Next Article in Journal
Diversity, Interaction, and Bioprospecting of Plant-Associated Microbiomes
Next Article in Special Issue
Diversity and Distribution Patterns of Hard Bottom Polychaete Assemblages in the North Adriatic Sea (Mediterranean)
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of Metabarcoding Primers for Analysis of Soil Nematode Communities
Previous Article in Special Issue
Phycological Herbaria as a Useful Tool to Monitor Long-Term Changes of Macroalgae Diversity: Some Case Studies from the Mediterranean Sea
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 12
Issue 10
10.3390/d12100389
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Filling the Gap and Improving Conservation: How IUCN Red Lists and Historical Scientific Data Can Shed More Light on Threatened Sharks in the Italian Seas

by
Francesco Luigi Leonetti
1,2,
Emilio Sperone
1,
Andrea Travaglini
3,
Angelo R. Mojetta
4,
Marco Signore
3,
Peter N. Psomadakis
5,
Thaya M. Dinkel
2 and
Massimiliano Bottaro
2,*
1
Department of Biology, Ecology and Earth Sciences (DiBEST), University of Calabria, 87036 Arcavacata di Rende (CS), Italy
2
Department of Integrative Marine Ecology (EMI), Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn, Italian National Institute for Marine Biology, Ecology and Biotechnology, Villa Comunale, 80121 Naples, Italy
3
Darwin Dohrn Museum (DaDoM), Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn, Italian National Institute for Marine Biology, Ecology and Biotechnology, Villa Comunale, 80121 Naples, Italy
4
Institute for Marine Studies (ISM), c/o Aquarium and Civic Hydrobiological Station of Milan, Viale Gadio, 2 20121 Milan, Italy
5
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2020, 12(10), 389; https://doi.org/10.3390/d12100389
Submission received: 9 September 2020 / Revised: 6 October 2020 / Accepted: 7 October 2020 / Published: 10 October 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Historical and Current Diversity Patterns of Mediterranean Marine Species)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Chondrichthyans are one of the most threatened marine taxa worldwide. This is also the case in the Mediterranean Sea, which is considered an extinction hotspot for rays and sharks. The central position of the Italian peninsula makes it an ideal location for studying the status and changes of this sea. There is a lack of biological, ecological and historical data when assessing shark populations, which is also highlighted in the Red List of Threatened Species compiled by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Historical data can provide important information to better understand how chondrichthyan populations have changed over time. This study aims to provide a clearer understanding of the changes in distribution and abundance of eight shark species in the Italian seas that are currently classified as at risk of extinction by the IUCN. In this respect, a bibliographic review was conducted on items from the 19th century to the first half of the 20th century, focusing on the selected species. The results show that all sharks were considered common until the beginning of the 20th century but have declined since, with a clear negative trend, mainly in the past 70 years. The strong local decline has been attributed to overexploitation, bycatch, habitat loss, depletion of prey items and environmental pollution. Furthermore, historical data also allow us to avoid the issue of a ‘shifting baseline’, in which contemporary abundances are assumed to be “normal”. Using historical data to further our knowledge of the marine environment is becoming increasingly common, and is fundamental in understanding human impact and evaluating mitigation measures to manage and conserve marine species and environments.

1. Introduction

Chondrichthyes represents one of the most threatened marine taxa worldwide [1], and its species are highly susceptible to anthropogenic pressure, both in coastal and offshore environments [2,3]. In particular, the main factor affecting these vulnerable organisms is bycatch (incidental catch), which needs to be reduced to correctly manage and conserve cartilaginous fishes [4]. However, assessing and managing chondrichthyan populations is problematic, due to the limited nature of information on their biology and fisheries [5,6]. The absence of historical information about the population of cartilaginous fishes also makes it easy to fall pretty to “shifting baseline syndrome,” in which one assumes that current conditions of resources are the standard, without taking into account their history of exploitation [7,8]. Furthermore, the few available long term studies are little more than snapshots, reflecting the vulnerability of the species under the fishing conditions they were subjected to when the data were collected [9]).
This lack of data is also highlighted in the List of Threatened Species (the Red List) of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The Red List represents a comprehensive resource on the global status of biodiversity, and over the last decades it has become a broad and important tool for conservation, policy making and management. According to the IUCN, the Mediterranean Sea is one of the three areas in the world where the biodiversity of sharks and rays is most seriously threatened, with more than 40% of the assessed chondrichthyan species considered to be “endangered” (EN) or “critically endangered” (CR) [10]. Although the Mediterranean Sea represents a biodiversity hot spot [11], it also presents relevant geopolitical limits for the development of common and effective strategies of management and conservation of fisheries resources and natural heritage [12]. In this respect, the Italian peninsula is the core of the basin—it is placed on the natural border between the western and eastern sectors and it encompasses both the northern and southern sectors, functioning as a sort of “natural benchmark” of the general status and the changes in the Mediterranean Sea [13] and playing a potentially important role in the development of regional common initiatives for the management and protection of marine biodiversity [14,15].
Historical ecology developed as an organized research approach in the middle of the twentieth century [16]. It intersects strongly with environmental history, ecological anthropology, historical geography and paleoecology, with researchers from all disciplines contributing to the understanding of putative pristine environments and the anthropogenic changes they undergo [16,17,18]. Originally designed for landscape research, this scientific approach has been recently applied to the marine environment as well, focusing particularly on fishery resources [19,20,21,22]. From this point of view, even though the Mediterranean Sea is commonly regarded as the cradle of Western civilization [11], historical changes in its marine realm are less well understood [23,24], and historical research on cartilaginous fishes remains very limited and fragmented [25,26,27,28,29,30].
Considering the IUCN Red List of cartilaginous fishes in Italian waters [31], in this study we aim to provide novel scientific historical information from the last 250 years concerning the most threatened shark species, in order to contribute to a clearer understanding of their distribution before the modern fishery age, as well as the abundance and status of these chondrichthyans along the Italian peninsula, which is a key area for the marine biodiversity of the Mediterranean.

2. Materials and Methods

We selected ten shark species based on their risk of extinction from the Italian seas (Figure 1), according to the IUCN Red List of cartilaginous fishes in Italian waters [31]. In particular, we selected all species classified as critically endangered (CR), endangered (EN) and vulnerable (VU) shark species (Table 1).
The research was conducted by analyzing scientific documents, research reports, papers and books on natural history from the 19th century through to the first half of the 20th century. Bibliographic items were researched via electronic archives (e.g., Google Scholar, ISI web of knowledge, national and/or local libraries) and through general web searches, using a combination of scientific, local and vernacular names of cartilaginous fishes in the different Italian maritime districts (Ligurian Sea, Tyrrhenian Sea, Ionian Sea and Adriatic Sea (Figure 1)). When available, records for the same species and time period were compared to ensure similar trends were observed. The records were classified by type, with a brief description for each item. All records were arranged in chronological order, by species, by citation and by geographical area.
All items were analyzed to ensure the inclusion of geographical information about fish abundance and interactions with humans. Particular attention was given to the frequency and abundance reported for the different species. This information was usually described in the historical bibliographic references using quantitative adjectives like “rare”, “frequent”, “common”, etc. In order to parameterize the information, a progressive number system from one to six was associated with the quantitative terms, as summarized in Table 2. The categories considered by the IUCN (CR, EN, VU) were also parameterized in the same way (Table 2). The records are then discussed from both historical and ecological points of view, through comparison with the current status of Mediterranean chondrichthyans.

