Overfishing Threatens Shortfin Makos, But Science Offers A Survival Strategy

Forbes - Feb 9th, 2025

A groundbreaking study led by Dr. Andrea Bernard and Professor Mahmood Shivji has provided critical insights into the genetic health of shortfin mako sharks in the Atlantic. Conducted by the Save Our Seas Foundation Shark Research Center and Guy Harvey Institute, this research utilized full-genome sequencing to assess both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA across the species' range. Despite severe overfishing pressures, the findings reveal that makos maintain high genetic diversity, offering a glimmer of hope for their adaptability and survival. However, the study emphasizes the urgent need to treat northern and southern Atlantic mako populations as distinct entities, reinforcing the importance of revising fishery management strategies.

The implications of this research are significant for conservation efforts. The genetic diversity observed in shortfin makos contrasts sharply with other exploited shark species, many of which suffer from low genetic variation and are thus more vulnerable to extinction. The study's findings also align with broader international conservation goals, as outlined by the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, calling for increased monitoring and preservation of genetic diversity in marine species. The research underscores the necessity for immediate, science-based management interventions to prevent further decline of mako populations and preserve one of the ocean's most iconic predators before it's too late.

Biodiversity Conservation Shortfin Mako Sharks Genetic Diversity Dr. Andrea Bernard Professor Mahmood Shivji Overfishing Save Our Seas Foundation Guy Harvey Institute Atlantic Ocean

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.6

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a well-researched and accurate overview of the conservation challenges facing shortfin mako sharks, supported by credible scientific research. It effectively communicates the urgency of the situation and the potential for genetic diversity to aid in species recovery. However, the article could benefit from a more balanced presentation of perspectives, including those from fisheries and policymakers. Enhancing transparency with more detailed methodological information and addressing potential conflicts of interest would strengthen the article's credibility. While the article is timely and of public interest, its engagement and impact could be improved by incorporating more diverse viewpoints and actionable insights.

Accuracy

The article is largely accurate, presenting well-supported claims about the genetic diversity and conservation status of shortfin mako sharks. It correctly identifies that shortfin makos are listed as endangered by the IUCN and on Appendix II of CITES, which is corroborated by reliable sources. The claim regarding the genetic diversity of shortfin makos is backed by a specific study conducted by Dr. Andrea Bernard and Professor Mahmood Shivji, which used full-genome sequencing to assess genetic diversity, lending credibility to the findings. However, the article could enhance accuracy by providing more specific data points or figures from the study, such as sample sizes or statistical results, to further substantiate the claims.

Balance

The article predominantly focuses on the scientific findings and conservation implications for shortfin mako sharks, providing a detailed perspective from the researchers involved. While it highlights the necessity of viewing northern and southern Atlantic mako populations as distinct, it lacks perspectives from fisheries or policymakers who might be affected by or have an influence on the conservation measures discussed. Including these viewpoints could provide a more balanced view of the challenges and considerations in implementing conservation strategies.

Clarity

The article is generally clear, using accessible language to explain complex scientific concepts related to genetic diversity and conservation. It effectively communicates the urgency of the conservation issues facing shortfin makos and the significance of the study's findings. However, the inclusion of unrelated headlines at the end of the article could confuse readers and detract from the main narrative. Streamlining the content to focus solely on the mako shark study would enhance clarity.

Source quality

The article cites credible sources, including a study published in 'Evolutionary Applications' and researchers from the Save Our Seas Foundation Shark Research Center and Guy Harvey Institute. These affiliations suggest a high level of expertise and reliability in the information presented. However, the article could improve by referencing additional independent studies or organizations to corroborate the findings, thereby strengthening the overall source quality and reducing potential biases from relying on a single research group.

Transparency

The article provides some transparency by mentioning the study and the institutions involved, but it lacks detailed explanations of the research methodology, such as sample sizes or specific genetic analysis techniques used. This omission makes it difficult for readers to fully assess the robustness of the findings. Additionally, while the article discusses the implications of the findings, it does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest or funding sources that might influence the research, which would be important for transparency.