum length of 600 cm or more. Size at birth is ~ 120-150 cm TL (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). One specimen caught in the north Aegean Sea in 2008 is the smallest neonate from Mediterranean waters to date at 125.5 cm TL (Kabasakal and Gedikoglu 2008).Age at maturity is estimated at 10-12 years based on counts of annually deposited vertebral growth rings (Cailliet et al. 1985). A mature female of 500 cm TL is estimated to have reached ~ 14-16 years. The average reproductive age is estimated at 17 years. Longevity was suspected as ~ 30 years (Cailliet et al. 1985) until a recent study showed the species may reach > 70 years of age, based on testing the cartilage for radiocarbon residue from nuclear tests carried out by nations including the United States and Soviet Union during the 1950s and 1960s (Hamady et al. 2014). The species is known to have a relatively low intrinsic rebound potential (Smith et al. 1998) and the generation length has been calculated as 23 years (Mollet and Cailliet 2002).Litter size ranges from three to 14 embryos, and reproduction is viviparous with oophagy. The gestation period is as yet unknown, but suspected to be about two years based on females returning to specific areas every other year (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Parturition apparently occurs during the spring to late summer in warm-temperate neritic waters. To date, mating has not been reliably witnessed.

threats:
Offshore records of this species in the Mediterranean Sea have included captures across all size-classes made by pelagic longlines, bottom trawls, driftnets and purse seines (e.g., Fergusson 2002, Soldo and Jardas 2002 a,b, Soldo 2007). Although no directed Mediterranean Sea fishery has ever existed, there are attempts to capture, harpoon or otherwise kill these sharks following cases of shark attack and/or associated media attention. Great White Sharks readily approach boats, scavenge from fishing nets or longlines and devour hooked fish taken by rod-and-line or swordfish harpoon. This tendency increases their sensitivity to, and often results in, their accidental entrapment or deliberate killing by commercial fishermen. Many such cases have been recorded throughout the Mediterranean Sea for centuries. In certain regions such as Sicily, the species has traditionally been viewed negatively as manifesting a costly interference to fisheries. Presumption is that interactions with the growing number of Bluefin Tuna farms installed in the Mediterranean Sea, such as off Malta and parts of Spain and Libya, are inevitable and may result in new pressures being placed on these sharks and equally, a stern test of any local enforcement of conservation laws favouring Great White Shark.The effect of habitat degradation might be especially acute in the Mediterranean Sea, where traditional prey such as Monk Seals (Monachus monachus) and Bluefin Tuna have been significantly reduced in abundance, and where growing areas of intensive human inhabitation, especially for tourism, overlap with Great White Shark habitat.

conservationAction:
Great White Shark was listed in Appendix III of the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in 2000, to regulate or ban international trade of teeth, jaws, fins and other parts. It was then added to Appendix II in 2005, in an attempt to ensure that trade be controlled to the extent that it is compatible with the species’ survival. A CITES listing might help slow trade in Great White Shark products, but will not eliminate low volume criminal trade. The species was added to both Appendices of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species (CMS) in 2002 with the objective of providing a framework for the coordination of measures adopted by range states to improve the conservation of the species (Environment Australia 2002).European Commission Regulation No 43/2009 prohibits Community vessels to fish for, to retain on board, to transship and to land Great White Shark in all Community and non-Community waters; and also prohibits third country fishing vessels to fish for, to retain on board, to transship and to land this species in all Community waters. In 2013, the European Union (EU) banned the removal of shark fins on board vessels through Regulation No. 605/2013, in line with advice from the International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission’s Shark Specialist Group and other shark fishery experts, in order to enhance enforcement of the 2003 EU ban on shark finning (Regulation No. 1185/2003) and facilitate improved shark fishery data collection.Great White Shark is listed as an endangered species under Appendix II of the Convention for the Protection of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the Mediterranean Sea (the Barcelona Convention: originally enacted in 1978 and amended in 1995). It has been signed and ratified by all coastal nations in the region. An implicit requirement of signatory nations is to preserve and manage vulnerable fauna, including this species, as detailed under one of the Convention's protocols, the Protocol for Special Protected Areas and Biological Diversity of the Mediterranean Sea (known as the 'SPA Protocol'). In May 1999, Italy ratified the 'SPA Protocol' which having entered into force in 2000, meant that Great White Shark now had protected status in Italian seas, including those around Sicily. Additionally, since October 1999 the species has been unilaterally protected in Maltese waters by specific legislation enacted under its Environment Protection Act No. 5 (1991) Flora and Fauna Protection (Amendment) Regulations 1999. All directed fisheries for elasmobranchs are prohibited in the coastal waters of Israel, though Great White Shark is an exceedingly rare species in those waters. Within waters under Croatian jurisdiction it is proclaimed as a strictly protected species.Great White Shark should be removed from international game fish record lists, and needs consistently rational and realistic treatment by entertainment and news media to counter its notoriety and inflated market value. Further research should also be conducted on the population size and trend of the species.

useAndTrade:
There is no information available on the use and trade of this species in Europe.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Data Deficient (DD) Shortfin Mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) is an offshore littoral and epipelagic species, found in tropical and warm-temperate seas from the surface down to at least 500 m. It is an important target species, a bycatch in tuna (Thunnus spp.) and billfish (Xiphiidae and Istiophoridae) longline and driftnet fisheries, particularly in the high-seas, and is an important coastal recreational species. Most catches are inadequately recorded and underestimated and landings data do not reflect numbers finned and discarded at sea. Various analyses suggest that this species may have undergone significant declines in abundance over various parts of its range.Several subpopulations of Shortfin Mako have been assessed separately for the IUCN Red List, however further data are required to determine whether individuals occurring in the Mediterranean constitute a subpopulation (based on the definition of "subpopulation" as given in the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria). Recent investigations in the Mediterranean Sea suggest that the western basin is a nursery area where bycatch of this species from the tuna and Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) fishery consists almost exclusively of juveniles. It is possible that this nursery area corresponds to the Eastern Central Atlantic subpopulation, which is affected by the Swordfish longline fishery off the western coast of Africa and the Iberian Peninsula. In other areas of the Mediterranean Sea, this shark is caught sporadically. Reports from the Ligurian Sea show a significant decline since the 1970s. In the Adriatic Sea, it was considered common at the end of 19th/beginning of the 20th centuries, but since 1972 there have been no records of this species reported despite a large increase in fishing pressure and introduction of new fishing gear to the area. Given the fact that nothing has changed in terms of management or fishing effort in the Mediterranean Sea since the previous assessment, the status will be carried over. Therefore, on the basis of inadequate management resulting in continuing (if not increasing) fishing pressure, the high value of its meat and fins, its sensitive life history characteristics, the absence of records from some localised areas in the Mediterranean Sea, evidence of large declines in other regions, and captures of juveniles in a probable nursery area, this species is threatened in these waters.In the Northeast Atlantic, data for this shark pertaining to population size and trends are scarce. It is believed that Shortfin Makos occurring in this region are just a small portion of a North Atlantic-wide stock, therefore this assessment should be revisited and analysed along with data from the Northwest Atlantic. The species is faring worse in the Mediterranean Sea than anywhere else in the world, and that the Mediterranean Sea and north Atlantic stocks may be connected. However, there is no information on the status of the Northeast Atlantic subpopulation, and it is unknown which region formerly held more individuals. Thus, this species is assessed as Data Deficient throughout European waters.

range:
This pelagic shark is circumglobal in most tropical and temperate seas, from 50°N (up to 60°N in the Northeast Atlantic) to 50°S. In the Northeast Atlantic there have been occasional records from Norway (from about 60°N) and around the British Isles, though it is more common further south, including off the Bay of Biscay, Spain, Portugal, the Azores and northwest Africa (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). The southern limit of the Northeast Atlantic subpopulation is assumed to be 5°N as with Swordfish (Xiphias gladius), based on the oceanography of equatorial waters (ICES 2013). This species also occurs in the Mediterranean Sea, where the highest abundance has been reported in the west, while it has rarely been reported from the east (Aegean Sea and Sea of Marmara). Individuals several months old were reported from the western Ligurian Sea (Orsi Relini and Garibaldi 2002) and other regions including Campania, Sicily and Sardinia (MEDLEM Database). However, the species may be very close to local extinction from the Mediterranean Sea, having last been reported from Malta in 2005 (Soldo et al. 2014). It has never been reported from the Black Sea. Recent sightings data reveal its presence in the eastern Mediterranean Sea with a possible spawning and nursery area in the Aegean Sea (Kabasakal and Kabasakal 2013, Soldo et al. 2014). Its depth limit is zero to 500 m.

population:
The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) considers a single stock of Shortfin Mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) throughout the North Atlantic (ICES 2012); the North and the South Atlantic subpopulations do however constitute genetically distinct groups (Heist et al. 1996). The relationship between the Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea subpopulations is still unclear, therefore the two areas are assessed separately. Major declines in this species’ abundance have occurred, notably in the eastern Mediterranean Sea where they are now rarely seen (ICES 2012). In the North Atlantic, population declines of up to 70% have also been documented (ICCAT 2005), but it is unclear to what extent this decline is applicable specifically to the northeast region.Northeast AtlanticIn 1989, Bonfil (1994) estimated that 5,932 individuals were caught by Korean longliners in the (mainly equatorial) Atlantic and that 763 tonnes of makos (Isurus spp.) were landed in the Spanish Swordfish fishery in the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. In the early 2000s, these sharks comprised about 7% (~2,500 tonnes) of the total catch of the large Spanish pelagic longline Swordfish fleet in the Atlantic Ocean (Mejuto et al. 2005). Muñoz-Chapuli et al. (1994) estimated that some 4,500 individuals per year were landed from a longline fishery based at Algeciras, southern Spain (given an average weight of 20 kg this would represent about 90 tonnes). The landings of this shark as bycatch from the Swordfish fishery of the Azorean fleet also showed a decrease (Castro et al. 1999). Landings reported to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) from Portuguese surface longline fisheries in the North Atlantic averaged about 698 tonnes during 1993-1996 and 340 tonnes for the period 1997-2002. Analyses of catch per unit effort (CPUE) from US pelagic longline fishery logbooks reported that makos might have declined by about 40% in the Northwest Atlantic between 1986 and 2000 (Baum et al. 2003). A more recent assessment of observer data for the same fishery found a similar instantaneous rate of decline of 38% between 1992 and 2005 (Baum and Blanchard 2010). A similar analysis of the same dataset and species grouping that restricted the areas of analysis to account for unbalanced observations, resulted in an overall decline of 48% from beginning to end of the time series (1992-2005; Cortés 2012). A 2004 ICCAT stock assessment workshop reported that stock depletions for North Atlantic Shortfin Mako are likely to have occurred based on CPUE declines of 50% or more. Demographic model results varied widely, with one approach suggesting that present stock size is about 80% of virgin level, and another approach suggesting reductions to about 30% of virgin biomass (1950s) (Cortés 2012).Uncertainties about demographic parameters and catches, and the uninformative nature of available catch data indicate that further analysis is necessary to properly delineate stock status. If historical catch is higher than the estimates in this report, the likelihood of the stock being below the biomass at maximum sustainable yield will surely increase (ICCAT 2005). A standardized catch rate index from the commercial large pelagic fishery off Canada suggested a decline in the 1970s and stable abundance since 1988 (Campana et al. 2005). However, the analysis did not have the statistical power to detect anything less than a severe decline and these sharks represent the margins of the population. The most heavily fished areas lie outside Canadian waters. The median size of makos in the commercial catch has declined since 1988, possibly indicating a loss of larger individuals (Campana et al. 2005).In 2010, 4,005 tonnes of landed Shortfin Mako were reported to ICCAT in the North Atlantic, 3,546 tonnes of which were from longline fleets and 459 tonnes from others (ICES 2012). This is the largest catch recorded since 1970 (the extent of the database), apart from 2004, which was > 1,000 tonnes larger. However, this figure is in the same region as seen in 2007 and 2009. The main countries reporting catches in the North Atlantic are Spain, Portugal, USA, and Japan, accounting for 52%, 36%, 5% and 3% of total reported landings in 2010, respectively. National landings reported to ICES for 2011 were 20.6 tonnes for the Northeast Atlantic, with the majority of this from the Azores waters by Portuguese fleets (15.6 tonnes), and smaller amounts reported by Spain (including Basque country) and France (ICES 2012). Previous ICCAT Shortfin Mako assessments used two other estimates of landings for this stock, the tuna (Thunnus spp.) ratio (logged observations of shark catches relative to tuna catches) and the fin trade index (shark fin trade observations from the Asian market used to calculate caught shark weights based on catch effort data; Clarke et al. 2006; ICCAT 2005 and 2008). These figures were much higher than actual reported landings. Similarly, discard data - where available - are considered a large underestimation (ICES 2012).CPUE data were compiled at the ICCAT assessment in 2004 (ICCAT 2005) and 2008, and these indicated a declining trend for this species in the North Atlantic between 1975 and 2004. The US pelagic longline logbook program (1986 to 2010) and the US pelagic longline observer program (1992 to 2010) indexes of abundance showed an initial decline until the late 1990s, followed by an upward trend to 2010 (Cortés 2012). The Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey data (1981 to 2010) showed high variability, with a peak in the mid 1990s, followed by a decline, then a stable trend over the last ten years (Babcock 2013). Standardized CPUE from logbook data of the Japanese tuna longline fishery in the North Atlantic (1994 and 2010) was low and stable between 1994 and 2005, and then showed a continuous increasing trend (Semba et al. 2012). However, a filtering method removed assumed unreliable data. In general the available catch per unit effort series showed increasing or stable trends for the final years of each series since the last stock assessment (ICES 2012). Despite this knowledge, it is unclear as to whether this information would directly apply in the Northeast Atlantic, and it is unrealistic to assign a trend or status to a partial stock. While it is likely this species is declining in European Atlantic waters, the data provided from these regions cannot be used to estimate trends. Mediterranean SeaTowards the end of the 19th century, this shark was considered common throughout the Mediterranean Sea. “Tonnarella” (tuna-trap) catches in the Ligurian Sea from 1950 to the 1970s showed a rapid decline and eventual disappearance of the species (Boero and Carli 1979). Landings from Maltese waters for 1979-2001 (data from the Maltese fishery department) showed a decline, although fishing pressure did not change. Since 1998, there have been few records from the central and eastern Mediterranean Sea.In the eastern Adriatic Sea, Shortfin Mako was considered common a century ago (Katuri 1893 and Kosi 1903), while publications from the 1990s considered it to be rare (Mili’I’ 1994, Jardas 1996). Soldo and Jardas (2002) report that there have been no records of the species in the eastern Adriatic Sea since 1972.Between 1998 and 2000, this shark was caught more often in the Swordfish fishery in the Mediterranean Sea than any other fishery, with a mean CPUE of 0.07 fish per 1,000 hooks in the “American type” longline and 0.05 fish per 1,000 hooks in the standard longline. It was more abundant in the Alboran Sea and the Levantine basin than other areas of the Mediterranean Sea surveyed by Megalofonou et al. (2005). The Azorean fleet mako landings decreased by almost 50% in numbers from 1987 to 1994 (Castro et al. 1999). This species may have been one of the most overfished pelagic sharks in the Mediterranean Sea (Megalofonou et al. 2005). More recently, across the Mediterranean Sea, total reported landings of this shark for 2011 were just two tonnes (ICES 2012). Since 1997, the Mediterranean Sea catches have always been low (less than nine tonnes), with peak reported catches of 17 and 10 tonnes in 2005 and 2006, respectively. Ferretti et al. (2008) grouped Shortfin Mako with Porbeagle (Lamna nasus) for an analysis of elasmobranch population declines in the Mediterranean Sea, finding the largest declines in the Camogli tuna trap of > 99.99% over 56 years, in both abundance and biomass. Similar rates of decline were observed in the northern Ionian Sea, where a large drop in mackerel sharks (family Lamnidae) caught by pelagic longlines was observed in the early 1980s. It should be noted that catch rates were very low even at the beginning of the data series, with an average of 0.2 sharks per 1,000 hooks. The meta-analytical estimate of the rate of decline was more than 99.99% for biomass (IRD: –0.15; CI 95%: –0.21, –0.10; time range: 106 years) and abundance (IRD: –0.12; CI 95%: –0.22, –0.03; time range: 135 years).It is thought that the area around the Strait of Gibraltar is possibly a nursery area for the North Atlantic subpopulation of this species. However, the status of this nursery is unclear following the severe declines seen throughout the Mediterranean Sea, and indeed the disappearance reported for most Mediterranean regions (Soldo et al. 2014).Specific data on population trends from the Northeast Atlantic are unknown. As there is no information on which region formerly held more individuals, it is not possible to infer the trend of the subpopulations in the Northeast Atlantic from the one of the Mediterranean Sea. 