3. Results

We found scientific bibliographic references to eight of the ten selected shark species, with a temporal range from 1832 to 1962 (Table 3). All references were reported by scientists. The frequencies of species recorded in the different references over time are summarized in Figure 2. Based on the available information, semi-quantitative trends of abundance for the different species were assessed.
Squalus acanthias was considered common along the Italian coast during the entire 19th century until the beginning of 1900 (Figure 3). Nevertheless, in the first decades after the Second World War (WWII) this species was considered uncommon, whereas today S. acanthias has been evaluated as very rare in the Italian seas and is listed as critically endangered (CR).
Squatina oculata was considered uncommon until the end of the 19th century when it was more commonly recorded (Figure 4). In the first decades after WWII it became rare again. Today, S. oculata is evaluated as very rare in the Italian seas and is listed as critically endangered (CR).
Squatina squatina was considered frequent along the Italian coast during the entire 19th century (Figure 5). Its populations seem to have collapsed during the first decades of the 20th century, and it became very rare from the 1940s onwards. S. squatina is currently listed as critically endangered (CR).
Alopias vulpinus was usually considered rare or uncommon in the Italian seas from the 19th century until the first decade after the end of WWII (Figure 6). In recent years A. vulpinus has been rarely recorded and is now listed as critically endangered (CR).
Mustelus asterias was considered very common in the Italian waters from the beginning of the 19th century until the 1950s (Figure 7). In the past 70 years, M. asterias has become rare and is now listed as endangered (EN).
Mustelus mustelus was considered very common at the beginning of the 19th century in the Italian waters, but its numbers decreased during the rest of the century (Figure 8). After WWII, M. mustelus was again considered very common. In the last 70 years it has been considered rare and is now listed as endangered (EN).
Prionace glauca was considered uncommon during the 19th century, although records indicated that it became more frequent from the beginning of the 20th century until the end of WWII (Figure 9). In the last 70 years this species has been considered rare and has been listed as vulnerable (VU).
Galeorhinus galeus was considered common in Italian waters at the beginning of the 19th century. In 1870, records described it as rare. Thereafter, it was considered common again until the beginning of the 20th century. After WWII, G. galeus was again considered very common, but it has since been cited as less and less common and is currently classified as critically endangered (CR) in Italian waters (Figure 10).

4. Discussion

Even though applying historical ecology to marine environments has become more common in the last two decades [18,39,40], global studies focusing on cartilaginous fishes have been limited [41,42,43,44,45,46]. This lack of information is strongly evident for the Mediterranean Sea, [18,28,29,30,47,48,49]. Considering Italian waters, historical knowledge of cartilaginous fishes is not only limited, but is also fragmented. The available information does not apply to the entire peninsula, but rather, applies only for single local maritime districts. It therefore corresponds to observed variations in local abundances. Furthermore, research has been focused on a relatively recent temporal range, usually the last 70 years [27,50,51,52], and larger time windows are rarely considered [53], although sharks have been a common fisheries resource for a much longer period, as can be inferred from the vernacular names correctly attributed to individual species of sharks and the existence of specific fishing gear for such prey [54]. Starting from the IUCN Red List of the Italian cartilaginous fishes [31], the present study considered for the first time all the different threatened species of sharks along the Italian coasts, aiming to contribute to the construction of the first local baseline for these endangered vertebrates. Similarly to other marine megafauna, Chondrichthyans show a general worldwide decline [26] and, specifically, the selected species present significative negative trends, mainly in the last 70 years. Our results therefore highlight a reduction in abundance and species recorded.

