Assessing the relevance of sharks and rays for Mediterranean EU fisheries to support a transition from species exploitation to species conservation

Assessing the relevance of sharks and rays for Mediterranean EU fisheries to support a transition from species exploitation to species conservation | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Assessing the relevance of sharks and rays for Mediterranean EU fisheries to support a transition from species exploitation to species conservation Francesco Colloca, Martina Arcioni, Francesca Acampa, Salvatore Valente, and 4 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4630773/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Ten years (2013–2022) of official data on elasmobranchs landed and discarded by European fishing fleets operating in the Mediterranean Sea were analysed with the primary objective of assessing the significance of shark and ray catches for the main fleet segments across five Mediterranean regions (i.e. Western, Central and Eastern Mediterranean, Ionian Sea, Adriatic Sea). The annual elasmobranch catches ranged from 3,200 to 5,800 tons, declining consistently from 2020 to 2022. Four fishing gears (i.e. bottom trawls, longlines, trammel nets, and gillnets) contributed over 96.6% of the reported catch, with notable variations among regions. Bottom trawlers accounted for approximately 75% of catches, discarding around 40%; fixed nets and longlines had minimal discard rates (< 2.5%). The Western Mediterranean contributed the most to total catches (2,057 − 3,229 tons/year), followed by the Adriatic Sea. Generalized Additive Models revealed a significant correlation between catches and fishing effort, indicating increasing catches at high fishing effort levels. Reported landings included species absent in the Mediterranean and considered rare or extremely rare in the basin, highlighting the need for better species reporting. The average contribution of sharks and rays to the total annual landings of Mediterranean fleets was 1.66% in weight and 0.60% in value, totaling approximately 96.4 million euros over the decade, compared to the overall value of 15.8 billion euros for the whole landing. As elasmobranchs no longer represent a substantial revenue stream for Mediterranean fleets, implementing conservation measures to restore depleted shark and ray populations will likely have minimal impact on the economic sustainability of fisheries. bycatch elasmobranchs landing value Mediterranean fishing fleets shark conservation threatened species Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 INTRODUCTION Chondrichthyans (i.e. sharks, rays and chimaeras) comprise over 1,200 species and represent one of the oldest and most ecologically diverse vertebrate lineages. Unfortunately, they are also among the most threatened by human activities, with the main driver being overfishing, followed by others such as habitat degradation, climate change and pollution (Dulvy et al. 2021 ; Pacoureau et al. 2021 ). Among chondrichthyans, sharks and rays (elasmobranchs) play a pivotal role in marine ecosystems, as their decline or disappearance can trigger trophic cascade effects, potentially disrupting the ecosystem’s balance (Ferretti et al. 2010 ). Consequently, there is growing recognition of the importance of moving from elasmobranch exploitation to conservation in global fisheries management, a shift that is increasingly recognized as crucial for rebuilding depleted populations and restoring marine ecosystems (Dulvy et al. 2021 ; Jorgensen et al. 2022 ). According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List, over half (53%, 39 out of 73) of the Mediterranean elasmobranch species assessed are currently classified as threatened: 11% are categorized as Vulnerable (VU), 15% as Endangered (EN), and 27% as Critically Endangered (CR) (Walls and Dulvy 2020 ). The percentage rises to 65% if the predicted status of Data Deficient (DD) species is also considered (Walls and Dulvy 2020 ). Most of them fall into category A2, meaning that their estimated populations have declined by 50% or more over the past decade or three generations (Dulvy et al. 2016 ; IUCN Standards and Petitions Committee 2024 ). Even more concerning is the steady worsening of the extinction risk faced by Mediterranean sharks and rays since the 1980s, with an 18% increase in species listed as threatened between 1980 and 2015 (Walls and Dulvy 2021 ), and which exceeds that of any other vertebrate lineage assessed on a global scale, second only to amphibians (IPBES 2019; Dulvy et al. 2021 ). The bad conservation status of many elasmobranch species is linked to their K -selected life history traits, which result in low rebound potential and low resilience to fishing mortality (Myers and Worm 2003 ; Dulvy et al. 2014 ). Overfishing for sharks and rays is fuelled by the high demand for shark meat and fins, which encourages capturing and retaining high-value export species, including many threatened ones (Cardeñosa et al. 2022 ). The total catches reported in the last ten years amount to 690–790 thousand tons (FAO 2021); however, this figure is likely underestimated, considering that a substantial proportion of catches (e.g. bycatch and discarded catches) are misreported or not recorded in official catch statistics (Clarke et al. 2006 ; Helyar et al. 2014 ; Fields et al. 2018 ; Di Lorenzo et al. 2022 ). Moreover, data on elasmobranchs from commercial fisheries may be limited and of low quality, significantly hindering stock assessment and management efforts (Davidson et al. 2015 ; Oliver et al. 2015 ; Cashion et al. 2019). The Mediterranean Sea is among the richest regions in the world in terms of elasmobranch biodiversity; it hosts over 80 described species displaying a broad spectrum of functional diversity and ranging from small to medium-sized benthic rays to demersal sharks and large apex predators, such as the white shark ( Carcharodon carcharia s, Lamnidae), mako ( Isurus spp., Lamnidae), and hammerhead ( Sphyrna spp., Sphyrnidae) (Serena et al. 2020 ). Unfortunately, the basin is also a hot spot for fishing, with fisheries that have directly or indirectly exploited sharks and rays for centuries. The regional pristine elasmobranch diversity has been deeply eroded in many coastal areas, where declines and disappearances of several species have been observed (Ferretti et al. 2008 ; Fortibuoni et al. 2016 ; Colloca et al. 2017a ). This is particularly true for large pelagic sharks, whose populations have started to show a decreasing trend since the beginning of the last century (Ferretti et al. 2008 ). The spatiotemporal dynamics of population depletion have recently been reconstructed from historical data and catch records for some species, such as smooth-hounds ( Mustelus spp., Triakidae) (Colloca et al. 2017a ), angelsharks ( Squatina spp., Squatinidae) (Giovos et al. 2019 ; Lawson et al. 2020 ), the sand tiger shark ( Carcharias taurus , Odontaspididae) (Bargnesi et al. 2020 ), and the white shark (Moro et al. 2020). Regional extinction was also hypothesised to have occurred in the 1960s-1970s for the two species of sawfish ( Pristis pristis and P. pectinata , Pristidae), historically present in areas close to large rivers with light human impact (Ferretti et al. 2016 ). In most cases, population declines began many decades ago, long before the development of scientific monitoring, making quantitative assessments of the phenomenon very challenging due to the lack of standardized data, thus enhancing the effects of the shifting baseline syndrome (Pauly 1995 ). Fishers have reported a rapid reduction of elasmobranch catch following the fast expansion of large-scale fisheries after World War II (Colloca et al. 2020 ; Barbato et al. 2021 ); as a result, elasmobranch populations have generally declined to the extent that they are no longer targeted by specific fisheries, except for some shark species in a few remaining areas of the Mediterranean Sea (Ceyhan et al. 2010 ; Echwikhi et al. 2013 ; Saidi et al. 2019 ). Individuals of many elasmobranch species assessed as “Endangered” or “Critically Endangered” by the IUCN Mediterranean Red List are unintentionally caught as bycatch and discarded or landed despite their generally low market value. The General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) reported the capture of about 25,300 specimens belonging to various conservation-priority species in the period 2008–2019; of these catches, longliners (drifting + set longlines) were responsible for 55%, followed by small-scale fisheries (18%), bottom trawlers (13%), pelagic trawlers (11%), and purse and tuna seiners (3%) (Carpentieri et al. 2021 ). Unlike other threatened marine species like marine mammals and sea turtles, which benefit from complete protection in the Mediterranean Sea through a range of international conventions and national regulations, chondrichthyans are only partially protected. Only 28% of sharks and rays currently benefit from the legal protection framework of the GFCM; the remaining species, including those listed in Annex III of the SPA/BD Protocol, can be regularly fished and marketed despite their current assessment status. For this reason, management challenges frequently arise in identifying protected versus non-protected species with certainty, especially for management and control bodies responsible for imposing administrative sanctions. Species protected or listed in threatened categories of the IUCN Red List are often found in local markets, typically mislabeled or associated with illegal trading practices, proving that species misidentification in official statistics is still a significant issue in various Mediterranean sectors and fisheries (Giovos et al. 2020 , 2021 ; Giagkazoglou et al. 2022). In recent years, there has been a growing demand from the scientific community for more effective protection of Mediterranean elasmobranchs (Milazzo et al. 2021 ; Di Lorenzo et al. 2022 ). Yet, when considering the implementation of more stringent protection measures which may also entail reductions in fishing opportunities, assessing the impact of such measures on the fishing economy becomes crucial. In this context, using official fisheries statistics, our study aims to evaluate the significance of elasmobranchs for Mediterranean fisheries in EU countries. We analysed the official catch records from 2013–2022 to assess the potential impacts of more restrictive measures on EU fishing fleets to limit the bycatch of Mediterranean sharks and rays. Additionally, we discussed the reliability and relevance of official catch statistics for species management and conservation. MATERIALS AND METHODS Official catch, landing values, and effort data were extracted from the Fisheries Dependent Information (FDI) repository of the EU Joint Research Centre. These data were submitted by countries following an official call launched by the European Commission requesting Member States to provide aggregated scientific data from their national data collection programmes (Commission Decisions 2021/1167 and 2021/1168). Catch data are aggregated by species, fleet segment, vessel length class, fishing gear, geographical area, quarter, and year (from 2013 to 2022). Once extracted, the FDI data were merged with the FAO ASFIS List of Species for Fishery Statistics Purposes to add taxonomic information (e.g. scientific name, family and higher taxonomic classification) to the FAO 3-Alpha Species Codes used in the FDI database. Each species was assigned to a higher taxonomic group (e.g. crustaceans, cephalopods, teleosts, chondrichthyans, etc.), and the proportion of elasmobranch landings and their corresponding value relative to the total were calculated per subregion, fleet segment, and year. FDI official effort data include different effort variables aggregated by geographical area, quarter of the year, fishing technique and gear, vessel length, and metier; here, we used the total annual fishing days * engine power expressed in kilowatt (kW) aggregated for each fishing gear as the effort variable. Both catch and effort data were spatially aggregated at the Mediterranean Geographical Sub-Areas (GSAs) level. We assigned each GSA to a specific region as follows: Western Mediterranean (WM): GSAs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.1, 11.2; Central Mediterranean (CM): GSAs 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21; Eastern Mediterranean (EM): GSAs 22, 23, 24, 25, 26; Adriatic Sea (AS): GSAs 17, 18; Ionian Sea (IS): GSAs 19, 20 (Fig. 1 a). Generalized Additive Models (GAMs) were then used to estimate the relationship between the total catch ( C , landings + discards) as a function of the total effort ( E ), Region , quarter ( Q ), and time ( t ). The spatiotemporal sampling unit was the single GSA in each quarter of the year. We considered only the first five main fishing gears to estimate the model, aggregated as follows: trawlers = bottom trawls (OTB); nets = set gillnets (GNS) + trammel nets (GTR); longlines = drifting longlines (LLD) + set longlines (LLS). We included an interaction term between the smooth terms and the gear to estimate a different function for each gear category. Gear, Region and quarter were also included as parametric terms. The model structure was: $$g\left({C}_{i}\right) ={\beta }_{0} + {f}_{1}\left({g(E}_{i}\right)) * {\left[gear\right]}_{j} +{f}_{2}({t}_{i}) * {\left[gear\right]}_{j} + {{\beta }_{k}\left[Region\right]}_{k} + {\beta }_{p}{\left[quarter\right]}_{p} + {\beta }_{j}{\left[gear\right]}_{j} + {\epsilon }_{i}$$ Here, \({C}_{i}\) is the log-transformed ( \(g= log \left(x+1\right)\) ) catch in each GSA per quarter; \({\beta }_{0}\) is the model intercept; \({f}_{\text{1,2}}\) are the smooth terms; \({E}_{i}\) is the log-transformed effort; \({t}_{i}\) is the time unit (GSA-Quarter); \({{\beta }_{k}\left[Region\right]}_{k}\) , \({\beta }_{p}{\left[quarter\right]}_{p}\) , \({\beta }_{j}{\left[gear\right]}_{j}\) are the parametric terms; \({\epsilon }_{i}\) is the random error term. The residuals of the model were tested for normality, homoscedasticity, and autocorrelation. Catch data ( C ), for each quarter of the year in each GSA, were combined with effort data ( E = total fishing days * kW) to compute elasmobranch catch per unit of effort ( CPUE = C/E) by gear and region. To assess the effect of fishing gear and region on the calculated CPUE, we transformed the CPUE data values into their ranks (from 1 for the smallest to N for the largest, where N is the combined data sample size); indeed, a rank-based procedure has been recommended as being robust to non-normal errors, resistant to outliers, and highly efficient for many distributions (McKean et al. 2014). We computed a parametric two-way ANOVA on the data ranks to determine whether the latter differed from group to group (Conover and Iman 1981 ). Post-hoc comparisons were also performed on the data ranks to determine differences among regions using the R package ‘emmeans’ (Searle et al. 1980 ). Such estimated marginal means (EMMs) for linear, generalized linear and mixed models compute contrasts or linear functions of EMMs, trends and comparisons of slopes. RESULTS Trends in elasmobranch landings and discards The total annual amount of elasmobranch catches of EU fleets in the Mediterranean Sea ranged between 3,079 and 5,656 tons in the period 2013-2022, with a consistent reduction in 2020-2022 (Table 1). Four fishing gears, namely bottom trawls (OTB), longlines (LLS + LLD), trammel nets (GTR) and gillnets (GNS), contributed more than 96.6% of the total reported catches, with wide differences among Mediterranean regions (Fig. 1b). The Western Mediterranean (WM) contributed the most (2,057-3,230 tons/year) at the regional level. The Adriatic Sea (AS) was second, with an increasing trend from 2013 (652 tons) to 2019 (1,671 tons), followed by a sharp decline in the last years. The Central Mediterranean (CM) exhibited a similar trend, with an increase in catches from 2013 (365 tons) to 2019 (900 tons), followed by a surprising decrease, ending with a minimum value of 207 tons in 2022. The reported catches in the last two Mediterranean regions were low and with large interannual fluctuations; specifically, the annual catch in the Eastern Mediterranean (EM) ranged from 1.7 to 83 tons in 2013-2021, with a sharp increase to 142 tons in 2022, whereas the Ionian Sea (IS) recorded a decreasing trend in catches, starting from 110-120 tons at the beginning of the series and ending with 26 tons only in 2022, similarly to what was observed for the central Mediterranean Sea (Fig. 1b). The fraction of elasmobranchs discarded varied between 22% and 36% of the total annual catch (30.3% over the whole period) (Table 1); however, it is crucial to note that discard data were only available for 17% of the records, while 27% of the data was reported as “Confidential” and the remaining 56% was marked as “Not Available” (NAs). Therefore, the proportion of discards remains highly uncertain, with a high probability of being significantly misreported. Bottom trawlers accounted for 75% of total catches throughout the entire time series, and approximately 40% of elasmobranchs caught were discarded (Fig. 1c, Table 1). By contrast, the percentage of discards was significantly lower for the other fishing gear categories, with less than 2% for gillnets and less than 1% for trammel nets and longlines. The proportion of reported discards was not homogeneously distributed across regions, showing that western Mediterranean trawlers contributed to more than 90% of all regional discards (Fig. 1d). Table 1 Total catch (in tons) by fishing gear and year. The average percentage of discards from 2013-2022 is also indicated (fishing gear codes: GNS = gillnets, GTR = trammel nets, LLS-LLD = longlines, OTB = bottom trawlers) Gear 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Discards (%) GNS 200.6 186.1 209.0 189.2 289.0 270.1 293.7 222.2 297.1 340.0 1.51 GTR 255.9 326.5 198.0 354.8 380.1 321.5 329.7 274.7 353.4 371.3 0.83 LLS+LLD 229.4 427.7 292.7 244.1 231.2 238.5 255.7 211.7 230.6 159.0 0.47 OTB 2,552.2 3,503.8 2,463.7 2,673.4 3,058.7 4,063.9 4,547.0 2,232.0 2,473.0 2,259.1 39.67 Others 107.3 132.9 119.7 132.7 136.2 168.7 183.5 131.2 147.9 156.4 3.36 Total 3,345.4 4,577.0 3,283.1 3,594.2 4,095.2 5,062.7 5,609.6 3,071.8 3,502.0 3,285.8 30.32 The GAMs revealed a significant positive relationship between the total annual amount of elasmobranch catches and the fishing effort, with similar patterns across different fishing gears (Fig. 2a-b-c). For both nets (GNR + GTR) and longlines (LLS + LLD), catches were related to the fishing effort through an exponential relationship on the log scale, yet the uncertainty increases for high and low effort values. Furthermore, the model estimated a slight increase in catches for nets during the time series while indicating a slight decrease for longlines. No significant temporal effect was detected for trawlers (Fig. 2d-e-f). Regions exhibited significant differences, with AS, CM and WM displaying higher average catches than the others (Table 2, Fig. 2g). As expected, trawl displayed significantly higher average catches than longlines and nets (Fig. 2h). Finally, the model highlighted the presence of seasonal variations in the average reported catches, with a peak in spring (Quarter-2) and a reduction in autumn (Quarter-4) (Table 2, Fig. 2i). Table 2 Results of the Generalized Additive Models (GAMs) for elasmobranch catches of trawlers, nets and longlines. The parametric coefficients and the significant smooth term (effort) are shown GAM Model Term Beta (95% CI) 1 p-value Parametric Terms Region WM — CM -0.25 (-0.34 to -0.16) <0.001 AS 0.07 (-0.04 to 0.17) 0.23 IS -1.4 (-1.5 to -1.3) <0.001 EM -1.5 (-1.6 to -1.4) <0.001 Fishing gear LLS — Nets -0.18 (-0.27 to -0.10) <0.001 OTB 0.52 (0.42 to 0.62) <0.001 Quarter 1 (Winter) — 2 (Spring) 0.07 (-0.02 to 0.16) 0.13 3 (Summer) -0.07 (-0.16 to 0.02) 0.12 4 (Autumn) -0.14 (-0.23 to -0.05) 0.002 Non-parametric Terms Fishing effort LLS <0.001 Fishing effort Nets <0.001 Fishing effort OTB <0.001 Temporal trend LLS <0.001 Temporal trend Nets <0.001 Temporal trend OTB 0.72 1 CI = Confidence Interval Adjusted R 2 = 0.62, Fitted deviance = 62.7%, n = 2780 Significant differences in CPUE emerged from the two-way ANOVA among regions for the four main fishing gears. In the case of bottom trawling, the CPUE values of elasmobranchs were significantly higher in WM, intermediate for AS and CM, while EM and IS showed the lowest values (Fig. 3a) . This pattern was similar for the other fishing gears (Fig. 3b-c), with the sole exception of longlines, which showed relatively higher CPUE in the Adriatic and Central Mediterranean Sea (Fig. 3d). Fig. 3 CPUE (year-quarter catch/year-quarter total days at sea * KW) marginal means of elasmobranchs for the main fishing gears and Mediterranean region. Non-overlapping bars indicate significant differences (p<0.05) among regions Species composition of the catch FDI catch statistics provided landing data of 330 different shark and ray taxa, of which 284 are reported at the species level. Some landings are attributed to species that are not present in the Mediterranean Sea, such as the knifetooth dogfish ( Scymnodon ringens , Somniosidae), the leafscale gulper shark ( Centrophorus squamosus , Centrophoridae), the tiger shark ( Galeocerdo cuvier , Galeocerdonidae), the winter skate ( Leucoraja ocellat a, Rajidae), and the black dogfish ( Centroscyllium fabricii , Etmopteridae). Other landings are associated with protected species, such as the angelshark ( Squatina squatina , Squatinidae), the school shark ( Galeorhinus galeus , Triakidae), and hammerhead sharks, as well as rare species, such as the bottlenose skate ( Rostroraja alba , Rajidae), Leucoraja naevus (Rajidae), and the sharpnose sevengill shark ( Heptranchias perlo , Hexanchidae). The thornback ray ( Raja clavata , Rajidae) and the small-spotted catshark ( Scyliorhinus canicula , Scyliorhinidae) were the most landed species, with 5,955 tons and 4,482 tons, respectively, over the entire period. They were followed by the smooth-hounds Mustelus mustelus and M. punctulatus , the starry ray ( Raja asterias , Rajidae), the blackmouth catshark ( Galeus melastomus , Scyliorhinidae), and Rajidae in general. The blue shark ( Prionace glauca , Carcharhinidae) landings were mainly associated with longline activities, while trawlers principally landed all other species (Fig. 4a). A table showing landings by species, region and fishing gear is provided in Supplementary Information (Table S1). As for discards, they primarily consisted of the small-spotted catshark (72.1%), for a total of over 8,000 tons discarded in the period 2013-2022, and the blackmouth shark, with 2,500 tons (20.5%) (Fig. 4b). A smaller percentage of discards was attributed to the starry ray (4.4%), followed by the spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias , Squalidae), the thornback ray, and the brown ray ( Raja miraletus , Rajidae). Contribution of elasmobranchs in weight and economic value to the overall fisheries landings The average contribution of sharks and rays to the total annual landings of EU Mediterranean fleets was 0.76% in weight and 0.61% in gross commercial value over the whole period (2013-2022). The average value of elasmobranch landings was about 9.6 million euros per year against a total annual value of commercial landings of 1.57 billion euros. The average annual proportion of elasmobranchs landed was generally below 3% in most of the Mediterranean GSAs, with the only exception of the Balearic Islands (GSA 5: 3.8%), the Strait of Sicily (GSAs 13, 14, 16: 2-4%), the offshore waters of Libya (GSA 21: 3.7%), and the northern side of the Alboran Sea (GSAs 1, 2: 1-4%) (Fig. 5a). The lowest proportion of elasmobranchs landed on the total (<0.9%) was observed in the Eastern Mediterranean (GSAs 22, 23, 24, 25, 26), Adriatic Sea (GSAs 17, 18), Ionian Sea (GSAs 19, 20), northern Spain (GSA 6), and southern Tyrrhenian Sea (GSA 10). As a result, elasmobranch landing values were very low and proportionally less than 1% of the total catch value in most GSAs. The highest proportional value was achieved in GSA 21 (1.31%), GSA 14 (1.27%), and GSA 5 (1.20%) (Fig. 5b). The average proportion of elasmobranchs in the total landing was similar for the three groups of fishing gears: 3.47% for OTB, 3.75% for GTR-GNS, and 3.41% for LLS-LLD (Fig. 6a). Such proportion decreases to 1.07% (OTB), 1.16% (LLS-LLD), and 1.52% (GTR-GNS) in terms of elasmobranch contribution to the total gross value of landings (Fig. 6b). Irrespective of the fishing gear, the Central Mediterranean, Adriatic Sea and Western Mediterranean were the most relevant regions in terms of proportion of elasmobranchs in the total landing. The average value per kilogram of elasmobranchs landed was approximately half of the average value of the rest of the landings for both OTB and GTR-GNS, and it was 2.6 times lower for LLS-LLD (Table 3). Table 3 Average value per kilogram of elasmobranchs and corresponding value of the rest of the landing for fishing gear Fishing gear Elasmobranchs (€/kg) Other species landed (€/kg) Trawl 3.14 6.78 Trammel nets & Gillnets 4.07 8.07 Longlines 2.84 7.52 Others 3.21 2.24 DISCUSSION Despite being the most crucial source of information to guide fisheries management in EU Mediterranean waters, the quality of official data (EU Fisheries Dependent Information: FDI) on Mediterranean elasmobranch catches has not been thoroughly examined until now. In this study, we analysed ten years of official catch statistics to elucidate the current relevance of elasmobranchs for EU fishing fleets operating in the Mediterranean Sea. We found that the official annual amount of elasmobranch catches by EU Mediterranean fleets was relatively low, ranging between 2,100 and 5,500 tons, corresponding to 0.76% of the total landings, and with a consistent reduction in 2020–2022. This figure is likely to be underestimated, considering that sharks and rays are frequently caught as bycatch and discarded at sea, presumably leading to lower reporting accuracy compared to the main commercial species. Globally, chondrichthyans represent 1–2% of annual landings (Worm et al. 2013 ). Similarly, according to FAO landing statistics for the Mediterranean region, the percentage of cartilaginous fish in landings is 1.15% (Bradai et al. 2018 ). Updated FAO data show that the regional annual landing of elasmobranchs was about 12,000 tons in 2022, with 73% produced in Tunisia and Libya (Fig. 7 ). This figure is almost half of that reported in the early 1980s, in fact landings by EU Mediterranean fishing fleets have steadily decreased over the last 20 years, particularly among Italian fleets. While Tunisian production has seen an increase, since the early 1980s there has been an extremely significant reduction in Turkish landings. As observed globally, the trend towards reduced elasmobranch landings in the Mediterranean is likely due to a decline in population abundance rather than the result of management implementation (Davidson et al. 2015 ). Our analysis indicates, in any case, that elasmobranchs are no longer a valuable economic resource for EU fishing fleets in the Mediterranean Sea, and this underscores the feasibility of implementing more stringent catch limitation measures to support the transition from species exploitation to species conservation. Indeed, according to FDI data, the average annual gross value of the landed fraction of elasmobranchs was slightly less than 10 million euros, corresponding to 0.61% of the total average annual gross value of fishing landings. The limited economic relevance of sharks and rays is also due to their relatively low selling price, which corresponds to around half of the selling price of the rest of the species landed. The only exceptions are few areas where elasmobranchs still play a relatively important role in local fishing communities. Specifically, these areas are the Balearic Islands, the southern sectors of the Strait of Sicily (GSAs 13 and 14), Malta Island, Sardinia and Corsica, where elasmobranch catches account for a proportion ranging between 2.3% and 5.5% of the total catch. It is worth noting that these areas are considered among the least impacted by fishing in the Mediterranean Sea, where trawl surveys have also indicated the highest abundance and diversity of elasmobranchs (Follesa et al. 2019 ). Regional differences in fishing catches are reflected in observed differences in the catch per unit of effort (CPUE), with the Western Mediterranean (WM), Central Mediterranean (CM), and Adriatic Sea (AS) generally showing higher CPUEs than the Eastern Mediterranean (EM) and Ionian Sea (IS). A 50% decline in elasmobranch CPUE in trawling was observed in the Aegean Sea between the mid-1990s and mid-2000s, accompanied by an approximately 33% decrease in species richness (Damalas and Vassilopoulou 2011 ). Similarly, a 40% reduction in longline CPUE was observed in the Gulf of Gabes between 2007–2008 and 2016–2017 (Saidi et al. 2019 ). It is important to underline that, although the CPUE should reflect differences in species abundance, other factors influencing the results cannot be ruled out, such as differences in spatial patterns of fishing activities, accuracy in catch reporting by fishermen, etc. Indeed, recent studies show that illegal fishing, illegal trade, misreporting and mislabelling of elasmobranchs are still standard practices in some areas of the Mediterranean (Barbuto et al. 2010 ; Di Pinto et al. 2015 ; Giovos et al. 2020 , 2021 ; Marchetti et al. 2020 ). However, considering that the overall status of Mediterranean elasmobranch populations worsened from 1980 to 2015, with the percentage of threatened species rising from 47–65% (Walls and Dulvy 2021 ), it is plausible that the existing management regime and conservation instruments, such as the Barcelona Convention, along with the progress made in regional fisheries management measures over the last 30 years, have not been sufficient or comprehensive enough to halt overfishing and achieve the significant reduction in mortality necessary for population rebuilding. Elasmobranch catches were mainly produced by trawling fleets (80%), while nets and longlines contributed another 15% of the total, with high differences among Mediterranean regions. The fraction of elasmobranchs discarded represented a percentage equal to 23–39% of the total catches each year and was mainly produced by bottom trawlers in the Western Mediterranean. Discards were about 40% for trawlers and less than 1.5% for fixed nets and longlines, in line with a previous study conducted by Di Lorenzo et al. ( 2022 ). Trawling is undoubtedly a highly impactful activity for elasmobranchs in the Mediterranean Sea as it is known to have the most considerable bycatch of sharks and rays; therefore, its management is crucial for the conservation of benthic and demersal species (Damalas and Vassilopoulou 2011 ; Oliver et al. 2015 ; Colloca et al. 2017b ; Bradai et al. 2018 ). The small-spotted catshark was the most discarded species, accounting for 72.7% of the total discarded elasmobranchs. As previously reported, the species is one of the main shark bycatches by Spanish trawlers in the WM, with only a fraction of the largest individuals being landed, while the rest of the catch is discarded (Carbonell et al. 2003 ; Blanco et al. 2023 ). The second most frequently discarded species was the blackmouth shark, accounting for about 20% of the total. This species is primarily caught by trawlers targeting deep-sea crustaceans, such as Norway lobsters ( Nephrops norvegicus , Nephropidae) and giant red shrimps ( Aristaeomorpha foliacea and Aristeus antennatus , Aristeidae) (Gorelli et al. 2016 ). Discard data were often unavailable in FDI datasets, with most records categorised as “Confidential” or “Not Available”, suggesting that the actual discard figure is probably much higher than what was officially reported. For example, the percentage of chondrichthyans discarded in Aegean trawl fisheries was about 64% by weight, with only a few species represented in the landings (Damalas and Vassilopoulou 2011 ), yet in FDI data for the Aegean Sea, reported discards represents only a small fraction of elasmobranchs landed. The widespread issue regarding poor coverage of discard reporting, even of commercial species, and the lack of consistency across EU fisheries have been extensively deliberated by working groups of fisheries scientists, who suggest that the current quality of discard estimates cannot be guaranteed and should therefore be used with caution (Tsagarakis et al. 2017 ; Cashion et al. 2019; STECF 2024). The main landings were attributed to some of the most common Mediterranean commercial species, such as the thornback ray and the small-spotted catshark (Follesa et al. 2019 ), followed by smooth-hounds, the starry ray, and Rajidae in general. Notably, the critically endangered blue shark, already identified as the most common bycatch species of fishing vessels using surface longlines to target swordfish ( Xiphias gladius , Xiphiidae) (Megalofonou et al. 2005 ; Biton-PorSmoguer and Lloret 2018 ), was the most landed species of longliners in FDI data. Interestingly, increasing trends of the small-spotted catshark, the blackmouth catshark and the thornback ray have been observed in recent years in the Western Mediterranean (WM) (Ramírez-Amaro et al. 2020 ), which could potentially explain the higher CPUE of elasmobranchs in WM trawl fisheries compared to other regions of the Mediterranean, as indicated by the FDI data. Additionally, such increasing trends could be linked to the relatively high survival rate of these species after being discarded at sea (Rodriguez-Cabello et al. 2005; Enever et al. 2009 ). The present results highlight how FDI catch statistics might be considered sufficiently reliable for the most common and easily recognizable elasmobranch species, though raising concerns regarding the reporting procedure of those species less commonly caught and challenging to identify visually on board. Official statistics primarily rely on declarations, including electronic logbooks and landing registries, which are supplemented by data from sales notes and field data collection (STECF 2021). For elasmobranchs, significant issues exist in fishers’ taxonomic identification, which may compromise the quality of catch declarations. As evidence of this, here we found landing data for several species that do not occur in the Mediterranean Sea, as well as for extremely rare and protected ones. Inconsistencies in FDI data inevitably raise concerns about their potential use to support elasmobranch management in the region. It is widely acknowledged that elasmobranch bycatch is seldom recorded at the species level and is often misreported in official fishery statistics (Jorgensen et al. 2022 ). As discussed by Cashion et al. (2019), who examined the quality of catches reported by Mediterranean countries to FAO, less than 25% of shark catches reported to FAO are identified below the genus level. Therefore, inferring the annual elasmobranch mortality from reported annual landings is likely to result in a substantial underestimation of the actual magnitude of fishing-related mortality (Clarke et al. 2006 ; Davidson et al. 2015 ; Oliver et al. 2015 ). European monitoring programs for commercial fisheries should be expanded to improve catch statistics for bycatch species and for elasmobranchs; good practices for data collection and monitoring must involve supportive material for fishers in species identification, such as providing simplified identification keys or compiling the logbook with the assistance of trained fishery observers, possibly on board or at least in the main landing ports. Although the EU and the GFCM have implemented several legal instruments in recent years to support the conservation of threatened species (including catch reporting obligations, catch limitations, finning practice obligations, etc.), the general perception is that these regulations need to be better known and applied by fishers. Indeed, raising awareness within the fishing community about the importance of endorsing these instruments and supporting species conservation efforts is crucial for making elasmobranch management more effective in the region. Given the current uncertainty regarding fisheries’ impact on Mediterranean elasmobranchs, which is also exacerbated by the uncertain quality of official catch data from EU fleets, adopting a precautionary approach (PA) would be essential (Koehler et al. 2022 ). This would imply using the best available scientific knowledge to enhance conservation measures for this group. The application of PA is integrated within the FAO International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA-SHARKS, FAO 1999) and the European Action Plan for Sharks (EPOA-SHARKS, European Commission 2009 ), the latter stating that a strategy for action should be based on sound scientific information. In recent years, there has been a surge in studies on species ecology, temporal abundance trends, and the impact of fisheries on elasmobranch populations. For example, increasing efforts are being made to delineate nursery grounds and other essential fish habitats, such as areas where spawning or mating aggregations occur; this growing body of knowledge could support the establishment of conservation measures for threatened elasmobranchs (e.g. Colloca et al. 2015 ; Bonanomi et al. 2018 ; Chaikin et al. 2020 ; Zemah-Shamir et al. 2022 ; Grancagnolo et al. 2023 ). In this direction, the “Important Shark and Ray Areas” (ISRAs) initiative (Jabado et al. 2023 ), supported by the Shark Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission, aims to delineate critical habitats/areas for protection. Additionally, efforts to limit bycatch through appropriately designed technical measures on fishing gears (e.g. magnetic deterrents), as well as landing bans for species at very low abundance in certain areas (such as smooth-hounds in the Western Mediterranean), should be also considered as potentially effective measures. In conclusion, considering the poor conservation status of sharks and rays in the Mediterranean basin and their low value for European fishing fleets, there should be no major obstacles to the adoption of management plans that include a range of measures to limit the bycatches of these species. If shared with fishermen, these plans represent the only concrete opportunity to reverse current declining trends and rebuild elasmobranch populations in Mediterranean waters. Declarations Competing Interests: The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article. Author Contribution F.C.: Conceptualization, Investigation, Resources, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft. F.C. and S.M.: Data curation, Methodology. S.V. and S.M.: Formal analysis, Software, Visualization. M.A., F.A., S.V., D.V., M.D.L. and G.M.: Writing – Review & Editing. Data Availability The dataset presented in this study is openly available in the Fisheries Dependent Information (FDI) repository of the EU Joint Research Centre at https://stecf.ec.europa.eu/data-dissemination/fdi_en. FAO ASFIS List of Species for Fishery Statistics Purposes was retrieved on 4/4/2024 at https://www.fao.org/fishery/en/collection/asfis/en. FAO annual statistics data on elasmobranch landings was retrieved on 4/4/2024 at https://www.fao.org/fishery/en/statistics/software/fishstatj. References Barbato, M., Barría, C., Bellodi, A., Bonanomi, S., Borme, D., Ćetković, I., Colloca, F., Colmenero, A., Crocetta, F., De Carlo, F., Demir, E., Di Lorenzo, M., Follesa, M., Garibaldi, F., Giglio, G., Giovos, I., Guerriero, G., Hentati, O., Ksibi, M., Kruschel, C., Lanteri, L., Leonetti, F., Ligas, A., Madonna, A., Matić Skoko, S., Mimica, R., Moutopoulos, D., Mulas, A., Nerlović, V., Pešić, A., Porcu, C., Riginella, E., Sperone, E., Tsouknidas, K., Tunçer, S., Vrdoljak, D., & Mazzoldi, C. (2021). The use of fishers’ Local Ecological Knowledge to reconstruct fish behavioural traits and fishers’ perception of conservation relevance of elasmobranchs in the Mediterranean Sea. Mediterranean Marine Science, 22(3), 603-622. https://doi.org/10.12681/mms.25306 Barbuto, M., Galimberti, A., Ferri, E., Labra, M., Malandra, R., Galli, P., & Casiraghi, M. (2010). DNA barcoding reveals fraudulent substitutions in shark seafood products: The Italian case of “palombo” (Mustelus spp.). Food Research International, 43, 376-381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2009.10.009 Bargnesi, F., Gridelli, S., Cerrano, C., & Ferretti, F. (2020). Reconstructing the history of the sand tiger shark (Carcharias taurus) in the Mediterranean Sea. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 30, 915–927. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3301 Biton-Porsmoguer, S., & Lloret, J. (2018). Potentially unsustainable fisheries of a critically-endangered pelagic shark species: the case of the blue shark (Prionace glauca) in the Western Mediterranean Sea. Cybium, 42(3), 299-302. https://doi.org/10.26028/CYBIUM/2018-423-008 Blanco, M., Francisco, D., Lombarte, A., Recasens, L., & Galimany, E. (2023). Characterization of discards along a wide bathymetric range from a trawl fishery in the NW Mediterranean. Fisheries Research, 258, 106552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2022.106552 Bonanomi, S., Pulcinella, J., Fortuna, C.M., Moro, F., & Sala, A. (2018). Elasmobranch bycatch in the Italian Adriatic pelagic trawl fishery. PLoS ONE, 13(1), e0191647. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191647 Bradai, M., Saïdi, B., & Enajjar, S. (2018). Overview on Mediterranean Shark’s Fisheries: Impact on the Biodiversity. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74923 Carbonell, A., Alemany, F., Merella, P., Quetglas, A., & Roman, E. (2003). The by-catch of sharks in the western Mediterranean (Balearic Islands) trawl fishery. Fisheries Research - FISH RES, 61, 7-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(02)00242-4 Cardeñosa, D., Shea, S., Zhang, H., Fischer, G., Simpfendorfer, C., & Chapman, D. (2022). Two thirds of species in a global shark fin trade hub are threatened with extinction: Conservation potential of international trade regulations for coastal sharks. Conservation Letters, 15. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12910 Carpentieri, P., Nastasi, A., Sessa, M., & Srour, A. (Eds.). (2021). Incidental catch of vulnerable species in Mediterranean and Black Sea fisheries – A review. Studies and Reviews No. 101 (General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean). Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb5405en Cashion (formerly Jehnself), M., Bailly, N., & Pauly, D. (2019). Official catch data underrepresent shark and ray taxa caught in Mediterranean and Black Sea fisheries. Marine Policy, 105, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.02.041 Ceyhan, T., Hepkafadar, O., & Tosunoglu, Z. (2010). Catch and size selectivity of small-scale fishing gear for the smooth-hound shark Mustelus mustelus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Chondrichthyes: Triakidae) from the Aegean Turkish coast. Mediterranean Marine Science, 11(2), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.12681/mms.73 Chaikin, S., Belmaker, J., & Barash, A. (2020). Coastal breeding aggregations of threatened stingrays and guitarfish in the Levant. Aquatic Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst, 30, 1160–1171. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3305 Clarke, S., McAllister, M., Milner-Gulland, E., Kirkwood, G., Michielsens, C., Agnew, D., Pikitch, E., Nakano, H., & Shivji, M. (2006). Global estimates of shark catches using trade records from commercial markets. Ecology Letters, 9(10), 1115-1126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00968.x Colloca, F., Garofalo, G., Bitetto, I., Facchini, M. T., Grati, F., Martiradonna, A., Mastrantonio, G., Nikolioudakis, N., Ordinas, F., Scarcella, G., Tserpes, G., Tugores, M. P., Valavanis, V., Carlucci, R., Fiorentino, F., Follesa, M. C., Iglesias, M., Knittweis, L., Lefkaditou, E., Lembo, G., Manfredi, C., Massutí, E., Pace, M. L., Papadopoulou, N., Sartor, P., Smith, C. J., & Spedicato, M. T. (2015). The Seascape of Demersal Fish Nursery Areas in the North Mediterranean Sea, a First Step Towards the Implementation of Spatial Planning for Trawl Fisheries. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0119590. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119590 Colloca, F., Enea, M., Ragonese, S., & Di Lorenzo, M. (2017a). A century of fishery data documenting the collapse of smooth-hounds (Mustelus spp.) in the Mediterranean Sea. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2789 Colloca, F., Scarcella, G., & Libralato, S. (2017b). Recent Trends and Impacts of Fisheries Exploitation on Mediterranean Stocks and Ecosystems. Frontiers in Marine Science, 4, 244. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00244 Colloca, F., Carrozzi, V., Simonetti, A., & Di Lorenzo, M. (2020). Using Local Ecological Knowledge of Fishers to Reconstruct Abundance Trends of Elasmobranch Populations in the Strait of Sicily. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, 508. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00508 Conover, W., & Iman, R. (1981). [Rank Transformations as a Bridge Between Parametric and Nonparametric Statistics]: Rejoinder. American Statistician, 35(2), 124-129. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1981.10479327 Damalas, D., & Vassilopoulou, V. (2011). Chondrichthyan by-catch and discards in the demersal trawl fishery of the central Aegean Sea (Eastern Mediterranean). Fisheries Research, 108(1), 142-152. ISSN 0165-7836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2010.12.012 Davidson, L., Krawchuk, M., & Dulvy, N. (2015). Why have global shark and ray landings declined: Improved management or overfishing?. Fish and Fisheries, 17. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12119 Di Lorenzo, M., Calò, A., Di Franco, A., Milisenda, G., Aglieri, G., Cattano, C., Milazzo, M., & Guidetti, P. (2022). Small-scale fisheries catch more threatened elasmobranchs inside partially protected areas than in unprotected areas. Nature Communications, 13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32035-3 Di Pinto, A., Marchetti, P., Mottola, A., Bozzo, G., Bonerba, E., Ceci, E., Bottaro, M., & Tantillo, G. (2015). Species identification in fish fillet products using DNA barcoding. Fisheries Research, 170, 9-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2015.05.006 Dulvy, N.K., Fowler, S.L., Musick, J.A., Cavanagh, R.D., Kyne, P.M., Harrison, L.R., Carlson, J.K., Davidson, L.N., Fordham, S.V., Francis, M.P., Pollock, C.M., Simpfendorfer, C.A., Burgess, G.H., Carpenter, K.E., Compagno, L.J., Ebert, D.A., Gibson, C., Heupel, M.R., Livingstone, S.R., Sanciangco, J.C., Stevens, J.D., Valenti, S., & White, W.T. (2014). Extinction risk and conservation of the world's sharks and rays. Elife, 3, e00590. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.00590 Dulvy, N., Allen, D., Ralph, G., & Walls, R. (2016). The conservation status of Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras in the Mediterranean Sea. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.22020.53129 Dulvy, N., Pacoureau, N., Rigby, C., Pollom, R., Jabado, R., Ebert, D., Finucci, B., Pollock, C., Cheok, J., Derrick, D., Herman, K., Sherman, S., VanderWright, W., Lawson, J., Walls, R., Carlson, J., Charvet, P., Bineesh, K.K., Fernando, D., & Simpfendorfer, C. (2021). Overfishing drives over one-third of all sharks and rays toward a global extinction crisis. Current Biology, 31, 5118-5119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.11.008 Echwikhi, K., Saïdi, B., Bradai, M., & Bouain, A. (2013). Preliminary data on elasmobranch gillnet fishery in the Gulf of Gabès, Tunisia. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 29. https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.12022 Enever, R., Catchpole, T.L., Ellis, J.R., & Grant, A. (2009). The survival of skates (Rajidae) caught by demersal trawlers fishing in UK waters. Fisheries Research, 97(1–2), 72-76. ISSN 0165-7836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2009.01.001 European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on a European Community Action Plan for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. Brussels, 5.2.2009. COM(2009) 40 final. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). The 2021 annual economic report on the EU fishing fleet (STECF 21-08). Prellezo, R., Dentes De Carvalho Gaspar, N., Virtanen, J. and Guillen Garcia, J. (Eds.). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021. https://doi.org/10.2760/60996 European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). Fisheries Dependent Information FDI (STECF 23-10). Motova-Surmava, A., Zanzi, A., & Hekim, Z. (Eds.). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2024. https://doi.org/10.2760/676073 Ferretti, F., Myers, R., Serena, F., & Lotze, H. (2008). Loss of Large Predatory Sharks from the Mediterranean Sea. Conservation Biology, 22, 952-964. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00938.x Ferretti, F., Worm, B., Britten, G., Heithaus, M., & Lotze, H. (2010). Patterns and ecosystem consequences of shark declines in the ocean. Ecology Letters, 13, 1055-1071. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01489.x Ferretti, F., Morey Verd, G., Seret, B., Sulić Šprem, J., & Micheli, F. (2016). Falling through the cracks: the fading history of a large iconic predator. Fish and Fisheries, 17(4), 875-889. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12108 Fields, A.T., Fischer, G.A., Shea, S.K.H., Zhang, H., Abercrombie, D.L., Feldheim, K.A., Babcock, E.A., & Chapman, D.D. (2018). Species composition of the international shark fin trade assessed through a retail-market survey in Hong Kong. Conservation Biology, 32(2), 376-389. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13043 Follesa, M. C., Marongiu, M. F., Zupa, W., Bellodi, A., Cau, A., Cannas, R., Colloca, F., Djurovic, M., Isajlovic, I., Jadaud, A., Manfredi, C., Mulas, A., Peristeraki, P., Porcu, C., Ramirez-Amaro, S., Salmerón Jiménez, F., Serena, F., Sion, L., Thasitis, I., Cau, A., Carbonara, P. (2019). Spatial variability of Chondrichthyes in the northern Mediterranean. Scientia Marina, 83(S1), 81-100. https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.04998.23A Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (1999). International Plan of Action for reducing incidental catch of seabirds in longline fisheries. International Plan of Action for the conservation and management of sharks. International Plan of Action for the management of fishing capacity. Rome/Roma. 26p. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2021). FAO Yearbook. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics 2019/FAO annuaire. Statistiques des pêches et de l'aquaculture 2019/FAO anuario. Estadísticas de pesca y acuicultura 2019. Rome/Roma. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb7874t Fortibuoni, T., Borme, D., Franceschini, G., Giovanardi, O., & Raicevich, S. (2016). Common, rare or extirpated? Shifting baselines for common angelshark, Squatina squatina (Elasmobranchii: Squatinidae), in the Northern Adriatic Sea (Mediterranean Sea). Hydrobiologia, 772. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-016-2671-4 Giagkazoglou, Z., Griffiths, A., Imsiridou, A., Chatzispyrou, A., Touloumis, K., Hebb, J., Mylona, D., Malamidou, A., Apostolidi, E., Batjakas, I., & Gubili, C. (2021). Flying under the radar: DNA barcoding ray wings in Greece detects protected species and umbrella labelling terms. Food Control, 132, 108517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108517 Giovos, I., Stoilas, V.-O., Al Mabruk, S., Doumpas, N., Marakis, P., Maximiadi, M., Moutopoulos, D., Kleitou, P., Keramidas, I., Tiralongo, F., & De Maddalena, A. (2019). Integrating local ecological knowledge, citizen science and long-term historical data for endangered species conservation: Additional records of angel sharks (Chondrichthyes: Squatinidae) in the Mediterranean Sea. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 29, 881-890. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3089 Giovos, I., Arculeo, M., Doumpas, N., Katsada, D., Maximiadi, M., Mitsou, E., Paravas, V., Naasan Aga-Spyridopoulou, R., Stoilas, V.-O., Tiralongo, F., Tsamadias, I.Ε., Vecchioni, L., & Moutopoulos, D.K. (2020). Assessing multiple sources of data to detect illegal fishing, trade and mislabelling of elasmobranchs in Greek markets. Marine Policy, 112, 103730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103730 Giovos, I., Aga Spyridopoulou, R.N., Doumpas, N., Glaus, K., Kleitou, P., Kazlari, Z., Katsada, D., Loukovitis, D., Mantzouni, I., Papapetrou, M., Papastamatiou, Y.P., & Moutopoulos, D.K. (2021). Approaching the “real” state of elasmobranch fisheries and trade: A case study from the Mediterranean. Ocean & Coastal Management, 211, 105743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105743 Gorelli, G., Blanco, M., Sardà, F., Carretón, M., & Company, J.B. (2016). Spatio-temporal variability of discards in the fishery of the deep-sea red shrimp Aristeus antennatus in the northwestern Mediterranean Sea: implications for management. Scientia Marina, 80(1), 79-88. https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.04237.24A Grancagnolo, D., Cattano, C., Quattrocchi, F., & Milazzo, M. (2023). Preliminary evidence of a potential reproductive aggregation area of the common stingray Dasyatis pastinaca (Linnaeus, 1758) (Chondrichthyes – Dasyatidae) in the Central Mediterranean Sea. Mediterranean Marine Science, 24(3), 639–643. https://doi.org/10.12681/mms.34889 Helyar, S.J., Lloyd, H.A., de Bruyn, M., Leake, J., Bennett, N., & Carvalho, G.R. (2014). Fish Product Mislabelling: Failings of Traceability in the Production Chain and Implications for Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing. PLoS ONE, 9(6): e98691. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098691 IPBES (2019). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Díaz, S., Settele, J., Brondízio, E.S., Ngo, H.T., Guèze, M., Agard, J., Arneth, A., Balvanera, P., Brauman, K.A., Butchart, S.H.M., Chan, K.M.A., Garibaldi, L.A., Ichii, K., Liu, J., Subramanian, S.M., Midgley, G.F., Miloslavich, P., Molnár, Z., Obura, D., Pfaff, A., Polasky, S., Purvis, A., Razzaque, J., Reyers, B., Roy Chowdhury, R., Shin, Y.J., Visseren-Hamakers, I.J., Willis, K.J., & Zayas, C.N. (Eds.). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 56 pages. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3553579 IUCN Standards and Petitions Committee (2024). Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 16. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Committee. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf Jabado, R.W., García-Rodríguez, E., Kyne, P.M., Charles, R., Armstrong, A.H., Bortoluzzi, J., Mouton, T.L., Gonzalez-Pestana, A., Battle-Morera, A., Rohner, C., & Notarbartolo di Sciara, G. (2023). Mediterranean and Black Seas: A regional compendium of Important Shark and Ray Areas. Dubai: IUCN SSC Shark Specialist Group. https://doi.org/10.59216/ssg.isra.2023.r3 Jorgensen, S., Micheli, F., White, T., Van Houtan, K., Alfaro Shigueto, J., Andrzejaczek, S., Arnoldi, N., Baum, J., Block, B., Britten, G., Butner, C., Caballero, S., Cardeñosa, D., Chapple, T., Clarke, S., Cortés, E., Dulvy, N., Fowler, S., Gallagher, A., & Ferretti, F. (2022). Emergent research and priorities for shark and ray conservation. Endangered Species Research, 47, 171-203. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr0116 Koehler, L., Giovos, I., & Lowther, J. (2022). The application of precaution in elasmobranch conservation and management in the Mediterranean Sea. Marine Policy, 135, 104830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104830 Lawson, J.M., Pollom, R.A., Gordon, C.A., Barker, J., Meyers, E.K.M., Zidowitz, H., Ellis, J.R., Bartolí, A., Morey, G., Fowler, S.L., Alvarado, D.J., Fordham, S.V., Sharp, R., Hood, A.R., & Dulvy, N.K. (2020). Extinction risk and conservation of critically endangered angel sharks in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 77(1), 12–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsz222 Marchetti, P., Mottola, A., Piredda, R., Ciccarese, G., & Di Pinto, A. (2020). Determining the Authenticity of Shark Meat Products by DNA Sequencing. Foods, 9, 1194. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9091194 McKean, J.W., & Kloke, J.D. (2014). Efficient and adaptive rank-based fits for linear models with skew-normal errors. Journal of Statistical Distributions and Applications, 1(18). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40488-014-0018-0 Megalofonou, P., Yannopoulos, C., Damalas, D., De Metrio, G., Deflorio, M., de la Serna, J.M., & Macias, D. (2005). Incidental catch and estimated discards of pelagic sharks from the swordfish and tuna fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea. Fishery Bulletin (Washington, D.C.), 103(4), 620–620. Milazzo, M., Cattano, C., Al Mabruk, S., & Giovos, I. (2021). Mediterranean sharks and rays need action. Science, 371, 355-356. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abg1943 Moro, S., Jona Lasinio, G., Block, B., Micheli, F., De Leo, G., Serena, F., Bottaro, M., Scacco, U., & Ferretti, F. (2019). Abundance and distribution of the white shark in the Mediterranean Sea. Fish and Fisheries, 21. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12432 Myers, R., & Worm, B. (2003). Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature, 423, 280–283. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01610 Oliver, S., Braccini, M., Newman, S., & Harvey, E. (2015). Global patterns in the bycatch of sharks and rays. Marine Policy, 54, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.12.017 Pacoureau, N., Rigby, C.L., Kyne, P.M., Sherley, R.B., Winker, H., Carlson, J.K., Fordham, S.V., Barreto, R., Fernando, D., Francis, M.P., Jabado, R.W., Herman, K.B., Liu, K.M., Marshall, A.D., Pollom, R.A., Romanov, E.V., Simpfendorfer, C.A., Yin, J.S., Kindsvater, H.K., & Dulvy, N.K. (2021). Half a century of global decline in oceanic sharks and rays. Nature, 589(7843), 567-571. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-03173-9 Pauly, D. (1995). Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 10(10), 430. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-5347(00)89171-5 Ramírez-Amaro, S., Ordines, F., Esteban, A., García, C., Guijarro, B., Salmerón, F., Terrasa, B., & Massutí, E. (2020). The diversity of recent trends for chondrichthyans in the Mediterranean reflects fishing exploitation and a potential evolutionary pressure towards early maturation. Scientific Reports, 10, 547. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56818-9 Rodríguez-Cabello, C., Fernández-Lamas, J.Á., Olaso-Toca, L.I., & Sánchez, F. (2005). Survival of small-spotted catshark (Scyliorhinus canicula, L.) discarded by trawlers in the Cantabrian Sea. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 85(5), 1145-1150. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002531540501221X Saidi, B., Enajjar, S., Karaa, S., Echwikhi, K., Jribi, I., & Bradai, M.N. (2019). Shark pelagic longline fishery in the Gulf of Gabes: Inter-decadal inspection reveals management needs. Mediterranean Marine Science, 20(3), 532–541. https://doi.org/10.12681/mms.18862 Searle, S.R., Speed, F.M., & Milliken, G.A. (1980). Population Marginal Means in the Linear Model: An Alternative to Least Squares Means. The American Statistician, 34, 216-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1980.10483031 Serena, F., Abella, A. J., Bargnesi, F., Barone, M., Colloca, F., Ferretti, F., Fiorentino, F., Jenrette, J., & Moro, S. (2020). Species diversity, taxonomy and distribution of Chondrichthyes in the Mediterranean and Black Sea. The European Zoological Journal, 87(1), 497-536. https://doi.org/10.1080/24750263.2020.1805518 Tsagarakis, K., Carbonell, A., Brčić, J., Bellido, J. M., Carbonara, P., Casciaro, L., Edridge, A., García, T., González, M., Krstulović Šifner, S., Machias, A., Notti, E., Papantoniou, G., Sala, A., Škeljo, F., Vitale, S., & Vassilopoulou, V. (2017). Old Info for a New Fisheries Policy: Discard Ratios and Lengths at Discarding in EU Mediterranean Bottom Trawl Fisheries. Frontiers in Marine Science, 4, 99. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00099 Walls, R.H., & Dulvy, N.K. (2020). Eliminating the dark matter of data deficiency by predicting the conservation status of Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea sharks and rays. Biological Conservation, 246, 108459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108459 Walls, R.H.L., & Dulvy, N.K. (2021). Tracking the rising extinction risk of sharks and rays in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. Scientific Reports, 11, 15397. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-94632-4 Worm, B., Davis, B., Kettemer, L., Ward-Paige, C.A., Chapman, D., Heithaus, M.R., Kessel, S.T., & Gruber, S.H. (2013). Global catches, exploitation rates, and rebuilding options for sharks. Marine Policy, 40, 194-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.12.034 Zemah-Shamir, Z., Mourier, J., Ilany, A., Bigal, E., Scheinin, A., & Tchernov, D. (2022). Preliminary insights of a mixed-species shark aggregation: a case study of two carcharhinids from the Mediterranean Sea. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 105, 795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-022-01290-0 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files ESM.pdf Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 23 Sep, 2024 Reviews received at journal 08 Sep, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 04 Sep, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 02 Sep, 2024 Reviews received at journal 05 Jul, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 27 Jun, 2024 Reviewers invited by journal 27 Jun, 2024 Editor assigned by journal 24 Jun, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 24 Jun, 2024 First submitted to journal 24 Jun, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4630773","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":323270699,"identity":"ca5907c1-49c8-44f9-95b5-34908df5132c","order_by":0,"name":"Francesco Colloca","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Francesco","middleName":"","lastName":"Colloca","suffix":""},{"id":323270700,"identity":"652efcf8-7b68-4abd-86db-c04edb74a830","order_by":1,"name":"Martina Arcioni","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Martina","middleName":"","lastName":"Arcioni","suffix":""},{"id":323270701,"identity":"53d432bd-0bee-42d9-9b5b-66fe5847c6e2","order_by":2,"name":"Francesca Acampa","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Francesca","middleName":"","lastName":"Acampa","suffix":""},{"id":323270702,"identity":"63db7278-c799-46ce-9965-a46dee8ca173","order_by":3,"name":"Salvatore Valente","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Salvatore","middleName":"","lastName":"Valente","suffix":""},{"id":323270703,"identity":"82df0472-d1d5-4c5a-86d0-c91baaa197d5","order_by":4,"name":"Daniele Ventura","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Sapienza University of Rome","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Daniele","middleName":"","lastName":"Ventura","suffix":""},{"id":323270704,"identity":"73469cc5-10e1-4f3c-8aa6-6ce53612beb2","order_by":5,"name":"Manfredi Di Lorenzo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Manfredi","middleName":"Di","lastName":"Lorenzo","suffix":""},{"id":323270705,"identity":"c5b49c55-cf4e-4f92-be6e-9f731830c3be","order_by":6,"name":"Giacomo Milisenda","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Giacomo","middleName":"","lastName":"Milisenda","suffix":""},{"id":323270706,"identity":"34a4efb9-a9b4-43fc-bf3e-54a4903df297","order_by":7,"name":"Stefano Moro","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Stefano","middleName":"","lastName":"Moro","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-06-24 14:11:10","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4630773/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4630773/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":60556365,"identity":"d574a0d6-6e96-4035-9444-7f898dd294b0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-18 06:35:48","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":3895588,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSummary of FDI data of elasmobranchs caught by EU fleets fishing in the Mediterranean Sea. (\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e) Map of the Mediterranean Geographical Sub-Areas (GSAs), with each colour corresponding to a region (blue: Alboran Sea and Western Mediterranean; green: Adriatic Sea; orange: Tunisian Plateau; red: Ionian Sea; purple: Aegean Sea and Levantine Sea); (\u003cstrong\u003eb\u003c/strong\u003e) annual temporal trend of total catches by region and fishing gear (fishing gear codes: GNS = gillnets, GTR = trammel nets, LLS+LLD = longlines, OTB = bottom trawlers); (\u003cstrong\u003ec\u003c/strong\u003e) annual temporal trend of reported elasmobranch landings and discards by fishing gear; (\u003cstrong\u003ed\u003c/strong\u003e) total discards for the period 2013-2022 and landings by fishing gear and region\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4630773/v1/456997052de0708c778022a1.png"},{"id":60555562,"identity":"205b543d-aa83-4d97-bf6b-c324f2e3733a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-18 06:19:47","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":542687,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eGAM-derived non-parametric effects of the fishing effort on the total annual catch for (\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e) trawlers, (\u003cstrong\u003eb\u003c/strong\u003e) trammel nets and gillnets, (\u003cstrong\u003ec\u003c/strong\u003e) longlines. (\u003cstrong\u003ed-e-f\u003c/strong\u003e) Non-parametric temporal trend for the same fishing gear categories. GAM-derived parametric effects for (\u003cstrong\u003eg\u003c/strong\u003e) region, (\u003cstrong\u003eh\u003c/strong\u003e) fishing gear, (\u003cstrong\u003ei\u003c/strong\u003e) quarter of the year\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4630773/v1/7f03e8bad8d71335563ded10.png"},{"id":60555979,"identity":"d83c54e9-b380-4743-a2f2-aa1b6761b288","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-18 06:27:47","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":664058,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCPUE (year-quarter catch/year-quarter total days at sea * KW) marginal means of elasmobranchs for the main fishing gears and Mediterranean region. Non-overlapping bars indicate significant differences (p\u0026lt;0.05) among regions\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4630773/v1/52a53f7aa7dfdf3a3967f139.png"},{"id":60555566,"identity":"650a2c4a-4082-4585-aea6-7e756dac5791","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-18 06:19:48","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1371717,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMain elasmobranch species (\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e) landed and (\u003cstrong\u003eb\u003c/strong\u003e) discarded by the different fishing gears used by the EU Mediterranean fishing fleets\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4630773/v1/945103a9dd24865a334ec076.png"},{"id":60555568,"identity":"1c45e9c3-efbe-4e58-b246-a12fe8c0799e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-18 06:19:48","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":4470947,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eProportion of sharks and rays on (\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e) total annual landings and (\u003cstrong\u003eb\u003c/strong\u003e) total annual value by Mediterranean geographical subarea (GSA) and region\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4630773/v1/00ac81e7ae81bcc4e73bba99.png"},{"id":60555980,"identity":"739011eb-c4e9-4583-b8aa-89440b1e15ca","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-18 06:27:48","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1328054,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eProportion of sharks and rays in total annual landings and in total annual value for longlines (drifting longlines + set longlines), nets (gillnets + trammel nets) and trawlers in the Mediterranean regions\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4630773/v1/e2c610bcfc2e0bf509e6d439.png"},{"id":60555565,"identity":"49166e69-53cd-4cda-bf8e-52541234385d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-18 06:19:47","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":2560414,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFAO annual landing statistics of elasmobranchs by Mediterranean country from 1950 to 2022\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4630773/v1/052966e97afeba48724a878f.png"},{"id":60557175,"identity":"8db4a535-8533-434b-aa41-b6603a6eb5b0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-18 06:44:01","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":12545435,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4630773/v1/1608371b-802f-4334-a9df-8428788edaf9.pdf"},{"id":60555564,"identity":"ffcd2f19-a59c-427b-979c-d3aa16d209c1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-18 06:19:47","extension":"pdf","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":663062,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"ESM.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4630773/v1/dd1865429a73f7a1dc1e5170.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Assessing the relevance of sharks and rays for Mediterranean EU fisheries to support a transition from species exploitation to species conservation","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eChondrichthyans (i.e. sharks, rays and chimaeras) comprise over 1,200 species and represent one of the oldest and most ecologically diverse vertebrate lineages. Unfortunately, they are also among the most threatened by human activities, with the main driver being overfishing, followed by others such as habitat degradation, climate change and pollution (Dulvy et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Pacoureau et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Among chondrichthyans, sharks and rays (elasmobranchs) play a pivotal role in marine ecosystems, as their decline or disappearance can trigger trophic cascade effects, potentially disrupting the ecosystem\u0026rsquo;s balance (Ferretti et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, there is growing recognition of the importance of moving from elasmobranch exploitation to conservation in global fisheries management, a shift that is increasingly recognized as crucial for rebuilding depleted populations and restoring marine ecosystems (Dulvy et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Jorgensen et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List, over half (53%, 39 out of 73) of the Mediterranean elasmobranch species assessed are currently classified as threatened: 11% are categorized as Vulnerable (VU), 15% as Endangered (EN), and 27% as Critically Endangered (CR) (Walls and Dulvy \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The percentage rises to 65% if the predicted status of Data Deficient (DD) species is also considered (Walls and Dulvy \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Most of them fall into category A2, meaning that their estimated populations have declined by 50% or more over the past decade or three generations (Dulvy et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; IUCN Standards and Petitions Committee \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Even more concerning is the steady worsening of the extinction risk faced by Mediterranean sharks and rays since the 1980s, with an 18% increase in species listed as threatened between 1980 and 2015 (Walls and Dulvy \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), and which exceeds that of any other vertebrate lineage assessed on a global scale, second only to amphibians (IPBES 2019; Dulvy et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The bad conservation status of many elasmobranch species is linked to their \u003cem\u003eK\u003c/em\u003e-selected life history traits, which result in low rebound potential and low resilience to fishing mortality (Myers and Worm \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Dulvy et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Overfishing for sharks and rays is fuelled by the high demand for shark meat and fins, which encourages capturing and retaining high-value export species, including many threatened ones (Carde\u0026ntilde;osa et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The total catches reported in the last ten years amount to 690\u0026ndash;790 thousand tons (FAO 2021); however, this figure is likely underestimated, considering that a substantial proportion of catches (e.g. bycatch and discarded catches) are misreported or not recorded in official catch statistics (Clarke et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Helyar et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Fields et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Di Lorenzo et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, data on elasmobranchs from commercial fisheries may be limited and of low quality, significantly hindering stock assessment and management efforts (Davidson et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Oliver et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Cashion et al. 2019).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Mediterranean Sea is among the richest regions in the world in terms of elasmobranch biodiversity; it hosts over 80 described species displaying a broad spectrum of functional diversity and ranging from small to medium-sized benthic rays to demersal sharks and large apex predators, such as the white shark (\u003cem\u003eCarcharodon carcharia\u003c/em\u003es, Lamnidae), mako (\u003cem\u003eIsurus\u003c/em\u003e spp., Lamnidae), and hammerhead (\u003cem\u003eSphyrna\u003c/em\u003e spp., Sphyrnidae) (Serena et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Unfortunately, the basin is also a hot spot for fishing, with fisheries that have directly or indirectly exploited sharks and rays for centuries. The regional pristine elasmobranch diversity has been deeply eroded in many coastal areas, where declines and disappearances of several species have been observed (Ferretti et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Fortibuoni et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Colloca et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017a\u003c/span\u003e). This is particularly true for large pelagic sharks, whose populations have started to show a decreasing trend since the beginning of the last century (Ferretti et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). The spatiotemporal dynamics of population depletion have recently been reconstructed from historical data and catch records for some species, such as smooth-hounds (\u003cem\u003eMustelus\u003c/em\u003e spp., Triakidae) (Colloca et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017a\u003c/span\u003e), angelsharks (\u003cem\u003eSquatina\u003c/em\u003e spp., Squatinidae) (Giovos et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Lawson et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), the sand tiger shark (\u003cem\u003eCarcharias taurus\u003c/em\u003e, Odontaspididae) (Bargnesi et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), and the white shark (Moro et al. 2020). Regional extinction was also hypothesised to have occurred in the 1960s-1970s for the two species of sawfish (\u003cem\u003ePristis pristis\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eP. pectinata\u003c/em\u003e, Pristidae), historically present in areas close to large rivers with light human impact (Ferretti et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). In most cases, population declines began many decades ago, long before the development of scientific monitoring, making quantitative assessments of the phenomenon very challenging due to the lack of standardized data, thus enhancing the effects of the shifting baseline syndrome (Pauly \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). Fishers have reported a rapid reduction of elasmobranch catch following the fast expansion of large-scale fisheries after World War II (Colloca et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Barbato et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e); as a result, elasmobranch populations have generally declined to the extent that they are no longer targeted by specific fisheries, except for some shark species in a few remaining areas of the Mediterranean Sea (Ceyhan et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Echwikhi et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Saidi et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndividuals of many elasmobranch species assessed as \u0026ldquo;Endangered\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;Critically Endangered\u0026rdquo; by the IUCN Mediterranean Red List are unintentionally caught as bycatch and discarded or landed despite their generally low market value. The General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) reported the capture of about 25,300 specimens belonging to various conservation-priority species in the period 2008\u0026ndash;2019; of these catches, longliners (drifting\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;set longlines) were responsible for 55%, followed by small-scale fisheries (18%), bottom trawlers (13%), pelagic trawlers (11%), and purse and tuna seiners (3%) (Carpentieri et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Unlike other threatened marine species like marine mammals and sea turtles, which benefit from complete protection in the Mediterranean Sea through a range of international conventions and national regulations, chondrichthyans are only partially protected. Only 28% of sharks and rays currently benefit from the legal protection framework of the GFCM; the remaining species, including those listed in Annex III of the SPA/BD Protocol, can be regularly fished and marketed despite their current assessment status. For this reason, management challenges frequently arise in identifying protected versus non-protected species with certainty, especially for management and control bodies responsible for imposing administrative sanctions. Species protected or listed in threatened categories of the IUCN Red List are often found in local markets, typically mislabeled or associated with illegal trading practices, proving that species misidentification in official statistics is still a significant issue in various Mediterranean sectors and fisheries (Giovos et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Giagkazoglou et al. 2022).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn recent years, there has been a growing demand from the scientific community for more effective protection of Mediterranean elasmobranchs (Milazzo et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Di Lorenzo et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Yet, when considering the implementation of more stringent protection measures which may also entail reductions in fishing opportunities, assessing the impact of such measures on the fishing economy becomes crucial. In this context, using official fisheries statistics, our study aims to evaluate the significance of elasmobranchs for Mediterranean fisheries in EU countries. We analysed the official catch records from 2013\u0026ndash;2022 to assess the potential impacts of more restrictive measures on EU fishing fleets to limit the bycatch of Mediterranean sharks and rays. Additionally, we discussed the reliability and relevance of official catch statistics for species management and conservation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"MATERIALS AND METHODS","content":"\u003cp\u003eOfficial catch, landing values, and effort data were extracted from the Fisheries Dependent Information (FDI) repository of the EU Joint Research Centre. These data were submitted by countries following an official call launched by the European Commission requesting Member States to provide aggregated scientific data from their national data collection programmes (Commission Decisions 2021/1167 and 2021/1168). Catch data are aggregated by species, fleet segment, vessel length class, fishing gear, geographical area, quarter, and year (from 2013 to 2022). Once extracted, the FDI data were merged with the FAO ASFIS List of Species for Fishery Statistics Purposes to add taxonomic information (e.g. scientific name, family and higher taxonomic classification) to the FAO 3-Alpha Species Codes used in the FDI database. Each species was assigned to a higher taxonomic group (e.g. crustaceans, cephalopods, teleosts, chondrichthyans, etc.), and the proportion of elasmobranch landings and their corresponding value relative to the total were calculated per subregion, fleet segment, and year.