habitat:
This is an active, offshore littoral and epipelagic species, found in tropical and warm-temperate seas from the surface down to at least 500 m (Compagno 2002). In the Northwest Atlantic, a tagging study showed that this species makes extensive movements of up to 3,433 km, with 36% of recaptures caught at greater than 420 km from their tagging site (Casey and Kohler 1992). Only one tagged fish crossed the mid-Atlantic ridge, suggesting that trans-Atlantic migrations are not as common as for Blue Shark (Prionace glauca). In the Mediterranean Sea, it is presumed that the Strait of Gibraltar is a nursery area (Buencuerpo et al. 1998, Tudela et al. 2005). It is possible that this nursery area is from the Eastern Central Atlantic subpopulation, which is affected by the Swordfish longline fishery off the west coast of Africa and Iberian Peninsula (Soldo et al. 2014). Stevens (2008) suggested that nursery areas would likely be situated close to the coast in highly productive areas, based on the majority of reports, with nursery grounds off West Africa in the Eastern Central Atlantic.Maia et al. (2007) reported length at 50% maturity in the Northeast Atlantic as 1.80 m total length (TL) in males, but no estimate was obtained for females as no mature individuals were caught. Compagno (2001) reported that males mature between 203 and 215 cm TL, reaching a maximum size of 296 cm TL, and females mature between 275 and 293 cm TL, reaching a maximum of almost 400 cm TL. In the Northwest Atlantic, size at maturity is ~195 and 265-280 cm TL in males and females, respectively (Pratt and Casey 1983, Stevens 1983, Cliff et al. 1990). Age at maturity in the same region is eight years for males and 18 years for females (Natanson et al. 2006). Longevity has been estimated as 29-32 years (Bishop et al. 2006, Natanson et al. 2006). Its generation length is estimated to be 25 years.The species is live bearing with yolk sac and oophagous, and what little is known of its reproductive cycle indicates a gestation period of 15-18 months, with a three year reproductive cycle (Mollet et al. 2000). Litter size is four to 25 pups (possibly up to 30, mostly 10-18), which are about 60-70 cm TL at birth (Garrick 1967, Compagno 2001). Cortés (2002) calculated a finite rate of population increase (lambda) of 1.141 (1.098 to 1.181 95% CI, r = 0.13) and the average reproductive age as 10.1 years (9.2 to 11.1 95% CI). 

threats:
Atlantic OceanShortfin mako has a very low capacity to withstand fishing mortality, yet it is experiencing intense exploitation (Dulvy et al. 2008). For this species, regional variation in the intensity of fishing mortality is an important factor in determining their conservation status. They are sought for both their meat and fins; thus unlike many other oceanic pelagic sharks, they are frequently targeted by the large longline fleets in the Atlantic Ocean. The species comprises approximately 7% of total catch (weight) in the Atlantic Swordfish fishery and approximately 10% (weight) of all North Atlantic shark catch (Mejuto et al. 2006a,b; Hareide et al. 2007). It is also a highly prized recreational gamefish (Dulvy et al. 2008). This mako is not only an important species for pelagic longline, but also driftnet, set gillnet and hook-and-line fisheries wherever it occurs, particularly from nations with high seas fleets (Holts et al. 1998). It is taken as a bycatch from tuna (Thunnus spp.) and billfish (Xiphiidae and Istiophoridae) longline fisheries worldwide, with carcasses and high value fins retained. Big-game sports angling for makos is widespread, and the International Game Fish Association lists this species as a record game fish. Fisheries for Shortfin Mako exist or existed in the Eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea (Compagno 2001).In the Northeast Atlantic, the data provided on this mako is incomplete and very limited, which is currently confounding trend analyses and hampering calculations of bycatch levels. Shortfin Mako is of high value to both the finning and meat trade, and many European fisheries land specimens gutted, with the head attached. The practice of finning is likely to result in undocumented catches and mortality of the species in some fleets (ICES 2012). Using a novel method of filtering fishery logbooks to obtain CPUE data, and to deduce the levels of underreporting of shark species, Nakano and Clarke (2006) found that this shark was underreported by an average of 33% across all logbooks analysed, with the worst example revealing an underreporting of 65%.The historical use of generic shark categories is problematic, although many European countries have begun to report more species-specific data in recent years (ICES 2012). There have been significant discrepancies between reported catch in databases from ICCAT, the Fisheries and Aquaculture Organisation (FAO) and the Statistical Office of the European Communities (EUROSTAT). The ICCAT Secretariat consolidated these three data-sources into a unique database, and currently progress is being made on its validation and the associated analysis of equivalent data series at various aggregation levels (Palma et al. 2012). FAO data have been revised in recent years, and historical catch figures have increased from those previously reported (ICES 2012).In the Hong Kong shark fin market, some traders mentioned infrequent mixing with the less abundant Longfin Mako (I. paucus) (Clarke et al. 2006). Combining results of the genetic analyses from this study with the stochastic modelling of trade records allowed the contribution of individual species to the trade to be determined. Shortfin Mako fins showed an 85% concordance with the market category ‘qing lian’, which equates to a trade proportion for this species of approximately 2.7% (probability interval 2.3–3.1%). The actual percentage is likely to be somewhat higher, as the species was also present in the ‘wu yang’ (Silky Shark Carcharhinus falciformis) trade category.This shark is highly susceptible to overexploitation by pelagic longline fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, according to a productivity and susceptibility analysis carried out by Cortés et al. (2010), which revealed it to be amongst the most sensitive. The analysis also revealed that the species has a lower productivity than previously thought based on more recently acquired life history variables, and that post-capture mortality was 92%.This species has been caught in large numbers particularly on the high seas in pelagic longline fisheries, but also in other commercial pelagic fisheries and recreational fisheries. The first longline fisheries were prosecuted by Japan in western equatorial waters beginning in 1956 (Uozumi and Nakano 1996). The fleet expanded rapidly in the 1960s, and covered almost the entire Atlantic by the late 1960s (Bonfil 1994), including the areas currently fished by the American fleet. Throughout the Atlantic, the fleet landed mako sharks and fins (Nakano 1993). It has been estimated that in the early 1990s, the Spanish longline fleet caught approximately 750 tonnes per year of Shortfin Mako in the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea (Bonfil 1994, Compagno 2001). No complete data are available specifically for the Northeast Atlantic, but the species is taken as a bycatch of the pelagic fishery. The area around the Strait of Gibraltar is considered a nursery area for Eastern Central Atlantic Shortfin Mako and most specimens caught are juveniles. This area is heavily fished by the Swordfish longline fishery off the west coast of Africa and Iberian Peninsula. Shortfin Mako became increasingly targeted in the western Mediterranean Sea at the end of the 20th century. European Union (EU) vessels fishing for small pelagic teleost (bony fish) species off the western coast of Africa are also known to take significant elasmobranch (shark and ray) bycatch, including Shortfin Mako in unknown numbers.In the US and Canadian pelagic longline fisheries, this shark is one of the most commonly caught species. The index of abundance in the commercial longline fishery off the Atlantic coast of US has shown a steady decline (Cramer 1996) and other reports on declines are now available (Baum et al. 2003, ICCAT 2005, Cortés 2012: see Population section for details). As for recreational fishing, Casey and Hoey (1985) stated that the recreational catch of this species along the US Atlantic coast and in the Gulf of Mexico in 1978 was 17,973 fish weighing some 1,223 tonnes.Mediterranean SeaEven though driftnetting is banned in Mediterranean waters, this practise has continued illegally (WWF 2005). The Moroccan Swordfish driftnet fleet in the Alboran Sea operates year round, resulting in high annual effort levels (Tudela et al. 2005). Even though sharks are a secondary target or bycatch of this fishery, some boats deploy driftnets one to two miles from the coast where the chance of capturing pelagic sharks is higher. The catch rate for Shortfin Mako is nearly three times higher in boats actively fishing for sharks (from 0.6 to 1.9 N/fishing operation and 0.06 to 0.14 catch per km net). Both annual catches and mean weights of Shortfin Mako have fallen as a result of fishing mortality in the Moroccan driftnet fishery, illustrating the likely effect of this illegal fishery on stocks in the Alboran Sea and adjacent Atlantic (Tudela et al. 2005).

conservationAction:
In 2013, the EU banned the removal of shark fins on board vessels through Regulation No. 605/2013, in line with advice from the IUCN SSG and other shark fishery experts, in order to enhance enforcement of the 2003 EU ban on shark finning (Regulation No. 1185/2003) and facilitate improved shark fishery data collection. Shortfin Mako was listed in 2008 under Appendix II of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), based on a proposal from Croatia. The species is thereby covered under the 2010 CMS Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for Migratory Sharks and an accompanying 2012 Conservation Action Plan for MoU listed sharks, but no species-specific, regional plans or measures have resulted from this listing to date. Although plans for implementation are not yet evident two years later, Parties to the Barcelona Convention agreed in 2012 that elasmobranch species listed in Annex II of the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean Sea -- which includes Shortfin Mako -- cannot be retained on board, transshipped, landed, transferred, stored, sold or displayed, or offered for sale, and must be released unharmed and alive, to the extent possible.Despite their commercial importance, catches of Shortfin Mako are not limited by European fishery regulations. They are however a protected species in Croatian waters. Efforts by the EU and the United States to secure international Shortfin Mako fishing limits through ICCAT have been unsuccessful to date.Shortfin Mako is listed as a highly migratory species under the 1995 United Nations Agreement on the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UNFSA). The Agreement specifically requires coastal and fishing States to cooperate and adopt measures to ensure the conservation of listed species. Also of relevance is the Fisheries and Aquaculture Organisation’s International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) that recommends that Regional Fisheries Organisations (RFOs) carry out regular shark population assessments and that member States cooperate on joint and regional shark management plans.A vast improvement in the collection of data is required and effective conservation of this species will require international agreements. Fishing pressure must be considerably decreased through reduction in effort, catch limits, measures to enhance chances of survival after capture, when released and possibly through the implementation of large-scale oceanic non-fishing areas. Closed areas can only be effective if overall fishing effort is reduced, rather than merely displacing effort outside of the closed area (Baum et al. 2003). 

useAndTrade:
This is one of the most valuable shark species for its high quality meat. The meat is utilized fresh, frozen, smoked and dried-salted for human consumption; the oil is extracted for vitamins; the fins used for shark-fin soup; the hides are  processed into leather and the jaws and teeth are used for ornaments (Compagno 2001).

redListAssessors:
Walls, R., Soldo, A., Cailliet, G.M., Cavanagh, R.D., Kulka, D.W., Stevens, J.D., Clò, S., Macias, D., Baum, J.K., Kohin, S., Duarte, A., Holtzhausen, J., Acuna, E., Amorim, A.F. & Domingo, A.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Data Deficient (DD) Longfin Mako (Isurus paucus) is a widely distributed but rarely encountered oceanic tropical shark. It is caught as bycatch in tropical pelagic longline fisheries for tuna, swordfish, sharks, and in other oceanic fisheries, which operate throughout its range, but at much lower ratios than the smaller, more fecund Shortfin Mako (Isurus oxyrinchus). Catches are inadequately monitored and underestimated due to common misidentification with Shortfin Mako and because landings do not reflect numbers of individuals finned and discarded at sea. Shortfin Mako may have undergone significant documented declines in the North Atlantic (50% or more) and faces high fishing pressures throughout its epipelagic habitat from commercial longline fleets. Since Longfin Mako is often caught in the same fishing gear, populations are considered also likely to have declined. Additionally, this is of conservation concern due to its apparent rarity, large maximum size (> 4 m total length), low fecundity (two to eight pups per litter) and continued bycatch in intensive oceanic fisheries. European waters are among the most heavily fished in the world, particularly the Mediterranean Sea. Data for this region are however lacking for this species as well as for Shortfin Mako, so it is not possible to either estimate or infer the true status in these waters. It is therefore regionally assessed presently as Data Deficient, with the suggestion that data from other regions such as the Western Central Atlantic be used to infer the status in these waters in the near future. Further research should be conducted on the population size and trend of the species.

range:
This species appears to be widespread in tropical and warm temperate oceanic waters. However, at present records are sporadic and the complete range remains unclear. This is in part due to confusion with the more common Shortfin Mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) (Compagno 2001).Within the Northeast Atlantic, Longfin Mako (I. paucus) is found mostly to the south (e.g., off the Iberian Peninsula), though may occasionally occur further north (ICES 2013). Male and female specimens were caught off Algeria in 2001, but it remains unclear if this species is resident or an occasional vagrant in these waters (Hemida and Capapé 2008).One record at 44.88o N, 40.55o W is the northernmost reported record, representing a thermal niche expansion for this species (Mucientes et al. 2013). The range presented in the study is in agreement with earlier studies (Queiroz et al. 2008, Bustamante et al. 2009), and confirms the presence of this species in pelagic Atlantic waters. 

population:
Spanish landings of this oceanic shark from the Northeast Atlantic as recorded by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) were low but variable between 1998 and 2010, starting off at 2,582 tonnes in 1998, then ranging between zero (1999, 2005, 2006, 2008) and 37 tonnes (2009) with no apparent trend (ICES 2012). Data for other countries for this period are not available, apart from < 1 tonne landed by Portugal in 2010. During this 13-year period, the species allegedly accounted for ~1% (172 tonnes) of the pelagic shark landings recorded by ICCAT from the Northeast Atlantic. It is frequently confused or mixed with Shortfin Mako though, so catch and landings data may be unreliable. Longfin Mako is truly oceanic and likely to have either a North Atlantic or Atlantic stock, although data are lacking with which to confirm this assumption (ICES 2012). If this is the case, a complete North Atlantic or Atlantic Ocean assessment should be completed.

habitat:
This is a little-known, epipelagic, tropical and warm-temperate shark. The species is apparently a deep-dwelling shark, although both sightings on the ocean surface and the species’ diet suggest a much greater depth range (Compagno 2001, Castro 2011).Very little is known of the biology of this species. It is aplacental viviparous with oophagy and uterine cannibalism, and a pregnant female may have two to eight embryos at one time (Castro et al. 1999, Compagno 2001). Parturition size is recorded at 97 to 120 cm total length (TL) (Compagno 2001). Female size at maturity is > 245 cm TL (Compagno 2001), while the smallest mature male observed was 229 cm TL (Castro 2011). Maximum size is around 426.7 cm TL (Gilmore 1993, Castro et al. 1999, Compagno 2001, Castro 2011). It has been suggested that females may move inshore to pup (Compagno 2001). 

threats:
This species is of conservation concern due to its apparent rarity, large maximum size, low fecundity (shown to be two to eight pups per litter), and bycatch in intensive oceanic fisheries (Compagno 2001), including retention of fins for the international fin trade (Clarke et al. 2006). It is probably taken regularly as bycatch in tropical pelagic longline fisheries for tuna, swordfish and shark and in other oceanic fisheries that operate throughout its range. It is also known to be caught with hook and line and anchored gillnets (Amorim et al. 1998, Compagno 2001).Longfin Mako is often caught in the same fishing gear as Shortfin Mako, but in much lower quantities. Data from longline vessels have shown a ratio of 1:364 Longfin to Shortfin Mako in a total of about 24,800 caught specimens (Mucientes et al. 2013).Baum et al. (2003) reported a 40% decline of Shortfin Mako in the Northwest Atlantic over 15 years. Catch per unit effort (CPUE) declines of 50% or more indicate stock depletions of North Atlantic Shortfin Mako as reported by ICCAT. Model results varied widely suggesting, According to one model, stock size lies between the carrying capacity and the maximum sustainable yield (MSY), while another model indicates that Shortfin Mako biomass has declined by ~ 50% since the 1950s. The South Atlantic stock decline is smaller, and the stock size appears to lie above MSY. However, for both stocks, catch uncertainty and uninformative data indicate the need for improved analysis. If historical Shortfin Mako catch is higher than the estimates reported, the likelihood of the stock being below the biomass at MSY will surely increase (ICCAT 2005). Longfin Mako has not been identified correctly in the past and is probably a component of these trends. It is less abundant, less fecund and therefore more sensitive to fisheries and has thus likely been similarly depleted by longline fisheries.Sampling of Spanish fishing ports showed only 0.1% of makos (Isurus spp.) were Longfin Mako (Moreno and Morón 1992, Compagno 2001).Overall, the severity and extent of threats to this species need urgent appraisal because of the extent of current oceanic fishing practices, the rarity and biology of the species, and because the more resilient member of the genus is known to have undergone significant declines.When taken the species is usually finned and discarded at sea. Longfin Mako fins are not of the highest value (e.g., if compared with hammerheads [Sphyrna spp.], guitarfish [rhinobatoids], etc.), however, they are still of high relative value compared to the carcass, and are known to enter the international fin trade (Clarke et al. 2006).Given the northerly range expansion as revealed by Mucientes et al. (2013), Longfin Mako is likely more commonly bycatch of offshore longline vessels in the North Atlantic than was previously believed (Moreno and Morón 1992, Buencuerpo et al. 1998). Moreover, a wider range coupled with slower growth rate, low reproductive capability and later maturity than most shark species suggest that this shark is highly susceptible to overfishing (Levesque 2008). Cortés et al. (2010) used Shortfin Mako as a proxy due to lacking data for Longfin Mako, also deducing that the species’ combination of low productivity and high susceptibility to pelagic longline gears puts it at very high risk of overexploitation.