4.1. Historical Trends of the Threatened Shark Species in the Italian Seas

Reviewing the scientific literature, the present study reveals that the spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthias, was considered very common in the Italian waters until the beginning of the 20th century, after which this species started to decrease rapidly. Ever since, Squalus acanthias have become extremely rare along the Italian peninsula, especially in the last 60 years. Similar situations were described in other maritime sectors, such as the northeastern Pacific and in the Atlantic Ocean [54,55,56,57,58]. This worldwide reduction has been caused by overexploitation [59], as well as habitat degradation and loss due to coastal development and pollution [60]. In some countries, the fishing of S. acanthias has been successfully managed, like in US waters [61], where local stocks were considered to be rebuilt in 2010 [62]. Similar initiatives may also be developed at the Italian level—in recent years, more studies focused on biological and ecological data related to this species have been carried out, providing preliminary information that is useful for its management [63,64,65]. Concerning the angel sharks of the genus Squatina, our research on the historical scientific literature confirmed their almost complete disappearance in Italy during the last century despite their regular occurrence until the early 1900s. This is in accordance with [66], who reported that angel sharks were common in the entire Mediterranean basin in the past, but are now detected only along the African and Middle East coasts, in the Aegean Sea and in Turkish waters. Indeed, these benthic cartilaginous fishes are actually confined to the less developed coastal areas of the Mediterranean. This is also the case in Italian waters, where the very rare modern records of angel sharks have been reported in the southern regions only [67,68,69], while in the northern regions these elasmobranchs have now disappeared [52]. Mediterranean angel sharks commonly inhabit the soft bottoms of very shallow coastal areas [70], where they are highly susceptible to trawlers and gillnets, as well as habitat degradation due to heavy human activity in coastal areas [52,66]. Currently, an international initiative to develop a Mediterranean action plan to protect and recover angel shark populations [71] has been started, based on recent and interesting citizen scientific research on these elasmobranchs [72]. These kinds of studies can be important in promoting international cooperation, which is fundamental for the conservation of threatened marine species like Squatina spp. Furthermore, they can play a fundamental role in expanding knowledge when combined with research into historical scientific bibliographic references like those reported in the present paper.
Alopias vulpinus, the thresher shark, is a typical pelagic shark, living in an offshore marine environment, and is rarely observed near the coastline [73]. In the Mediterranean, this species may be captured as by-catch in pelagic fisheries, mainly by longliners [74,75], but also during pair trawling fishing operations [64], as well as in offshore recreational fisheries [76]. In Italian waters, the uncommon detection of thresher sharks from the 19th century to the end of WWII can be related to the scarce chance of observing this high seas species in typical coastal fishing operations. Offshore pelagic fisheries require powerful engines to reach offshore fishing grounds, which were develop only during the past century [77]. In Italy, in particular, until the early 20th century, fishing was mainly practiced close to the coastline from boats powered by sails or oars, whereas motor fishing vessels were extremely rare [78,79]. On the contrary, after the forced stoppage due to WWII, the Italian fishing fleet underwent a technological change, mainly due to the development of powerful diesel engines, which caused a rapid increase and expansion of fishing efforts, which included pelagic fisheries [80]. The exploitation by the Italian fishery fleet of novel and pristine fishing grounds, like offshore pelagic environments, during the 1950s could be linked to the enhanced frequency of capture of A. vulpinus reported in the analyzed scientific literature. In the same way, the rapid decline in records of this species in the last 70 years may be connected to overexploitation of pelagic marine resources, including medium and small fishes, like mackerels, anchovies and sardines, which happen to be common preys of A. vulpinus [81,82,83], but which are also one of the most important pelagic fishery resources in the Mediterranean Sea, where their capture numbers have decreased since the 1970s [49,83,84]. This may influence the upper trophic level, as was recently hypothesised for the thresher shark [85].
Our results highlight that the common smooth-hound, Mustelus mustelus, is very sensitive to fishing pressure in Italian waters. It nevertheless shows remarkable resilience, as also reported in other maritime sectors [86].There is a perception of a decrease in the frequency of observations of this species in the local historical scientific literature that corresponds to regular and continuous fishing pressure during the 19th century and the last 70 years. This observation is in line with a recent study on a century of fishery data on sharks of the genus Mustelus in the Mediterranean Sea, demonstrating the collapse of these marine vertebrates that occurred primarily in the last decades [28]. On the contrary, the recorded numbers of M. mustelus increased when the fishing effort partially or completely stopped during WWII and in the first years after the war. Similar trends were reported by D’Ancona for the Adriatic Sea [87,88] and have been recently confirmed for the entire Mediterranean basin by Colloca et al. [28] The dramatic collapse of M. mustelus and congeneric species in the Mediterranean basin and along the Italian coasts can be attributed mainly to the impact of direct fishing pressure [28], although it is also possible to relate it to the overfishing of its most common preys, which has also happened recently in the Mediterranean basin [89].
The blue shark, Prionace glauca, is one of the most wide-ranging shark species, found throughout all oceans [90,91]. It is considered to be one global population, with little or no differentiation within and between ocean basins [92,93,94,95,96]. Despite spending most of its life in pelagic environments, this species can also be found in coastal waters [70], a factor that might explain the occurrence of blue sharks during the 19th century and in the first decades of the 20th century in coastal Italian waters, when the Italian fishing effort was mainly concentrated close to the coastline [78,79]. With this exception, our study highlights that the historical trend of the blue shark is very similar to that of the thresher shark, A. vulpinus. Both species offer moderate resilience to fishing pressure [97,98]. The increase of recorded numbers of blue sharks during the 1950s can be related to the exploitation by the Italian fishery fleet of novel and pristine fishing grounds. As with the thresher shark, the rapid decline in the recorded numbers of P. glauca in the last decades may be connected to the over-exploitation of pelagic marine resources in the Mediterranean [99]. However, it can also be related to the degradation of the marine environments, as recent studies have demonstrated that blue sharks are strongly threatened by the presence of chemical pollution [100] and plastic debris [101].
The tope shark, Galeorhinus galeus, is a bento-pelagic species that shows a mainly coastal distribution, being found on the continental shelf and the upper slopes [70,102], while also being found offshore due to its extensive migrations [103]. Its coastal distribution allowed scientists to observe it at the beginning of the 19th century until the first decades of the 20th century, when Italian fishing effort was concentrated on the coastline [78,79]. During this period it was considered a rather common species [53,104] with some exceptions [33,36] which may be attributed to temporary and/or local low densities. Its gross decline started at the end of WWII, which was probably induced by the expansion of commercial fisheries and the advancement in fisheries technologies in Italian waters, resulting in higher fishing pressure on this species. Its decline in the past 70 years is in accordance with bottom trawl surveys from 1994 to 2009 [102,105], and other literature, in which it now appears to be locally extinct in the Tyrrhenian Sea [102,106] and is rarely captured in the Strait of Sicily [74,102].

4.2. Increasing Historical Knowledge to Improve Current Conservation

The heavy worldwide anthropization that occurred over the last two centuries has radically changed the structure and functioning of all ecosystems, including oceanic ecosystems [107]. Understanding historical ecological conditions is the first fundamental step in evaluating mitigation measures to best manage and conserve the marine environment [108]. Historical data provide essential information to better understand the recent human footprint on marine ecosystems and can be used not only to assess more accurately the baselines for different species, but also to develop management and conservation plans [26]. The present study provides new historical insights regarding the most threatened sharks according to the IUCN [31] present in Italian seas, a key area of one of the most anthropized maritime sectors [11]. The strong local decline of these predators in the last 200 years is evident, and can be attributed to different anthropic factors, such as bycatch, coastal habitat loss and environmental pollution. Considering all the cartilaginous fishes of Italian waters, it is worth noting that this scenario could be extended to many other species, as up to 52% of the Italian chondrichthyans are locally listed as data deficient (DD) by the IUCN, including many iconic species such as the great white shark and hammerhead sharks. Some studies have highlighted a general decline in the Mediterranean basin for some of the sharks included in this IUCN category [47,109], but the magnitude of reduction for most of the DD-designated species remains unknown, given the lack of quantitative evidence of historical abundance and distribution. Using historical data to understand how population abundances have changed over the years can further provide important information when assessing the vulnerability of sharks to climate change stressors. Ecological risk assessments (ERAs) are frequently used to estimate the influence of human actions on natural biological systems and processes [110,111], and can then be considered in integrated risk assessments for climate change. ERAs show particular effectiveness in the case of data-poor fishes, including elasmobranchs, which are often captured as bycatch in fisheries [112,113]. Understanding if a species has been considered rare over a long time or has only recently been considered rare due to overexploitation and anthropic effects is an interesting factor to consider when assessing the risk of different changes upon species. This is because rare chondrichthyans may have reduced phenotypic variations and are therefore more susceptible to changes [113]. From this point of view, improved monitoring of sightings and statistical analysis of the results of threatened and DD sharks in Italian seas—along with enhanced efforts in searching and analyzing historical data—are essential in order to increase our understanding of these important and vulnerable marine organisms [46]. At the same time, a precautionary approach should be taken by marine stakeholders to reduce the current anthropic impact on chondrichthyans. This can be achieved through the use and distribution of bycatch reduction devices, the implementation of good fishing practices, the release of still-living accidentally caught specimens and eliminating the production of new marine litter.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.L.L., E.S. and M.B.; methodology, F.L.L., E.S., A.T., P.N.P. and M.B.; investigation, F.L.L., E.S., A.T., A.R.M., M.S., P.N.P. and M.B.; data curation, F.L.L., E.S., T.M.D. and M.B.; writing-original, draft preparation, F.L.L., E.S., T.M.D. and M.B.; writing—review and editing, F.L.L., E.S., M.S. and M.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

F.L.L. was supported by a Ph.D. grant co-funded by the Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn and the University of Calabria. T.M.D was supported by a research fellowship funded the Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn in the framework of the LIFE ELIFE Project—Elasmobranchs Low-Impact Fishing Experience (LIFE18 NAT/IT/000846).