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFDI official effort data include different effort variables aggregated by geographical area, quarter of the year, fishing technique and gear, vessel length, and metier; here, we used the total annual fishing days * engine power expressed in kilowatt (kW) aggregated for each fishing gear as the effort variable. Both catch and effort data were spatially aggregated at the Mediterranean Geographical Sub-Areas (GSAs) level. We assigned each GSA to a specific region as follows: Western Mediterranean (WM): GSAs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.1, 11.2; Central Mediterranean (CM): GSAs 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21; Eastern Mediterranean (EM): GSAs 22, 23, 24, 25, 26; Adriatic Sea (AS): GSAs 17, 18; Ionian Sea (IS): GSAs 19, 20 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003ea). Generalized Additive Models (GAMs) were then used to estimate the relationship between the total catch (\u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e, landings\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;discards) as a function of the total effort (\u003cem\u003eE\u003c/em\u003e), \u003cem\u003eRegion\u003c/em\u003e, quarter (\u003cem\u003eQ\u003c/em\u003e), and time (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e). The spatiotemporal sampling unit was the single GSA in each quarter of the year. We considered only the first five main fishing gears to estimate the model, aggregated as follows: trawlers\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;bottom trawls (OTB); nets\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;set gillnets (GNS)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;trammel nets (GTR); longlines\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;drifting longlines (LLD)\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;set longlines (LLS). We included an interaction term between the smooth terms and the gear to estimate a different function for each gear category. Gear, \u003cem\u003eRegion\u003c/em\u003e and quarter were also included as parametric terms. The model structure was:\u003cdiv id=\"Equa\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equa\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$g\\left({C}_{i}\\right) ={\\beta }_{0} + {f}_{1}\\left({g(E}_{i}\\right)) * {\\left[gear\\right]}_{j} +{f}_{2}({t}_{i}) * {\\left[gear\\right]}_{j} + {{\\beta }_{k}\\left[Region\\right]}_{k} + {\\beta }_{p}{\\left[quarter\\right]}_{p} + {\\beta }_{j}{\\left[gear\\right]}_{j} + {\\epsilon }_{i}$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHere, \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({C}_{i}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e is the log-transformed (\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(g= log \\left(x+1\\right)\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e) catch in each GSA per quarter; \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({\\beta }_{0}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e is the model intercept; \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({f}_{\\text{1,2}}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e are the smooth terms; \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({E}_{i}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e is the log-transformed effort; \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({t}_{i}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e is the time unit (GSA-Quarter); \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({{\\beta }_{k}\\left[Region\\right]}_{k}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({\\beta }_{p}{\\left[quarter\\right]}_{p}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({\\beta }_{j}{\\left[gear\\right]}_{j}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e are the parametric terms; \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({\\epsilon }_{i}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003eis the random error term. The residuals of the model were tested for normality, homoscedasticity, and autocorrelation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCatch data (\u003cem\u003eC\u003c/em\u003e), for each quarter of the year in each GSA, were combined with effort data (\u003cem\u003eE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;total fishing days * kW) to compute elasmobranch catch per unit of effort (\u003cem\u003eCPUE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;C/E) by gear and region. To assess the effect of fishing gear and region on the calculated CPUE, we transformed the CPUE data values into their ranks (from 1 for the smallest to N for the largest, where N is the combined data sample size); indeed, a rank-based procedure has been recommended as being robust to non-normal errors, resistant to outliers, and highly efficient for many distributions (McKean et al. 2014). We computed a parametric two-way ANOVA on the data ranks to determine whether the latter differed from group to group (Conover and Iman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1981\u003c/span\u003e). Post-hoc comparisons were also performed on the data ranks to determine differences among regions using the R package \u0026lsquo;emmeans\u0026rsquo; (Searle et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1980\u003c/span\u003e). Such estimated marginal means (EMMs) for linear, generalized linear and mixed models compute contrasts or linear functions of EMMs, trends and comparisons of slopes.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrends in elasmobranch landings and discards\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe total annual amount of elasmobranch catches of EU fleets in the Mediterranean Sea ranged between 3,079 and 5,656 tons in the period 2013-2022, with a consistent reduction in 2020-2022 (Table 1). Four fishing gears, namely bottom trawls (OTB), longlines (LLS + LLD), trammel nets (GTR) and gillnets (GNS), contributed more than 96.6% of the total reported catches, with wide differences among Mediterranean regions (Fig. 1b). The Western Mediterranean (WM) contributed the most (2,057-3,230 tons/year) at the regional level. The Adriatic Sea (AS) was second, with an increasing trend from 2013 (652 tons) to 2019 (1,671 tons), followed by a sharp decline in the last years. The Central Mediterranean (CM) exhibited a similar trend, with an increase in catches from 2013 (365 tons) to 2019 (900 tons), followed by a surprising decrease, ending with a minimum value of 207 tons in 2022. The reported catches in the last two Mediterranean regions were low and with large interannual fluctuations; specifically, the annual catch in the Eastern Mediterranean (EM) ranged from 1.7 to 83 tons in 2013-2021, with a sharp increase to 142 tons in 2022, whereas the Ionian Sea (IS) recorded a decreasing trend in catches, starting from 110-120 tons at the beginning of the series and ending with 26 tons only in 2022, similarly to what was observed for the central Mediterranean Sea (Fig. 1b). The fraction of elasmobranchs discarded varied between 22% and 36% of the total annual catch (30.3% over the whole period) (Table 1); however, it is crucial to note that discard data were only available for 17% of the records, while 27% of the data was reported as \u0026ldquo;Confidential\u0026rdquo; and the remaining 56% was marked as \u0026ldquo;Not Available\u0026rdquo; (NAs). Therefore, the proportion of discards remains highly uncertain, with a high probability of being significantly misreported. Bottom trawlers accounted for 75% of total catches throughout the entire time series, and approximately 40% of elasmobranchs caught were discarded (Fig. 1c, Table 1). By contrast, the percentage of discards was significantly lower for the other fishing gear categories, with less than 2% for gillnets and less than 1% for trammel nets and longlines. The proportion of reported discards was not homogeneously distributed across regions, showing that western Mediterranean trawlers contributed to more than 90% of all regional discards (Fig. 1d).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u003c/strong\u003e Total catch (in tons) by fishing gear and year. The average percentage of discards from 2013-2022 is also indicated (fishing gear codes: GNS = gillnets, GTR = trammel nets, LLS-LLD = longlines, OTB = bottom trawlers)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"642\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.78125%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGear\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.125%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2013\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.125%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2014\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.125%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2015\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2016\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2017\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2018\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2019\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2020\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.0625%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiscards (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.78125%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGNS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.125%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e200.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.125%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e186.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.125%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e209.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e189.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e289.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e270.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e293.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e222.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e297.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e340.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.0625%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.78125%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGTR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.125%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e255.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.125%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e326.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.125%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e198.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e354.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e380.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e321.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e329.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e274.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e353.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e371.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.0625%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.78125%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLLS+LLD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.125%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e229.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.125%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e427.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.125%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e292.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e244.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e231.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e238.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e255.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e211.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e230.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e159.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.0625%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.78125%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOTB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.125%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2,552.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.125%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3,503.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.125%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2,463.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2,673.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3,058.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4,063.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4,547.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2,232.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2,473.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2,259.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.0625%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39.67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.78125%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOthers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.125%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e107.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.125%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e132.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.125%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e119.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e132.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e136.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e168.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e183.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e131.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e147.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e156.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.0625%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.78125%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.125%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3,345.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.125%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4,577.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.125%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3,283.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3,594.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4,095.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5,062.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5,609.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3,071.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3,502.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.96875%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3,285.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.0625%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30.32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe GAMs revealed a significant positive relationship between the total annual amount of elasmobranch catches and the fishing effort, with similar patterns across different fishing gears (Fig. 2a-b-c). For both nets (GNR + GTR) and longlines (LLS + LLD), catches were related to the fishing effort through an exponential relationship on the log scale, yet the uncertainty increases for high and low effort values. Furthermore, the model estimated a slight increase in catches for nets during the time series while indicating a slight decrease for longlines. No significant temporal effect was detected for trawlers (Fig. 2d-e-f). Regions exhibited significant differences, with AS, CM and WM displaying higher average catches than the others (Table 2, Fig. 2g). As expected, trawl displayed significantly higher average catches than longlines and nets (Fig. 2h). Finally, the model highlighted the presence of seasonal variations in the average reported catches, with a peak in spring (Quarter-2) and a reduction in autumn (Quarter-4) (Table 2, Fig. 2i).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2\u003c/strong\u003e Results of the Generalized Additive Models (GAMs) for elasmobranch catches of trawlers, nets and longlines. The parametric coefficients and the significant smooth term (effort) are shown\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"645\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"100%\" colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGAM Model\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.689922480620154%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTerm\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.968992248062015%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBeta\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e(95% CI)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.34108527131783%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ep-value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.689922480620154%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParametric Terms\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.968992248062015%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.34108527131783%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.689922480620154%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRegion\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.968992248062015%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.34108527131783%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.689922480620154%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.968992248062015%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.34108527131783%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.689922480620154%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.968992248062015%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.25 (-0.34 to -0.16)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.34108527131783%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.689922480620154%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.968992248062015%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.07 (-0.04 to 0.17)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.34108527131783%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.689922480620154%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.968992248062015%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.4 (-1.5 to -1.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.34108527131783%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.689922480620154%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.968992248062015%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.5 (-1.6 to -1.