conservationAction:
Fishing pressure on this species must be considerably decreased through reduction in fishing effort, catch limits, measures to enhance chances of survival after capture and possibly also through the implementation of large-scale oceanic non-fishing areas. Effective conservation of this species will require international cooperation.Longfin Mako is listed as a highly migratory species under the 1995 United Nations Agreement on the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UNFSA). The Agreement specifically requires coastal States and fishing States to cooperate and adopt measures to ensure the conservation of these listed species. To date, there is little progress in this regard (see United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea for further details). Also of relevance is the FAO International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) which specifically recommends that Regional Fisheries Organisations (RFO) carry out regular shark population assessments and that member States cooperate on joint and regional shark management plans. This is of particular importance for pelagic sharks such as Longfin Mako whose stocks are exploited by more than one State on the high seas. To date, only three RFOs require their members and cooperating non-members to adopt National Plans Of Action (Fischer et al. 2012), but do not have their own specific shark plans. Shark measures adopted by RFOs so far vary from binding recommendations or resolutions to non-binding measures and include shark finning measures, catch and gear regulations, prohibited species, area closures, reporting requirements, and research programs (Fischer et al. 2012). In all but one area covered by regional fishery bodies there are internationally binding shark measures in place for high seas fisheries (Fischer et al. 2012) but none of the RFOs have taken steps to conserve Longfin Mako.In 2013, the European Union (EU) banned the removal of shark fins on board vessels through Regulation No. 605/2013, in line with advice from the International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission’s Shark Specialist Group and other shark fishery experts, in order to enhance enforcement of the 2003 EU ban on shark finning (Regulation No. 1185/2003) and facilitate improved shark fishery data collection.Longfin Mako is listed in Appendix II of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). Migratory species that need or would significantly benefit from international co-operation are listed in the Appendix. The convention requires countries to collaborate to conserve shared populations. The species has also been covered under the CMS Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for Migratory Sharks since 2010 and an accompanying Conservation Plan for MoU listed sharks was established in 2012; though no species-specific, regional plans or measures have resulted from this listing to date.Parties to the Barcelona Convention agreed in 2012 that Longfin Mako - listed in Annex II of the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean Sea, which includes Recommendation GFCM/36/2012/1 - cannot be retained on board, trans-shipped, landed, transferred, stored, sold, displayed or offered for sale, and must be released unharmed and alive, to the extent possible.Further research should be conducted on the population size and trend of the species.

useAndTrade:
Longfin Mako presented a key nomenclatural issue in an assessment of species composition in the Hong Kong shark fin market by Clarke et al. (2006) that affected thresher shark (Alopias spp.; market categorisation ‘wu gu’) and Shortfin Mako (‘qing lian’) categories. Discussions with traders suggested that a minority of traders sort Longfin Mako fins into a separate category (‘qing hua’), while most others either combine them with Shortfin Mako or thresher shark fins due to similarity of appearance and market value.

redListAssessors:
Reardon, M., Gerber, L., Cavanagh, R.D., Soldo, A. & Walls, R.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Critically Endangered (CR) Porbeagle (Lamna nasus) is a wide-ranging coastal and oceanic shark. This species is highly vulnerable to overexploitation and population depletion due to low reproductive capacity and high commercial value (in target and incidental fisheries) of mature and immature age classes makes. The Northeast Atlantic subpopulation collapsed following serious overexploitation by directed longline fisheries; it was then subject to unrestricted fishing pressure following the crash. Data are lacking for the Northeast Atlantic subpopulation, but subpopulation reduction is considered to be much greater than in the Northwest Atlantic, for which more data are available. It is suspected that the Northeast Atlantic subpopulation declined by ≥ 80% given that the less exploited Northwest Atlantic population declined to between 11 and 17% of virgin biomass. Abundance levels of this species have historically been low throughout the Mediterranean Sea. The increase in fishing effort over the last 60 years has now driven the species to local extinction in most regions of the Mediterranean Sea, particularly in the west. There are no signs of decreasing fishing effort or improved fisheries regulation in the Mediterranean Sea. Therefore, the species is suspected to have undergone a decline of at least 80% over three generations (75 years) in European waters, and it is thus assessed as Critically Endangered under criteria A2bd.

range:
In the Northeast Atlantic Porbeagle (Lamna nasus) occurs off Greenland, Iceland, Norway, the British Isles, Sweden, Germany, France, south to Spain, Portugal (including the Azores) and Morocco. It was also present historically throughout in the Mediterranean Sea (Ebert and Stehmann 2013), but it is no longer clear what extent of the Mediterranean Sea this species inhabits; indeed, it is thought to have disappeared from the western region at the very least (Soldo et al. 2014). Its depth range is zero to 1,360 m.

population:
In the north Atlantic, this shark is considered to comprise two distinct subpopulations: the Northwest Atlantic and Northeast Atlantic subpopulations. This subdivision was originally based on a relatively small number of tag returns from conventional tagging studies in the north Atlantic (Stevens 1990, DFO 1999, Kohler et al. 2002). Tagging studies from Norway, the USA and Canada resulted in 542, 1,034 and 256 individuals being tagged, respectively. A total of 197 recaptures were made (53 from Norwegian, 119 from USA and 25 from Canadian studies), and initial studies did not report transatlantic migrations (Campana et al. 2003). These tags only provide information on tag and re-capture location; movements in between these times are unknown. One transatlantic migration has since been reported (see Francis et al. 2008), implying at least limited connectivity between the two north Atlantic subpopulations.The potential for long-distance movement has been reported from pop-up satellite archival tag (PAT) and Smart Position and Temperature (SPOT) tag-based projects in Ireland, the UK and France, which have uncovered large-scale movements of Porbeagles along the Northeast Atlantic continental shelf from Norway to northwest Africa, and offshore halfway across the Atlantic (Pade et al. 2009, Saunders et al. 2011, Bendall et al. 2012). In the Northwest Atlantic, extensive PAT tagging has also shown many long-distance movements to the east and south, but none as far as the mid-Atlantic ridge (Campana et al. 2010). Two Porbeagles tagged in Ireland in 2012 and 2013 with PSAT and Argos-transmitter tags, respectively, spent a significant amount of time travelling along the mid-Atlantic ridge (Bendall et al. 2012).Within the Northeast Atlantic, individuals tagged off southern England with conventional tags have been recaptured off Spain, Denmark and Norway (2,370 km away), and an individual tagged in Ireland travelled 4,260 km (Kohler and Turner 2001), suggesting mixing throughout their range in the Northeast Atlantic (Stevens 1976, 1990).Genetic evidence indicates that gene flow must have occurred across the north Atlantic at some time in the past, although when it happened is unknown (Pade et al. 2009). There is no evidence of genetic exchange between the north Atlantic and southern hemisphere populations, and no evidence of mixing between the Mediterranean Sea and Northeast Atlantic stocks (ICES 2008).Northeast AtlanticReported landings decreased from 1,755 tonnes (t) in 1972 to around 800 t by the end of the decade. In the 1980s, landings slowly decreased further to around 400 t by the end of the decade. In the 1990s there was a slight increase in landings, reaching a peak in 1994 (1,047 t) before decreasing back to around 500 t by the turn of the century. Since the year 2000 landings have decreased to 98 t by 2010, as a result of reductions in quotas.It is unclear whether the very variable early landings data from the Spanish fleet (from zero to nearly 4,000 t per year) represent huge variations in catches, possibly the result of “boom and bust” fisheries removing different segments of the stock, or differences in catch reporting. Bonfil (1994) estimated that 50 t of Porbeagle were taken as a supplementary catch in the Spanish longline swordfish fishery in the Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic during 1989. The longline fishery in the Bay of Biscay (ICES Area VIII), directed at the more abundant Blue Shark (Prionace glauca), also landed about 30 t of mainly Porbeagle and some Shortfin Mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) during 1998 to 2000.  Heessen (2003) indicates that annual landings from Area IXa (Portuguese coast) into mainland Portugal peaked at almost 3,000 t in 1987 to 1988 and have since declined (these records do not appear in the FAO statistics).The Northeast Atlantic stock has the longest history of commercial exploitation. The lack of catch per unit effort data for the peak of the fishery adds considerable uncertainty in identifying the current status relative to virgin biomass. Exploratory stock assessments carried out in 2009 by the joint International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT)/International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) meeting using a Bayesian Surplus Production (BSP) model and an age-structured production (ASP) model indicated that biomass was below biomass maximum sustainable yield (BMSY) and that recent fishing mortality was near or possibly above fishing mortality maximum sustainable yield (FMSY) (Babcock and Cortés 2009, ICCAT 2010). ICES considered the stock to be depleted, especially in the northern parts of the ICES area (ICCAT 2010). The BSP model projections indicate that sustained reductions in fishing mortality would be required if there is to be any stock recovery. Recovery of this stock to BMSY under zero fishing mortality would take ~15–34 years.Mediterranean SeaDeclines in abundance and distribution have been reported in the Mediterranean Sea (Ferretti et al. 2008). Historical abundance levels are unknown but suspected to have been low. This species has virtually disappeared from Mediterranean records, and is thought to be completely absent from the western region (Soldo et al. 2014). In the north Tyrrhenian and Ligurian Seas, only 15 specimens were reported during a few decades of observation (Serena and Vacchi 1997). Only nine individuals were caught by the small-scale multigear fleet in the eastern Adriatic Sea between the late 19th century until 2000, although occasional catches continue to be recorded (Soldo and Jardas 2002). During research on bycatch of the western Mediterranean Swordfish longline fishery, no Porbeagles were caught (De la Serna et al. 2002). Only 15 specimens were caught during research conducted in 1998-1999 on bycatch of sharks in large pelagic fisheries, and these catches were reported only in the southern Adriatic Sea and Ionian Sea, mainly by driftnets (Megalofonou et al. 2000). Official catch statistics for the Mediterranean Sea show that the only landings were reported in 1996 by Malta and amounted to one tonne (FAO 2002).The species is suspected to have undergone a decline of at least 80% over the three-generation period (75 years) in European waters.

habitat:
Porbeagle is a wide-ranging coastal and oceanic species, more commonly found on continental shelves, in temperate and cold-temperate waters worldwide (one to 18°C, zero to 1360 m; Compagno 2001). In the Northwest Atlantic, this species reaches a maximum reported size of 253 and 302 cm fork length (FL) in males and females, respectively (Francis et al. 2008). Males in the north Atlantic mature at about 166 cm FL while females mature at 208 cm FL (Francis et al. 2008). Though data on the Northeast Atlantic population are sparse, it is estimated that males and females do not mature until they are 1.7 and 2.0 m FL, respectively. These lengths correspond to an estimated age-at-maturity of seven to eight years for males and approximately 20 years for females (Hennache and Jung 2010). Natanson et al. (2002) and Campana et al. (2002) reported a maximum age of 26 years for the Northwest Atlantic population. However, the estimated longevity might be as high as 46 years in an unfished population. Ages at 50% maturity for north Atlantic males and females are eight and 13 years respectively (Jensen et al. 2002). The generation length of this species is estimated to be around 25 years.This shark is live bearing with oophagy and litters between one and five pups (average four), which are 68 to 78 cm total length (TL) at birth (Compagno 1984, Gauld 1989, Francis and Stevens 2000, DFO 2001, Francis et al. 2008). Aasen (1963) estimated that the gestation period was about eight months in the north Atlantic and that individual females breed each year. However, Shann (1923) found two distinct size groups of embryos present in the December to February period and suggested that gestation may last 18 to 24 months. Gauld (1989) noted that a resting period might exist between parturition and fertilisation. Francis and Stevens (2000), Jensen et al. (2002) and Francis et al. (2008) estimate an eight to nine month gestation period. Birth occurs in spring off Europe (Aasen 1963). Recent records indicate a possible nursery area in the southern and central Adriatic Sea (Soldo 2007); newborns were caught in the central Adriatic Sea (Marconi and De Maddalena 2001, Orsi Relini and Garibaldi 2002) and the western Ligurian Sea (Orsi Relini and Garibaldi 2002).

threats:
Northeast AtlanticThe Northeast Atlantic fishery began when Norway started targeting Porbeagle in the 1930s using longlines. The collapse of this fishery in the 1960s led to the redirection of fishing effort by Norwegian and Danish longline shark fishing vessels into the Northwest Atlantic. French and Spanish longliners operated directed fisheries for Porbeagle from the 1970s through to the end of the 20th century, and these countries have reported the bulk of landings in the Northeast Atlantic since this time. Smaller amounts have also been landed by the UK, Faroes, Norway, Ireland, Denmark and Germany.The main countries catching this species since the early 2000s were France, Spain, the UK and Norway. The only regular, directed target fishery that has existed recently was the French fishery (although there have been occasional target fisheries in the UK). Furthermore, the species is taken as a bycatch in mixed fisheries, mainly in the UK, Ireland, France and Spain (ICES 2013).It is thought that the 2010 and 2011 data for the Northeast Atlantic are underestimates, due to misreporting. All data since 2010 must be considered as unrepresentative of removals, as dead discards are not quantified.Mediterranean SeaThis species has practically disappeared from the Mediterranean Sea as a result of intensive fishing effort over the past 60 or so years. In particular, this shark is vulnerable to exploitation by large pelagic fisheries such as driftnets and longlines. Even though driftnetting has been banned throughout the Mediterranean Sea, there are still illegal driftnet fisheries in operation. It is also a popular recreational species in big game fisheries in some areas of the Mediterranean Sea. 

conservationAction:
The first European Union (EU) total allowable catch (TAC) for Northeast Atlantic Porbeagle was set at 581 t and took effect in 2008, two years after ICES advised ending fishing for this species. The EU Fisheries Council then reduced the 2008 TAC by 25% in 2009. In 2010, it was further reduced to zero and EU vessels were prohibited from taking the species from international waters. In 2011, Porbeagle measures were extended to all EU waters, including the Mediterranean Sea. The EU Porbeagle TAC remained at zero for 2011-2014. Porbeagle has specific, national legal protection in Sweden and Croatia where it is a prohibited species.In 2007 Norway banned all direct fisheries for Porbeagle, based on the ICES advice. From 2007–2011, specimens taken as bycatch could be landed and sold. Since 2011, live specimens must be released, whereas dead specimens can be landed (but this is not mandatory). The number of specimens landed must be reported in addition to weight. However, since 2012, landings of Porbeagle are not remunerated. From 2011, the regulations also include recreational fishing (ICES 2013).Efforts by the EU to secure prohibition of retention of this species through ICCAT have been unsuccessful to date. The North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission has banned targeted Porbeagle fisheries.Although plans for implementation are not yet evident two years later, Parties to the Barcelona Convention agreed in 2012 that elasmobranch species listed in Annex II of the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean -- which includes Porbeagle -- cannot be retained on board, transshipped, landed, transferred, stored, sold or displayed, or offered for sale, and must be released unharmed and alive, to the extent possible.Porbeagle was listed in 2008 under Appendix II of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), which directs countries to collaborate to conserve shared populations. The species is also covered under the 2010 CMS Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for Migratory Sharks since 2010, and an accompanying Conservation Plan for MoU listed sharks established in 2012, but no species-specific, regional plans or measures have resulted from this listing to date. Porbeagle was listed under Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species in 2013. This requires international trade to be monitored and derived from sustainably managed fisheries, beginning in September 2014. In 2013, the EU banned the removal of shark fins on board vessels through Regulation No. 605/2013, in line with advice from the International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission’s Shark Specialist Group and other shark fishery experts, in order to enhance enforcement of the EU ban on shark finning from 2003 (Regulation No. 1185/2003) and facilitate improved shark fishery data collection.The European Commission banned the deliberate use of bottom-set nets to catch certain teleost (bony fish) and shark species – including Porbeagle – that are particularly sensitive to overexploitation from this fishing method (EC Regulation No. 1967/2006). By way of derogation, accidental bycatch of no more than three specimens of the shark species protected by this measure may be retained on board or landed, provided that they are not a protected species under Community law. 