Acknowledgments

This research was partially supported and carried out in the framework of the LIFE ELIFE Project—Elasmobranchs Low-Impact Fishing Experience (LIFE18 NAT/IT/000846), funded by the contribution of the LIFE financial instrument of the European Community. It does not necessarily reflect the European Commission’s views and in no way anticipates future policy. This support is greatly acknowledged This study was also part of the Ph.D. project of F.L.L. The authors are grateful to Gianni Giglio (DiBEST, University of Calabria) for technical collaboration during data analysis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Dulvy, N.K.; Fowler, S.L.; A Musick, J.; Cavanagh, R.D.; Kyne, P.M.; Harrison, L.R.; Carlson, J.K.; Davidson, L.N.; Fordham, S.V.; Francis, M.P.; et al. Extinction risk and conservation of the world’s sharks and rays. eLife 2014, 3, e00590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Simpfendorfer, C.A.; Kyne, P.M. Limited potential to recover from overfishing raises concerns for deep-sea sharks, rays and chimaeras. Environ. Conserv. 2009, 36, 97–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Queiroz, M.M.; Pereira, S.C.F. Intention to adopt big data in supply chain management: A Brazilian perspective. Rev. Adm. Empresas 2019, 59, 389–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Simpfendorfer, C.A.; Dulvy, N.K. Bright spots of sustainable shark fishing. Curr. Biol. 2017, 27, R97–R98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Cortés, E.; Domingo, A.; Miller, P.; Forselledo, R.; Mas, F.; Arocha, F.; Campana, S.E.; Coelho, R.; da Silva, C.; Hazin, F.; et al. Expanded ecological risk assessment of pelagic sharks caught in Atlantic pelagic longline fisheries. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT 2015, 71, 2637–2688. [Google Scholar]
  6. Dulvy, N.K.; Simpfendorfer, C.A.; Davidson, L.N.; Fordham, S.V.; Bräutigam, A.; Sant, G.; Welch, D.J. Challenges and Priorities in Shark and Ray Conservation. Curr. Biol. 2017, 27, R565–R572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Pauly, D. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1995, 10, 430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sáenz-Arroyo, A.; Roberts, C.M.; Torre, J.; Cariño-Olvera, M. Using fishers’ anecdotes, naturalists’ observations and grey literature to reassess marine species at risk: The case of the Gulf grouper in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Fish Fish. 2005, 6, 121–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Osio, G.C.; Orio, A.; Millar, C.P. Assessing the vulnerability of Mediterranean demersal stocks and predicting exploitation status of un-assessed stocks. Fish. Res. 2015, 171, 110–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dulvy, N.K.; Allen, D.J.; Ralph, G.M.; Walls, R.H.L. The Conservation Status of Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras in the Mediterranean Sea [Brochure]; IUCN Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation: Malaga, Spain, 2016; 14p. [Google Scholar]
  11. Coll, M.; Piroddi, C.; Steenbeek, J.; Kaschner, K.; Lasram, F.B.R.; Aguzzi, J.; Ballesteros, E.; Bianchi, C.N.; Corbera, J.; Dailianis, T.; et al. The biodiversity of the Mediterranean Sea: Estimates, patterns, and threats. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e11842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Katsanevakis, S.; Levin, N.; Coll, M.; Giakoumi, S.; Shkedi, D.; Mackelworth, P.; Levy, R.; Velegrakis, A.; Koutsoubas, D.; Carić, H.; et al. Marine conservation challenges in an era of economic crisis and geopolitical instability: The case of the Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Policy 2015, 51, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Bianchi, C.N.; Morri, C. Global sea warming and “tropicalization” of the Mediterranean Sea: Biogeographic and ecological aspects. Biogeogr. J. Integr. Biogeogr. 2003, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Bianchi, C.N.; Morri, C. Marine biodiversity of the Mediterranean Sea: Situation, problems and prospects for future research. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2000, 40, 367–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Guidetti, P.; Milazzo, M.; Bussotti, S.; Molinari, A.; Murenu, M.; Pais, A.; Spanò, N.; Balzano, R.; Agardy, T.; Boero, F.; et al. Italian marine reserve effectiveness: Does enforcement matter? Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141, 699–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Szabó, P. Historical ecology: Past, present and future. Biol. Rev. 2015, 90, 997–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Balée, W. The Research Program of Historical Ecology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006, 35, 75–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. McClenachan, L.; Cooper, A.B.; McKenzie, M.G.; Drew, J.A. The importance of surprising results and best practices in historical ecology. BioScience 2015, 65, 932–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Lotze, H.K.; Hoffmann, R.; Erlandson, J. Lessons from historical ecology and management. Mar. Ecosyst. Based Manag. Sea Ideas Observ. Prog. Study Seas 2014, 16, 17–55. [Google Scholar]
  20. Engelhard, G.H.; Lynam, C.P.; Garcia-Carreras, B.; Dolder, P.J.; Mackinson, S. Effort reduction and the large fish indicator: Spatial trends reveal positive impacts of recent European fleet reduction schemes. Environ. Conserv. 2015, 42, 227–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Sanchez, G.M.; Gobalet, K.W.; Jewett, R.; Cuthrell, R.Q.; Grone, M.; Engel, P.M.; Lightfoot, K.G. The historical ecology of central California coast fishing: Perspectives from Point Reyes National Seashore. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2018, 100, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Trindade-Santos, I.; Moyes, F.; Magurran, A.E. Global change in the functional diversity of marine fisheries exploitation over the past 65 years. Proc. R. Soc. B 2020, 287, 20200889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Guidetti, P.; Micheli, F. Ancient art serving marine conservation. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2011, 9, 374–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lotze, H.K.; Coll, M.; Magera, A.M.; Ward-Paige, C.; Airoldi, L. Recovery of marine animal populations and ecosystems. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2011, 26, 595–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Fortibuoni, T.; Libralato, S.; Raicevich, S.; Giovanardi, O.; Solidoro, C. Coding early naturalists’ accounts into long-term fish community changes in the Adriatic Sea (1800–2000). PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e15502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. McClenachan, L.; Ferretti, F.; Baum, J.K. From archives to conservation: Why historical data are needed to set baselines for marine animals and ecosystems. Conserv. Lett. 2012, 5, 349–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ferretti, F.; Crowder, L.B.; Micheli, F. Using Disparate Datasets to Reconstruct Historical Baselines of Animal Populations. In Marine Historical Ecology in Conservation: Applying the Past to Manage for the Future; University of California Press: Oakland, CA, USA, 2014; pp. 63–85. [Google Scholar]
  28. Colloca, F.; Enea, M.; Ragonese, S.; Di Lorenzo, M. A century of fishery data documenting the collapse of smooth-hounds (Mustelus spp.) in the Mediterranean Sea. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2017, 27, 1145–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mojetta, A.R.; Travaglini, A.; Scacco, U.; Bottaro, M. Where sharks met humans: The Mediterranean Sea, history and myth of an ancient interaction between two dominant predators. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2018, 21, 30–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bargnesi, F.; Gridelli, S.; Cerrano, C.; Ferretti, F. Reconstructing the history of the sand tiger shark (Carcharias taurus) in the Mediterranean Sea. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2020, 30, 915–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Rondinini, C.; Battistoni, A.; Peronace, V.; Teofili, C. Lista Rossa IUCN dei Vertebrati Italiani; Comitato Italiano IUCN e Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare: Roma, Italy, 2012; Volume 56. [Google Scholar]
