Global collision-risk hotspots of marine traffic and the world’s largest fish, the whale shark

© The Author(s), 2022. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Womersley, F. C., Humphries, N. E., Queiroz, N., Vedor, M., da Costa, I., Furtado, M., Tyminski, J. P., Abrantes, K., Araujo, G., Bach, S. S., Barnett, A., Berumen, M. L., Bessudo Lion, S., Braun, C. D., Clingham, E., Cochran, J. E. M., de la Parra, R., Diamant, S., Dove, A. D. M., Dudgeon, C. L., Erdmann, M. V., Espinoza, E., Fitzpatrick, R., González Cano, J., Green, J. R., Guzman, H. M., Hardenstine, R., Hasan, A., Hazin, F. H. V., Hearn, A. R., Hueter, R. E., Jaidah, M. Y., Labaja, J., Ladinol, F., Macena, B. C. L., Morris Jr., J. J., Norman, B. M., Peñaherrera-Palmav, C., Pierce, S. J., Quintero, L. M., Ramırez-Macías, D., Reynolds, S. D., Richardson, A. J., Robinson, D. P., Rohner, C. A., Rowat, D. R. L., Sheaves, M., Shivji, M. S., Sianipar, A. B., Skomal, G. B., Soler, G., Syakurachman, I., Thorrold, S. R., Webb, D. H., Wetherbee, B. M., White, T. D., Clavelle, T., Kroodsma, D. A., Thums, M., Ferreira, L. C., Meekan, M. G., Arrowsmith, L. M., Lester, E. K., Meyers, M. M., Peel, L. R., Sequeira, A. M. M., Eguıluz, V. M., Duarte, C. M., & Sims, D. W. Global collision-risk hotspots of marine traffic and the world’s largest fish, the whale shark. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119(20), (2022): e2117440119, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2117440119.Marine traffic is increasing globally yet collisions with endangered megafauna such as whales, sea turtles, and planktivorous sharks go largely undetected or unreported. Collisions leading to mortality can have population-level consequences for endangered species. Hence, identifying simultaneous space use of megafauna and shipping throughout ranges may reveal as-yet-unknown spatial targets requiring conservation. However, global studies tracking megafauna and shipping occurrences are lacking. Here we combine satellite-tracked movements of the whale shark, Rhincodon typus, and vessel activity to show that 92% of sharks’ horizontal space use and nearly 50% of vertical space use overlap with persistent large vessel (>300 gross tons) traffic. Collision-risk estimates correlated with reported whale shark mortality from ship strikes, indicating higher mortality in areas with greatest overlap. Hotspots of potential collision risk were evident in all major oceans, predominantly from overlap with cargo and tanker vessels, and were concentrated in gulf regions, where dense traffic co-occurred with seasonal shark movements. Nearly a third of whale shark hotspots overlapped with the highest collision-risk areas, with the last known locations of tracked sharks coinciding with busier shipping routes more often than expected. Depth-recording tags provided evidence for sinking, likely dead, whale sharks, suggesting substantial “cryptic” lethal ship strikes are possible, which could explain why whale shark population declines continue despite international protection and low fishing-induced mortality. Mitigation measures to reduce ship-strike risk should be considered to conserve this species and other ocean giants that are likely experiencing similar impacts from growing global vessel traffic.Funding for data analysis was provided by the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) through a University of Southampton INSPIRE DTP PhD Studentship to F.C.W. Additional funding for data analysis was provided by NERC Discovery Science (NE/R00997/X/1) and the European Research Council (ERC-AdG-2019 883583 OCEAN DEOXYFISH) to D.W.S., Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) under PTDC/BIA/28855/2017 and COMPETE POCI-01–0145-FEDER-028855, and MARINFO–NORTE-01–0145-FEDER-000031 (funded by Norte Portugal Regional Operational Program [NORTE2020] under the PORTUGAL 2020 Partnership Agreement, through the European Regional Development Fund–ERDF) to N.Q. FCT also supported N.Q. (CEECIND/02857/2018) and M.V. (PTDC/BIA-COM/28855/2017). D.W.S. was supported by a Marine Biological Association Senior Research Fellowship. All tagging procedures were approved by institutional ethical review bodies and complied with all relevant ethical regulations in the jurisdictions in which they were performed. Details for individual research teams are given in SI Appendix, section 8. Full acknowledgments for tagging and field research are given in SI Appendix, section 7. This research is part of the Global Shark Movement Project (https://www.globalsharkmovement.org)