useAndTrade:
There is a targeted fishery for this species.

redListAssessors:
Ellis, J., Farrell, E., Jung, A., McCully, S., Sims, D. & Soldo, A.

redListContributors:
Walls, R., Fordham, S., Stevens, J.D., Fowler, S.L., Soldo, A., McCord, M., Baum, J.K., Acuna, E., Domingo, A. & Francis, M.P.


taxonomicNotes:
There is a single extant species in the family Mitsukurinidae.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)Goblin Shark (Mitsukurina owstoni) is assessed as Least Concern in European waters because although apparently rare, it is widespread in the Atlantic and is taken infrequently in deepwater fisheries. It has a sporadic range on the upper continental slope and may also be mesopelagic. It is likely to be found in more locations than are currently known, as more information is gathered from deepwater surveys in new regions or as deepwater fisheries expand globally. It is occasionally taken in deep bottom-set gillnet, bottom longline and trawl fisheries; and rarely in surface drift nets. Recorded landings have been from depths of 30 m (occasional) to more than 1,000 m. The scarcity of reported landings of mature individuals suggests that most of the reproductively active population is inaccessible to existing deepwater fisheries. In the absence of potential threats and data to suggest declines in abundance, Goblin Shark is assessed as Least Concern in the European region.

range:
This species has a wide but patchy range in all major oceans; most records come from Japanese and Taiwanese waters. In the Northeast Atlantic it occurs from the Bay of Biscay, south to Portugal, the Madeira Islands, and further south beyond the Eastern Central Atlantic region (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Its depth range is 40-1,300 m.

population:
While no trend data exist for this species, it is possible to infer from the limited interaction it has with deepwater fisheries that the European subpopulation is stable. This implies that its geographic range falls predominantly outside the current reach of deepwater fisheries in the region. It may also be rare where it occurs.

habitat:
This is an apparently rare and consequently poorly known upper slope, possibly mesopelagic, species. Most records are from 100-960 m depth, but have ranged from 40-1,300 m (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Maximum size is estimated to be 540-617 cm total length (TL; Parsons et al. 2002). Males are mature at 264 cm TL, while female size at maturity is unknown. Like other lamniformes, the embryos are probably oophagous and litter size is likely to be small. The smallest known free-swimming individual was about 88 cm TL. 

threats:
This species is caught infrequently as bycatch in deepwater bottom-set gillnet, bottom longline, trawl, and surface drift net fisheries. Most reported bycatch has been juvenile individuals, suggesting that the bulk of the adult population occurs outside the depth range of most deepwater fisheries. If deepwater commercial fisheries expand into this shark’s depth range they could pose a threat; however, there is currently no sign of such expansion, and European fleets have actually decreased in effort since 2008.

conservationAction:
No species-specific conservation measures are in place in European waters. Research should be conducted on the population size and trends, and the extent of deepwater commercial fisheries should be monitored.

useAndTrade:
This unusual species’ jaws are sought after by collectors; prices vary with the size and quality of the jaw, and range from US$1,500-$4,000.

redListAssessors:
Stehmann, M.F.W., Buscher, E., Walls, R.H.L., Duffy, C.A.J., Ebert, D.A. & Stenberg, C.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Critically Endangered (CR)Sand Tiger Shark (Carcharias taurus) is a large, coastal shark with a patchy range. It has a particularly slow life history and produces only two large pups per litter. As a result, annual rates of population increase are very low, greatly reducing its ability to sustain fishing pressure. Populations in several locations have been severely depleted by commercial fishing, spearfishing, and protective beach meshing. While numbers appear to have always been low throughout the Mediterranean Sea, it seems the low but consistent reporting of the species has now ceased in this intensively fished region. It is difficult to confirm whether the latest sightings of the species were valid, or if they were misidentifications as Smalltooth Sand Tiger Shark (Odontaspis ferox). With this in mind the last known record from the Mediterranean Sea was a specimen caught in 2003. The 11-year period that has passed since this record is not long enough to confirm local extinction of the species, but assuming the subpopulation was historically reproducing in the Mediterranean Sea, it is suspected that there are less than 250 mature individuals in European waters, and Sand Tiger Shark is assessed as Critically Endangered – Possibly Extinct under Criterion C2a(ii), on the basis of suspected continuing population decline resulting from overfishing and the fact that 90-100% of the individuals are present in the Mediterranean subpopulation.

range:
This species has never been reported from the Northeast Atlantic, though it has been reported from the Mediterranean Sea and off the Canary Islands in the Eastern Central Atlantic (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Recent reports suggest that this shark may be locally extinct from the Mediterranean region (Fergusson et al. 2000, Soldo et al. 2014), and hence it is likely that this species is Possibly Extinct in the European region.

population:
The following describes information collected from the Mediterranean Sea and is taken from Fergusson et al. (2000) unless indicated otherwise. This shark has historically always been rare in the Mediterranean Sea according to 19th century faunal lists of the region, for example, from Algerian waters (Guichenot 1850), Sicily (Doderlein 1881), the eastern Adriatic Sea (Marchesetti 1884), and Côte d’Azur (Moreau 1881). The only catch record known from that era was a specimen from Sardinian waters (Carruccio 1910). There were no new records of the species in the literature for the first 70 years of the 20th century.In the western Mediterranean Sea, single female specimens were caught in two different locations in Tunisian waters in the early 1970s, in the Gulf of Tunis and Cape Bon (Quignard and Capapé 1972, Capapé et al. 1976), though the species was highlighted as rare in these waters. Capapé et al. (1976) also noted that it had not been reported from Maltese waters since before 1970, which contributes to the suspicion of a complete absence from the Sicilian Channel since the late 1970s.In the eastern Mediterranean Sea, SCUBA divers have never observed the species, yet they have observed Smalltooth Sand Tiger Shark (Odontaspis ferox). Reports of this species from Greek (Papakonstantinou 1988) and Israeli (Ben-Tuvia 1971) waters have been considered unreliable. Discarded teeth found in Lebanese waters are indicative of sporadic presence in the past. The species is therefore considered either to have disappeared from eastern waters, or is exceptionally rare. The last known record from the Mediterranean Sea was a specimen caught in 2003 in waters off the Island of Molat (Croatia, eastern Adriatic Sea; Soldo et al. 2014). It is unclear as to whether specimens of this species from the Mediterranean Sea are a separate subpopulation, or represent vagrants from the Eastern Atlantic population. If the former scenario were the case, this species may be extinct from this region.

habitat:
These sharks occur either alone or in small to medium-sized aggregations of 20-80 individuals (Silvester 1977, Aitken 1991). They are often observed hovering motionless just above the seabed in or near deep, sandy-bottomed gutters or rocky caves, usually in the vicinity of inshore rocky reefs and islands. They are generally coastal, usually found from the surf zone down to around 25 m depth. They may also occasionally be found in shallow bays, around coral reefs and, very rarely, to depths of around 200 m on the continental shelf. They usually live near the bottom, but may also move throughout the water column (Compagno 1984). This species appears to migrate in size- and sex-based segregations in most regions of occurrence (Bass et al. 1975, Gilmore 1993, Musick et al. 1993); therefore the same may be true in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea, but there is currently no evidence to support this.This species is live-bearing with yolk-sac and usually bears only two pups per litter once every two years. It is therefore not only among the slowest growing of the larger-bodied shark species, but it must also have an extremely low rate of population increase given its low fecundity. The gestation period may last from nine to 12 months and size at birth is relatively large, at around 85 to 105 cm total length (TL; Gilmore et al. 1983, Gilmore 1993, Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Males mature at 190 to 195 cm TL, with a maximum length of at least 257 cm TL, while females mature at 220 to 230 cm TL, exceeding 300 cm TL maximum size. Maximum total length (TL) on record is about 320 cm, with unconfirmed reports to 430 cm. The maximum age in the Northwest Atlantic is estimated at 30-35 years (Branstetter and Musick 1994), so it is possibly the same for individuals in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea. Generation length is estimated to be 20.5 years.

threats:
The slow life history of this large-bodied shark, coupled with its shallow coastal range, classes it among the most highly threatened shark species in the world, primarily as a result of fisheries exploitation (Dulvy et al. 2014). Although this species is not targeted by commercial fishing activities in most of the Mediterranean Sea, it is taken as bycatch. The exception is the waters surrounding Lebanon and Syria, where all shark species are targeted.This shark may be sensitive to human interference, including coastal development and directed fisheries, particularly in inshore areas that are used by the species for reproduction. Tourism-based coastal development, pollution, uncontrolled spearfishing, unregulated coastal fisheries, and increased human aquatic leisure activities may account for the acute decline or even disappearance of this typically coastal species from its previous Mediterranean range (Fergusson et al. 2000).Confusion with Smalltooth Sand Tiger Shark (Odontaspis ferox) and consequent misreporting (probably owing to Sand Tiger Shark’s more extensive publicity and popularity; Fergusson et al. 2000) may have masked the potential disappearance of Sand Tiger Shark from the Mediterranean Sea for several decades. Moreover, fisheries records are sometimes confused by the widespread use of similar common names for different Mediterranean species; for example, 'Tiger' Shark in Malta may refer to this species, Smalltooth Sand Tiger Shark (Odontaspis ferox), or Shortfin Mako (Isurus oxyrinchus).

conservationAction:
In 2012, parties to the Barcelona Convention agreed that this species (as listed in Annex II of the Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity Protocol for the Mediterranean) cannot be retained on board, transshipped, landed, transferred, stored, sold, displayed or offered for sale, and must be released unharmed and alive, to the extent possible, pursuant to Recommendation GFCM/36/2012/1 (FAO 2012).In 2013, the European Union (EU) banned the removal of shark fins on board vessels through Regulation No. 605/2013, in line with advice from IUCN SSC Shark Specialist Group and other shark fishery experts, in order to enhance enforcement of the 2003 EU ban on shark finning (Regulation No. 1185/2003) and facilitate improved shark fishery data collection. Within waters under Croatian jurisdiction this species is proclaimed as strictly protected.Further research should be conducted on the population size and trend of the species.

useAndTrade:
Although this species is not targeted by commercial fishing activities in most of the Mediterranean Sea, it is taken as bycatch. The exception is the waters surrounding Lebanon and Syria, where all shark species are targeted.

redListAssessors:
Walls, R., Soldo, A., Fordham, S. & Buscher, E.


taxonomicNotes:
The species was first described by Risso (1810) as Squalus ferox from the type locality at Nice and most early records were from the Mediterranean and eastern North Atlantic. Whitley (1950) described O. herbsti from south-eastern Australia, differentiating it from O. ferox mainly on differences in dental formulae, and the absence of pigment spots. Garrick's (1974) account of two specimens from New Zealand cast doubt on any differences in dentition between the species but retained O. herbsti for the plain-coloured Odontaspis. However, Compagno (1984) reviewed the two species and considered that O. herbsti was a junior synonym of O. ferox, noting (as did Robins et al. 1980) that the presence or absence of spots was highly variable, much as with Carcharias taurus. The existence of spotted specimens outside the Mediterranean Sea, including from California (Seigel and Compagno 1986), is supported by in-situ observations made off Lebanon, New Zealand and Malpelo Island (Columbia), where specimens exhibit considerable variability in the presence, density and size of spots. There may be some regionalised trends controlling the intensity of such pigmentation. In the absence of any further evidence to support the validity of an O. ferox / O. herbsti dichotomy, recognition of the single Odontaspis ferox of Risso, as previously argued by Compagno (1984, 2001), remains valid.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Critically Endangered (CR) Smalltooth Sand Tiger (Odontaspis ferox) has a nearly global but patchy geographic range. It may be naturally rare. This species is similar to Sand Tiger (Carcharias taurus) with respect to its morphology and low reproductive capacity (producing only two pups every two years), although it is slightly larger and bulkier than Sand Tiger. Its low reproductive capacity makes it susceptible to local extinction, even at low capture rates. Although it is not commercially targeted, there are commercial landings reported by bottom trawl, set-net and longline fisheries in many areas including the Mediterranean Sea. This species occurs at depths of 10−883 m, but is generally found in water < 300 m where it is vulnerable to fishing pressure and possibly coastal habitat impacts (similar to Sand Tiger). This species is inferred to have disappeared from the majority of the Mediterranean Sea based on an absence of sightings or catches over the past decade. It is suspected that this species has declined by > 80% in European waters over the three generation period of ~60 years. Based on its low reproductive rate, intense fishing pressure throughout its range in the Mediterranean Sea, documented and suspected declines, and absence of management measures, Smalltooth Sand Tiger is assessed as Critically Endangered under criteria A2bcd in European waters.

range:
This is a wide-ranging shark found globally, mostly in warm-temperate and tropical seas. In the Northeast Atlantic, this species has been recorded from the Azores, the Bay of Biscay, northern Spain and France. The French specimen is the most northern verified record at approximately 46°N, 04°W. In 2012, a dead Odontaspis species, presumably this species, washed ashore on the coast of Normandy (western English Channel), but no living individuals have been reported this far north (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). This shark has been more common in the Mediterranean Sea than the Northeast Atlantic, where there are published records from Spain and the Balearic Islands (Lozano Rey 1928), off Algeria (Moreau 1881, Dieuzeide et al. 1953), northern Tunisia (Capapé et al. 1975), Italy (Giglioli 1880, Tortonese 1956, Vacchi and Serena 1997), Pelagic Islands (Zava and Montagna 1992), the Adriatic Sea (Soljan 1975, Morovic 1976, Soldo and Jardas 2002), Greece and the Aegean Sea (Economidis 1973), and Lebanon (George et al. 1964, Ben-Tuvia 1971, Mouneimne 1977). There is no contemporary data for this species in Libyan or Egyptian waters, but it occurs over the continental slope in the Levantine Basin. The depth range is from 12-850 m. 

population:
The widespread but patchy and infrequent records of this species suggest that it may be naturally rare. The population structure is unknown. Analysis of capture records suggests there may be distinct populations on either side of the Strait of Gibraltar, but without supporting genetic evidence this cannot be confirmed.The status of this shark in North African waters of the Mediterranean Sea is patchily known. Literature and contemporary records from Tunisia are scant (Capapé et al. 1975). However, specimens are likely still landed at Tunisian ports, from fisheries operating throughout the Sicilian Channel.There have been no records of this species from the Adriatic Sea over the last several decades (Soldo 2006), and only one record from the southern Tyrrhenian Sea (north of Calabria) between 2000 and 2009 (Sperone et al. 2012). In most areas from which it was previously recorded, new records of this shark are absent. It is presently observed only by divers near Beirut, Lebanon (Soldo et al. 2014).This species is inferred to have disappeared from the majority of the Mediterranean Sea based on an absence of sightings or catches over the past decade. It is suspected that this species has declined by > 80% in European waters over the three generation period of ~60 years. 