  32. Bonaparte, C.L. Iconografia della fauna italica per le quattro classi degli animali vertebrati. Tomo III. Pesci. Roma Fasc 1832, 1, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ninni, A.P. Enumerazione dei Pesci delle Lagune e Golfo di Venezia con Note per il Dott. Alessandro Ninni; Soliani: Modena, Italy, 1870. [Google Scholar]
  34. Doderlein, P. Manuale Ittiologico del Mediterraneo: Ossia Sinossi Metodica delle Varie Specie di Pesci Riscontrate nel Mediterraneo ed in Particolare nei Mari di Sicilia; Tip. del Giornale di Sicilia: Palermo, Italy, 1879. [Google Scholar]
  35. Faber, G.L. The Fisheries of the Adriatic and the Fish Thereof; Bernard Quaritch: London, UK, 1883. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lo Bianco, S. Biological notice with special reference to the period of sexual maturity of the animals of the Bay of Naples. Mitth. Zool. Stat. Neapel 1909, 19, 513–761. [Google Scholar]
  37. Tortonese, E. Fauna d’Italia: Vol. II—Leptocardia Ciclostomata Selachi; Editoriale Calderini: Bologna, Italy, 1956. [Google Scholar]
  38. Bini, G. Atlante Dei Pesci Delle Coste Italiane; Mondo Sommerso; Editoriale Olimpia: Firenze, Italy, 1962. [Google Scholar]
  39. Jackson, J.B.C.; Alexander, K.E.; Sala, E. Shifting Baselines: The Past and the Future of Ocean Fisheries; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2011; p. 312. [Google Scholar]
  40. Caswell, B.; Klein, E.S.; Alleway, H.K.; Ball, J.E.; Botero, J.; Cardinale, M.; Eero, M.; Engelhard, G.H.; Fortibuoni, T.; Giraldo, A.-J.; et al. Something old, something new: Historical perspectives provide lessons for blue growth agendas. Fish Fish. 2020, 21, 774–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Baum, J.K.; Myers, R.A.; Kehler, D.G.; Worm, B.; Harley, S.J.; Doherty, P.A. Collapse and Conservation of Shark Populations in the Northwest Atlantic. Science 2003, 299, 389–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Myers, R.A.; Worm, B. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature 2003, 423, 280–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Myers, R.A.; Worm, B. Extinction, survival or recovery of large predatory fishes. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2005, 360, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Ferretti, F.; Worm, B.; Britten, G.L.; Heithaus, M.R.; Lotze, H.K. Patterns and ecosystem consequences of shark declines in the ocean. Ecol. Lett. 2010, 13, 1055–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Roff, G.; Brown, C.J.; Priest, M.A.; Mumby, P.J. Decline of coastal apex shark populations over the past half century. Commun. Boil. 2018, 1, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Martínez-Candelas, I.A.; Pérez-Jiménez, J.C.; Espinoza-Tenorio, A.; McClenachan, L.; Méndez-Loeza, I. Use of historical data to assess changes in the vulnerability of sharks. Fish. Res. 2020, 226, 105526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ferretti, F.; Myers, R.A.; Serena, F.; Lotze, H.K. Loss of large predatory sharks from the Mediterranean Sea. Conserv. Biol. 2008, 22, 952–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Ferretti, F.; Morey Verd, G.; Seret, B.; Sulić Šprem, J.; Micheli, F. Falling through the cracks: The fading history of a large iconic predator. Fish Fish. 2016, 17, 875–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Fortibuoni, T.; Libralato, S.; Arneri, E.; Giovanardi, O.; Solidoro, C.; Raicevich, S. Fish and fishery historical data since the 19th century in the Adriatic Sea, Mediterranean. Sci. Data 2017, 4, 170104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Barausse, A.; Correale, V.; Curkovic, A.; Finotto, L.; Riginella, E.; Visentin, E.; Mazzoldi, C. The role of fisheries and the environment in driving the decline of elasmobranchs in the northern Adriatic Sea. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2014, 71, 1593–1603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Mazzoldi, C.; Sambo, A.; Riginella, E. The Clodia database: A long time series of fishery data from the Adriatic Sea. Sci. Data 2014, 1, 140018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Fortibuoni, T.; Borme, D.; Franceschini, G.; Giovanardi, O.; Raicevich, S. Common, rare or extirpated? Shifting baselines for common angelshark, Squatina squatina (Elasmobranchii: Squatinidae), in the Northern Adriatic Sea (Mediterranean Sea). Hydrobiologia 2016, 772, 247–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Psomadakis, P.N.; Maio, N.; Vacchi, M. The chondrichthyan biodiversity in the Gulf of Naples (SW Italy, Tyrrhenian Sea): An historical overview. Cybium 2009, 33, 199–209. [Google Scholar]
  54. Targioni-Tozzetti, A. La Pesca in Italia (Vol. 2); R. Istituto Sordo-Muti: Genoa, Italy, 1874. [Google Scholar]
  55. Alverson, D.L.; Stansby, M.E. The Spiny Dogfish (Squalus acanthias) in the Northeastern Pacific (No. 447); US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries: Washington, DC, USA, 1963.
  56. Alonso, M.K.; Crespo, E.A.; García, N.A.; Pedraza, S.N.; Mariotti, P.A.; Mora, N.J. Fishery and ontogenetic driven changes in the diet of the spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthias, in Patagonian waters, Argentina. Environ. Biol. Fish. 2002, 63, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. King, J.R.; McFarlane, G.A. Trends in Abundance of Spiny Dogfish in the Strait of Georgia, 1980–2005. In Biology and Management of Dogfish Sharks; American Fisheries Society: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2009; pp. 89–100. [Google Scholar]
  58. Belleggia, M.; Figueroa, D.E.; Sánchez, F.; Bremec, C. Long-term changes in the spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) trophic role in the southwestern Atlantic. Hydrobiologia 2012, 684, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Fordham, S.; Dolan, C. A case study in international shark conservation: The convention on international trade in endangered species and the spiny dogfish. Gold. Gate UL Rev. 2004, 34, 531. [Google Scholar]
  60. Fowler, S.; Raymakers, C.; Grimm, U. Trade in and Conservation of Two Shark Species, Porbeagle (Lamna nasus) and Spiny Dogfish (Squalus acanthias); Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN): Bonn, Germany, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  61. MAFMC. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. In Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan; MAFMC: Dover, DE, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  62. Dell’Apa, A.; Bangley, C.W.; Rulifson, R.A. Who let the dogfish out? A review of management and socio-economic aspects of spiny dogfish fisheries. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 2015, 25, 273–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Bellodi, A.; Porcu, C.; Cau, A.; Marongiu, M.F.; Melis, R.; Mulas, A.; Pesci, P.; Follesa, M.C.; Cannas, R. Investigation on the genus Squalus in the Sardinian waters (Central-Western Mediterranean) with implications on its management. Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 2018, 19, 256–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Bonanomi, S.; Pulcinella, J.; Fortuna, C.M.; Moro, F.; Sala, A. Elasmobranch bycatch in the Italian Adriatic pelagic trawl fishery. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0191647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Bargione, G.; Donato, F.; La Mesa, M.; Mazzoldi, C.; Riginella, E.; Vasapollo, C.; Virgili, M.; Lucchetti, A. Life-history traits of the spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias in the Adriatic Sea. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 14317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Lawson, J.M.; Pollom, R.A.; Gordon, C.A.; Barker, J.; Meyers, E.K.; Zidowitz, H.; Ellis, J.R.; Bartolí, Á.; Morey, G.; Fowler, S.L.; et al. Extinction risk and conservation of critically endangered angel sharks in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2020, 77, 12–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ragonese, S.; Vitale, S.; Dimech, M.; Mazzola, S. Abundances of demersal sharks and chimaera from 1994–2009 scientific surveys in the central Mediterranean Sea. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e74865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Cavallaro, M.; Ammendolia, G.; Navarra, E. Finding of a rare Squatina squatina (Linnaeus, 1758) (Chondrichthyes: Squatinidae) along the Tyrrhenian coast of the Strait of Messina and its maintenance in an aquarium. Mar. Biodivers. Rec. 2015, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Zava, B.; Fiorentino, F.; Serena, F. Occurrence of juveniles Squatina oculata Bonaparte, 1840 (Elasmobranchii: Squatinidae) in the Strait of Sicily (Central Mediterranean). Cybium Int. J. Ichthyol. 2016, 1840, 341–343. [Google Scholar]
  70. Serena, F. Field Identification Guide to the Sharks and Rays of the Mediterranean and Black Sea; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  71. Gordon, C.A.; Hood, A.R.; Al Mabruk, S.A.A.; Barker, J.; Bartolí, A.; Ben Abdelhamid, S.; Bradai, M.N.; Dulvy, N.K.; Fortibuoni, T.; Giovos, I.; et al. Mediterranean Angel Sharks: Regional Action Plan; The Shark Trust: Plymouth, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  72. Giovos, I.; Stoilas, V.; Al-Mabruk, S.A.; Doumpas, N.; Marakis, P.; Maximiadi, M.; Moutopoulos, D.K.; Kleitou, P.; Keramidas, I.; Tiralongo, F.; et al. 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. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2019, 29, 881–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Smith, S.E.; Rasmussen, R.C.; Ramon, D.A.; Cailliet, G.M. The Biology and Ecology of Thresher Sharks (Alopiidae). In Sharks of the Open Ocean: Biology, Fisheries and Conservation; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008; pp. 60–68. [Google Scholar]
  74. Megalofonou, P.; Yannopoulos, C.; Damalas, D.; De Metrio, G.; De Florio, M. Incidental catch and estimated discards of pelagic sharks from the swordfish and tuna fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea. Fish. Bull. 2005, 103, 620–634. [Google Scholar]
  75. Garibaldi, F. By-catch in the mesopelagic swordfish longline fishery in the Ligurian Sea (Western Mediterranean). Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT 2015, 71, 1495–1498. [Google Scholar]
  76. Panayiotou, N.; Porsmoguer, S.B.; Moutopoulos, D.Κ.; Lloret, J. Offshore recreational fisheries of large vulnerable sharks and teleost fish in the Mediterranean Sea: First information on the species caught. Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 2020, 21, 222–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Watson, J.W.; Kerstetter, D.W. Pelagic longline fishing gear: A brief history and review of research efforts to improve selectivity. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 2006, 40, 6–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sassu, N.; Cannas, A.; Ferretti, M. Gli Attrezzi da Pesca in Uso nelle Marinerie Italiane; UNIMAR: Rome, Italy, 2001; Volume 16, p. 81. [Google Scholar]
  79. Ferretti, M. Classificazione e Descrizione Degli Attrezzi da Pesca in Uso Nelle Marinerie Italiane con Particolare Referimento al Loro Impatto Ambientale; ICRAM: Rome, Italy, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  80. Cataudella, S.; Spagnolo, M. Lo Stato della Pesca e Dell’Acquacoltura nei Mari Italiani; Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali: Rome, Italy, 2011; 877p. [Google Scholar]
  81. Preti, A.; Smith, S.E.; Ramon, D.A. Diet differences in the thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) during transition from a warm-water regime to a cool-water regime off California-Oregon, 1998–2000. Calif. Cooper. Ocean. Fish. Investig. Rep. 2004, 45, 118. [Google Scholar]
  82. Preti, A.; Soykan, C.U.; Dewar, H.; Wells, R.D.; Spear, N.; Kohin, S. Comparative feeding ecology of shortfin mako, blue and thresher sharks in the California Current. Environ. Biol. Fish. 2012, 95, 127–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Balestra, V.; Boero, F.; Carli, A. Andamento del pescato della tonnarella di Camogli dal 1950 al 1974. Valutazioni bio-statistiche. Boll. Pesca Piscic. Idrobiol. 1976, 31, 2. [Google Scholar]
  84. Cattaneo-Vietti, R. Structural changes in Mediterranean marine communities: Lessons from the Ligurian Sea. Rend. Lincei. Sci. Fis. Nat. 2018, 29, 515–524. [Google Scholar]
  85. Finotto, L.; Barausse, A.; Mazzoldi, C. In search of prey: The occurrence of Alopias vulpinus (Bonnaterre, 1788) in the northern Adriatic Sea and its interactions with fishery. Acta Adriat. 2016, 57, 295–304. [Google Scholar]
  86. Sguotti, C.; Lynam, C.P.; García-Carreras, B.; Ellis, J.R.; Engelhard, G.H. Distribution of skates and sharks in the North Sea: 112 years of change. Glob. Chang. Boil. 2016, 22, 2729–2743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. D’Ancona, U. Dell’Influenza della Stasi Peschereccia del Periodo 1914–1918 sul Patrimonio Ittico Dell’Alto Adriatico. In Regio Comitato Talassografico Italiano, Memoria CXXVI; Officine Grafiche Carlo Ferrari: Venice, Italy, 1926; pp. 1–95. [Google Scholar]
  88. D’Ancona, U. Rilievi statistici sulla pesca nell’alto Adriatico. Istit. Ven. Sci. Lett. Arti 1949, 108, 41–53. [Google Scholar]
  89. Di Lorenzo, M.; Vizzini, S.; Signa, G.; Andolina, C.; Palo, G.B.; Gristina, M.; Mazzoldi, C.; Colloca, F. Ontogenetic trophic segregation between two threatened smooth-hound sharks in the Central Mediterranean Sea. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 11011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Last, P.R.; Stevens, J.D. Sharks and Rays of Australia, 2nd ed.; CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne, Australia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  91. Ebert, D.A.; Fowler, S.L.; Compagno, L.J. Sharks of the World: A Fully Illustrated Guide; Wild Nature Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  92. Ovenden, J.R.; Kashiwagi, T.; Broderick, D.; Giles, J.; Salini, J. The extent of population genetic subdivision differs among four co-distributed shark species in the Indo-Australian archipelago. BMC Evol. Boil. 2009, 9, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. King, J.R.; Wetklo, M.; Supernault, J.; Taguchi, M.; Yokawa, K.; Sosa-Nishizaki, O.; Withler, R.E. Genetic analysis of stock structure of blue shark (Prionace glauca) in the north Pacific ocean. Fish. Res. 2015, 172, 181–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Leone, A.; Urso, I.; Damalas, D.; Martinsohn, J.; Zanzi, A.; Mariani, S.; Sperone, E.; Micarelli, P.; Garibaldi, F.; Megalofonou, P.; et al. Genetic differentiation and phylogeography of Mediterranean-North Eastern Atlantic blue shark (Prionace glauca, L. 1758) using mitochondrial DNA: Panmixia or complex stock structure? PeerJ 2017, 5, e4112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  95. Veríssimo, A.; Sampaio, Í.; McDowell, J.R.; Alexandrino, P.; Mucientes, G.; Queiroz, N.; Da Silva, C.; Jones, C.S.; Noble, L.R. World without borders—Genetic population structure of a highly migratory marine predator, the blue shark (Prionace glauca). Ecol. Evol. 2017, 7, 4768–4781. [Google Scholar]