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.34108527131783%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.689922480620154%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFishing gear\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.968992248062015%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.34108527131783%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.689922480620154%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLLS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.968992248062015%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.34108527131783%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.689922480620154%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNets\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.968992248062015%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.18 (-0.27 to -0.10)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.34108527131783%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.689922480620154%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOTB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.968992248062015%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.52 (0.42 to 0.62)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.34108527131783%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.689922480620154%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eQuarter\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.968992248062015%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.34108527131783%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.689922480620154%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (Winter)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.968992248062015%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.34108527131783%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.689922480620154%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (Spring)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.968992248062015%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.07 (-0.02 to 0.16)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.34108527131783%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.689922480620154%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (Summer)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.968992248062015%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.07 (-0.16 to 0.02)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.34108527131783%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.689922480620154%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4 (Autumn)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.968992248062015%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.14 (-0.23 to -0.05)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.34108527131783%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.689922480620154%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eNon-parametric Terms\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.968992248062015%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.34108527131783%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.689922480620154%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFishing effort LLS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.968992248062015%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.34108527131783%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.689922480620154%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFishing effort Nets\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.968992248062015%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.34108527131783%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.689922480620154%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFishing effort OTB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.968992248062015%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.34108527131783%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.689922480620154%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTemporal trend LLS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.968992248062015%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.34108527131783%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.689922480620154%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTemporal trend Nets\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.968992248062015%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.34108527131783%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.689922480620154%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTemporal trend OTB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.968992248062015%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.34108527131783%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.72\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"100%\" colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003eCI = Confidence Interval\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"100%\" colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdjusted R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 0.62, Fitted deviance = 62.7%, n = 2780\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSignificant differences in CPUE emerged from the two-way ANOVA among regions for the four main fishing gears. In the case of bottom trawling, the CPUE values of elasmobranchs were significantly higher in WM, intermediate for AS and CM, while EM and IS showed the lowest values (Fig. 3a)\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e This pattern was similar for the other fishing gears (Fig. 3b-c), with the sole exception of longlines, which showed relatively higher CPUE in the Adriatic and Central Mediterranean Sea (Fig. 3d).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFig. 3\u003c/strong\u003e CPUE (year-quarter catch/year-quarter total days at sea * KW) marginal means of elasmobranchs for the main fishing gears and Mediterranean region. Non-overlapping bars indicate significant differences (p\u0026lt;0.05) among regions\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpecies composition of the catch\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFDI catch statistics provided landing data of 330 different shark and ray taxa, of which 284 are reported at the species level. Some landings are attributed to species that are not present in the Mediterranean Sea, such as the knifetooth dogfish (\u003cem\u003eScymnodon ringens\u003c/em\u003e, Somniosidae), the leafscale gulper shark (\u003cem\u003eCentrophorus squamosus\u003c/em\u003e, Centrophoridae), the tiger shark (\u003cem\u003eGaleocerdo cuvier\u003c/em\u003e, Galeocerdonidae), the winter skate (\u003cem\u003eLeucoraja ocellat\u003c/em\u003ea, Rajidae), and the black dogfish (\u003cem\u003eCentroscyllium fabricii\u003c/em\u003e, Etmopteridae). Other landings are associated with protected species, such as the angelshark (\u003cem\u003eSquatina squatina\u003c/em\u003e, Squatinidae), the school shark (\u003cem\u003eGaleorhinus galeus\u003c/em\u003e, Triakidae), and hammerhead sharks, as well as rare species, such as the bottlenose skate (\u003cem\u003eRostroraja alba\u003c/em\u003e, Rajidae), \u003cem\u003eLeucoraja naevus\u003c/em\u003e (Rajidae), and the sharpnose sevengill shark (\u003cem\u003eHeptranchias perlo\u003c/em\u003e, Hexanchidae). The thornback ray (\u003cem\u003eRaja clavata\u003c/em\u003e, Rajidae) and the small-spotted catshark (\u003cem\u003eScyliorhinus canicula\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eScyliorhinidae) were the most landed species, with 5,955 tons and 4,482 tons, respectively, over the entire period. They were followed by the smooth-hounds \u003cem\u003eMustelus mustelus\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eM. punctulatus\u003c/em\u003e, the starry ray (\u003cem\u003eRaja asterias\u003c/em\u003e, Rajidae), the blackmouth catshark (\u003cem\u003eGaleus melastomus\u003c/em\u003e, Scyliorhinidae), and Rajidae in general. The blue shark (\u003cem\u003ePrionace glauca\u003c/em\u003e, Carcharhinidae) landings were mainly associated with longline activities, while trawlers principally landed all other species (Fig. 4a). A table showing landings by species, region and fishing gear is provided in Supplementary Information (Table S1). As for discards, they primarily consisted of the small-spotted catshark (72.1%),\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003efor a total of over 8,000 tons discarded in the period 2013-2022, and the blackmouth shark, with 2,500 tons (20.5%) (Fig. 4b). A smaller percentage of discards was attributed to the\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003estarry ray\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(4.4%), followed by the spiny dogfish \u003cem\u003e(Squalus acanthias\u003c/em\u003e, Squalidae), the thornback ray, and the brown ray (\u003cem\u003eRaja miraletus\u003c/em\u003e, Rajidae).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eContribution of elasmobranchs in weight and economic value to the overall fisheries landings\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe average contribution of sharks and rays to the total annual landings of EU Mediterranean fleets was 0.76% in weight and 0.61% in gross commercial value over the whole period (2013-2022). The average value of elasmobranch landings was about 9.6 million euros per year against a total annual value of commercial landings of 1.57 billion euros. The average annual proportion of elasmobranchs landed was generally below 3% in most of the Mediterranean GSAs, with the only exception of the Balearic Islands (GSA 5: 3.8%), the Strait of Sicily (GSAs 13, 14, 16: 2-4%), the offshore waters of Libya (GSA 21: 3.7%), and the northern side of the Alboran Sea (GSAs 1, 2: 1-4%) (Fig. 5a). The lowest proportion of elasmobranchs landed on the total (\u0026lt;0.9%) was observed in the Eastern Mediterranean (GSAs 22, 23, 24, 25, 26), Adriatic Sea (GSAs 17, 18), Ionian Sea (GSAs 19, 20), northern Spain (GSA 6), and southern Tyrrhenian Sea (GSA 10). As a result, elasmobranch landing values were very low and proportionally less than 1% of the total catch value in most GSAs. The highest proportional value was achieved in GSA 21 (1.31%), GSA 14 (1.27%), and GSA 5 (1.20%) (Fig. 5b).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe average proportion of elasmobranchs in the total landing was similar for the three groups of fishing gears: 3.47% for OTB, 3.75% for GTR-GNS, and 3.41% for LLS-LLD (Fig. 6a). Such proportion decreases to 1.07% (OTB), 1.16% (LLS-LLD), and 1.52% (GTR-GNS) in terms of elasmobranch contribution to the total gross value of landings (Fig. 6b). Irrespective of the fishing gear, the Central Mediterranean, Adriatic Sea and Western Mediterranean were the most relevant regions in terms of proportion of elasmobranchs in the total landing. The average value per kilogram of elasmobranchs landed was approximately half of the average value of the rest of the landings for both OTB and GTR-GNS, and it was 2.6 times lower for LLS-LLD (Table 3).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3\u003c/strong\u003e Average value per kilogram of elasmobranchs and corresponding value of the rest of the landing for fishing gear\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"643\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"42.36760124610592%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFishing gear\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"30.062305295950157%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eElasmobranchs (\u0026euro;/kg)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"27.570093457943926%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther species landed (\u0026euro;/kg)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"42.36760124610592%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTrawl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"30.062305295950157%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"27.570093457943926%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"42.36760124610592%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTrammel nets \u0026amp; Gillnets\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"30.062305295950157%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"27.570093457943926%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"42.36760124610592%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLonglines\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"30.062305295950157%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"27.570093457943926%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"42.36760124610592%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOthers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"30.062305295950157%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"27.570093457943926%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eDespite being the most crucial source of information to guide fisheries management in EU Mediterranean waters, the quality of official data (EU Fisheries Dependent Information: FDI) on Mediterranean elasmobranch catches has not been thoroughly examined until now. In this study, we analysed ten years of official catch statistics to elucidate the current relevance of elasmobranchs for EU fishing fleets operating in the Mediterranean Sea. We found that the official annual amount of elasmobranch catches by EU Mediterranean fleets was relatively low, ranging between 2,100 and 5,500 tons, corresponding to 0.76% of the total landings, and with a consistent reduction in 2020\u0026ndash;2022. This figure is likely to be underestimated, considering that sharks and rays are frequently caught as bycatch and discarded at sea, presumably leading to lower reporting accuracy compared to the main commercial species. Globally, chondrichthyans represent 1\u0026ndash;2% of annual landings (Worm et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, according to FAO landing statistics for the Mediterranean region, the percentage of cartilaginous fish in landings is 1.15% (Bradai et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Updated FAO data show that the regional annual landing of elasmobranchs was about 12,000 tons in 2022, with 73% produced in Tunisia and Libya (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e). This figure is almost half of that reported in the early 1980s, in fact landings by EU Mediterranean fishing fleets have steadily decreased over the last 20 years, particularly among Italian fleets. While Tunisian production has seen an increase, since the early 1980s there has been an extremely significant reduction in Turkish landings. As observed globally, the trend towards reduced elasmobranch landings in the Mediterranean is likely due to a decline in population abundance rather than the result of management implementation (Davidson et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur analysis indicates, in any case, that elasmobranchs are no longer a valuable economic resource for EU fishing fleets in the Mediterranean Sea, and this underscores the feasibility of implementing more stringent catch limitation measures to support the transition from species exploitation to species conservation. Indeed, according to FDI data, the average annual gross value of the landed fraction of elasmobranchs was slightly less than 10\u0026nbsp;million euros, corresponding to 0.61% of the total average annual gross value of fishing landings. The limited economic relevance of sharks and rays is also due to their relatively low selling price, which corresponds to around half of the selling price of the rest of the species landed. The only exceptions are few areas where elasmobranchs still play a relatively important role in local fishing communities. Specifically, these areas are the Balearic Islands, the southern sectors of the Strait of Sicily (GSAs 13 and 14), Malta Island, Sardinia and Corsica, where elasmobranch catches account for a proportion ranging between 2.3% and 5.5% of the total catch. It is worth noting that these areas are considered among the least impacted by fishing in the Mediterranean Sea, where trawl surveys have also indicated the highest abundance and diversity of elasmobranchs (Follesa et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegional differences in fishing catches are reflected in observed differences in the catch per unit of effort (CPUE), with the Western Mediterranean (WM), Central Mediterranean (CM), and Adriatic Sea (AS) generally showing higher CPUEs than the Eastern Mediterranean (EM) and Ionian Sea (IS). A 50% decline in elasmobranch CPUE in trawling was observed in the Aegean Sea between the mid-1990s and mid-2000s, accompanied by an approximately 33% decrease in species richness (Damalas and Vassilopoulou \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, a 40% reduction in longline CPUE was observed in the Gulf of Gabes between 2007\u0026ndash;2008 and 2016\u0026ndash;2017 (Saidi et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). It is important to underline that, although the CPUE should reflect differences in species abundance, other factors influencing the results cannot be ruled out, such as differences in spatial patterns of fishing activities, accuracy in catch reporting by fishermen, etc. Indeed, recent studies show that illegal fishing, illegal trade, misreporting and mislabelling of elasmobranchs are still standard practices in some areas of the Mediterranean (Barbuto et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Di Pinto et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Giovos et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Marchetti et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). However, considering that the overall status of Mediterranean elasmobranch populations worsened from 1980 to 2015, with the percentage of threatened species rising from 47\u0026ndash;65% (Walls and Dulvy \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), it is plausible that the existing management regime and conservation instruments, such as the Barcelona Convention, along with the progress made in regional fisheries management measures over the last 30 years, have not been sufficient or comprehensive enough to halt overfishing and achieve the significant reduction in mortality necessary for population rebuilding.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eElasmobranch catches were mainly produced by trawling fleets (80%), while nets and longlines contributed another 15% of the total, with high differences among Mediterranean regions. The fraction of elasmobranchs discarded represented a percentage equal to 23\u0026ndash;39% of the total catches each year and was mainly produced by bottom trawlers in the Western Mediterranean. Discards were about 40% for trawlers and less than 1.5% for fixed nets and longlines, in line with a previous study conducted by Di Lorenzo et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Trawling is undoubtedly a highly impactful activity for elasmobranchs in the Mediterranean Sea as it is known to have the most considerable bycatch of sharks and rays; therefore, its management is crucial for the conservation of benthic and demersal species (Damalas and Vassilopoulou \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Oliver et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Colloca et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017b\u003c/span\u003e; Bradai et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe small-spotted catshark was the most discarded species, accounting for 72.7% of the total discarded elasmobranchs. As previously reported, the species is one of the main shark bycatches by Spanish trawlers in the WM, with only a fraction of the largest individuals being landed, while the rest of the catch is discarded (Carbonell et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Blanco et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The second most frequently discarded species was the blackmouth shark, accounting for about 20% of the total. This species is primarily caught by trawlers targeting deep-sea crustaceans, such as Norway lobsters (\u003cem\u003eNephrops norvegicus\u003c/em\u003e, Nephropidae) and giant red shrimps (\u003cem\u003eAristaeomorpha foliacea\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eAristeus antennatus\u003c/em\u003e, Aristeidae) (Gorelli et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Discard data were often unavailable in FDI datasets, with most records categorised as \u0026ldquo;Confidential\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;Not Available\u0026rdquo;, suggesting that the actual discard figure is probably much higher than what was officially reported. For example, the percentage of chondrichthyans discarded in Aegean trawl fisheries was about 64% by weight, with only a few species represented in the landings (Damalas and Vassilopoulou \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), yet in FDI data for the Aegean Sea, reported discards represents only a small fraction of elasmobranchs landed. The widespread issue regarding poor coverage of discard reporting, even of commercial species, and the lack of consistency across EU fisheries have been extensively deliberated by working groups of fisheries scientists, who suggest that the current quality of discard estimates cannot be guaranteed and should therefore be used with caution (Tsagarakis et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Cashion et al. 2019; STECF 2024).