habitat:
Smalltooth Sand Tiger (Odontaspis ferox) occurs on or closely associated with the bottom along continental and insular shelves and upper slopes, and sometimes in the water column (Fergusson et al. 2008, Ebert and Stehmann 2013). It is usually associated with mud, sand or rocky reef bottom habitats. It occurs at depths ranging from 10-850 m, but is most commonly found at depths < 300 m. Sightings have recently been made at depths of ~30 m, on reefs adjacent to deep drop-offs off Lebanon (Fergusson et al. 2008). There is some size segregation, with juveniles and smaller individuals (< 350 cm total length; TL) at deeper depths (> 300 m) than larger individuals. Mediterranean sites apparently favoured by this species are typically located either along the coasts of islands lying adjacent to deep water, near offshore seamounts, or at mainland localities where continental shelves are narrow, e.g., within the Tyrrhenian Sea, around Sicily, off south-western Malta, off Lebanon, off the southern coast of Cyprus, and around the Dodecanese and Cyclades island groups of the Aegean Sea. Smalltooth Sand Tiger (Odontaspis ferox) is a rarely encountered species that is morphologically very similar to Sand Tiger (Carcharias taurus), but larger, bulkier and mostly found in deeper water. It is a sluggish offshore shark, caught and seen as individuals and in small groups (Compagno 2001). Little is known about the reproductive cycle, as few mature females have been observed. Reproduction may be similar to that of Sand Tiger. Compagno (2001) cites an observation that suggests the species practices uterine cannibalism in the form of oophagy, resulting in the birth of single embryos from each uterus. The smallest recorded individual was 107 cm TL, which suggests a birth size of 100−110 cm TL (Fergusson et al. 2008), a size proportionally consistent with the size at birth for the smaller Sand Tiger (95−105 cm TL, Compagno 2001). Smalltooth Sand Tiger probably has a non-continuous breeding cycle similar to, or possibly more extended than, Sand Tiger. The gestation period for Sand Tiger is nine to 12 months with a probable rest year between pregnancies (Compagno 2001). Males were estimated to mature at 200−250 cm TL and females at 300−350 cm TL (Fergusson et al. 2008), and its age at maturity is estimated from its congener Carcharias taurus to be six years for females and four to five for males (Branstetter and Musick 1994). Its maximum age in the Northwest Atlantic is estimated at 30-35 years (Branstetter and Musick 1994), and the maximum recorded sizes are 450 cm TL (female) and 344 cm TL (male). The generation length is estimated to be approximately 20.5 years.

threats:
Although this species is not targeted by commercial fishing activities in most of the Mediterranean Sea, it is taken as bycatch. It likely has a very low reproductive rate, making it susceptible to local extinction even at seemingly low capture rates (Fergusson et al. 2008). In Lebanon and Syria, all shark species are targeted.In the Mediterranean Sea, dedicated efforts to obtain detailed capture records and other indices of its abundance began in the 1990s, mostly since 1995. Regional literature and fisheries data concerning historical captures are patchy and lack detail, so longer-term trends in its abundance are unknown. Moreover, fisheries records are sometimes confused by the widespread use of similar common names for different Mediterranean species, for example, 'Tiger' Shark in Malta may refer to this species, Shortfin Mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) or Sand Tiger. Off Lebanon, reports of large aggregations were used to infer a potential spawning area for this species during summer months (Fergusson et al. 2008). However, it was later discovered that this was Bluntnose Sixgill Shark (Hexanchus griseus). The status of Smalltooth Sand Tiger in the Mediterranean Sea may be more severe and uncertain than initially thought.The species is uncommon in the Adriatic Sea, but its current status there is difficult to assess because of fishery misidentification with other sharks. Until the mid 1990s, occurrences off Croatia included relatively small (< 200 cm TL) specimens caught by trawls and deepwater bottom longlines, which were locally confused with and marketed as smoothhound (Mustelusspp.; Soldo and Jardas 2002). Since then there have been no more records of the species in the Adriatic Sea (Soldo 2006). In areas of steep terrain that cannot be trawled, characteristic of many locations in the Mediterranean Sea, gillnetting and longlining are likely to effect local populations; mature individuals are particularly vulnerable. Specimens are most often taken at night by bottom gillnets, bottom longlines and vertical set lines operating over, or closely adjacent to, rocky or boulder-strewn seafloors. Trawler captures are likely in various areas (e.g., Sicilian Channel and Adriatic Sea), and it is sometimes caught by longline and sold for human consumption off Lebanon.This shark may be sensitive to human interference, including coastal development and directed fisheries, particularly in inshore areas used for reproduction. Coastal development for tourism, pollution, uncontrolled spearfishing, unregulated coastal fisheries, and increased human aquatic leisure activities may all seriously affect these sharks, just as they may account for the acute decline or even disappearance of the routinely coastal Sand Tiger from its previous Mediterranean range (Fergusson et al. 2002).

conservationAction:
In 2012, parties to the Barcelona Convention agreed that this species (as listed in Annex II of the Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity Protocol for the Mediterranean) cannot be retained on board, transshipped, landed, transferred, stored, sold, displayed or offered for sale, and must be released unharmed and alive, to the extent possible, pursuant to Recommendation GFCM/36/2012/1 (FAO 2012). In Croatian waters, Smalltooth Sand Tiger is proclaimed as a strictly protected species.In 2013, the European Union (EU) banned the removal of shark fins on board vessels (CEC 2013), in line with advice from the International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission’s Shark Specialist Group and other shark fishery experts, in order to enhance enforcement of the 2003 EU ban on shark finning (CEC 2003) and facilitate improved shark fishery data collection.In the future, catch and landings should be closely monitored, effects of human disturbance should be evaluated, and genetic analyses are needed to determine if there are distinct populations in the Mediterranean Sea and Northeast Atlantic.

useAndTrade:
The species is sometimes caught by longline and sold for human consumption off Lebanon.

redListAssessors:
Pollard, D.A., Gordon, I., Williams, S., Flaherty, A.A., Fergusson, I., Dicken, M. & Graham, K.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Data Deficient (DD)Bigeye Sand Tiger (Odontaspis noronhai) is a pelagic, deepwater shark that is very rare but widely distributed in tropical and warm-temperate waters. It appears to inhabit continental and insular slopes. The biology and population status of this species is unknown because it has been rarely recorded. The life cycle and biology of this species are likely similar to that of Sand Tiger (Carcharias taurus), which is biologically vulnerable to fisheries. Nevertheless, Bigeye Sand Tiger matures at an even larger size and may have an even slower reproductive rate. The lack of information available for this species makes it impossible to assess beyond Data Deficient for the European region.The majority of this assessment is based on information published in the 2005 shark status survey (Fowler et al. 2005).

range:
This species was described in 1941 from a single specimen caught off of Madeira Island in the Eastern Central Atlantic. Later, nine specimens were reported from Brazilian waters (24°S– 44°W) in 1981. Two more specimens were also caught off Brazil from the same area in 1982 and 1984 and Sadowsky et al. (1984) provided the second published record of this species and confirmed its existence.Further records of single fish have been reported from the Gulf of Mexico (1984) and Madeira (1952) (Branstetter and McEachran 1986), Hawaii (Humphreys et al. 1989) and southern Brazil (31°S–49°W, in 1991) (Araujo and Teixeira 1993). The species was also seen another nine times from November 1982 to April 1985 at 23° –26° S and again in 1989 (U.L. Gomes pers. comm.).It has not yet been recorded in the Northeast Atlantic or Mediterranean Sea (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). The depth range is 60–1,000 m.

population:
Nothing is known of the population in European waters.

habitat:
This is a pelagic species with a depth range of 60–1,000 m (Springer 1990).Very little is known about this species’ biology. From the few specimens caught, the maximum reported male was 367 cm total length (TL). The largest female, at 321 cm TL, was still immature. Egg-laying is presumed to be the reproductive mode for this species, similar to that of the better-known laminids.

threats:
Fisheries rarely capture this species. Presumably, it is taken occasionally by deepwater fisheries, including pelagic gillnets, purse seines and deep-set longlines. It may live mostly below the depths normally fished by horizontal pelagic longlines and purse seines and it may be too large to be a regular bottom or pelagic trawl catch (Compagno 2001).

conservationAction:
In 2013, the European Union (EU) banned the removal of shark fins on board vessels (Regulation No. 605/2013), in line with advice from the Shark Specialist Group of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and other shark fishery experts, in order to enhance enforcement of the 2003 EU ban on shark finning (Regulation No. 1185/2003) and facilitate the collection of better shark fishery data (CEC 2003, 2013). Further research should be conducted to determine the population size and trends, and habitat and ecology. 

useAndTrade:
There are no data on whether this fish is utilised or traded commercially.

redListContributors:
Fordham, S., Amorim, A.F. & Arfelli, C.A.


taxonomicNotes:
Some similarity in external morphology may occur with congeneric Richardson's ray Bathyraja richardsoni, with which the distribution and bathymetric ranges overlap.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessments: Least Concern (LC)Pallid Skate (Bathyraja pallida) is a poorly known, deepwater skate recorded from depths of 1,8792,952 m. This species’ depth range lies outside that of current deepwater fisheries. No ecological or biological data are available, but it is likely a large-bodied species with low reproductive rates that would make it vulnerable to overfishing. Since its depth range is beyond the reach of deepwater fisheries and very few records of its capture exist, the Pallid Skate is assessed as Least Concern in the European region. Life history research is required and incidental capture in deepwater fisheries should be monitored.

range:
This species appears to have a wide distribution in the Northeast Atlantic, however there are very few recorded captures (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). The existing records suggest it occurs from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge to northern Bay of Biscay, Rockall Trough and Porcupine Seabight (Forster 1967, 1968; Gordon and Duncan 1989, Clarke 2000, Orlov et al. 2006, Johnston et al. 2010). The depth range is 1,879−2,950 m.

habitat:
This bathydemersal species occurs in deep water along lower continental slopes and on adjacent deepwater abyssal plains at depths of 1,879−2,950 m (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Little is known about the reproductive cycle of this egg-laying species. The egg capsules measure 50 cm including horns, 30 cm excluding horns, and 12−15 cm wide (Stehmann and Merrett 2001). The maximum recorded total body length for this species is 162 cm (Clarke 2000). 

threats:
This species is not targeted by commercial fisheries and is very rarely caught as bycatch. Only the deepest longline and gillnet fisheries occasionally catch it. This species has been recorded in the Rockall Trough (Clarke 2000), where Spanish and United Kingdom longline fishing fleets target European Hake (Merluccius merluccius) and Norwegian fishing fleets target Common Ling (Molva molva), Blue Ling (Molva dyptergia) and Cusk (Brosme brosme; Gordon 2003). The lower depth limit of these fisheries in this area may reach up to 1,500 m. The depth range of this species is currently beyond the reach of deepwater fisheries, however it may be vulnerable to population depletion because the total population may not be very large, and recruitment and survival rate of young may be low (Ebert and Stehmann 2013).Further research on this species’ biology and monitoring of any catches in deepwater fisheries is required.

conservationAction:
In 1999, the European Union (EU) introduced a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for skates and rays of 6,060 tonnes (t) for fisheries operating in the Norwegian Sea and North Sea (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea [ICES] Division IIa and Subarea IV) based on landing statistics from the previous five years. This TAC has been progressively reduced by 8−25% annually to the current level of 1,256 t. As part of the TAC, the bycatch quota for vessels over 15 meters was set at 25% of live weight of catch retained on board per trip. For much of this period (1999−2014), the TAC was higher than reported landings and therefore not effectively constraining catches.  Skate and ray TACs were established for other EU waters in 2009, including the Skagerrak and Kattegat (ICES Division IIIa) and from the northwest coast of Scotland and North Ireland to Portuguese waters (ICES sub-areas VI−IX) and have also been gradually reduced since then.Further research should be conducted on the life history details of the species.

useAndTrade:
The species is not used nor traded commercially.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern Bathyraja richardsoni is likely to be cosmopolitan. Sporadic, deep records from various parts of its range indicate that this species is widespread and it is suspected that the distribution is much wider than records indicate. Their deep bathydemersal distribution (most records exceed 1,000 m) places them outside of the range of most human threats, including deepwater fishing. Given the species' wide depth and geographic range, the majority of the population is thought to exist outside the range of deepwater fisheries and this species is considered Least Concern. Deepwater fisheries should be monitored and managed.

range:
There are sporadic records of this species from a large area across the North Atlantic and it is suspected to be even more widespread than records currently indicate. In the Northeast Atlantic, it has been recorded from northern Bay of Biscay, Rockall Trough, west of Scotland and Ireland, and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (Stehmann and Merrett 2001, Orlov et al. 2006, Johnson et al. 2010, Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Recently, it was also found off the Azores and in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge area (Orlov et al. 2006). The depth range is 1,219 − 2,992 m.

population:
There is no information is available on the population size or trends.

habitat:
This bathydemersal skate occurs on continental slopes, submarine rises and deepwater plains at depths of 1,219−2,992 m (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Its maximum body size is 174 cm total length (TL; Templeman 1973). The size at birth is 18.2−24.5 cm TL. It is an egg-laying species. The egg capsules measure 34.0−45.2 cm in length including egg horns, 20.0−20.8 cm excluding egg horns, and up to 11.2 −12.0 cm in width (Stehmann and Merrett 2001).

threats:
The incidental catch in deepwater longline and gillnet fisheries is the main potential threat to this species in the North Atlantic, but it is rarely caught. The majority of its range is considered to be outside the range of fishing pressure because it is rarely caught in the Northwest Atlantic where fishing nets are set at 1,500 m depths off Newfoundland (and more commonly at 700−1,200 m). Catches in deepwater fisheries should be monitored and managed, particularly if deepwater fisheries expand into this species’ depth range.

conservationAction:
No regulations exist for this species, and it is unknown whether it occurs in protected areas throughout its range. To prevent this species from moving out of the Least Concern category, deepwater fisheries operating close to its range should be monitored.

redListContributors:
Kulka, D.W., Orlov, A., Barker, A.S. & Fordham, S.


taxonomicNotes:
The quality of taxonomic identification of some skate species may be an issue particularly with historic data, however, B. spinicauda is a relatively easy species to identify.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC) Spinytail Skate (Bathyraja spinicauda) is a large, benthic, deepwater skate found along the North Atlantic continental slope at depths of 140−1,650 m and possibly deeper. Its population density increases with depth, suggesting that it may extend into waters that exceed depths surveyed or commercially fished. Most life history parameters are unknown, but this is one of the largest species of skate recorded from the Atlantic so it is likely to have high catchability and low resilience to fisheries exploitation. In the Northeast Atlantic, Spinytail Skate records are relatively rare suggesting that fishing and survey effort rarely overlap with its depth range, though in the Barents Sea, it regularly occurs in research surveys and in commercial demersal trawl and longline fisheries. Spinytail Skate is assessed as Least Concern in European waters based on its deep range and limited interaction with fisheries. If fisheries expand deeper into this species’ depth range, they may pose a threat and should therefore be monitored. Catches should also continue to be monitored and life history information should be collected.

range:
This species mainly occurs along the continental slopes of the Arctic and boreal regions of the North Atlantic. In the Northeast Atlantic, it occurs from eastern Greenland, Iceland, along the Iceland-Faroe-Shetland Rise to the coasts of Norway, the northern North Sea, and the Barents Sea up to Spitsbergen (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953, Krefft 1956, Stehmann and Bürkel 1984, Dolgov et al. 2005). The depth range is 400–1,209 m.

population:
This species is common in slope areas off Canada, but records are less common across the northern slope to the Northeast Atlantic and the Barents Sea. In the Barents Sea, this species appears to be increasing slightly. In a Russian demersal fish survey, mean catches increased more than two-fold from 0.02–0.04 individuals per hour per tow in 1999–2000 to 0.05–0.09 individuals per hour per tow in 2011–2012 (Dolgov et al. 2005, ICES 2013).In the Northwest Atlantic off Canada, Devine et al. (2006) reported that this species declined by more than 80% over a three generation period based on survey data. However, a large proportion of the population occurs at greater depths than the area sampled in this survey. Since evidence suggests that abundance increases with depth, this species may be more abundant below survey depths. It is therefore more likely that the inferred trend reflects a decline in local abundance at sampled depths than a decline in the whole population.  While there is insufficient information to determine accurate trends of the European subpopulation of the species, it is suspected to be stable based on the lack of overlap between the majority of its habitat and fisheries in operation.

