Sharks, Rays, & MPAs: a global assessment of marine protected area coverage in national waters across species ranges

preprint OA: closed
Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

Global conservation agreements emphasize protected area coverage targets, such as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework’s 30x30 target, yet their effectiveness in safeguarding biodiversity remains uncertain. We measure the intersection between marine protected area (MPAs) coverage and the distribution of sharks and rays. Using global range maps and MPA boundaries within national Exclusive Economic Zones, we calculate the percent of species’ ranges within MPAs, focusing on no-take areas. We reveal significant shortfalls in species-level protection. Within national waters, no Critically Endangered species has more than 5% of its range in no-take MPAs, and 79% of threatened species have less than 1%. We also find the WDPA contains major gaps in take-status reporting, only one third of countries (34%) report take-status of any MPAs to the WDPA, further limiting estimates of meaningful protection. These results highlight the implementation gap between global coverage targets and biodiversity outcomes, reinforcing the need for species-focused protection.
Full text 1,164 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Abstract Global conservation agreements emphasize protected area coverage targets, such as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework’s 30x30 target, yet their effectiveness in safeguarding biodiversity remains uncertain. We measure the intersection between marine protected area (MPAs) coverage and the distribution of sharks and rays. Using global range maps and MPA boundaries within national Exclusive Economic Zones, we calculate the percent of species’ ranges within MPAs, focusing on no-take areas. We reveal significant shortfalls in species-level protection. Within national waters, no Critically Endangered species has more than 5% of its range in no-take MPAs, and 79% of threatened species have less than 1%. We also find the WDPA contains major gaps in take-status reporting, only one third of countries (34%) report take-status of any MPAs to the WDPA, further limiting estimates of meaningful protection. These results highlight the implementation gap between global coverage targets and biodiversity outcomes, reinforcing the need for species-focused protection. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00