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe main landings were attributed to some of the most common Mediterranean commercial species, such as the thornback ray and the small-spotted catshark (Follesa et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), followed by smooth-hounds, the starry ray, and Rajidae in general. Notably, the critically endangered blue shark, already identified as the most common bycatch species of fishing vessels using surface longlines to target swordfish (\u003cem\u003eXiphias gladius\u003c/em\u003e, Xiphiidae) (Megalofonou et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Biton-PorSmoguer and Lloret \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), was the most landed species of longliners in FDI data. Interestingly, increasing trends of the small-spotted catshark, the blackmouth catshark and the thornback ray have been observed in recent years in the Western Mediterranean (WM) (Ram\u0026iacute;rez-Amaro et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), which could potentially explain the higher CPUE of elasmobranchs in WM trawl fisheries compared to other regions of the Mediterranean, as indicated by the FDI data. Additionally, such increasing trends could be linked to the relatively high survival rate of these species after being discarded at sea (Rodriguez-Cabello et al. 2005; Enever et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe present results highlight how FDI catch statistics might be considered sufficiently reliable for the most common and easily recognizable elasmobranch species, though raising concerns regarding the reporting procedure of those species less commonly caught and challenging to identify visually on board. Official statistics primarily rely on declarations, including electronic logbooks and landing registries, which are supplemented by data from sales notes and field data collection (STECF 2021). For elasmobranchs, significant issues exist in fishers\u0026rsquo; taxonomic identification, which may compromise the quality of catch declarations. As evidence of this, here we found landing data for several species that do not occur in the Mediterranean Sea, as well as for extremely rare and protected ones. Inconsistencies in FDI data inevitably raise concerns about their potential use to support elasmobranch management in the region. It is widely acknowledged that elasmobranch bycatch is seldom recorded at the species level and is often misreported in official fishery statistics (Jorgensen et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). As discussed by Cashion et al. (2019), who examined the quality of catches reported by Mediterranean countries to FAO, less than 25% of shark catches reported to FAO are identified below the genus level. Therefore, inferring the annual elasmobranch mortality from reported annual landings is likely to result in a substantial underestimation of the actual magnitude of fishing-related mortality (Clarke et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Davidson et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Oliver et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). European monitoring programs for commercial fisheries should be expanded to improve catch statistics for bycatch species and for elasmobranchs; good practices for data collection and monitoring must involve supportive material for fishers in species identification, such as providing simplified identification keys or compiling the logbook with the assistance of trained fishery observers, possibly on board or at least in the main landing ports.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough the EU and the GFCM have implemented several legal instruments in recent years to support the conservation of threatened species (including catch reporting obligations, catch limitations, finning practice obligations, etc.), the general perception is that these regulations need to be better known and applied by fishers. Indeed, raising awareness within the fishing community about the importance of endorsing these instruments and supporting species conservation efforts is crucial for making elasmobranch management more effective in the region. Given the current uncertainty regarding fisheries\u0026rsquo; impact on Mediterranean elasmobranchs, which is also exacerbated by the uncertain quality of official catch data from EU fleets, adopting a precautionary approach (PA) would be essential (Koehler et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). This would imply using the best available scientific knowledge to enhance conservation measures for this group. The application of PA is integrated within the FAO International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA-SHARKS, FAO 1999) and the European Action Plan for Sharks (EPOA-SHARKS, European Commission \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), the latter stating that a strategy for action should be based on sound scientific information. In recent years, there has been a surge in studies on species ecology, temporal abundance trends, and the impact of fisheries on elasmobranch populations. For example, increasing efforts are being made to delineate nursery grounds and other essential fish habitats, such as areas where spawning or mating aggregations occur; this growing body of knowledge could support the establishment of conservation measures for threatened elasmobranchs (e.g. Colloca et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Bonanomi et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Chaikin et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Zemah-Shamir et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Grancagnolo et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). In this direction, the \u0026ldquo;Important Shark and Ray Areas\u0026rdquo; (ISRAs) initiative (Jabado et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), supported by the Shark Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission, aims to delineate critical habitats/areas for protection. Additionally, efforts to limit bycatch through appropriately designed technical measures on fishing gears (e.g. magnetic deterrents), as well as landing bans for species at very low abundance in certain areas (such as smooth-hounds in the Western Mediterranean), should be also considered as potentially effective measures. In conclusion, considering the poor conservation status of sharks and rays in the Mediterranean basin and their low value for European fishing fleets, there should be no major obstacles to the adoption of management plans that include a range of measures to limit the bycatches of these species. If shared with fishermen, these plans represent the only concrete opportunity to reverse current declining trends and rebuild elasmobranch populations in Mediterranean waters.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests:\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eF.C.: Conceptualization, Investigation, Resources, Supervision, Writing \u0026ndash; Original Draft. F.C. and S.M.: Data curation, Methodology. S.V. and S.M.: Formal analysis, Software, Visualization. M.A., F.A., S.V., D.V., M.D.L. and G.M.: Writing \u0026ndash; Review \u0026amp; Editing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe dataset presented in this study is openly available in the Fisheries Dependent Information (FDI) repository of the EU Joint Research Centre at https://stecf.ec.europa.eu/data-dissemination/fdi_en. FAO ASFIS List of Species for Fishery Statistics Purposes was retrieved on 4/4/2024 at https://www.fao.org/fishery/en/collection/asfis/en. FAO annual statistics data on elasmobranch landings was retrieved on 4/4/2024 at https://www.fao.org/fishery/en/statistics/software/fishstatj.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarbato, M., Barr\u0026iacute;a, C., Bellodi, A., Bonanomi, S., Borme, D., Ćetković, I., Colloca, F., Colmenero, A., Crocetta, F., De Carlo, F., Demir, E., Di Lorenzo, M., Follesa, M., Garibaldi, F., Giglio, G., Giovos, I., Guerriero, G., Hentati, O., Ksibi, M., Kruschel, C., Lanteri, L., Leonetti, F., Ligas, A., Madonna, A., Matić Skoko, S., Mimica, R., Moutopoulos, D., Mulas, A., Nerlović, V., Pe\u0026scaron;ić, A., Porcu, C., Riginella, E., Sperone, E., Tsouknidas, K., Tun\u0026ccedil;er, S., Vrdoljak, D., \u0026amp; Mazzoldi, C. (2021). The use of fishers\u0026rsquo; Local Ecological Knowledge to reconstruct fish behavioural traits and fishers\u0026rsquo; perception of conservation relevance of elasmobranchs in the Mediterranean Sea. Mediterranean Marine Science, 22(3), 603-622. https://doi.org/10.12681/mms.25306\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarbuto, M., Galimberti, A., Ferri, E., Labra, M., Malandra, R., Galli, P., \u0026amp; Casiraghi, M. (2010). DNA barcoding reveals fraudulent substitutions in shark seafood products: The Italian case of \u0026ldquo;palombo\u0026rdquo; (Mustelus spp.). Food Research International, 43, 376-381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2009.10.009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBargnesi, F., Gridelli, S., Cerrano, C., \u0026amp; Ferretti, F. (2020). Reconstructing the history of the sand tiger shark (Carcharias taurus) in the Mediterranean Sea. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 30, 915\u0026ndash;927. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3301\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBiton-Porsmoguer, S., \u0026amp; Lloret, J. (2018). Potentially unsustainable fisheries of a critically-endangered pelagic shark species: the case of the blue shark (Prionace glauca) in the Western Mediterranean Sea. Cybium, 42(3), 299-302. https://doi.org/10.26028/CYBIUM/2018-423-008\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlanco, M., Francisco, D., Lombarte, A., Recasens, L., \u0026amp; Galimany, E. (2023). Characterization of discards along a wide bathymetric range from a trawl fishery in the NW Mediterranean. Fisheries Research, 258, 106552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2022.106552\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBonanomi, S., Pulcinella, J., Fortuna, C.M., Moro, F., \u0026amp; Sala, A. (2018). Elasmobranch bycatch in the Italian Adriatic pelagic trawl fishery. PLoS ONE, 13(1), e0191647. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191647\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBradai, M., Sa\u0026iuml;di, B., \u0026amp; Enajjar, S. (2018). Overview on Mediterranean Shark\u0026rsquo;s Fisheries: Impact on the Biodiversity. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74923\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarbonell, A., Alemany, F., Merella, P., Quetglas, A., \u0026amp; Roman, E. (2003). The by-catch of sharks in the western Mediterranean (Balearic Islands) trawl fishery. Fisheries Research - FISH RES, 61, 7-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(02)00242-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarde\u0026ntilde;osa, D., Shea, S., Zhang, H., Fischer, G., Simpfendorfer, C., \u0026amp; Chapman, D. (2022). Two thirds of species in a global shark fin trade hub are threatened with extinction: Conservation potential of international trade regulations for coastal sharks. Conservation Letters, 15. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12910\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarpentieri, P., Nastasi, A., Sessa, M., \u0026amp; Srour, A. (Eds.). (2021). Incidental catch of vulnerable species in Mediterranean and Black Sea fisheries \u0026ndash; A review. Studies and Reviews No. 101 (General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean). Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb5405en\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCashion (formerly Jehnself), M., Bailly, N., \u0026amp; Pauly, D. (2019). Official catch data underrepresent shark and ray taxa caught in Mediterranean and Black Sea fisheries. Marine Policy, 105, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.02.041\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCeyhan, T., Hepkafadar, O., \u0026amp; Tosunoglu, Z. (2010). Catch and size selectivity of small-scale fishing gear for the smooth-hound shark Mustelus mustelus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Chondrichthyes: Triakidae) from the Aegean Turkish coast. Mediterranean Marine Science, 11(2), 213\u0026ndash;224. https://doi.org/10.12681/mms.73\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChaikin, S., Belmaker, J., \u0026amp; Barash, A. (2020). Coastal breeding aggregations of threatened stingrays and guitarfish in the Levant. Aquatic Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst, 30, 1160\u0026ndash;1171. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3305\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClarke, S., McAllister, M., Milner-Gulland, E., Kirkwood, G., Michielsens, C., Agnew, D., Pikitch, E., Nakano, H., \u0026amp; Shivji, M. (2006). Global estimates of shark catches using trade records from commercial markets. Ecology Letters, 9(10), 1115-1126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00968.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eColloca, F., Garofalo, G., Bitetto, I., Facchini, M. T., Grati, F., Martiradonna, A., Mastrantonio, G., Nikolioudakis, N., Ordinas, F., Scarcella, G., Tserpes, G., Tugores, M. P., Valavanis, V., Carlucci, R., Fiorentino, F., Follesa, M. C., Iglesias, M., Knittweis, L., Lefkaditou, E., Lembo, G., Manfredi, C., Massut\u0026iacute;, E., Pace, M. L., Papadopoulou, N., Sartor, P., Smith, C. J., \u0026amp; Spedicato, M. T. (2015). The Seascape of Demersal Fish Nursery Areas in the North Mediterranean Sea, a First Step Towards the Implementation of Spatial Planning for Trawl Fisheries. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0119590. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119590\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eColloca, F., Enea, M., Ragonese, S., \u0026amp; Di Lorenzo, M. (2017a). A century of fishery data documenting the collapse of smooth-hounds (Mustelus spp.) in the Mediterranean Sea. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2789\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eColloca, F., Scarcella, G., \u0026amp; Libralato, S. (2017b). Recent Trends and Impacts of Fisheries Exploitation on Mediterranean Stocks and Ecosystems. Frontiers in Marine Science, 4, 244. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00244\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eColloca, F., Carrozzi, V., Simonetti, A., \u0026amp; Di Lorenzo, M. (2020). Using Local Ecological Knowledge of Fishers to Reconstruct Abundance Trends of Elasmobranch Populations in the Strait of Sicily. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, 508. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00508\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eConover, W., \u0026amp; Iman, R. (1981). [Rank Transformations as a Bridge Between Parametric and Nonparametric Statistics]: Rejoinder. American Statistician, 35(2), 124-129. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1981.10479327\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDamalas, D., \u0026amp; Vassilopoulou, V. (2011). Chondrichthyan by-catch and discards in the demersal trawl fishery of the central Aegean Sea (Eastern Mediterranean). Fisheries Research, 108(1), 142-152. ISSN 0165-7836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2010.12.012\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDavidson, L., Krawchuk, M., \u0026amp; Dulvy, N. (2015). Why have global shark and ray landings declined: Improved management or overfishing?. Fish and Fisheries, 17. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12119\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDi Lorenzo, M., Cal\u0026ograve;, A., Di Franco, A., Milisenda, G., Aglieri, G., Cattano, C., Milazzo, M., \u0026amp; Guidetti, P. (2022). Small-scale fisheries catch more threatened elasmobranchs inside partially protected areas than in unprotected areas. Nature Communications, 13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32035-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDi Pinto, A., Marchetti, P., Mottola, A., Bozzo, G., Bonerba, E., Ceci, E., Bottaro, M., \u0026amp; Tantillo, G. (2015). Species identification in fish fillet products using DNA barcoding. Fisheries Research, 170, 9-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2015.05.006\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDulvy, N.K., Fowler, S.L., Musick, J.A., Cavanagh, R.D., Kyne, P.M., Harrison, L.R., Carlson, J.K., Davidson, L.N., Fordham, S.V., Francis, M.P., Pollock, C.M., Simpfendorfer, C.A., Burgess, G.H., Carpenter, K.E., Compagno, L.J., Ebert, D.A., Gibson, C., Heupel, M.R., Livingstone, S.R., Sanciangco, J.C., Stevens, J.D., Valenti, S., \u0026amp; White, W.T. (2014). Extinction risk and conservation of the world\u0026apos;s sharks and rays. Elife, 3, e00590. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.00590\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDulvy, N., Allen, D., Ralph, G., \u0026amp; Walls, R. (2016). The conservation status of Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras in the Mediterranean Sea. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.22020.53129\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDulvy, N., Pacoureau, N., Rigby, C., Pollom, R., Jabado, R., Ebert, D., Finucci, B., Pollock, C., Cheok, J., Derrick, D., Herman, K., Sherman, S., VanderWright, W., Lawson, J., Walls, R., Carlson, J., Charvet, P., Bineesh, K.K., Fernando, D., \u0026amp; Simpfendorfer, C. (2021). Overfishing drives over one-third of all sharks and rays toward a global extinction crisis. Current Biology, 31, 5118-5119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.11.008\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEchwikhi, K., Sa\u0026iuml;di, B., Bradai, M., \u0026amp; Bouain, A. (2013). Preliminary data on elasmobranch gillnet fishery in the Gulf of Gab\u0026egrave;s, Tunisia. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 29. https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.12022\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEnever, R., Catchpole, T.L., Ellis, J.R., \u0026amp; Grant, A. (2009). The survival of skates (Rajidae) caught by demersal trawlers fishing in UK waters. Fisheries Research, 97(1\u0026ndash;2), 72-76. ISSN 0165-7836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2009.01.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEuropean Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on a European Community Action Plan for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. Brussels, 5.2.2009. COM(2009) 40 final.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre, Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). The 2021 annual economic report on the EU fishing fleet (STECF 21-08). Prellezo, R., Dentes De Carvalho Gaspar, N., Virtanen, J. and Guillen Garcia, J. (Eds.). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021. https://doi.org/10.2760/60996\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre, Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). Fisheries Dependent Information FDI (STECF 23-10). Motova-Surmava, A., Zanzi, A., \u0026amp; Hekim, Z. (Eds.). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2024. https://doi.org/10.2760/676073\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFerretti, F., Myers, R., Serena, F., \u0026amp; Lotze, H. (2008). Loss of Large Predatory Sharks from the Mediterranean Sea. Conservation Biology, 22, 952-964. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00938.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFerretti, F., Worm, B., Britten, G., Heithaus, M., \u0026amp; Lotze, H. (2010). Patterns and ecosystem consequences of shark declines in the ocean. Ecology Letters, 13, 1055-1071. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01489.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFerretti, F., Morey Verd, G., Seret, B., Sulić \u0026Scaron;prem, J., \u0026amp; Micheli, F. (2016). Falling through the cracks: the fading history of a large iconic predator. Fish and Fisheries, 17(4), 875-889. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12108\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFields, A.T., Fischer, G.A., Shea, S.K.H., Zhang, H., Abercrombie, D.L., Feldheim, K.A., Babcock, E.A., \u0026amp; Chapman, D.D. (2018). Species composition of the international shark fin trade assessed through a retail-market survey in Hong Kong. Conservation Biology, 32(2), 376-389. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13043\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFollesa, M. C., Marongiu, M. F., Zupa, W., Bellodi, A., Cau, A., Cannas, R., Colloca, F., Djurovic, M., Isajlovic, I., Jadaud, A., Manfredi, C., Mulas, A., Peristeraki, P., Porcu, C., Ramirez-Amaro, S., Salmer\u0026oacute;n Jim\u0026eacute;nez, F., Serena, F., Sion, L., Thasitis, I., Cau, A., Carbonara, P. (2019). Spatial variability of Chondrichthyes in the northern Mediterranean. Scientia Marina, 83(S1), 81-100. https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.04998.23A\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (1999). International Plan of Action for reducing incidental catch of seabirds in longline fisheries. International Plan of Action for the conservation and management of sharks. International Plan of Action for the management of fishing capacity. Rome/Roma. 26p.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2021). FAO Yearbook. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics 2019/FAO annuaire. Statistiques des p\u0026ecirc;ches et de l\u0026apos;aquaculture 2019/FAO anuario. Estad\u0026iacute;sticas de pesca y acuicultura 2019. Rome/Roma. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb7874t\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFortibuoni, T., Borme, D., Franceschini, G., Giovanardi, O., \u0026amp; Raicevich, S. (2016). Common, rare or extirpated? Shifting baselines for common angelshark, Squatina squatina (Elasmobranchii: Squatinidae), in the Northern Adriatic Sea (Mediterranean Sea). Hydrobiologia, 772. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-016-2671-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGiagkazoglou, Z., Griffiths, A., Imsiridou, A., Chatzispyrou, A., Touloumis, K., Hebb, J., Mylona, D., Malamidou, A., Apostolidi, E., Batjakas, I., \u0026amp; Gubili, C. (2021). Flying under the radar: DNA barcoding ray wings in Greece detects protected species and umbrella labelling terms. Food Control, 132, 108517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108517\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGiovos, I., Stoilas, V.-O., Al Mabruk, S., Doumpas, N., Marakis, P., Maximiadi, M., Moutopoulos, D., Kleitou, P., Keramidas, I., Tiralongo, F., \u0026amp; De Maddalena, A. (2019). Integrating local ecological knowledge, citizen science and long-term historical data for endangered species conservation: Additional records of angel sharks (Chondrichthyes: Squatinidae) in the Mediterranean Sea. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 29, 881-890. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3089\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGiovos, I., Arculeo, M., Doumpas, N., Katsada, D., Maximiadi, M., Mitsou, E., Paravas, V., Naasan Aga-Spyridopoulou, R., Stoilas, V.-O., Tiralongo, F., Tsamadias, I.\u0026Epsilon;., Vecchioni, L., \u0026amp; Moutopoulos, D.K. (2020). Assessing multiple sources of data to detect illegal fishing, trade and mislabelling of elasmobranchs in Greek markets. Marine Policy, 112, 103730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103730\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGiovos, I., Aga Spyridopoulou, R.N., Doumpas, N., Glaus, K., Kleitou, P., Kazlari, Z., Katsada, D., Loukovitis, D., Mantzouni, I., Papapetrou, M., Papastamatiou, Y.P., \u0026amp; Moutopoulos, D.K. (2021). Approaching the \u0026ldquo;real\u0026rdquo; state of elasmobranch fisheries and trade: A case study from the Mediterranean. Ocean \u0026amp; Coastal Management, 211, 105743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105743\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGorelli, G., Blanco, M., Sard\u0026agrave;, F., Carret\u0026oacute;n, M., \u0026amp; Company, J.B. (2016). Spatio-temporal variability of discards in the fishery of the deep-sea red shrimp Aristeus antennatus in the northwestern Mediterranean Sea: implications for management. Scientia Marina, 80(1), 79-88. https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.04237.24A\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrancagnolo, D., Cattano, C., Quattrocchi, F., \u0026amp; Milazzo, M. (2023). Preliminary evidence of a potential reproductive aggregation area of the common stingray Dasyatis pastinaca (Linnaeus, 1758) (Chondrichthyes \u0026ndash; Dasyatidae) in the Central Mediterranean Sea. Mediterranean Marine Science, 24(3), 639\u0026ndash;643. https://doi.org/10.12681/mms.34889\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHelyar, S.J., Lloyd, H.A., de Bruyn, M., Leake, J., Bennett, N., \u0026amp; Carvalho, G.R. (2014). Fish Product Mislabelling: Failings of Traceability in the Production Chain and Implications for Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing. PLoS ONE, 9(6): e98691. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098691\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIPBES (2019). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. D\u0026iacute;az, S., Settele, J., Brond\u0026iacute;zio, E.S., Ngo, H.T., Gu\u0026egrave;ze, M., Agard, J., Arneth, A., Balvanera, P., Brauman, K.A., Butchart, S.H.M., Chan, K.M.A., Garibaldi, L.A., Ichii, K., Liu, J., Subramanian, S.M., Midgley, G.F., Miloslavich, P., Moln\u0026aacute;r, Z., Obura, D., Pfaff, A., Polasky, S., Purvis, A., Razzaque, J., Reyers, B., Roy Chowdhury, R., Shin, Y.J., Visseren-Hamakers, I.J., Willis, K.J., \u0026amp; Zayas, C.N. (Eds.). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 56 pages. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3553579\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIUCN Standards and Petitions Committee (2024). Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 16. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Committee. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJabado, R.W., Garc\u0026iacute;a-Rodr\u0026iacute;guez, E., Kyne, P.M., Charles, R., Armstrong, A.H., Bortoluzzi, J., Mouton, T.L., Gonzalez-Pestana, A., Battle-Morera, A., Rohner, C., \u0026amp; Notarbartolo di Sciara, G. (2023). Mediterranean and Black Seas: A regional compendium of Important Shark and Ray Areas. Dubai: IUCN SSC Shark Specialist Group. https://doi.org/10.59216/ssg.isra.2023.r3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJorgensen, S., Micheli, F., White, T., Van Houtan, K., Alfaro Shigueto, J., Andrzejaczek, S., Arnoldi, N., Baum, J., Block, B., Britten, G., Butner, C., Caballero, S., Carde\u0026ntilde;osa, D., Chapple, T., Clarke, S., Cort\u0026eacute;s, E., Dulvy, N., Fowler, S., Gallagher, A., \u0026amp; Ferretti, F. (2022). Emergent research and priorities for shark and ray conservation. Endangered Species Research, 47, 171-203. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr0116\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKoehler, L., Giovos, I., \u0026amp; Lowther, J. (2022). The application of precaution in elasmobranch conservation and management in the Mediterranean Sea. Marine Policy, 135, 104830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104830\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLawson, J.M., Pollom, R.A., Gordon, C.A., Barker, J., Meyers, E.K.M., Zidowitz, H., Ellis, J.R., Bartol\u0026iacute;, A., Morey, G., Fowler, S.L., Alvarado, D.J., Fordham, S.V., Sharp, R., Hood, A.R., \u0026amp; Dulvy, N.K. (2020). Extinction risk and conservation of critically endangered angel sharks in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 77(1), 12\u0026ndash;29. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsz222\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarchetti, P., Mottola, A., Piredda, R., Ciccarese, G., \u0026amp; Di Pinto, A. (2020). Determining the Authenticity of Shark Meat Products by DNA Sequencing. Foods, 9, 1194. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9091194\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcKean, J.W., \u0026amp; Kloke, J.D. (2014). Efficient and adaptive rank-based fits for linear models with skew-normal errors. Journal of Statistical Distributions and Applications, 1(18). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40488-014-0018-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMegalofonou, P., Yannopoulos, C., Damalas, D., De Metrio, G., Deflorio, M., de la Serna, J.M., \u0026amp; Macias, D. (2005). Incidental catch and estimated discards of pelagic sharks from the swordfish and tuna fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea. Fishery Bulletin (Washington, D.C.), 103(4), 620\u0026ndash;620.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMilazzo, M., Cattano, C., Al Mabruk, S., \u0026amp; Giovos, I. (2021). Mediterranean sharks and rays need action. Science, 371, 355-356. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abg1943\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoro, S., Jona Lasinio, G., Block, B., Micheli, F., De Leo, G., Serena, F., Bottaro, M., Scacco, U., \u0026amp; Ferretti, F. (2019). Abundance and distribution of the white shark in the Mediterranean Sea. Fish and Fisheries, 21. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12432\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMyers, R., \u0026amp; Worm, B. (2003). Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature, 423, 280\u0026ndash;283. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01610\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOliver, S., Braccini, M., Newman, S., \u0026amp; Harvey, E. (2015). Global patterns in the bycatch of sharks and rays. Marine Policy, 54, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.12.017\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePacoureau, N., Rigby, C.L., Kyne, P.M., Sherley, R.B., Winker, H., Carlson, J.K., Fordham, S.V., Barreto, R., Fernando, D., Francis, M.P., Jabado, R.W., Herman, K.B., Liu, K.M., Marshall, A.D., Pollom, R.A., Romanov, E.V., Simpfendorfer, C.A., Yin, J.S., Kindsvater, H.K., \u0026amp; Dulvy, N.K. (2021). Half a century of global decline in oceanic sharks and rays. Nature, 589(7843), 567-571. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-03173-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePauly, D. (1995). Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends in Ecology \u0026amp; Evolution, 10(10), 430. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-5347(00)89171-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRam\u0026iacute;rez-Amaro, S., Ordines, F., Esteban, A., Garc\u0026iacute;a, C., Guijarro, B., Salmer\u0026oacute;n, F., Terrasa, B., \u0026amp; Massut\u0026iacute;, E. (2020). The diversity of recent trends for chondrichthyans in the Mediterranean reflects fishing exploitation and a potential evolutionary pressure towards early maturation. Scientific Reports, 10, 547. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56818-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRodr\u0026iacute;guez-Cabello, C., Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Lamas, J.\u0026Aacute;., Olaso-Toca, L.I., \u0026amp; S\u0026aacute;nchez, F. (2005). Survival of small-spotted catshark (Scyliorhinus canicula, L.) discarded by trawlers in the Cantabrian Sea. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 85(5), 1145-1150. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002531540501221X\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaidi, B., Enajjar, S., Karaa, S., Echwikhi, K., Jribi, I., \u0026amp; Bradai, M.N. (2019). Shark pelagic longline fishery in the Gulf of Gabes: Inter-decadal inspection reveals management needs. Mediterranean Marine Science, 20(3), 532\u0026ndash;541. https://doi.org/10.12681/mms.18862\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSearle, S.R., Speed, F.M., \u0026amp; Milliken, G.A. (1980). Population Marginal Means in the Linear Model: An Alternative to Least Squares Means. The American Statistician, 34, 216-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1980.10483031\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSerena, F., Abella, A. J., Bargnesi, F., Barone, M., Colloca, F., Ferretti, F., Fiorentino, F., Jenrette, J., \u0026amp; Moro, S. (2020). Species diversity, taxonomy and distribution of Chondrichthyes in the Mediterranean and Black Sea. The European Zoological Journal, 87(1), 497-536. https://doi.org/10.1080/24750263.2020.1805518\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTsagarakis, K., Carbonell, A., Brčić, J., Bellido, J. M., Carbonara, P., Casciaro, L., Edridge, A., Garc\u0026iacute;a, T., Gonz\u0026aacute;lez, M., Krstulović \u0026Scaron;ifner, S., Machias, A., Notti, E., Papantoniou, G., Sala, A., \u0026Scaron;keljo, F., Vitale, S., \u0026amp; Vassilopoulou, V. (2017). Old Info for a New Fisheries Policy: Discard Ratios and Lengths at Discarding in EU Mediterranean Bottom Trawl Fisheries. Frontiers in Marine Science, 4, 99. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00099\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWalls, R.H., \u0026amp; Dulvy, N.K. (2020). Eliminating the dark matter of data deficiency by predicting the conservation status of Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea sharks and rays. Biological Conservation, 246, 108459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108459\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWalls, R.H.L., \u0026amp; Dulvy, N.K. (2021). Tracking the rising extinction risk of sharks and rays in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. Scientific Reports, 11, 15397. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-94632-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWorm, B., Davis, B., Kettemer, L., Ward-Paige, C.A., Chapman, D., Heithaus, M.R., Kessel, S.T., \u0026amp; Gruber, S.H. (2013). Global catches, exploitation rates, and rebuilding options for sharks. Marine Policy, 40, 194-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.12.034\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZemah-Shamir, Z., Mourier, J., Ilany, A., Bigal, E., Scheinin, A., \u0026amp; Tchernov, D. (2022). Preliminary insights of a mixed-species shark aggregation: a case study of two carcharhinids from the Mediterranean Sea. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 105, 795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-022-01290-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"reviews-in-fish-biology-and-fisheries","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries](https://link.springer.com/journal/11160)","snPcode":"11160","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/11160/3","title":"Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"bycatch, elasmobranchs, landing value, Mediterranean fishing fleets, shark conservation, threatened species","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4630773/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4630773/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eTen years (2013\u0026ndash;2022) of official data on elasmobranchs landed and discarded by European fishing fleets operating in the Mediterranean Sea were analysed with the primary objective of assessing the significance of shark and ray catches for the main fleet segments across five Mediterranean regions (i.e. Western, Central and Eastern Mediterranean, Ionian Sea, Adriatic Sea). The annual elasmobranch catches ranged from 3,200 to 5,800 tons, declining consistently from 2020 to 2022. Four fishing gears (i.e. bottom trawls, longlines, trammel nets, and gillnets) contributed over 96.6% of the reported catch, with notable variations among regions. Bottom trawlers accounted for approximately 75% of catches, discarding around 40%; fixed nets and longlines had minimal discard rates (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;2.5%). The Western Mediterranean contributed the most to total catches (2,057\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;3,229 tons/year), followed by the Adriatic Sea. Generalized Additive Models revealed a significant correlation between catches and fishing effort, indicating increasing catches at high fishing effort levels. Reported landings included species absent in the Mediterranean and considered rare or extremely rare in the basin, highlighting the need for better species reporting. The average contribution of sharks and rays to the total annual landings of Mediterranean fleets was 1.66% in weight and 0.60% in value, totaling approximately 96.4\u0026nbsp;million euros over the decade, compared to the overall value of 15.8\u0026nbsp;billion euros for the whole landing. As elasmobranchs no longer represent a substantial revenue stream for Mediterranean fleets, implementing conservation measures to restore depleted shark and ray populations will likely have minimal impact on the economic sustainability of fisheries.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Assessing the relevance of sharks and rays for Mediterranean EU fisheries to support a transition from species exploitation to species conservation","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-07-18 06:19:42","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4630773/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2024-09-23T07:40:33+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-09-08T11:35:56+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"68877744026622480529390411396660238641","date":"2024-09-04T17:21:31+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"331448453494644885130599538037407201908","date":"2024-09-02T10:21:27+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-07-05T16:49:45+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"127482074448008215312512170156073833174","date":"2024-06-27T11:26:35+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2024-06-27T06:55:41+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2024-06-25T03:53:26+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2024-06-25T03:52:47+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries","date":"2024-06-24T14:09:50+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"reviews-in-fish-biology-and-fisheries","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries](https://link.springer.com/journal/11160)","snPcode":"11160","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/11160/3","title":"Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"8429ad11-4f54-439e-b69e-5cc5e528b9ca","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 18th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-12-09T12:38:38+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-07-18 06:19:42","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4630773","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4630773","identity":"rs-4630773","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}