habitat:
This deepwater skate is known to occur along the upper and middle continental slope at depths of 140–1,650 m, but it probably occurs down to 2,000 m. Northeast Atlantic records are typically at 400–850 m (deepest locations fished), but a few specimens have been reported at greater depths. Icelandic deepwater fisheries operating at 400–1,830 m have caught this species at depths of 419–1,209 m (Magnússon et al. 2000). The species is typically recorded in salinities of 34.5–35.5‰ and temperatures of < 7.5°C, (Krefft 1956, Stehmann and Bürkel 1984, Haedrich and Merrett 1988, Dolgov et al. 2002). In the Barents and Norwegian Seas, this species is commonly found in water 0–2°C (Andriyashev 1954, Berestovskii 1994, Dolgov et al. 2005). In the Northeast Atlantic, juveniles are typically found in colder waters than adults; adults are believed to move into warmer waters before spawning (Krefft 1956). This is one of the largest and potentially least resilient species of skate known to occur in the North Atlantic. The largest confirmed specimen in the Northeast Atlantic was 182 cm total length (TL; Dolgov et al. 2005). There are no data on its age or size at maturation, but its estimated generation length is approximately 20 years. This egg-laying species produces very large eggs cases, up to around 21 cm long (Krefft 1956, Berestovskii 1994) and embryonic development is estimated to take around 12 months (Stehmann and Bürkel 1984). However, in the Barents Sea females spawn in mid- to late October (Krefft 1956) and a recent study showed that embryonic development takes an estimated 3.5–4 years in these waters where temperatures are 0–5°C (Berestovskii 1994).

threats:
Trawl fisheries catch more of this species than any other types of fishery, but they have appeared in bottom longlines as well (ICES 2013). In the Barents Sea, this skate is caught in low numbers by Russian trawl and bottom longline fisheries at depths of 60–400 m (ICES 2013). In the Norwegian Sea, it is also regularly caught in deepwater trawls (400–1,400 m) of Norwegian fishery-independent surveys. Small quantities of this species are also reported in landings from Iceland and eastern Greenland. While this indicates that this species’ range does overlap with fisheries operations in European waters, the occurrence is so low that it can be inferred that the majority of its range falls outside the reach of the main deepwater fisheries. Additionally, deepwater fisheries in these waters have contracted in recent years and show no signs of expansion for the time being.

conservationAction:
There are no species-specific management or conservation measures in place, but there are limitations on the catch of all skates and rays grouped. In 1999, the European Union (EU) introduced a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for skates and rays of 6,060 tonnes (t) for fisheries operating in the Norwegian Sea (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea [ICES] Division IIa) and North Sea (ICES sub-area IV) based on landing statistics from the previous five years. This TAC has been progressively reduced by 825% annually to the current level of 1,256 t. As part of the TAC, the bycatch quota for vessels over 15 meters was set at 25% of live weight of catch retained on board per trip. For much of this period (19992014), the TAC was higher than reported landings and therefore not effectively constraining catches.Skate and ray TACs were established for other EU waters in 2009, including the Skagerrak and Kattegat (ICES Division IIIa) and from the northwest coast of Scotland and Northern Ireland to Portuguese waters (ICES sub-areas VIIX). These TACs have also been gradually reduced since then. In 2013, the TAC for all skate and ray species was 21,800 tonnes (regulations are available online at http://faolex.fao.org).Catches should continue to be monitored and life history information should be collected.

useAndTrade:
Where retained, the ‘wings’ are utilised for human consumption.

redListContributors:
Kulka, D.W., Orlov, A., Devine, J., Baker, K. & Haedrich, R.


taxonomicNotes:
The "thorny tail stingray complex" needs additional study. The populations in the eastern Atlantic and Uruguay may represent different species (Struhsaker 1969, McEachran and Fechhelm 1998). The status of the single record from India is unknown.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Vulnerable (VU)This is one of the largest marine and brackish water stingrays distributed widely throughout the Atlantic. Subpopulations in the Northwest Atlantic, Southwest Atlantic and eastern Atlantic are considered separate. Although limited data are available on the biology of this species, its large size (maximum size 260 cm disc width) and low fecundity (two to six pups per litter) make it intrinsically vulnerable to depletion. In the Mediterranean Sea it is taken as bycatch in trawl and artisanal fisheries operating throughout much of its depth range. It has only been rarely reported from the Mediterranean Sea, where intense trawl fisheries operate at depths of 50 to 800 m. This stingray is suspected to have declined in the Mediterranean Sea based on i) the complete overlap between its depth range and the reach of demersal fisheries; ii) its apparent rarity in these waters; iii) its intrinsic sensitivity to overexploitation; and iv) the decline in comparable elasmobranch species in this region. This region also comprises the bulk of its distribution in European Union waters. The species is inferred to have experienced a decline of 30% over the three-generation period (51 years), in European waters, therefore qualifying as Vulnerable under Criterion A2d. There are no new management efforts in place, and monitoring of harvest levels should be undertaken to identify the trends of the species.

range:
In the Northeast Atlantic this stingray occurs from the southern Bay of Biscay, southwards beyond the Eastern Central Atlantic, where it has been reported from Madeira and the Canary Islands. It is also present throughout the Mediterranean Sea, but not the Black Sea (Ebert and Stehmann 2013). Its depth limit is zero to 200 m.

population:
In the Mediterranean Sea, this species was reported as most common off Algeria, Sicily and Tunisia (Whitehead et al. 1984). In 6,336 scientific trawls conducted during the International Trawl Survey in the Mediterranean (MEDITS) from 1994 to 1999 at depths of 10 to 800 m, only one record of this species was reported throughout the northern Mediterranean Sea (Baino et al. 2001). From the 22 Italian “Gruppo Nazionale Dermersali” (GRUND) surveys between 1985 and 1998, the percentage presence for this species was one of the lowest registered (0.83%) and it was caught only in the South Ligurian Seas and Sardinian waters (Relini et al. 2000). This stingray is suspected to have declined in the Mediterranean Sea based on i) the complete overlap between its depth range and operating demersal fisheries (see “Threats” section); ii) its apparent rarity in these waters; iii) its intrinsic sensitivity to overexploitation (see “Habitat and Ecology” section); and iv) the decline in comparable elasmobranch species in this region. Considering the available data of decline of its congener D. pastinaca, and the fact that D. centroura has a much larger size than D. pastinaca but the same depth range, the species is estimated to have declined throughout the Mediterranean sea by 30% over the three-generation period (51 years). The majority of the population of the species in European waters is found in the Mediterranean, therefore it is inferred that this decline has been the same for the Northeast Atlantic, having declined by 30% in Europe.

habitat:
This stingray is found over sandy and muddy bottoms, occasionally in brackish water; usually in waters less than 100 m deep, but recorded to 274 m in the Bahamas (McEachran and Fechhem 1998) and usually to 200 m deep in the Mediterranean Sea (Whitehead et al. 1984, Notarbartolo and Bianchi 1998). This is one of the largest known stingrays; the largest maximum size recorded is 260 cm disc width (DW) and 290 kg from the southern Adriatic Sea (Dulcic et al. 2003). Estimated size at maturity is 80 and 66-100 cm DW for males and females respectively in the Mediterranean Sea (Capapé 1993). Its generation length is estimated to be 17 years.This species is live bearing with yolk-sac. Size at birth is eight to 13 cm DW (Bini 1967, Notarbartolo and Bianchi 1998). Capapé (1993) reported that gestation lasts for a minimum of four months and fecundity ranges from two to six pups per litter.

threats:
In the Mediterranean Sea, this stingray is taken as bycatch of artisanal fisheries, bottom set longline, gillnet and handline (Fischer et al. 1987). Benthic trawlers have increased both effort and efficiency in the shelf and slope areas of the Mediterranean Sea over the last 60 years. The continental shelf and upper slope are highly exploited, with intensive commercial trawling occurring at depths ranging from 50 to 800 m (Colloca et al. 2003, Massuti and Moranta 2003). As a result there has been increasing concern about changes in the abundance and diversity of elasmobranchs in this region, and decreases in the abundance and biomass of some species throughout the last decade have been reported in highly exploited areas such as the Gulf of Lions (Aldebert 1997, Massuti and Moranta 2003). Although no species-specific data are available, the very large size of this stingray makes it intrinsically sensitive to population depletion.

conservationAction:
There are no measures in place to protect this species in European waters. Monitoring should prioritise harvest levels in order to infer population trends in the region.

redListAssessors:
Rosa, R.S., Furtado, M., Snelson, F., Piercy, A., Grubbs, R.D., Serena, F. & Mancusi, C.


taxonomicNotes:
Dasyatis marmorata is a species of western Africa and the Mediterranean Sea (Séret in press). This species has often been confused with Dasyatis chrysonota, which is a South African species. There are several distinctive features (colour and morphology), although a genetic study should formally reaffirm the validity of D. marmorata and redefine the two species. In this document, we consider only D. marmorata and all records of D. chrysonata in the Mediterranean Sea as D. marmorata.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Data Deficient (DD)This species has been previously confused with D. chrysonota and hence there are no species-specific data. The taxonomic status of this relatively small stingray is unclear. Further study is required to critically compare specimens from the Mediterranean Sea and eastern Atlantic. Marbled Stingray (Dasyatis marmorata) is recorded only from Tunisian, Israeli and Turkish waters, at depths of 12-65 m in the Mediterranean Sea. It is occasionally caught as bycatch of trawl fisheries, but no data are available to determine catch levels or trends. Insufficient information is currently available to assess this species beyond Data Deficient and further investigation into the effect of fisheries, and resolution of the species’ taxonomy and distribution is a priority.

range:
In European waters, this stingray is reported from the Mediterranean Sea and the eastern Atlantic, although further study is required to critically compare specimens from the two regions. In the Mediterranean Sea, it has been recorded from the Gulf of Gabes and El Biban lagoon in Tunisian waters, off Israel (Capapé et al. 1995, 1996; Zaouali 1992, Golani and Capapé 2004), and more recently in Turkish waters (Erguden et al. 2014). Records from the Atlantic include Senegal (Capapéet al. 1995) and Mauritania (Valadouet al.2006).Its depth range is 12-65 m.

population:
There is currently no information available pertaining to the population size and trend of this species.

habitat:
The species is found on continental shelves on various types of sandy and muddy substrates from 12-65 m depth (Serena 2005). Males mature at around 30 cm total length (TL) and females at 32-34 cm TL (Capapé 1990, Capapé et al. 1996, Serena 2005). The species reaches a maximum size of 60 cm TL (Serena 2005). It apparently produces four litters per year (after a gestation period of three months), with up to nine pups per litter (Capapé 1990, Capapé and Zaouali 1993, Serena 2005). The length at 50% maturity for females and males is 40.2 and 32.9 cm TL respectively off the Tunisian coast. It is also estimated that fecundity is two to four pups greater than previous reports had indicated (Valadou 2006).

threats:
This stingray is occasionally caught as bycatch in bottom trawl fisheries (Bradaï 2000, Serena 2005). Trawl fisheries and coastal artisanal fisheries operate off Tunisia and elsewhere throughout the species’ depth and geographic range, which may take it as bycatch. In 2003, about 404 trawl vessels were operating off Tunisia, with more than 46% of the fleet concentrated in southern Tunisia, where this species occurs (FAO 2007).

conservationAction:
There are no species-specific measures in place. Research should be conducted on the taxonomic status of the species and on its geographic range. Moreover, catches should be assessed and monitored.

redListAssessors:
Bradai, M.N., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Serena, F. & Mancusi, C.


taxonomicNotes:
The abundance and distribution of this species may have been overestimated because of confusion between two distinct species (D. tortonesei and D. pastinaca). It is likely that a distinct Dasyatis species lives in the Mediterranean Sea, but there are still nomenclature issues that are currently under investigation (Serena 2005). While these issues are still ongoing, D. tortonesei appears to be a distinct species from D. pastinaca.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Vulnerable (VU) This stingray occurs in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea from the shore to about 200 m depth, but is more commonly found in shallow waters (< 50 m). This depth distribution makes it more vulnerable to small-scale inshore fisheries than to offshore trawling. For example, Common Stingray (Dasyatis pastinaca) made up more than 40% of the elasmobranch biomass captured in the trammel net fishery off the Balearic Islands. In the Northeast Atlantic, it is a less common species, generally showing a low abundance index in comparison to the Mediterranean Sea. The species is suspected to have declined by at least 30% through European waters over the three generation period (22.5 years), therefore qualifying as Vulnerable under Criterion A2d.

range:
In the eastern Atlantic this stingray occurs from southern Norway and the United Kingdom to South Africa, including the Canary Islands, Madeira, western Baltic Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea and Sea of Marmara (Bilecenoglu et al. 2002, Serena 2005). In the Celtic Seas, it is regarded as a vagrant from more southern waters (ICES 2005a), except in the southern Celtic Sea and throughout the English Channel, which it is considered to inhabit (ICES 2013). The few observations of this species in the North Sea are restricted to Shetland waters and the southern North Sea, where they are occasionally caught in inshore surveys (ICES 2005b). This ray is probably the most common batoid fish in Lebanon and Syria (Bariche 2012), and has a higher presence in the western-central Mediterranean area (coasts of Morocco, Spain, France, Tyrrhenian, Corsica, Sardinia and Sicily) than elsewhere in the Mediterranean region (Baino et al. 2001).Its depth limit is one to 200 m.

population:
There is no information on the size of the population of this species within the Mediterranean Sea, however the International Trawl Survey in the Mediterranean (MEDITS) program from 1994-1999 revealed a low frequency of occurrence. It appeared in 49 hauls, which was only 0.5% of the total number of hauls, but these surveys only sampled depths from 50-800 m and this species is more common in shallow waters < 50 m depth. Comparative trawl surveys conducted in 1948 (Hvar) and 1998 (MEDITS) in the Adriatic Sea (both up to 400 m depth) suggest that the abundance of Common Stingray may have decreased during this period. The frequency of occurrence (frequency log transformed data) of Common Stingray on the shelf according to the 1948 survey was ~ 0.5, whereas frequency of occurrence on the shelf in the 1998 survey was < 0.1 (Jukic-Peladic et al. 2001), indicating an 80% decline.Considering an estimate decline of around 80% from 1948-1998 and an annual rate of decline of 1.6, the species is estimated to have declined around 36% over the three generation span (22.5 years). Assuming an exponential decline, based on the annual decline rate, the decline over the period 1992-2015 (three generations) is modelled to be 52% in the Adriatic Sea. Therefore, the species is inferred to have declined by at least 30% through the Mediterranean Sea.In the Northeast Atlantic, this stingray is clearly less abundant than in the Mediterranean Sea. Quero (1998) reported it to have disappeared from the Bay of Biscay, though the species has appeared in very low quantities in French landings from this area and Iberian waters between 1999 and 2012, ranging from zero to three tonnes per year. The average catch rate for this stingray during the first quarter of the International Bottom Trawl Survey in the North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat was 0.0006 (number per hour, 1977-2004; ICES 2005b). In United Kingdom groundfish surveys, it was only recorded occasionally in the western English Channel at depths of 17-160 m (Ellis et al. 2005). Considering that the bulk of the population occurs in the Mediterranean Sea, the overall decline in European waters is suspected to be of at least 30% through the three-generation period (22.5 years).

habitat:
This stingray is a demersal brackish to marine water species, found over sandy and muddy bottoms from shallow waters to a depth of approximately 200 m (Whitehead et al. 1984), although it seems to be most abundant in inshore waters. This species can sometimes inhabit areas close to estuaries and over rocky reefs; it is very commonly found on coralligenous bottoms and in caves in the Levant. Bottom trawl surveys in the Mediterranean Sea suggest that it is more common in waters < 50 m depth (Morey et al. 2006, Massuti and Moranta 2003, Relini et al. 2000), and Morey et al. (2009) showed that catch per unit effort values of Common Stingray from small-scale fisheries off the Balearic islands decreased with depth, being almost completely restricted to the first 50 m depth. Depth distribution of the biomass index shows values of 1-10 kg/km2 between depths of zero and 100 m, and 0.1-1 kg/km2 at depths of 100-200 m (Baino et al. 2001). This species reaches a maximum reported size of 140 cm disc width (DW) and 250 cm total length (TL) (Notarbartolo and Bianchi 1998). The size at maturity of females is estimated at about 38 cm DW (Capape et al. 1996), 60 cm TL/28 cm DW (Ismen 2003), and at about 45 cm TL/29 cm DW (Yeldan et al. 2009). Males mature at a smaller size, estimates ranging from 32 cm DW (Capape et al. 1996) and 50 cm TL/26 cm DW (Ismen 2003). Yigin and Ismen (2012) reported length at 50% maturity (L50) for both males and females at 62.5 cm TL/36 cm DW in the North Aegean Sea. The age at first maturity was estimated at six years for males and seven years for females (Yigin and Ismen 2012). Data on the longevity of this species are scarce, with reported females reaching 16 years and males reaching 10 years in the North Aegean Sea (Yigin and Ismen 2012). The generation length of this species is estimated to be 7.5 years.In the northern Adriatic Sea, reproduction takes place between September and May, during which pregnant females approach the coast. Bini (1967) reported that pupping occurred between July and August, and four to nine pups per litter are produced (Notarbartolo and Bianchi 1998). Several localities where the species aggregates during mid June and July are known in the Balearic Islands. These aggregations of mature stingrays are thought to be related to reproduction (Morey et al. 2006). Young specimens are common in shallow waters over sandy bottoms, and parturition was reported to occur in early July in the eastern Mediterranean Sea (Ismen 2003). Neonates are approximately 20 cm TL (8 cm DW) (Ismen 2003). This size largely exceeds the 8 cm DW size-at-birth provided by Ismen (2003).