Global spatial risk assessment of sharks under the footprint of fisheries

Effective ocean management and the conservation of highly migratory species depend on resolving the overlap between animal movements and distributions, and fishing effort. However, this information is lacking at a global scale. Here we show, using a big-data approach that combines satellite-tracked movements of pelagic sharks and global fishing fleets, that 24% of the mean monthly space used by sharks falls under the footprint of pelagic longline fisheries. Space-use hotspots of commercially valuable sharks and of internationally protected species had the highest overlap with longlines (up to 76% and 64%, respectively), and were also associated with significant increases in fishing effort. We conclude that pelagic sharks have limited spatial refuge from current levels of fishing effort in marine areas beyond national jurisdictions (the high seas). Our results demonstrate an urgent need for conservation and management measures at high-seas hotspots of shark space use, and highlight the potential of simultaneous satellite surveillance of megafauna and fishers as a tool for near-real-time, dynamic management

Global spatial risk assessment of sharks under the footprint of fisheries

Effective ocean management and the conservation of highly migratory species depend on resolving the overlap between animal movements and distributions, and fishing effort. However, this information is lacking at a global scale. Here we show, using a big-data approach that combines satellite-tracked movements of pelagic sharks and global fishing fleets, that 24% of the mean monthly space used by sharks falls under the footprint of pelagic longline fisheries. Space-use hotspots of commercially valuable sharks and of internationally protected species had the highest overlap with longlines (up to 76% and 64%, respectively), and were also associated with significant increases in fishing effort. We conclude that pelagic sharks have limited spatial refuge from current levels of fishing effort in marine areas beyond national jurisdictions (the high seas). Our results demonstrate an urgent need for conservation and management measures at high-seas hotspots of shark space use, and highlight the potential of simultaneous satellite surveillance of megafauna and fishers as a tool for near-real-time, dynamic management

Reply to: Shark mortality cannot be assessed by fishery overlap alone

[Extract] Our previously published paper1 provided global fine-scale spatiotemporal estimates (1° × 1°; monthly) of overlap and fishing exposure risk (FEI) between satellite-tracked shark space use and automatic identification system (AIS) longline fishing effort. We did not assess shark mortality directly, but in addition to replying to the Comment by Murua et al.2, we confirm—using regression analysis of spatially matched data—that fishing-induced pelagic shark mortality (catch per unit effort (CPUE)) is greater where FEI is higher. We focused on assessing shark horizontal spatiotemporal overlap and exposure risk with fisheries because spatial overlap is a major driver of fishing capture susceptibility and previous shark ecological risk assessments (ERAs) assumed a homogenous shark density within species-range distributions3,4,5 or used coarse-scale modelled occurrence data, rather than more ecologically realistic risk estimates in heterogeneous habitats that were selected by sharks over time. Furthermore, our shark spatial exposure risk implicitly accounts for other susceptibility factors with equal or similar probabilities to those commonly used in shark ERAs3,5

Ezetimibe added to statin therapy after acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND: Statin therapy reduces low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels and the risk of cardiovascular events, but whether the addition of ezetimibe, a nonstatin drug that reduces intestinal cholesterol absorption, can reduce the rate of cardiovascular events further is not known. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized trial involving 18,144 patients who had been hospitalized for an acute coronary syndrome within the preceding 10 days and had LDL cholesterol levels of 50 to 100 mg per deciliter (1.3 to 2.6 mmol per liter) if they were receiving lipid-lowering therapy or 50 to 125 mg per deciliter (1.3 to 3.2 mmol per liter) if they were not receiving lipid-lowering therapy. The combination of simvastatin (40 mg) and ezetimibe (10 mg) (simvastatin-ezetimibe) was compared with simvastatin (40 mg) and placebo (simvastatin monotherapy). The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina requiring rehospitalization, coronary revascularization ( 6530 days after randomization), or nonfatal stroke. The median follow-up was 6 years. RESULTS: The median time-weighted average LDL cholesterol level during the study was 53.7 mg per deciliter (1.4 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, as compared with 69.5 mg per deciliter (1.8 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (P<0.001). The Kaplan-Meier event rate for the primary end point at 7 years was 32.7% in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, as compared with 34.7% in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (absolute risk difference, 2.0 percentage points; hazard ratio, 0.936; 95% confidence interval, 0.89 to 0.99; P = 0.016). Rates of pre-specified muscle, gallbladder, and hepatic adverse effects and cancer were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: When added to statin therapy, ezetimibe resulted in incremental lowering of LDL cholesterol levels and improved cardiovascular outcomes. Moreover, lowering LDL cholesterol to levels below previous targets provided additional benefit

Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in stable cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=−4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events