  96. Bailleul, D.; MacKenzie, A.; Sacchi, O.; Poisson, F.; Bierne, N.; Arnaud-Haond, S. Large-scale genetic panmixia in the blue shark (Prionace glauca): A single worldwide population, or a genetic lag-time effect of the “grey zone” of differentiation? Evol. Appl. 2018, 11, 614–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Campana, S.E.; Marks, L.; Joyce, W.; Kohler, N.E. Effects of recreational and commercial fishing on blue sharks (Prionace glauca) in Atlantic Canada, with inferences on the North Atlantic population. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2006, 63, 670–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Froese, R.; Garilao, C.; Winker, H.; Coro, G.; Demirel, N.; Tsikliras, A.; Dimarchopoulou, D.; Scarcella, G.; Sampang-Reyes, A. Exploitation and Status of European Stocks; Oceana: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  99. Biton-PorSmoguer, S.; LLoret, J. Potentially unsustainable fisheries of a critically-endangered pelagic shark species: The case of the Blue shark (Prionace glauca) in the Western Mediterranean Sea. Cybium 2018, 42, 299–302. [Google Scholar]
  100. Storelli, M.M.; Barone, G.; Storelli, A.; Marcotrigiano, G.O. Levels and congener profiles of PCBs and PCDD/Fs in blue shark (Prionace glauca) liver from the South-Eastern Mediterranean Sea (Italy). Chemosphere 2011, 82, 37–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Bernardini, I.; Garibaldi, F.; Canesi, L.; Fossi, M.C.; Baini, M. First data on plastic ingestion by blue sharks (Prionace glauca) from the Ligurian Sea (North-Western Mediterranean Sea). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 135, 303–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Colloca, F.; Scannela, D.; Geraci, M.L.; Falsone, F.; Giusto, B.; Vitale, S.; Di Lorenzo, M.; Bono, G. British sharks in Sicily: Records of long-distance migration of tope shark (Galeorhinus galeus) from the north-eastern Atlantic to the Mediterranean Sea. Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 2019, 20, 309–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. United Nations Environment (UNEP). Proposal for the Inclusion of the Tope Shark (Galeorhinus galeus) in Appendix II of the Convention. In Proceedings of the 4th Meeting of the Sessional Committee of the CMS Scientific Council (ScC-SC4), Bonn, Germany, 12–15 November 2019. UNEP/CMS/COP13/Doc. 27.1.10. [Google Scholar]
  104. D’ancona, U.; Razzauti, A. Pesci e Pesca nelle acque dell’Arcipelago Toscano. Comm. Int. Exp. Sci. Médit. Rapp. Pro. Verb. 1937, 11, 129. [Google Scholar]
  105. Relini, G.; Mannini, A.; De Ranieri, S.; Bitetto, I.; Follesa, M.C.; Gancitano, V.; Manfredi, C.; Casciaro, L.; Sion, L. Chondrichthyes caught during the medits surveys in Italian waters. Biol. Mar. Mediterr. 2010, 17, 186–204. [Google Scholar]
  106. Ferretti, F.; Myers, R.A.; Sartor, P.; Serena, F. Long term dynamics of the chondrichthyan fish community in the upper Tyrrhenian Sea. ICES CM 2005, 25, 1–34. [Google Scholar]
  107. Ferretti, F.; Curnick, D.; Liu, K.; Romanov, E.V.; Block, B.A. Shark baselines and the conservation role of remote coral reef ecosystems. Sci. Adv. 2018, 4, eaaq0333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  108. Drew, J.; Philipp, C.; Westneat, M.W. Shark Tooth Weapons from the 19th Century Reflect Shifting Baselines in Central Pacific Predator Assemblies. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e59855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  109. Moro, S.; Jona-Lasinio, G.; Block, B.; Micheli, F.; De Leo, G.; Serena, F.; Bottaro, M.; Scacco, U.; Ferretti, F. Abundance and distribution of the white shark in the Mediterranean Sea. Fish Fish. 2020, 21, 338–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Burgman, M. Risk and Decisions for Conservation and Environmental Management; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  111. Gallagher, A.J.; Kyne, P.M.; Hammerschlag, N. Ecological risk assessment and its application to elasmobranch conservation and management. J. Fish Biol. 2012, 80, 1727–1748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Milton, D.A. Assessing the susceptibility to fishing of populations of rare trawl bycatch: Sea snakes caught by Australia’s Northern Prawn Fishery. Biol. Conserv. 2001, 101, 281–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Chin, A.; Kyne, P.M.; Walkers, T.I.; McAucley, R.B. An integrated risk assessment for climate change: Analyzing the vulnerability of sharks and rays on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2010, 16, 1936–1953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diversity 12 00389 g001 550
Figure 1. Study area.
Figure 1. Study area.
Diversity 12 00389 g001
Diversity 12 00389 g002 550
Figure 2. Frequency of species recorded in the different references.
Figure 2. Frequency of species recorded in the different references.
Diversity 12 00389 g002
Diversity 12 00389 g003 550
Figure 3. Temporal trend of Squalus acanthias.
Figure 3. Temporal trend of Squalus acanthias.
Diversity 12 00389 g003
Diversity 12 00389 g004 550
Figure 4. Temporal trend of Squatina oculata.
Figure 4. Temporal trend of Squatina oculata.
Diversity 12 00389 g004
Diversity 12 00389 g005 550
Figure 5. Temporal trend of Squatina squatina.
Figure 5. Temporal trend of Squatina squatina.
Diversity 12 00389 g005
Diversity 12 00389 g006 550
Figure 6. Temporal trend of Alopias vulpinus.
Figure 6. Temporal trend of Alopias vulpinus.
Diversity 12 00389 g006
Diversity 12 00389 g007 550
Figure 7. Temporal trend of Mustelus asterias.
Figure 7. Temporal trend of Mustelus asterias.
Diversity 12 00389 g007
Diversity 12 00389 g008 550
Figure 8. Temporal trend of Mustelus mustelus.
Figure 8. Temporal trend of Mustelus mustelus.
Diversity 12 00389 g008
Diversity 12 00389 g009 550
Figure 9. Temporal trend of Prionace glauca.
Figure 9. Temporal trend of Prionace glauca.
Diversity 12 00389 g009
Diversity 12 00389 g010 550
Figure 10. Temporal trend of Galeorhinus galeus.
Figure 10. Temporal trend of Galeorhinus galeus.
Diversity 12 00389 g010
Table
Table 1. List of threatened sharks in Italian seas considered in this study, based on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List.
Table 1. List of threatened sharks in Italian seas considered in this study, based on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List.
SpeciesCommon NameItalianIUCN
Red List (2012)		Mediterranean IUCN
Red List (2016)
Squalus acanthiasspiny dogfishCREN
Squatina aculeatasawback angel sharkCRCR
Squatina oculatasmoothback angel sharkCRCR
Squatina squatinaangel sharkCRCR
Alopias vulpinuscommon thresher sharkCREN
Mustelus asteriasstarry smoothhoundENVU
Mustelus musteluscommon smoothhoundENVU
Mustelus punctulatusblackspotted smoothhoundENVU
Prionace glaucablue sharkVUCR
Galeorhinus galeustope sharkCRVU
Table
Table 2. Parameterization of the semiquantitative values of abundance recorded in the considered scientific references.
Table 2. Parameterization of the semiquantitative values of abundance recorded in the considered scientific references.
Reported Frequency/IUCN CategoryVery Rare/CRRare/ENUncommon/VUFrequent/NTCommon/LCVery Common/LC
Assigned value123456
Table
Table 3. References covering the selected shark species, with details on temporal range and related maritime sectors.
Table 3. References covering the selected shark species, with details on temporal range and related maritime sectors.
Historical Periods, Related Maritime Sectors and References
SpeciesCommon name1832–1841,
Italian Seas
[32]		1870,
Adriatic Sea
[33]		1879–1881,
Sicilian Seas
[34]		1883,
Adriatic Sea
[35]		1909,
Central Thyrrenian Sea
[36]		1956,
Italian Seas
[37]		1962,
Italian Seas
[38]		2012,
Italian Seas
[31]
Squalus acanthiasspiny dogfish55555331
Squatina aculeatasawback angel sharknanananana121
Squatina oculatasmoothback angel shark33554121
Squatina squatinaangel shark5535na121
Alopias vulpinuscommon thresher shark2232na441
Mustelus asteriasstarry smoothhound5555na552
Mustelus musteluscommon smoothhound6333na562
Mustelus punctulatusblackspotted smoothhoundnanananananana2
Prionace glaucablue sharkna3na24453
Galeorhinus galeustope shark52553531