threats:
This species is taken as bycatch and is sometimes targeted in semi-industrial, small-scale and commercial bottom trawl, gillnet, beach seine, bottom longline and trammel net fisheries. Commercial fishermen often cut off the tails of stingrays following capture and prior to discarding, although it is unclear as to how this affects discard survival (Notarbartolo and Bianchi 1998). Little data are available on catches due to discarding at sea. The species’ preference for shallow waters (< 50 m) makes it more vulnerable to small-scale inshore fisheries than to offshore trawling. For example, it made up more than 40% of the elasmobranch biomass captured in the trammel net fishery off the Balearic Islands (Morey et al. 2006), and was the second most important elasmobranch species when pooling artisanal fishing gears (Mallol et al. 2009). Small-scale fisheries operating within this species’ shallow-water range in the Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic make up an important component of the European fishing fleet (Stergiou et al. 2006). This species was not recorded in recent (1999-2000) experimental fishing trials with trammel nets conducted within several parts of its known range in the Mediterranean Sea and Northeast Atlantic (Stergiou et al. 2006). There is a ban on trawling within three nautical miles of the coast for European Union (EU) countries, however there are some exceptions to this, and both legal and illegal trawling continues to occur in shallow waters in parts of the northern Mediterranean Sea.Important grounds for reproduction seem to be associated with shallow sandy bottoms, which may be negatively affected by human disturbance such as tourism activities on beaches, or fishing pressure such as trammel nets, gillnets and trawlers.

conservationAction:
The first European Union (EU) total allowable catch (TAC) for skates and rays (all species falling within the order Rajiformes) was established for the North and Norwegian Sea for 1999 at 6,060 tonnes (t), cut to 4,848 t for 2001–2002, and since reduced annually in most years by 8–25% to 1,256 t (bycatch quota for up to 25% of live weight per trip for vessels over 15 meters fishing in International Council for the Exploration of the Sea [ICES] subareas IIa and IV) in 2014. For much of this period (1999-2014), the TAC was higher than reported landings.Skate and ray TACs were established for other EU waters (ICES Divisions IIIa, VI-IX) in 2009 and have also been gradually reduced since. Separate TACs are now in place for ICES subareas III (Skagerrak, entrance to the Baltic Sea), Via and b, VII a-c, VII c-k (West of Scotland, Irish and Celtic Seas), VIId (Eastern English Channel), and VIII and IX (Bay of Biscay and Iberian waters).  This species is protected within six of the seven existing Balearic Island marine reserves. Although artisanal fishing is allowed within these marine protected areas, these stingrays must be released alive if caught. Accurate monitoring of artisanal catch in those areas where the species is very commonly taken is needed to provide information on the size of the population.

useAndTrade:
The species is sometimes targeted in semi-industrial, small-scale and commercial bottom trawl, gillnet, beach seine, bottom longline and trammel net fisheries.

redListAssessors:
Serena, F., Mancusi, C., Morey, G. & Ellis, J.R.


taxonomicNotes:
Originally described and named Trygon violacea by Bonaparte in 1832. Subsequent workers on Dasyatidae phylogenetic relationships suggested other generic affinities for Bonaparte's species. These include Dasyatis violacea and most recently Pteroplatytrygon violacea, the current valid name.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC) Pelagic Stingray (Pteroplatytryogon violacea) is widespread, with an almost circumglobal distribution throughout tropical and subtropical areas of the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans. It is perhaps the only species of stingray that occurs in pelagic oceanic waters. The species is taken as bycatch in pelagic longline fisheries around the world. It is caught frequently by tuna and swordfish longliners and mostly discarded, but is retained and used in some areas (for example Indonesia). Post-discard survival rates are thought to be low in some areas because the fish are often discarded with serious mouth and jaw damage. Analyses of research surveys conducted with pelagic longlines in the 1950s and recent (1990s) observer data from commercial pelagic longline fisheries suggest increases in catch per unit effort (CPUE) in the Northwest Atlantic. Although there is some debate as to consistency of reporting of Pelagic Stingray in fisheries statistics and data are lacking from several areas of the species’ range, there are no data to suggest that significant declines have occurred in this species. Increasing fishing effort in pelagic fisheries, owing to decreasing abundance of target species (swordfish and tunas) will result in an increase in catches of this species and associated high discard mortality in some areas. Careful monitoring is therefore required. Given increasing trends observed in some regions, this species’ widespread distribution, and the absence of evidence to suggest significant declines, it is currently assessed as Least Concern in European waters.

range:
Pelagic Stingray (Pteroplatytryogon violacea) is widespread, with an almost circumglobal distribution throughout tropical and subtropical areas (Mollet 2002) of the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans. It is perhaps the only species of stingray that occurs in pelagic oceanic waters. Within the Northeast Atlantic, it is more common in warmer oceanic waters from the Bay of Biscay southwards beyond Eastern Central Atlantic waters. Vagrants have also been reported from around the British Isles, and it occurs throughout the Mediterranean Sea (Ebert Stehmann 2013). Its depth range is zero to 238 m.

population:
The population structure, migratory patterns and reproduction cycles are not well known throughout most of this species’ range.

habitat:
This is perhaps the only species of stingray that occurs in pelagic, oceanic waters (Last and Stevens 1994). It is usually found from the surface to 100 m depth over deep water (Mollet 2002) but has been reported down to 238 m (Bester et al. 2007). It is a relatively small ray, attaining a maximum size of 80 cm disc width (DW) (Mollet et al. 2002). Females reach maturity at 39-50 cm DW (Wilson and Beckett 1970, Mollet et al. 2002, Neer 2008, Forselledo et al. 2007), and males at 37-50 cm DW (Wilson and Beckett 1970, Mollet et al. 2002, Neer 2008). Females mature at three years, males mature at two years and longevity is about 10 years (Wilson and Beckett 1970, Mollet et al. 2002, Neer 2008).This stingray is live bearing with histotrophy and has a gestation period of less than two to four months (Ranzi and Zezza 1936, Tortonese 1956, Wilson and Beckett 1970, Forselledo et al. 2007). Copulation takes place in spring and females move inshore during summer to give birth (Whitehead et al. 1984, Tortonese 1956, Forselledo et al. 2007). Females give birth to four to 13 pups per litter (average six) (Tortonese 1956, Fisher et al. 1987, Ebert 2003, Neer 2008) and newborn stingrays measure between 14.3 and 24.1 cm DW (mean range) (Mollet 2002, Mollet et al. 2002).In the Mediterranean Sea females giving birth in the Bay of Naples before the rays migrate to warmer water (Lo Bianco 1909, Ranzi 1933, Mollet 2002). Stingrays in the Bay of Naples appeared to migrate as the water became colder.

threats:
The major threats to Pelagic Stingray populations are pelagic longline fisheries for tunas, billfishes, and other pelagic shark species (Neer 2008). It is caught frequently by tuna and swordfish longliners and mostly discarded, but is retained and used in some areas (for example Indonesia) (Vaske 2000, Mollet 2002, Domingo et al. 2005, White et al. 2006, Forselledo et al. 2007). The magnitude of regional and indeed global catch is currently unknown.There is evidence for skewed sex ratios in this species; whether these ratios are obtained in actual fisheries bycatch is unknown, however if so, an asymmetric take of this species could potentially impact the long-term stability of Pelagic Stingray populations (Neer 2008).In the Mediterranean Sea, this stingray is captured by pelagic longline fisheries as bycatch and is almost certainly mostly discarded, with a low discard survival rate due to damage to jaws and/or mouth as a result of treatment on board fishing vessels. The magnitude of Mediterranean-wide catches is unknown. Reports of Common Stingray (Dasyatis pastinaca) in pelagic fisheries catches in the Mediterranean Sea may refer to Pelagic Stingray. In Italian seas, Pelagic Stingray is the most commonly caught elasmobranch species in the Albacore long line fisheries and the second most common elasmobranch catch in swordfish long line fisheries (Filanti et al. 1986, Di Natale et al. 1995, Orsi Relini et al. 1999, Relini et al. 2010). Total bycatch of this stingray in the swordfish fishery in the Ligurian Sea was estimated at ~ 2,000 (up to 20 per boat) in 1995, although the catch was smaller and more variable in 1996) (Mollet 2002). Rey and Alot (1984) reported the results of a swordfish longline surveys in Mediterranean Spanish waters, and recorded only two individuals in 11 fishing operations (< 0.001). This stingray is also occasionally taken by recreational fisheries (Fischer et al. 1987), which presumably does not have a significant impact on population numbers.

conservationAction:
No specific conservation measures are in place. Further efforts should be made to gather data from longline fishing vessels and other commercial fishing operations that may encounter this species. Continued research efforts aimed at careful monitoring of populations of this species is required.A recent study suggested that the use of large circle hooks by commercial and artisanal swordfish longline fisheries has the potential to reduce the negative impact that fishing has on this stingray (Kerstetter and Graves 2006, Piovano et al. 2009). In 1999, the European Union (EU) introduced a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for skates and rays of 6,060 tonnes (t) for fisheries operating in the Norwegian Sea (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea [ICES] Division IIa) and North Sea (ICES sub-area IV) based on landing statistics from the previous five years. This TAC has been progressively reduced by 8−25% annually to the current level of 1,256 t. As part of the TAC, the bycatch quota for vessels over 15 meters was set at 25% of live weight of catch retained on board per trip. For much of this period (1999−2014), the TAC was higher than reported landings and therefore not effectively constraining catches. Skate and ray TACs were established for other EU waters in 2009, including the Skagerrak and Kattegat (ICES Division IIIa) and from the northwest coast of Scotland and North Ireland to Portuguese waters (ICES sub-areas VI−IX). These TACs have also been gradually reduced since then. In 2013, the TAC for all skate and ray species grouped was 21,800 tonnes (regulations are available online at http://faolex.fao.org).Research should be conducted on the population size and trend of the species.

redListAssessors:
Baum, J.K., Bianchi, I., Domingo, A., Ebert, D.A., Grubbs, D., Mancusi, C., Piercy, A., Serena, F. & Snelson, F.F.

redListContributors:
Dulvy, N.K., Clò, S., Bariche, M., Buscher, E. & Fordham, S.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Data Deficient (DD)Round Fantail Stingray (Taeniura grabata) is a large (up to 150 cm) benthic species that occurs at depths of less than 100 m. It is widespread in the Mediterranean Sea and Eastern Central Atlantic, and caught in demersal trawl and trammel net fisheries, although no catch data are available. At present, there is insufficient information to assess Round Fantail Stingray beyond Data Deficient in European waters. This assessment should be revisited when more data become available.

range:
This species is found in the Eastern Central Atlantic from Cape Verde Island down to Senegal and Angola (Whitehead et al. 1984), and in the Mediterranean Sea (Serena 2005). It is mostly known from the southern shores of the Mediterranean Sea, with a single record from the northern Mediterranean Sea near Tuscany (Serena et al. 1999), one record from Turkey (Basusta et al. 1998), and more recently, three records from the eastern Mediterranean Sea off Syria (Ali et al. 2013).

population:
No information on population trends or structure is currently available.

habitat:
This benthic stingray occurs on soft bottoms, generally in shallow tropical or warm temperate waters, at depths of less than 100 m. Little is known of this species’ biology. The reproductive mode is live bearing with yolk-only nutrition (Bauchot 1987, Serena 2005). The maximum reported size is 100 cm disc width and 150 cm total length.

threats:
This species is vulnerable to capture in demersal trawl and trammel net fisheries, although no specific information is currently available on its capture. 

conservationAction:
In 2009, Total Allowable Catch (TAC) limitations were established for all skates and rays occurring in European Union waters, including the Skagerrak and Kattegat (ICES Division IIIa) and from the northwest coast of Scotland and North Ireland to Portuguese waters (ICES sub-areas VIIX). These TACs have also been gradually reduced since then. In 2013, the TAC for all skate and ray species grouped was 21,800 tonnes (regulations are available online at http://faolex.fao.org).There are no species-specific management or conservation measures currently in place. Research is required on abundance, range, population trends, life history, threats and capture in fisheries.

redListContributors:
Serena, F., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G. & Mancusi, C.


redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Critically Endangered (CR) A wide-ranging, patchily distributed butterfly ray from tropical and warm temperate continental shelf waters, found in the eastern Atlantic from Portugal southwards including the Madeira and Canary Islands, and the Mediterranean Sea. This ray is large (up to 220 cm disc width) with a small litter size (one to three pups in the Mediterranean region), which suggests it is intrinsically vulnerable to population depletion.  The species was moderately abundant and catchable in the Mediterranean region historically. During the last century it was not uncommon in the catch of demersal trawl and set net fisheries throughout the Mediterranean Sea, the southern shores in particular, until the 1980s. In the Sicilian Channel it was previously quite frequently captured but is now very rare or absent from local catch records. It has also been absent from the International Trawl Survey in the Mediterranean records since 1994. Reports of its presence are based on the capture of occasional specimens in demersal fisheries. It is relatively abundant along the Levant coasts where it is regularly caught with bottom trawls, fixed nets and longlines. Given its current rarity throughout much of the Mediterranean Sea (despite comprehensive survey work carried out throughout its historical range), it is suspected that this species has declined significantly in the past 30 years and disappeared from much of its historical range. Its previously known habitat and distribution continues to face high levels of fishing pressure and habitat degradation from coastal development. The suspected three-generation span is about 20 years. Spiny Butterfly Ray (Gymnura altavela) is therefore assessed as Critically Endangered in the Mediterranean Sea on the basis of a suspected past decline of more than 80% for the past 30 years.

range:
The species is patchily distributed in tropical and warm temperate continental shelf waters of the eastern Atlantic (Portugal to Ambriz, Angola), including Madeira and the Canary Islands, and it is also present in the Mediterranean Sea (McEachran and Fechhelm 1998, Serena 2005). Its depth range is 10-100 m.

population:
Historically, Spiny Butterfly ray (Gymnura altavela) was not uncommon in the catch of demersal trawl and set net fisheries throughout the Mediterranean Sea, the southern part in particular. It is still regularly present in some parts of the southern and eastern Mediterranean Sea (Bariche 2012). There have been no records of the species from the International Trawl Surveys in the Mediterranean (MEDITS) since 1994 (Baino et al. 2001), indicating that it is perhaps absent from most of the northern Mediterranean Sea. The cod-end mesh size of the MEDITS gear of 20 mm is sufficient to catch this species, and the surveys occur throughout its depth range and habitat-type, ruling out the possibility that it may not be susceptible to this survey equipment. Occasional specimens turn up in the catch of demersal fisheries; for example, one adult male was captured recently near Anzio, Italy (Psomadakis et al. 2005) and another specimen in the southern Adriatic Sea in 2000 (Dulcic et al. 2003), confirming that it is not yet locally extinct in the central Mediterranean Sea.Species abundance is suspected to have continuously decreased in recent decades because fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea have not contracted or reduced effort. The lack of data available on this species from both surveys and fisheries is an indication of its scarcity in the region. Perhaps in western and northern areas where fishing is most intensive, this could be an indication of disappearance from the region.It is suspected that a population decline of more than 80% has occurred for this species for the last 30 years, which includes three generation lengths (20 years).

habitat:
This is a large batoid that was once locally abundant with a patchy distribution. It is found in shallow coastal waters over sandy, muddy and shelly detrital bottoms and sometimes on Posidonia beds (seagrass) from 10-100 m depth at a maximum (Capapé et al. 1992, McEachran and Fechhelm 1998, Serena 2005). Little is known of this species’ biology. Maximum size may reach 400 cm disc width (DW), but usually up to 200 cm DW (Stehmann 1981). Size at maturity is reported as 155 cm DW in males and 102 cm DW in females (Daiber and Booth 1960). Reproduction is aplacental yolk-sac viviparous, with one to three pups per litter in the Mediterranean Sea (Tortonese 1956). It reproduces annually and gestation time is reported as four to nine months (Capapé et al. 1992). Size at birth ranges from 38 to 44 cm DW (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953, McEachran and Carvalho 2002). Its generation length is around six to seven years.

threats:
This ray is a bycatch of coastal demersal fisheries but not targeted. Towards the end of the 20th century, benthic trawl effort in the Mediterranean Sea increased both numerically and technologically. For example, the Gulf of Lions area was initially exploited by small-scale benthic trawl fisheries comprising 27 small low-powered boats (total nominal horse power of 2,700 hp), but effort increased seven-fold to a total of 19,940 hp between 1974 and 1987. Following this, half of the benthic trawl fishing effort was displaced to target small pelagic fishes (Aldebert 1997). The Adriatic Sea is subject to trawling mainly by Italian, Croatian, Slovenian, and Albanian fleets but landings data are not available (Jukic-Peladic et al. 2001). Coastal development, pollution and anthropogenic disturbance through tourism activities are also a threat to its shallow coastal habitat in the Mediterranean Sea.

conservationAction:
Spiny Butterfly Ray was listed in Appendix II of the Barcelona Convention. Parties to the Barcelona Convention agreed in 2012 that all elasmobranch species listed in Annex II of the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean Sea -- which includes Recommendation GFCM/36/2012/1 -- cannot be retained on board, transshipped, landed, transferred, stored, sold or displayed or offered for sale, and must be released unharmed and alive, to the extent possible.Skate and ray total allowable catches (TACs) were established in 2009 for European Union waters from which Spiny Butterfly Ray has been reported (Bay of Biscay and Iberian waters) and have been gradually reduced each year since. Separate TACs are now in place for International Council for the Exploration of the Sea subareas and those for subareas VIII (Bay of Biscay) and IX (Iberian waters) combined are set at 3,800 tonnes per year of all skate and ray species grouped. Research should be conducted on the population size and trend of the species.

redListAssessors:
Walls, R., Vacchi, M., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Serena, F. & Dulvy, N.

redListContributors:
Vooren, C.M., Piercy, A., Snelson, F.F. & Grubbs, D.


taxonomicNotes:
Since expert examination is needed to distinguish M. mobular from M. japanica (the spinetail devilray), a circumtropical species also known from the tropical Atlantic (Notarbartolo di Sciara 1987), past reports of giant devilrays from the Atlantic may have been due to incorrect identification of spinetail devilrays.

redListCategoryRationale:
Giant Devil Ray (Mobula mobular) is the largest species of the genus Mobula and has a very low reproductive capacity (i.e., giving birth to a single large pup at unknown intervals). Its geographic range is limited to the Mediterranean Sea and possibly adjoining North Atlantic waters. This species is taken as bycatch in many different fisheries (most notably in pelagic driftnets) in several locations within its range. Giant Devil Ray was previously assessed as Endangered in 2006, given its high bycatch mortality, limited reproductive capacity and restricted range. More recently, it was discovered that this species is the targeted catch of a massive purse seine fishery in the Levantine Sea that operates on a seasonal basis. Although the increased control and phasing out of illegal pelagic driftnets has greatly reduced fishing pressure over the last eight years, the significant threat imposed by this fishery in the eastern Mediterranean Sea suggests that this species is still at risk of overexploitation. A population reduction of at least 50% over three generations (60 years) is suspected based on the high mortality rate of this species, its low ability to recover from large population declines owing to its slow life history, and the lack of change in fishing pressure that the species is subject to. For this reason, Giant Devil Ray is assessed as Endangered in European waters under criteria.

range:
This species occurs throughout the Mediterranean Sea, and possibly in the nearby Northeast Atlantic, but is absent from the Black Sea. Outside the Mediterranean, it has been reported from the coast of northwest Africa (Morocco to Senegal), the Canary Islands, Madeira, the Azores, Portugal, and as a vagrant off southern Ireland (Notarbartolo di Sciara 1987, Serena 2005, Ebert and Stehmann 2013). However, close-up expert examination (e.g., morphometric comparison, tooth morphology) is needed to distinguish Giant Devil Ray (Mobula mobular) from Spinetail Devil Ray (Mobula japanica). Spinetail Devil Ray is a circumtropical species also known from the North Atlantic (Notarbartolo di Sciara 1987), hence, past reports of Giant Devil Ray from the Atlantic may have referred to incorrectly identified Spinetail Devil Ray. While the presence of Giant Devil Ray outside of the Mediterranean Sea must be considered uncertain for now, precise diagnoses based on morphological details (e.g., Adnet et al.2012) and genetic analyses will eventually clarify the extent of this species’ range.

population:
The population trend is suspected to be decreasing. With the exception of recent results from an aerial survey in the south-central Adriatic Sea, where a population of 1,595 individuals (coefficient of variation 25%) was estimated (Fortuna et al.2014), there are no overall regional population estimates for this species. It appears to occur in low densities (with group sizes of one to four individuals) throughout its range, although a recent episode in which these rays were mass captured off Gaza (see Threats section) indicates that the species may occasionally occur in large aggregations. The generation length of this species is suspected to be around 20 years, based on the fact that Manta alfredi's is 25 years. A population reduction of at least 50% over three generations (60 years) is suspected for the population of this species.

habitat:
This species occurs both in neritic (Notarbartolo di Sciara and Serena 1988, Bradaï and Capapé 2001, Scacco et al.2009, Holcer et al. 2012) and offshore (Canese et al.2011) waters ranging in depth from a few tens of metres to several thousand metres. Like all devil rays, this species is known as an epipelagic batoid, but it can dive up to 600700 m (Canese et al. 2011).Devil rays are aplacental, live-bearing matrotrophs (i.e., the neonate receives nourishment from uterine milk secretion; Wourms 1977). They give birth to a single large pup. A term embryo of this species was born from a specimen caught in the northern Tyrrhenian Sea in late spring of 1986 (Notarbartolo di Sciara and Serena 1988). The disc width was 166 cm and it weighed 35 kg, making it the largest devil ray embryo on record (Notarbartolo di Sciara 1987). Observations of Notarbartolo di Sciara and Serena (1988) suggest that this species gives birth during the summer in the northern Mediterranean Sea and that a pup could exceed 160 cm disc width at birth. The gestation period is unknown, but it could be one of the longest among Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fish).

threats:
The only known directed fishery for this devil ray was recently discovered in the Levantine Sea. Purse seines are used by Palestinian fishermen in late winter (Couturier et al.2013), and are likely unsustainable.This species is taken incidentally in several fisheries (Baino et al. 2012), including: pelagic driftnets (Muñoz-Chàpuli et al. 1994, Celona 2004, Akyol et al.2005), purse seines (Notarbartolo di Sciara and Bianchi 1998, Hemida et al.2002), trammel nets (Bradaï and Capapé 2001, Holcer et al. 2012), longlines (Orsi Relini et al. 1999, Holcer et al. 2012), bottom trawls (Bauchot 1987, Bradaï and Capapé 2001, Hemida et al.2002), pelagic paired trawls (Scacco et al.2009), fixed tuna traps (Boero and Carli 1979), and hand harpoon (Celona 2004). Pelagic driftnets are banned in the Mediterranean Sea by a number of European, General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean, and International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna regulations; however, significant illegal activities still occur (e.g., in Southern Italy, Morocco and Turkey) and these are likely a continued source of mortality for the species, particularly if trade demand for their gill plates increases.The impacts of habitat degradation on this species are unknown. Given its low trophic position, high levels of contamination from organochlorine compounds or trace elements are unlikely. However, as an epipelagic species it is particularly vulnerable to oil spills, ingestion of microplastics, and disturbance from the high level of maritime traffic.This species is usually discarded when caught as bycatch but occasionally landed and marketed (e.g., in the southern Adriatic coast of Apulia; Relini et al.2010). In March 2013, the media provided evidence of massive catches of Giant Devil Rays off the Gaza Strip (Levantine Sea). In a single episode, over 500 Giant Devil Rays, including some sub-adults, were captured with a local type of purse seine, called “shinshula”, landed and butchered on the beach for local human consumption (Couturier at al.2013). Depending on the size of the total population and the frequency of such events, this pattern of exploitation is likely unsustainable.

conservationAction:
Giant Devil Ray is included in Annex II 'List of endangered or threatened species' to the Protocol concerning Special Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean of the Barcelona Convention, which came into force in 2001, and in Annex II ‘Strictly protected fauna species’ to the Bern Convention. In 2012, parties to the Barcelona Convention agreed that this species cannot be retained on board, transshipped, landed, transferred, stored, sold, displayed or offered for sale, and must be released unharmed and alive, to the extent possible, pursuant to Recommendation GFCM/36/2012/1 (FAO 2012).The Pelagos Sanctuary for Mediterranean Marine Mammals, where the driftnet ban is now effective, affords umbrella protection to this species.Conservation actions recommended for the future include:incorporation of Giant Devil Ray into national legislation of all parties to the   Special Protected Areas and Biological Diversity Protocol to   the Barcelona Convention and the implementation of this   policy.raising awareness with   fishermen to maximise the live release of bycatch, after   disentanglement.formal requests to the governments of   Mediterranean coastal nations (with a special emphasis on   Italy, Morocco and Turkey) to enforce the ban on the use of   pelagic driftnets.inclusion of Giant   Devil Ray in Annex I of the Plan of Conservation of the   Elasmobranchs in the Memorandum of Understanding relating to   the Convention on Migratory Species.inclusion of Giant Devil Ray, alongside   other threatened Mobulaspecies, in the Convention on International Trade in   Endangered Species Appendix   II.urgent investigation, monitoring and sustainable   management of the recently discovered fishery of Giant Devil   Rays off Gaza.

redListAssessors:
Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Serena, F. & Mancusi, C.


taxonomicNotes:
It is unclear whether this, or a similar, species occurs along the east and west African coasts and Mediterranean Sea. A systematic review of this species is needed in these areas.

redListCategoryRationale:
European regional assessment: Vulnerable (VU)Common Eagle Ray (Myliobatis aquila) is a semi-pelagic ray that occurs in eastern Atlantic inshore waters (< 50 m) from the North Sea to South Africa, including the Mediterranean Sea. In the northwest Mediterranean Sea, data from landings and trawl surveys showed that catches declined between 1970 and 1995, and the species became absent from catches and landings altogether in the late 1970s. In northern Mediterranean Sea trawl surveys from 1994–1999 it was recorded in very low numbers. Few data are currently available to assess trends in other areas of the Mediterranean Sea, but given that fishing pressure is high throughout its bathymetric range there, declines are also likely to have occurred elsewhere. No population data are available for the eastern Atlantic, but this species is taken in coastal artisanal fisheries along the coast of western Africa. Therefore, investigation of its status in West African waters is a priority. In European waters, the species is suspected to have declined by at least 30% over three generations (33 years), and it is therefore assessed as Vulnerable under Criterion A2b.

range:
This ray is found throughout the eastern Atlantic down to southern Africa. In the Northeast and Eastern Central Atlantic it is found as far north as Ireland and the North Sea, westwards to Madeira and the Azores, and south to Morocco. It ranges throughout the Mediterranean Sea, but is absent from the Black Sea (Serena 2005). Its depth range is one to 537 m.

population:
This species is found throughout the eastern Atlantic, but commercial landings and trawl survey data are available from the Mediterranean Sea only. Landings data from the Gulf of Lions, France, and the northwest Mediterranean Sea from 1970–1995, and data from a bottom trawl survey from 1957–1995, showed a clear decrease in catches. This decrease, which was likely related to increased fishing effort, led to a total absence of this species in catches and landings after the late 1970s (Aldebert 1997). The International Trawl Survey in the Mediterranean (MEDITS) collected catch data from 1994–1999 at depths of 10–800 m. This species was captured in 37 of 6,336 scientific survey hauls conducted throughout the northern Mediterranean during this period (Baino et al. 2001). Given this information, it is estimated that the Mediterranean Sea subpopulation is declining, and suspected that these declines are occurring throughout this species’ range in European waters. Considering the evidence for local extinctions throughout its range, it is suspected that this species has declined by at least 30% over three generations (33 years).

habitat:
This semi-pelagic ray is found in both inshore and offshore waters. It appears to primarily occur in inshore, coastal areas such as shallow lagoons and estuaries at depths < 50 m, although it has been reported from depths of up to 537 m (Whitehead et al. 1984). In the Mediterranean Sea it is reported to occur on sandy and muddy substrates to 200 m depth (Notarbartolo di Sciara and Bianchi 1998, Serena 2005). It can often be found in groups swimming close to the bottom, and abundances appear to vary by season. In the Adriatic Sea, significantly higher abundances occurred in the summer at a depth range of 10–50 m compared to 50–100 m, while in the autumn no significant difference in abundance by depth was found to occur (Manfredi et al. 2010). Seasonal changes in range were also observed, with a narrower range in the summer (limited to the northern Adriatic and Croatian waters) and a wider range in the autumn (extended to the central Adriatic Sea; Manfredi et al. 2010).This species is live bearing with yolk sac (Whitehead et al. 1984). In the Mediterranean Sea, females give birth to between three and seven pups per litter, after a gestation period of six to eight months (Whitehead et al. 1984, Fischer et al. 1987, Serena 2005). Females mature at 60 cm disc width (DW) and males at 40 cm DW (Fischer et al. 1987, Serena 2005). Reproduction takes place between September and February (Notarbartolo di Sciara and Bianchi 1998). It reaches a maximum size of 150 cm DW and 260 cm total length (Fischer et al. 1987; Notarbartolo di Sciara and Bianchi 1998). Its generation length is estimated to be 11 years.

threats:
This ray is taken as bycatch in various commercial and artisanal fishing gears, such as bottom trawls, purse seines, gillnets and line gear, throughout its range in the Mediterranean Sea and presumably in the tropical eastern Atlantic. The schooling behaviour of this species means that large numbers could be fished out in one haul, and fishermen off West Africa are known to target aggregations of rays (Ebert and Stehman 2013). Loss of habitat from coastal development and pollution may also impact this species. Fisheries have increased in both effort and capacity in the Mediterranean Sea in recent decades (Aldebert 1997). The continental shelf and upper slope of the Mediterranean Sea are exploited heavily to a depth of 800 m, much of which is within this species’ bathymetric range (Massuti and Moranta 2003). An experimental trawl fishery in the Aegean Sea revealed that this species was one of the more prevalent non-commercial species, representing up to 5.9% of the total catch weight during the summer months and 4.3% in the autumn (Gurbet et al. 2013).

conservationAction:
There are no species-specific conservation or management actions in place, but there are general management measures for all skates and rays in European Union waters. In 1999, the European Union (EU) introduced a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for skates and rays of 6,060 tonnes (t) for fisheries operating in the Norwegian Sea (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea [ICES] Division IIa) and North Sea (ICES sub-area IV) based on landing statistics from the previous five years. This TAC has been progressively reduced by 8−25% annually to the current level of 1,256 t. As part of the TAC, the bycatch quota for vessels over 15 meters was set at 25% of live weight of catch retained on board per trip. For much of this period (1999−2014), the TAC was higher than reported landings and therefore not effectively constraining catches. Skate and ray TACs were established for other EU waters in 2009, including the Skagerrak and Kattegat (ICES Division IIIa) and from the northwest coast of Scotland and North Ireland to Portuguese waters (ICES sub-areas VI−IX). These TACs have also been gradually reduced since then. In 2013, the TAC for all skate and ray species grouped was 21,800 tonnes (regulations are available online at http://faolex.fao.org). Additionally, In 2013, the EU banned removal of shark fins on board vessels through Regulation No. 605/2013, in line with advice from the International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission’s Shark Specialist Group and other shark fishery experts, in order to enhance enforcement of the 2003 EU ban on shark finning (Regulation No. 1185/2003) and facilitate improved shark fishery data collection. Monitoring of the species' harvest trends should be undertaken.

useAndTrade:
While there is no information on the catch of this species in targeted fisheries, it is almost certainly targeted in tropical Atlantic artisanal fisheries.

redListAssessors:
Serena, F., Holtzhausen, J., Ebert, D.A. & Mancusi, C.