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Leonetti, F.L.; Sperone, E.; Travaglini, A.; Mojetta, A.R.; Signore, M.; Psomadakis, P.N.; Dinkel, T.M.; Bottaro, M. Filling the Gap and Improving Conservation: How IUCN Red Lists and Historical Scientific Data Can Shed More Light on Threatened Sharks in the Italian Seas. Diversity 2020, 12, 389. https://doi.org/10.3390/d12100389

AMA Style

Leonetti FL, Sperone E, Travaglini A, Mojetta AR, Signore M, Psomadakis PN, Dinkel TM, Bottaro M. Filling the Gap and Improving Conservation: How IUCN Red Lists and Historical Scientific Data Can Shed More Light on Threatened Sharks in the Italian Seas. Diversity. 2020; 12(10):389. https://doi.org/10.3390/d12100389

Chicago/Turabian Style

Leonetti, Francesco Luigi, Emilio Sperone, Andrea Travaglini, Angelo R. Mojetta, Marco Signore, Peter N. Psomadakis, Thaya M. Dinkel, and Massimiliano Bottaro. 2020. "Filling the Gap and Improving Conservation: How IUCN Red Lists and Historical Scientific Data Can Shed More Light on Threatened Sharks in the Italian Seas" Diversity 12, no. 10: 389. https://doi.org/10.3390/d12100389

APA Style

Leonetti, F. L., Sperone, E., Travaglini, A., Mojetta, A. R., Signore, M., Psomadakis, P. N., Dinkel, T. M., & Bottaro, M. (2020). Filling the Gap and Improving Conservation: How IUCN Red Lists and Historical Scientific Data Can Shed More Light on Threatened Sharks in the Italian Seas. Diversity, 12(10), 389. https://doi.org/10.3390/d12100389

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop