Vol.:(0123456789)1 3 Conservation Genetics (2018) 19:501–525 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-017-1038-3 REVIEW ARTICLE The importance of considering genetic diversity in shark and ray conservation policies Rodrigo Rodrigues Domingues1,3 · Alexandre Wagner Silva Hilsdorf2 · Otto Bismarck Fazzano Gadig3 Received: 14 June 2017 / Accepted: 13 December 2017 / Published online: 22 December 2017 © Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017 Abstract Many populations of elasmobranchs (sharks and rays) are experiencing severe declines due to the high demand for shark fins in Asia, the activities of unregulated fisheries, and increases in shark and ray catches. Recently, the effects of the decline in the populations of marine fish species on genetic diversity have drawn increasing attention; however, only a few studies have addressed the genetic diversity of shark and ray populations. Here, we report the results of a quantitative analysis of the genetic diversity of shark and ray species over the past 20 years and discuss the importance and utility of this genetic information for fisheries management and conservation policies. Furthermore, we suggest future actions important for mini- mizing the gaps in our current knowledge of the genetic diversity of shark and ray species and to minimize the information gap between genetic scientists and policymakers. We suggest that shark and ray fisheries management and conservation policies consider genetic diversity information, such as the management unit, effective population size (Ne), haplotype and nucleotide diversity, observed heterozygosity, and allelic richness, because the long-term survival of a species is strongly dependent on the levels of genetic diversity within and between populations. In addition, sharks and rays are a group of particular interest for genetic conservation due to their remarkable life histories. Keywords Conservation · Elasmobranch · Evolution · Fisheries management · Genetic variability · Molecular marker Introduction Genetic data have aided conservation research and man- agement by facilitating the detection of genetically distinct populations, the measurement of genetic connectivity and the identification of the risks associated with demographic change and inbreeding (Allendorf et al. 2013). A good exam- ple for which genetic information has been considered in fisheries management is the Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), for which genetic data have influenced conservation efforts associated with population restoration (Waples 1995). However, the effective application of genetic data to the management plans for several marine species, includ- ing sharks and rays, remains a challenge (Kenchington et al. 2003). The effects of population-level declines are of major concern in conservation biology because small popula- tions suffer from inbreeding and genetic drift. These effects lead to loss of genetic diversity, which has several poten- tial consequences, such as compromising the ability of a population to evolve in order to cope with environmental changes and reducing its chances of long-term persistence (Frankham et al. 2002). Therefore, councils of evolutionary biologists and fisheries scientists are interested in elucidat- ing the genetic patterns and demographic connectivity of different groups of individuals or populations as well as the distributions of genetic variation within and between popula- tions (Waples and Gaggiotti 2006; Grant and Cheng 2012; Ovenden 2013). Sharks and rays (including stingrays and skates) are groups of interest to conservationists due to their ecologi- cal importance in the marine environment and their current * Rodrigo Rodrigues Domingues domingues.pesca@gmail.com 1 Instituto de Biociências de Rio Claro, Universidade Estadual Paulista, UNESP, Av. 24-A, 1515, Rio Claro, São Paulo 113506-900, Brazil 2 Núcleo Integrado de Biotecnologia, Universidade de Mogi das Cruzes, Mogi das Cruzes, São Paulo 08701-970, Brazil 3 Laboratório de Pesquisa de Elasmobrânquios, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Campus do Litoral Paulista, São Vicente, São Paulo 11330-900, Brazil http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10592-017-1038-3&domain=pdf 502 Conservation Genetics (2018) 19:501–525 1 3 high levels of overexploitation (Dulvy et al. 2014). Cur- rently, there are more than 1160 validly named species of elasmobranchs in the world (Weigmann 2016), representing a significant number of apex and mesopredators that occupy top positions in the food chain (Heithaus et al. 2008; Fer- retti et al. 2010). However, despite their ecological impor- tance, elasmobranchs are one of the most imperiled groups of marine species worldwide (Cortés 2002; Bräutigam et al. 2015) due to their life history characteristics, includ- ing late sexual maturity, lengthy pregnancy, low fertility, slow growth and long life span, making them particularly susceptible to anthropogenic pressures such as overfishing, environmental changes, and pollution (Seitz and Poulakis 2006; Dulvy et al. 2014). Indeed, these anthropogenic pres- sures can cause changes in genetic diversity through popula- tion reduction, thus compromising these species’ ability to evolve (DiBattista 2008). Currently, massive population-level declines and extinc- tion risks due to overfishing over recent decades present significant threats to sharks and rays in all oceans (Ferretti et al. 2010; Worm et al. 2013; Dulvy et al. 2014). The main issues that jeopardize shark and ray species include the high demand for shark fins and gill plates in Asia, unregulated fisheries, bycatching, and increased shark fishing due to the collapse of other fisheries (Musick et al. 2000; Clarke et al. 2006; Herndon et al. 2010; Dulvy et al. 2014; McClenachan et al. 2016). According to a study by Worm et al. (2013), the global catch of sharks from reported and unreported land- ings, discards, and shark finning was estimated as approxi- mately 100 million tons in 2010. Such fishing pressures are more challenging to elasmobranchs because of their high susceptibility relative to most teleosts and because sharks and rays require several decades to recover from overfishing (Stevens et al. 2000). In general, fisheries management of shark and ray relies on a series of studies on the basic biology, life history, and population ecology of elasmobranchs (Simpfendorfer et al. 2011). However, the population genetic diversity of sharks and rays is generally neglected in fisheries manage- ment, and the possibility of change appears distant, as many international conservation efforts currently fail to acknowl- edge genetic variation (Laikre 2010; Ovenden et al. 2013). Therefore, the expansion of global population genetics stud- ies describing the genetic diversity of shark and ray species worldwide is urgently needed in order to identify genetically distinct populations and to preserve genetic diversity. It is imperative to address the severe factors that jeopardize shark and ray populations. Against this background, we conduct a critical review and discuss the importance of including genetic diversity data in shark and ray fisheries management plans and, con- sequently, in conservation policies. Specifically, we discuss the importance of sharks and rays within a conservation genetics context, presenting the possible effects of fishing on their genetic diversity, and we address the current limita- tions and the need for an increase in genetic studies of this taxonomic group in order to assess genetic diversity across geographical ranges. In addition, we suggest future actions important to minimize the knowledge gap between shark and ray geneticists and the authors of conservation policies. What makes sharks and rays particularly interesting to conservation genetics? In addition to their ecological importance, elasmobranchs are a group of particular interest to conservation geneti- cists—researchers who use genetic/genomic techniques to solve problems in conservation biology—due to the remark- able features of their life histories. These features include (i) the evolutionary uniqueness of elasmobranchs, (ii) their reproductive strategy, (iii) the effects of overfishing on evo- lution, (iv) their broad geographic distribution, and (v) the limited number of studies describing their genetic diversity. Evolutionary uniqueness Sharks and rays compose a major lineage of evolutionarily unique vertebrates consisting of approximately 1160 living species; these species represent a small fraction (< 3.0%) of modern fish fauna (Nelson et al. 2016; Weigmann 2016). Compared with marine teleosts, sharks and rays present a low species richness (1160 shark and ray species versus 30,000 teleost species). In particular, some shark and ray orders contain only one family and few genera and species, such as Echinorhiniformes (1 genus, 2 species), Pristio- phoriformes (2 genera, 7 species), and Heterodontiformes (9 species), and there are even several monotypic families, such as the shark families Mitsukurinidae, Cetorhinidae, Pseudocarchariidae, and Leptochariidae and the ray fami- lies Hypnidae, Hexatrygonidae, and Plesiobatidae (Ebert et al. 2013; Last et al. 2016). Furthermore, intrinsic factors, such as diversity of form and function as a means of suc- cessful evolutionary resilience, contribute to a lower his- toric extinction rate and a higher evolutionary adaptability for shark and ray species, allowing them to inhabit several marine and freshwater ecosystems (Ferretti et al. 2010; Ebert et al. 2013; Richards et al. 2013). In addition, over the past 455 million years, sharks have been able to survive mass extinctions that have left ocean waters with far fewer fish (Grogan et al. 2012). Such resilience suggests that sharks have unique genetic properties that support their adaptability and evolutionary success; therefore, their genetic properties must be preserved. 503Conservation Genetics (2018) 19:501–525 1 3 Reproductive strategy Shark and ray species exhibit a wide diversity of reproduc- tive strategies, including multiple paternity, parthenogenesis, sperm storage, and philopatry, and these strategies can have considerable effects on genetic diversity (Chapman et al. 2004; Daly-Engel et al. 2010; Conrath and Musick 2012; Bernal et al. 2015). For example, multiple paternity has been documented in many shark and ray species (e.g., Chevolot et al. 2007; Daly-Engel et al. 2010; Byrne and Avise 2012), and whether multiple paternity assists in maintaining genetic diversity is a subject of debate (Zeh and Zeh 2003; Karl 2008). Theoretical studies argue that under natural condi- tions, an increase in multiple paternity will reduce effective population size (Ne) and consequently the genetic diversity (Ramakrishnan et al. 2004). On the other hand, multiple matings and sperm storage events could increase the Ne after a bottleneck (Karl 2008). In addition, Byrne and Avise (2012) posited the “sperm storage” theory, in which females mating with multiple males promotes competition among the sperm, which might lead either to improved fertilization success or to better genes for their zygotes. Parthenogenesis, or “virgin birth” (the production of off- spring without fertilization by a male), has been documented in sharks and rays (e.g., Chapman et al. 2007; Portnoy et al. 2014a, b; Fields et al. 2015). Although it is difficult to esti- mate the possible effects on wild populations, this reproduc- tive strategy can be advantageous because of its adaptive significance (Booth and Schuett 2011). In particular, at low population densities, when females undergo fertilization fail- ure because of the difficulty in finding males, facultative par- thenogenesis could have adaptive significance (Fields et al. 2015). On the other hand, due to elevated homozygosity, parthenogenesis is believed to increase inbreeding, reduce fitness, increase the likelihood of the fixation of deleterious alleles, and consequently increase the probability of extinc- tion (Watts et al. 2006; Chapman et al. 2007; Booth and Schuett 2011). The first report of facultative parthenogen- esis was just recently documented in wild populations of smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata, Pristidae), with five individuals reportedly close to or in complete homozygosity (Fields et al. 2015). Another important reproductive strategy that can affect genetic diversity is natal philopatry, which is defined by the return of a far-ranging individual to its exact birthplace (Chapman et al. 2015). For instance, sex-biased dispersion, such as male-biased dispersal and female philopatry to a coastal nursery has been documented for the great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias, Lamnidae; Pardini et al. 2001) and bonnethead (Sphyrna tiburo, Sphyrnidae; Port- noy et al. 2015). According to Portnoy et al. (2015), sex- biased dispersion can facilitate sorting of locally adaptive variation, with the dispersion of one sex facilitating the movement of potentially adaptive variation among locations and environments. Effects of overfishing on the evolutionary process Overfishing may impact evolutionary processes mainly by changing body size and by promoting early sexual maturity; additionally, overfishing affects bioeconomics and macro- ecological patterns (Belgrano and Fowler 2013; Heino et al. 2015). For sharks, only a few studies based exclusively on phenotypic traits have shown direct evidence of the influ- ence of fisheries on evolution. Walker et al. (1998) reported changes in the growth rate of gummy sharks (Mustelus ant- arcticus, Triakidae) caused by length-selective fishing mor- tality. Furthermore, Clarke et al. (2013) reported that the median lengths of silky sharks (Carcharhinus falciformis, Carcharhinidae) and oceanic whitetip sharks (Carcharhinus longimanus, Carcharhinidae) decreased significantly in the Pacific Ocean between 1995 and 2010. Though these phe- notypic changes may indicate an evolutionary response to overfishing, the possible genetic consequences are unknown. Recently, Gallagher et al. (2014) suggested that the ecologi- cal, behavioral, and physiological adaptations of hammer- head sharks (Sphyrnidae) that once promoted evolutionary success are now maladaptive under current levels and modes of exploitation. For example, the high agility that supports their prey capture strategy of burst swimming behavior also results in a high rate (60–80%) of at-vessel and post-release mortality (Gallagher et al. 2014). However, though no stud- ies of direct fisheries-induced evolution of shark and ray species exist, the examples cited above suggest that evo- lutionary traits and unique adaptations can be affected by overexploitation. Broad geographic distribution Many sharks and rays are widely distributed and highly mobile (e.g., the shortfin mako Isurus oxyrinchus, Lam- nidae, and the pelagic stingray Pteroplatytrygon violacea, Dasyatidae), features that make it difficult to sample enough individuals from different locations to allow for the identi- fication of discrete populations over the entire distribution of the species. For example, at least 150 shark species regu- larly migrate across national boundaries, and ¼ of threatened shark species have ranges that include at least 18 countries (Dulvy et al. 2014). Unlike bony fishes and other marine organisms, shark and ray species do not have a planktonic larval stage with dispersal via ocean currents. Instead, their dispersal is medi- ated entirely by the active movement of adult individuals. In general, large migratory and oceanic species such as the blue shark (Prionace glauca, Carcharhinidae) tend to pre- sent more homogeneous populations (Taguchi et al. 2015), 504 Conservation Genetics (2018) 19:501–525 1 3 whereas smaller, more coastal species, such as the spot-tail shark (Carcharhinus sorrah, Carcharhinidae), commonly exist in isolated populations (Giles et  al. 2014). These coastal sharks and rays tend to experience more obstacles, such as marine barriers and oceanographic heterogeneity. Therefore, assessing the extant genetic diversity throughout their distribution is imperative to avoid local gene pool ero- sion. For example, the blue shark is likely the most wide- ranging species of shark and the most heavily fished shark species in the world, but only a few range-limited studies (e.g., Ovenden et al. 2009; King et al. 2015; Taguchi et al. 2015; Li et al. 2016) have attempted to describe the genetic structure and diversity of this species. These studies did not indicate any genetic differentiation in the Pacific and Indo- Pacific regions, a result that was attributed mainly to the blue shark’s high agility. Nevertheless, the authors indicated the need for cooperative fisheries management among different countries, even though management programs do not have any genetic data available along the broad distribution of the blue shark. Consequently, there is a considerable gap to obtaining a holistic view of the population structure of this species. Moreover, it will not be possible to detect negative changes and reductions in genetic diversity unless the major distribution points of sharks and rays are studied. Although there are currently no global genetic popula- tion studies of the blue shark, a few widely distributed shark species, such as the scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini, Sphyrnidae), the whale shark (Rhincodon typus, Rhinco- dontidae), the sand tiger shark (Carcharias taurus, Odon- taspididae), the sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus, Carcharhinidae), the dusky shark (Carcharhinus obscurus, Carcharhinidae), the copper shark (Carcharhinus brachyu- rus, Carcharhinidae) and the silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis, Carcharhinidae), have been studied globally. Although these studies are incipient and some of them report only limited genetic markers, they demonstrate that different populations of single shark species are genetically discrete entities worldwide that may have different levels of genetic diversity (Duncan et al. 2006; Castro et al. 2007; Ahonen et al. 2009; Portnoy et al. 2010; Benavides et al. 2011b; Clarke et al. 2015). Therefore, each discrete shark population should be managed separately to reduce the risk of depleting their genetic resources. Few studies describe the genetic diversity of sharks and rays Despite an increase in the number of genetics studies in the last decade (Fig. 1), currently, only ~ 10% of shark and ray species have been investigated in terms of their population genetic structure, genetic diversity and demographic his- tory. For example, no population genetics study performed to date has aimed at describing the genetic diversity and identifying the discrete populations along the distribu- tion range of the pelagic stingray, a cosmopolitan species frequently caught as bycatch in pelagic longline fisheries around the world (Forselledo et al. 2008). The same is true for species with narrow geographic distributions and species that are critically endangered, such as the daggernose shark (Isogomphodon oxyrhynchus, Carcharhinidae) (Lessa et al. 2016). Furthermore, the majority of studies represent the first genetic examination of a particular species (Dudgeon et al. 2012), although there are a few exceptions, such as studies in which some species, including the white shark and the scalloped hammerhead, are re-examined. The absence of genetic evaluations of many shark species complicates the transition from the current overexploitation and short- and long-term conservation. Fig. 1 Numbers of articles pub- lished between 1983 and 2016 that describe the genetic diver- sity of shark and ray species 505Conservation Genetics (2018) 19:501–525 1 3 The effects of fishing on the genetic diversity of shark and ray populations Despite the negative relationship between overexploited populations and genetic diversity, the use of genetics in the management plans of threatened species remains a chal- lenge (Laikre 2010). The effects of population declines on marine fishes in terms of decreased genetic diversity have recently drawn attention. Many authors claim the need for an application of genetic diversity metrics in fisheries management plans because of the harmful consequences of inbreeding, the loss of genetic diversity, the loss of evo- lutionary potential and changes in population structures of species (Kenchington et al. 2003; Allendorf et al. 2008; Frankham 2010; Laikre et al. 2010b; Hoban et al. 2013a, b). Studies have used historical and contemporary samples to address the question of how fisheries affect the genetic diversity (mtDNA and microsatellites) of fish and marine mammal stocks (Hauser et al. 2002; Pichler and Baker 2000). For example, the heterozygosity (microsatellites), number of alleles per locus, and Ne of the New Zealand snapper (Pagrus auratus, Sparidae) declined between 1950 and 1988 after the creation of a fishery for this popula- tion (Hauser et al. 2002). McCusker and Bentzen (2010) found a positive relationship between genetic diversity (mtDNA and microsatellites) and fish stock abundance. Meanwhile, Pinsky and Palumbi (2014) compiled data for 140 species of marine fishes across 11,049 loci and clearly showed a reduction in allelic richness in 9 over- fished stocks among 12 genera and families. According to Allendorf et al. (2008), uncontrolled harvesting may lead to genetic impacts, such as the alteration of popula- tion subdivision, loss of genetic variation, and selective genetic changes. To date, no study has assessed the direct relationship between abundance and genetic diversity met- rics (i.e., nucleotide and haplotype diversity, observed het- erozygosity and allelic richness) in shark and ray species. Nevertheless, many species that are under intense fish- ing pressure have shown low values of genetic diversity, as indicated mainly by nucleotide diversity and observed heterozygosity (Table 1; Fig. 3). Although the low genetic diversity of shark and ray species is probably more asso- ciated with bottlenecks and the slow rate of molecular evolution, regardless of whether the cause is historical or cotemporary, the current levels of genetic diversity should be taken into account for conservation policies (Martin et al. 1992; Hoelzel et al. 2006; O’Brien et al. 2013; Allen- dorf et al. 2013). Traditional management plans seek to increase the num- ber of individuals in different populations (Hauser and Carvalho 2008). However, even large populations (census population size—Nc) may face a substantial loss of genetic variation because the Ne, which determines the strength of genetic drift in a population, is often much smaller than Nc in overexploited marine fish species (Ryman et al. 1995; Allendorf et al. 2008; Hare et al. 2011). For example, millions of individuals may be equivalent to a Ne of only hundreds or thousands (Ryman et al. 1995; Hauser et al. 2002). Therefore, as Ne decreases, genetic drift erodes genetic variation, increasing the probability of fixation of deleterious alleles and reducing the resilience of overfished species (Hare et al. 2011). Although Ne is one of the most important genetic parameters of wildlife populations, estimations of contemporary Ne are highly limited for shark and ray species (Table 2). Several studies have shown Ne values lower than 500 for some shark and ray species, such as the zebra shark (Stegostoma fascia- tum, Stegostomidae) (Dudgeon and Ovenden 2015) and the smalltooth sawfish (Chapman et al. 2011) (Table 2). Recent studies suggest that at a minimum, an Ne of ≥ 100 individuals is suggested to prevent short-term genetic erosion and a 10% loss of fitness over five generations, whereas the minimal threshold to retain long-term evolu- tionary potential is at least 1000 individuals (Frankham 2014). The Ne values estimated for elasmobranch popula- tions suggest the need for long-term monitoring and can be informative for management decisions. Therefore, we believe that Ne is an important genetic parameter to be applied to future fisheries management plans because of its importance in assessing the level of genetic diversity (Willoughby et al. 2015) and because of its role as a proxy of abundance [(IUCN Red List criterion C) (Ovenden et al. 2016)], as determined by previous studies (e.g., Dudgeon et al. 2012; Frankham 2014; Ovenden et al. 2016). Conservation policies have overlooked and neglected shark and ray genetic diversity Many shark and ray species are highly migratory and over- exploited; therefore, they may require international man- agement efforts such as bilateral and multilateral fisheries management agreements (Musick et al. 2000; Herndon et al. 2010). The conservation status and management measures for many shark and ray species have been evaluated by inter- national conservation organizations, and the policies for con- servation are mainly based on retention bans, finning bans and trading bans intended to promote the recovery of shark populations (Tolotti et al. 2015). Like many other interna- tional policies these organizations do not have any initiatives that deal specifically with genetic diversity. Recently, a consortium representing various organiza- tions of experts, The Global Sharks and Rays Initiative 506 Conservation Genetics (2018) 19:501–525 1 3 Table 1 Genetic diversity metrics for shark and ray species Species* Regions** Molecular mark- ers*** He Ho Ra h π References IUCN Sharks  Squatina argen- tina (Squatini- dae) Brazil A – 0.2860 (4) – – – Solé-Cava et al. (1983) EN  Squatina argen- tina (Squatini- dae) Brazil A – 0.3670 (4) – – – Solé-Cava et al. (1983) EN  Mustelus antarcticus (Triakidae) Australia A – 0.0057 (32) – – – MacDonald (1988) LC  Carcharhinus tilstoni (Car- charhinidae) Australia A – 0.0370 (13) – – – Lavery and Shak- lee (1989) LC  Carcharhinus sorrah Australia A – 0.0350 (13) – – – Lavery and Shak- lee (1989) NT  Carcharhinus plumbeus NAO, GM A/RFLP – 0.0050 (27) – – 0.0004 Heist et al. (1995) VU  Isurus oxyrinchus Global RFLP – – – 0.75 0.0035 Heist et al. (1996a) VU  Rhizoprionodon terraenovae (Carcharhini- dae) NAO, GM RFLP – – – 0.71 0.0013 Heist et al. (1996b) LC  Squatina califor- nica (Squatini- dae) California A/RFLP – 0.0056 (7) – – – Gaida (1997) NT  Mustelus ant- arcticus Australia A/RFLP – 0.0990 (28) – 0.53 0.0016 Gardner and Ward (1998) LC  Carcharodon carcharias SA, Australia, NZ CR mtDNA/MS – 0.68 (5) – 0.0203 Pardini et al. (2001) VU  Negaprion brevi- rostris (Car- charhinidae) WAO MS 0.79 0.77 (15) – – – Feldheim et al. (2001) NT  Carcharhinus limbatus (Car- charhinidae) NAO, GM CR mtDNA – – – 0.71 0.0011 Keeney et al. (2003) NT  Isurus oxyrinchus Global MS 0.87 0.85 (4) – – – Schrey and Heist (2003) VU  Carcharhinus limbatus NAO, GM, CS CR mtDNA/MS 0.5 0.50 (8) – 0.81 0.0021 Keeney et al. (2005) NT  Carcharhinus limbatus Global CR mtDNA – – – 0.84 0.0041 Keeney and Heist (2006) NT  Carcharias taurus SA, Australia CR mtDNA/AFLP – – – 0.39 0.0025 Stow et al. (2006) VU  Sphyrna lewini Global CR mtDNA – – – 0.80 0.0013 Duncan et al. (2006) EN  Cetorhinus maxi- mus (Cetorhi- nidae) Global CR mtDNA – – – 0.72 0.0013 Hoelzel et al. (2006) VU  Rhincodon typus Global CR mtDNA – – – 0.97 0.0110 Castro et al. (2007) VU  Triakis semifas- ciata (Triaki- dae) California CR mtDNA/ISSR – – – – 0.0067 Lewallen et al. (2007) LC  Somniosus microcephalus (Somniosidae) NPO, SO, NA CytB mtDNA – – – 0.78 0.0022 Murray et al. (2008) NT 507Conservation Genetics (2018) 19:501–525 1 3 Table 1 (continued) Species* Regions** Molecular mark- ers*** He Ho Ra h π References IUCN  Somniosus pacifi- cus (Somniosi- dae) NPO, SO, NA CytB mtDNA – – – 0.82 0.0037 Murray et al. (2008) DD  Somniosus antarcticus (Somniosidae) NPO, SO, NA CytB mtDNA – – – 0.67 0.0023 Murray et al. (2008) DD  Negaprion brevi- rostris PAO CR mtDNA/MS 0.81 0.73 (9) 8.5 0.78 0.0059 Schultz et al. (2008) NT  Negaprion acutidens (Car- charhinidae) IPO CR mtDNA/MS 0.67 0.58 (9) 2.6 0.28 0.0006 Schultz et al. (2008) VU  Carcharias taurus Global CR mtDNA/MS 0.74 0.65 (6) 3.3 0.73 0.00003 Ahonen et al. (2009) VU  Galeorhinus galeus (Triaki- dae) Global CR mtDNA – – – 0.92 0.0071 Chabot and Allen (2009) VU  Stegostoma fas- ciatum IWPO ND4 mtDNA/MS 0.73 – – 0.75 0.0014 Dudgeon et al. (2009) VU  Carcharodon carcharias PO CR mtDNA – – – 0.79 0.0034 Jorgensen et al. (2009) VU  Prionace glauca IAA CR mtDNA – – – 0.92 0.0080 Ovenden et al. (2009) NT  Carcharhinus sorrah IAA CR mtDNA – – – 0.60 0.0030 Ovenden et al. (2009) NT  Carcharhinus obscurus IAA CR mtDNA – – – 0.60 0.0050 Ovenden et al. (2009) VU  Sphyrna lewini IAA CR mtDNA – – – 0.61 0.0098 Ovenden et al. (2009) EN  Sphyrna lewini WAO CR mtDNA – – – 0.38 0.0013 Chapman et al. (2009) EN  Rhincodon typus Global MS 0.68 0.66 (8) 9 – – Schmidt et al. (2009) VU  Carcharhinus plumbeus Global CR mtDNA/MS 0.81 0.81 (8) 11.1 0.96 0.0048 Portnoy et al. (2010) VU  Mustelus schmitti SAO CytB mtDNA – – – 0.23 0.0015 Pereyra et al. (2010) EN  Chiloscyllium plagiosum (Hemiscyllii- dae) Japan CytB mtDNA – – – 0.72 0.0025 Fu et al. (2010) NT  Carcharhinus leucas (Car- charhinidae) WAO CR mtDNA/MS 0.84 0.83 (5) – 0.51 0.0012 Karl et al. (2011) NT  Squalus acan- thias (Squali- dae) Global ND2 mtDNA/MS 0.60 0.61 (8) 5.6 0.84 0.0086 Veríssimo et al. (2010) VU  Squalus mitsuku- rii (Squalidae) HA CR mtDNA/MS 0.56 0.57 (8) 8.4 0.54 0.0010 Daly-Engel et al. (2010) DD  Rhizoprionodon porosus (Car- charhinidae) WAO CR mtDNA – – – 0.88 0.0028 Mendonça et al. (2011) LC  Sphyrna lewini EPO CR mtDNA/MS 0.79 0.77 (15) – 0.53 0.0011 Nance et al. (2011) EN  Rhizoprionodon acutus (Car- charhinidae) EA, Indonesian ND4 mtDNA/MS 0.63 0.48 (6) – 0.82 0.0034 Ovenden et al. (2011) LC 508 Conservation Genetics (2018) 19:501–525 1 3 Table 1 (continued) Species* Regions** Molecular mark- ers*** He Ho Ra h π References IUCN  Sphyrna lewini EA, Indonesian ND4 mtDNA/MS 0.75 0.69 (8) – 0.34 0.0018 Ovenden et al. (2011) EN  Carcharhinus brachyurus Global CR mtDNA – – – 0.76 0.0160 Benavides et al. (2011a) NT  Carcharhinus obscurus Global CR mtDNA – – – 0.83 0.0050 Benavides et al. (2011b) VU  Centroscymnus coelolepis (Somniosidae) EA CR mtDNA/MS 0.77 0.77 (8) 8.1 0.65 0.0018 Veríssimo et al. (2011) NT  Carcharhinus leucas Australia ND4 mtDNA/MS 0.77 0.77 (3) – 0.48 0.0791 Tillet et al. (2012b) NT  Carcharhinus limbatus Brazil CR mtDNA – – – 0.80 0.0021 Sodré et al. (2012) NT  Ginglymostoma cirratum WAO CR mtDNA/MS 0.58 0.58 (8) – 0.48 0.0008 Karl et al. (2012) DD  Carcharodon carcharias Australia CR mtDNA/MS 0.68 0.68 (6) – 0.88 0.0086 Blower et al. (2012) VU  Sphyrna lewini MP, GM CR mtDNA/MS 0.53 0.62 (5) 4.0 0.49 0.0110 Castillo-Olguín et al. (2012) EN  Carcharhinus amboinensis (Carcharhini- dae) Northern Australia ND/CR mtDNA – – – 0.78 0.0065 Tillet et al. (2012a) DD  Centrophorus squamosus (Centrophori- dae) Entire distribution range ND2 mtDNA/MS – 0.74 (6) 12.4 0.57 0.0018 Veríssimo et al. (2012) VU  Triaenodon obe- sus (Carcharhi- nidae) IPO CR mtDNA – – – 0.55 0.0021 Whitney et al. (2012) NT  Sphyrna lewini Global MS 0.77 0.71 (13) 7.6 – – Daly-Engel et al. (2012) EN  Mustelus ant- arcticus IPO, Australasia ND2/ND4/CR mtDNA – – – 0.46 0.0008 Boomer et al. (2012)**** LC  Mustelus lenticu- latus (Triaki- dae) IPO, Australasia ND2/ND4/CR mtDNA – – – 0.53 0.0009 Boomer et al. (2012)**** LC  Rhizoprionodon terraenovae GM AFLP 0.32 – – – – Suarez-Moo et al. (2013) LC  Carcharhinus brevipinna (Carcharhini- dae) Southern IPO ND4 mtDNA – – – 0.68 0.0013 Geraghty et al. (2013) NT  Rhizoprionodon lalandii (Car- charhinidae) WAO CR mtDNA – – – 0.88 0.0028 Mendonça et al. (2013) DD  Rhizoprionodon porosus – CR mtDNA – – – 0.88 0.0041 Tavares et al. (2013) LC  Carcharhinus porosus (Car- charhinidae) – CR mtDNA – – – 0.88 0.0044 Tavares et al. (2013) DD  Carcharhinus limbatus – CR mtDNA – – – 0.54 0.0022 Tavares et al. (2013) NT  Sphyrna tudes (Sphyrnidae) – CR mtDNA – – – 0.20 0.0005 Tavares et al. (2013) VU 509Conservation Genetics (2018) 19:501–525 1 3 Table 1 (continued) Species* Regions** Molecular mark- ers*** He Ho Ra h π References IUCN  Carcharhinus falciformis IPO CR mtDNA – – – 0.48 0.0009 Galván-Tirado et al. (2013) NT  Carcharhinus melanopterus (Carcharhini- dae) FP MS 0.58 0.57 (17) – – – Mourier and Planes (2013) NT  Negaprion acu- tidens FP MS 0.63 0.62 (16) – – – Mourier et al. (2013) VU  Carcharhinus melanopterus FP MS – 0.49 (11) – – – Vignaud et al. (2013) NT  Carcharhinus acronotus (Car- charhinidae) US Atlantic, GM CR mtDNA/MS 0.66 (23) 9.7 0.85 0.0006 Portnoy et al. (2014b) NT  Carcharhinus melanopterus FP CR mtDNA/MS 0.55 0.54 (14) 5.2 0.46 0.0011 Vignaud et al. (2014b) NT  Alopias pelagicus (Alopiidae) PO COI mtDNA/MS 0.64 0.59 (7) – 0.57 0.0031 Cardeñosa et al. (2014) VU  Rhincodon typus IPO CytB CR mtDNA/ MS 0.63 0.62 (14) 4.5 0.92 0.0120 Vignaud et al. (2014a) VU  Carcharhinus sorrah IPO CR mtDNA – – – – 0.0025 Giles et al. (2014) NT  Carcharhinus plumbeus Australia ND4 mtDNA – – – 0.28 0.0009 Geraghty et al. (2014) VU  Carcharhinus obscurus Australia ND4 mtDNA – – – 0.52 0.0012 Geraghty et al. (2014) VU  Pseudocarcha- rias kamoharai (Pseudocar- charhiidae) AO, SIO CR mtDNA – – – 0.63 0.0017 Ferretti et al. (2015) NT  Carcharhinus falciformis Global CR mtDNA – – – 0.93 0.0032 Clarke et al. (2015) NT  Mustelus henlei (Triakidae) Northeastern PO CR mtDNA/MS 0.56 0.45 (6) 4.1 0.77 0.0040 Chabot et al. (2015) LC  Sphyrna tiburo NAO CR mtDNA – – – 0.93 0.0032 Escatel-Luna et al. (2015) LC  Prionace glauca North PO MS 0.61 0.60 (14) 6.7 – – King et al. (2015) NT  Sphyrna lewini Colombia CR mtDNA/MS 0.64 0.56 (15) – 0.58 0.0012 Quintanilha et al. (2015) EN  Mustelus henlei GC CR mtDNA/MS 0.68 0.71 (12) – 0.84 0.0033 Sandoval-Castillo and Beheregaray (2015) LC  Prionace glauca IPO CytB mtDNA – – – 0.80 0.0021 Taguchi et al. (2015) NT  Notorynchus cepedianus (Hexanchidae) California MS 0.53 0.41 (7) – – Larson et al. (2015) DD  Carcharodon carcharias Northeastern PO CR mtDNA – – – 0.77 0.0018 Oñate-González et al. (2015) VU  Triakis semifas- ciata California, BJ CR mtDNA/MS 0.80 0.81 (15) 4.9 – – Barker et al. (2015) LC  Galeorhinus galeus SA MS 0.63 0.65 (12) – – – Bitalo et al. (2015) VU  Mustelus muste- lus (Triakidae) SA MS 0.53 0.68 (12) – – – Bitalo et al. (2015) VU 510 Conservation Genetics (2018) 19:501–525 1 3 Table 1 (continued) Species* Regions** Molecular mark- ers*** He Ho Ra h π References IUCN  Carcharodon carcharias SA CR mtDNA/MS 0.63 0.67 (14) – 0.21 0.0027 Andreotti et al. (2015) VU  Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos (Carcharhini- dae) Australia MS 0.78 0.79 (15) 6.6 – – Momigliano et al. (2015) NT  Carcharhinus limbatus AP CR mtDNA/MS 0.75 0.61 (20) – 0.33 0.0007 Spaet et al. (2015) NT  Sphyrna lewini AP CR mtDNA/MS 0.76 0.72 (20) – 0.48 0.0001 Spaet et al. (2015) EN  Carcharhinus sorrah AP CR mtDNA/MS 0.65 0.62 (20) – 0.39 0.0012 Spaet et al. (2015) NT  Rhizoprionodon acutus AP CR mtDNA/MS 0.56 0.53 (20) – 0.70 0.0013 Spaet et al. (2015) LC  Galeorhinus galeus Global MS 0.43 0.40 (11) 3.9 – – Chabot (2015) VU  Galeorhinus galeus SPO CR mtDNA/MS 0.61 0.55 (8) 4.8 0.75 0.0010 Hernandez et al. (2015) VU  Carcharodon carcharias Northwest AO, SA CR mtDNA/MS 0.67 0.56 (14) 8.5 0.74 0.0045 O’Leary et al. (2015) VU  Scyliorhinus can- icula (Scyliorhi- nidae) MS COI mtDNA/MS 0.59 0.57 (12) 5.3 0.81 0.0032 Kousteni et al. (2015) LC  Negaprion brevi- rostris WAO CR mtDNA/MS 0.79 0.78 (9) – 0.83 0.0020 Ashe et al. (2015) NT  Squatina guggen- heim (Squati- nidae) SAO CytB/ITS2 mtDNA – – – 0.38/0.26 0.0110/0.0070 Garcia et al. (2015) EN  Centroscymnus coelolepis Australia, SA, European CR mtDNA/MS 0.81 (11) 8.3 0.65 0.0018 Catarino et al. (2015) NT  Sphyrna tiburo Florida, GM CR mtDNA/SNPs – – – 0.88 0.0020/0.3129 Portnoy et al. (2015) VU  Galeocerdo cuvier (Car- charhinidae) Global CR mtDNA/MS 0.65 0.64 (10) 8.2 0.82 0.0027 Bernard et al. (2016) NT  Carcharhinus isodon (Car- charhinidae) US waters WAO CR mtDNA/MS 0.67 (16) 9.0 0.16 0.0002 Portnoy et al. (2016) LC  Mustelus mus- telus South IO, AO ND4 mtDNA/MS 0.50 0.50 (8) 2.1 0.47 0.0010 Maduna et al. (2016) VU  Carcharhinus longimanus IO, AO CR mtDNA – – – 0.60 0.0013 Camargo et al. (2016) VU Rays  Pseudobatos productus (Rhinobatidae) GC CR mtDNA – – – 0.77 0.0119 Sandoval-Castillo et al. (2004) NT  Raja clavata (Rajidae) NA, MS CytB mtDNA/MS 0.67 0.65 (5) – 0.50 0.0060 Chevolot et al. (2006) NT  Amblyraja radiata (Raji- dae) NAO CytB mtDNA – – – 0.80 0.0090 Chevolot et al. (2007) VU  Aetobatus nari- nari (Aetobati- dae) IPO CytB/CR mtDNA – – – 0.80/0.81 0.0126/0.0085 Schluessel et al. (2010) NT  Urobatis halleri (Urotrygonidae) SC, GC MS 0.24 (7) – – – Plank et al. (2010) LC 511Conservation Genetics (2018) 19:501–525 1 3 Table 1 (continued) Species* Regions** Molecular mark- ers*** He Ho Ra h π References IUCN  Pristis pectinata NAO MS 0.82 0.84 (8) – – Chapman et al. (2011) CR  Pristis zijsron (Pristidae) Australia CR mtDNA – – – 0.56 0.0036 Phillips et al. (2011) CR  Pristis clavata (Pristidae) Australia CR mtDNA – – – 0.49 0.0040 Phillips et al. (2011) EN  Pristis pristis (Pristidae) Australia CR mtDNA – – – 0.65 0.0044 Phillips et al. (2011) CR  Raja straeleni (Rajidae) Eastern AO, MS, WIO CR mtDNA – – – 0.67 0.0025 Parsolini et al. (2011) DD  Rhinoptera steindachneri (Rhinopteridae) BC ND2 mtDNA – – – 0.08 0.0026 Sandoval-Castillo and Rocha–Oli- vares (2011) NT  Raja clavata Eastern AO, MS, WIO CR mtDNA – – – 0.55 0.0023 Parsolini et al. (2011) NT  Bathytoshia brevicaudata (Dasyatidae) IPO CR mtDNA – – – 0.78 0.0009 Le Port and Lavery (2012) LC  Paratrygon aier- eba (Potamotry- gonidae) Amazon ATPase 6 – – – 0.99 0.0349 Frederico et al. (2012) DD  Neotrygon kuhlii (Dasyatidae) CTR COI mtDNA – – – 0.76 0.0060 Arlyza et al. (2013) DD  Hemitrygon aka- jei (Dasyatidae) PO AFLP 0.23 – – – – Li et al. (2013)**** NT  Zapteryx exas- perata (Trygon- orrhinidae) NMP ND2 CR mtDNA – – – 0.76/0.39 0.0013/0.0007 Castillo-Páez et al. (2014) DD  Aetobatus nari- nari GM, CS CytB mtDNA/MS 0.74 0.73 (10) 9.6 0.60 0.0023 Sellas et al. (2015) NT  Aetobatus nari- nari Florida, GM MS 0.70 0.66 (8) – – Newby et al. (2014) NT  Hemitrygon akajei PO CR mtDNA – – – 0.94 0.0069 Li et al. (2015) NT  Pristis pristis Australia Mitogenome – – – 0.92 0.0011 Feutry et al. (2015) CR  Rhynchobatus australiae (Rhi- nidae) IPO CR mtDNA – – – 0.85 0.0061 Giles et al. (2016)**** LC  Raja polystigma (Rajidae) MS CR COI 16S mtDNA/MS 0.55 0.51 (7) 2.8 0.94 0.0032 Frodella et al. (2016)**** LC  Raja montagui (Rajidae) MS CR COI 16S mtDNA/MS 0.65 0.55 (7) 3.3 0.25 0.0002 Frodella et al. (2016) LC He expected heterozygosity, Ho observed heterozygosity (with number of alleles in parentheses), Ra allelic richness, h haplotype diversity, π nucleotide diversity *The systematics and nomenclatural arrangement follows a major recent revision summarized in Last et al. (2016) **Geographical regions SA South African, NZ New Zealand, WAO Western Atlantic Ocean, NAO Northwest Atlantic Ocean, GM Gulf of Mex- ico, CS Caribbean Sea, NPO North Pacific Ocean, SO Southern Ocean, NA North Atlantic Ocean, PAO Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, IPO Indo- Pacific Ocean, IWPO Indo-West Pacific Ocean, PO Pacific Ocean, IAA Indo-Australian Archipelago, SAO Southwest Atlantic Ocean, HA Hawai- ian Archipelago, EPO Eastern Pacific Ocean, EA Eastern Australian, MP Mexican Pacific, SIO Southwest Indian Ocean, GC Gulf of Mexico, AP Arabian Peninsula, SPO South Pacific Ocean, MS Mediterranean Sea, IO Indian Ocean, BJ Baja California, WIO Western Indian Ocean, SC Southern California, CTR Coral Triangle Region, NMP Northern Mexican Pacific, FP French Polynesia ***Molecular Markers A allozymes, RFLP restriction fragment length polymorphism, AFLP amplified fragment length polymorphism, SNP single-nucleotide polymorphism, MS microsatellites, CR mtDNA control region mitochondrial DNA, CytB mtDNA cytochrome b mitochondrial DNA, ND4 mtDNA NADH dehydrogenase subunit 4 mitochondrial DNA, ND2 mtDNA NADH dehydrogenase subunit 2 mitochondrial DNA, COI mtDNA Cytochrome oxidase subunit 1 mitochondrial DNA, 16S mtDNA 16S RNA ribosomal mitochondrial DNA, MS Microsatellites, ITS2 internal transcribed spacer 2 nuclear DNA 512 Conservation Genetics (2018) 19:501–525 1 3 (GSRI), launched the Global Strategy for the Conservation of Sharks and Rays (2015–2025). This document summa- rizes the global priorities for shark and ray conservation (Bräutigam et al. 2015) and highlights the urgent need to prevent the extinction of imperiled coastal sharks and rays in many diverse and endangered hotspots, including the coastal waters near Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Indonesia, Japan, Madagascar, Mozambique, South African and Uruguay (Lucifora et al. 2011; Bräutigam et al. 2015). Similarly to the other conservation initiatives for shark and ray species, the GSRI does not recognize the importance of genetic diversity as a criterion for its management plan. Pop- ulation genetics metrics, including genetic diversity levels, population structure and demographic history, could help the GSRI assess the genetic health of populations and determine priority areas for conservation. This approach could pro- vide an excellent match between the use of common genetics tools in management and their relevant applications in the policy arena (Hoban et al. 2013a, b). The same problem extends to the one of the most influ- ential conservation organizations in the world, the Interna- tional Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Currently, the framework developed by the IUCN for assessing extinc- tion risk of species is the most widely used even though the IUCN Red List does not hold any legal weight (Fung and Waples 2017). Although the IUCN considers genetic diversity as one of the three levels of biodiversity that must be conserved (McNelly et al. 1990), there are no specific genetic criteria listed that would categorize sharks and rays or other species as being under any level of threat (Laikre 2010; Rivers et al. 2014). Although the IUCN Red Lists take into account a range of quantitative species-specific criteria, such as distribution, number of individuals and declines in abundance, other than for rare exceptions, the categorization of a given species into Red List categories (IUCN 2001) largely ignores genetic diversity in its evaluation criteria. This shortcoming suggests that any shark and ray species listed under an IUCN Red List category could be overlooked in long-term management plans (Laikre et al. 2008; Wil- loughby et al. 2015). According to Dulvy et al. (2014), 1041 shark and ray species are currently listed under the IUCN Red List threat categories. Of these, 181 shark and ray species fall into categories that represent varying degrees of threat (Dulvy et al. 2014). A Web of Science® search that we conducted, selecting data up to August, 2016, indicated that the num- ber of shark and ray species for which genetic information is available has increased over the last 20 years, though these studies have mainly focused on sharks rather than rays (Fig. 1). However, some genetic data (genetic diversity metrics and population genetic structures) exist for only 10% of the 1041 shark and ray species currently listed by the IUCN, and approximately 25% of the species fall into some threat category (Fig. 2). Even with nearly half of all shark species listed by the IUCN as ‘Data Deficient’ (DD) due to incomplete data in terms of life history and population ****Concatenated data Table 1 (continued) Table 2 Contemporary effective population size (Ne) parameters for shark and ray species *Geographical regions DEL Delaware Bay, ES Eastern shore of Virginia, SWFL Southwest Florida, NWA Northwest Atlantic Ocean, SA South Africa, NPO North Pacific Ocean, US WAO United States Western Atlantic Ocean, IS Irish Sea **Methods LD Linkage disequilibrium, M-ratio (Garza and Williamson 2001), PL Pseudo-maximum likelihood Species Regions* Sample size Loci Ne (CI 95%) Ne/Nc Method** References Sharks  Carcharhinus plumbeus DEL/ES 481/506 8 4890/2709 0.5 (DEL) LD Portnoy et al. (2009)  Pristis pectinata SWFL 137 8 230–250 (142–955) NA M-ratio Chapman et al. (2011)  Carcharodon carcharias Australia 97 6 1512 (122–∞) NA LD Blower et al. (2012)  Carcharodon carcharias NWA/SA 35/131 14 32.2 (25.2– 42.6)/346.6 (220.2–728.1) NA LD O’Leary et al. (2014)  Stegostoma fasciatum Australia 105 14 377 (274–584) 0.82 LD Dudgeon and Ovenden (2015)  Prionace glauca NPO 844 14 5468 (2802–52,352) 2 × 10−3–10−4 LD King et al. (2015)  Carcharodon carcharias SA 302 14 333 (247–487) 0.76 LD Andreotti et al. (2016)  Carcharhinus isodon US WAO 345 16 12 798 NA LD Portnoy et al. (2016) Rays  Raja clavata IS 363 5 283 (45–857) 9 × 10–5/6 × 10−4 PL Chevolot et al. (2008)  Aetobatus narinari Florida 143 8 2265.7 (243.3–∞) NA LD Newby et al. (2014) 513Conservation Genetics (2018) 19:501–525 1 3 abundance dynamics (Hoffman et al. 2010), for some species in this category, there are genetic data that could be used for assessment when combined with other information. Moreo- ver, the lowest values of observed heterozygosity are for spe- cies listed as DD and Least Concern (LC), whereas the low- est nucleotide diversity values are for species listed as LC (Fig. 3). This pattern is similar to those found by Willoughby et al. (2015) for bony fish, birds, mammals, and reptiles. For example, artisanal fisheries represent a main threat to nurse sharks (Ginglymostoma cirratum, Ginglymostomatidae), which inhabit coastal waters and are found throughout the Atlantic Ocean (Ebert et al. 2013). Although the IUCN lists nurse sharks as DD globally (Rosa et al. 2006), this species has been genetically analyzed, and these data could be used to help assess their populations. The nurse shark population in the western Atlantic Ocean shows low genetic diversity in the control region of the mtDNA (CR mtDNA) (h = 48 ± 5%; π = 0.08 ± 0.06%) and microsatellites (Ho = 0.58). Further- more, nurse shark populations show significant and dis- tinct genetic differences between offshore islands and the mainland in the western Atlantic Ocean, and there is a high degree of genetic variability (78.2%) within popula- tions (Karl et al. 2012). These genetic isolation patterns and genetic diversity parameters are comparable to those of other shark species categorized by the IUCN as threatened, includ- ing the sand tiger shark and the narrownose shark (Mus- telus schmitti, Triakidae) (Table 1). Although genetically depauperate shark populations result mainly from historical fluctuations in population size (O’Brien et al. 2013), these examples clearly highlight the usefulness of genetic diver- sity metrics, including haplotype and nucleotide diversity and heterozygosity, at least as indicators of the health of the population and the conservation status of a particular shark species. Specifically, high levels of genetic diversity can increase individual fitness and population resilience, and there is currently no framework for the direct use of genetic diversity metrics in management plans. As advised in previous studies (Frankham 2010, 2014; Laikre 2010; Rivers et al. 2014; Willoughby et al. 2015), genetic diversity metrics imply that the IUCN should include genetic diversity as another criterion for categoriz- ing threatened species. This could be completed using a novel approach for identifying vertebrate species with con- servation needs based on the number of generations (t) until, using Ne as an index, the species loses significant genetic diversity (Willoughby et al. 2015). Obviously, we recognize that estimating Ne for shark and ray species can be difficult, mainly because these species tend to have overlapping gen- erations; thus, estimated Ne must not be used as an autono- mous criterion. However, this parameter is very informative in regard to the conservation and management of wildlife populations because it provides information regarding how quickly genetic diversity may be lost (Leberg 2005; Dudgeon and Ovenden 2015). From this prediction, it is possible to direct conservation efforts to mitigate this loss (Uzans et al. 2015). Therefore, given the potential association between Ne and the probability of extinction, estimates of Ne may be useful as an additional criterion in the assessment of species vulnerability (Leberg 2005; Willoughby et al. 2015). Although the use of genetic parameters is largely over- looked and neglected in fisheries management plans and, consequently, in conservation policies for shark and ray spe- cies, there are a few good examples of their use. One such example is the Red List assessment of Stegostoma fasciatum Fig. 2 Numbers of articles pub- lished that describe the genetic diversity of shark and ray spe- cies for each IUCN category. DD data deficient, LC least concern, NT near threatened, VU vulnerable, EN endangered, CR critically endangered 514 Conservation Genetics (2018) 19:501–525 1 3 (Stegostomatidae). In this case, the population genetic structure was used to analyze the two main populations, the Indian Ocean-Southeast Asian and Eastern Indonesian-Oce- ania populations, which were then assessed independently. Furthermore, Ne was used to estimate the approximate cen- sus size of the Eastern Indonesian-Oceania population. In another case, genetic data were used for stock delineation in the assessment of scalloped hammerhead populations (Miller et al. 2013), thus helping this shark species become the first shark species to be protected by the U.S. Endangered Species Act (Federal Register 80 FR 71774). For the scal- loped hammerhead, stock delineation is important not only for increasing its population size but also for safeguarding its evolutionary dynamics. These examples clearly demonstrate the many advantages of adding genetic information to spe- cies assessments and management plans. Limitations Although the number of studies of shark and ray species has increased over recent decades, several significant limitations remain and can be highlighted, such as sampling protocols Fig. 3 Boxplot of genetic diversity metrics of shark and ray species pooled for each IUCN category. a Haplotype diversity, b Nucleotide diversity, c Observed heterozygosity and d Expected heterozygosity. DD data deficient, LC least concern, NT near threatened, VU vulner- able, EN endangered, CR criti- cally endangered 515Conservation Genetics (2018) 19:501–525 1 3 and population coverage, methodological issues, and appro- priate use of molecular markers. Sampling and geographical coverage Similar to other marine apex predators and highly mobile species, there are many challenges to properly investigating the population structure and genetic diversity of sharks and rays. In general, sampling schemes are not always adequate in terms of sample size, geographical coverage, and collec- tion method (Hindrikson et al. 2017; Letessier et al. 2017). A good strategy for solving this problem is the use of simple simulation software (e.g., POWSIM or SPOTG) that esti- mates statistical power (i.e., the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is false) to simulate optimal combi- nations of sample size, number of loci, and allele frequency for any hypothetical degree of true differentiation (Ryman and Palm 2006; Hoban et al. 2013b). Additionally, recently, an initiative has been adopted to overcome these problems. Shark Share Global (SSG) (https://www.sharkshareglobal. org) provides an online database to which researchers can submit tissue samples, search, and request them from col- leagues around the world. This allows researchers to obtain robust collections of tissues samples from various loca- tions throughout the range of a species, enabling a bet- ter understanding of the population genetic structure and genetic diversity of the species studied. Despite aid from SSG to increase the sample size and geographical coverage, obtaining systematic and planned (as opposed to opportun- istic) sampling for one specific location, sex, age, and time remains a challenge. Consequently, few studies based on such planned sampling have been performed to date (e.g., Chevolot et al. 2008; Veríssimo et al. 2017). Methodological issues While fin clipping has been the most commonly used method for collecting genetic data from sharks and rays, this method has some drawbacks, such as stress, injury, and even death after release (Wasko et al. 2003). In the past dec- ade, a variety of less invasive techniques, including nonin- vasive genetic sampling, have been developed especially for internationally protected shark and ray species, in order to minimize such drawbacks (Larson et al. 2017). For example, Lieber et al. (2013) tested the potential of mucus swabs from a vulnerable species, the basking shark (Cetorhinus maxi- mus, Cetorhinidae), at three molecular markers (cytochrome oxidase I (COI), CR mtDNA, and ITS2). Similarly, Kashi- wagi et al. (2015) evaluated the PCR success of mtDNA ND5 and nuclear DNA RAG1 for manta rays, as well as microsatellite loci from manta ray mucus collected underwa- ter using toothbrushes. Such collection methods combined with new DNA technology, which require less representative sampling, show promise as a solution for more sustainable and less invasive genetics studies. Molecular markers Another way to increase the geographical coverage and understanding of the population genetic structure and genetic diversity of sharks and rays is the use of common methods and sets of genetic markers, which could be univer- sally comparable between studies. To date, several methods and molecular markers have been used for shark and ray genetic studies (Table 1). However, CR mtDNA is the most commonly used, either in part (e.g., Duncan et al. 2006; Frodella et al. 2016; Domingues et al. 2017) or in whole (e.g., Clarke et al. 2015; Bernard et al. 2016, 2017). Simi- larly, a set of highly polymorphic microsatellite loci, such as those used by Daly-Engel et al. (2012), could be standard- ized and used for multiple shark and ray species. However, the rapidly developing field of genomics holds great promise developing other DNA markers (SNPs) for shark and ray population analysis. Future challenges Recently, many authors have claimed that the use of genetic diversity as should be at the forefront of conservation policy and management and not used only as supporting informa- tion (Laikre 2010; Hoban et al. 2013a, b). However, we note that making genetic diversity data more promptly useful to policymakers requires overcoming some challenges in either scientific or policy arenas, as described below: • Prioritize shark and ray species that have narrow geo- graphic distributions and are currently overexploited • Conduct genetic monitoring by sampling in temporal series to assess genetic variations over time • Apply genomics to shark and ray genetic research • Include more conservation geneticists in developing con- servation policies • Improve communication between scientists and policy- makers Prioritize shark and ray species that have narrow geographic distributions and are currently overexploited From a conservation genetics perspective, the worst situ- ation is the representation of an endangered species as a single population (Frankham et  al. 2002). Frequently, small populations are most likely to be affected by the loss of genetic diversity due to overfishing, which affects their https://www.sharkshareglobal.org https://www.sharkshareglobal.org 516 Conservation Genetics (2018) 19:501–525 1 3 evolutionary potential and results in an elevated risk of extinction (Frankham et al. 2002; Allendorf et al. 2008). Therefore, obtaining information at the level of genetic diversity for a species either with a narrow geographic dis- tribution or within an isolated population is important for indicate the population fragility of that species. For example, the narrownose shark is a species endemic to the Southwest Atlantic Ocean with a narrow geographic distribution, which extends from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to Patagonia, Argentina. This shark species has experienced intense overfishing along its entire geographic range, including its nursery grounds (Massa et al. 2006). Moreover, the genetic diversity of the narrownose shark is among the lowest among all sharks (Table 2), making this species highly susceptible to overfish- ing in the short term and to low genetic diversity in the long term. This situation could affect other elasmobranch species that have narrow geographic distributions and are currently overfished, including critically endangered elasmobranchs such as the daggernose shark (Lessa et al. 2016), the Brazil- ian guitarfish (Pseudobatos horkelii, Rhinobatidae) (Vooren et al. 2005, as Rhinobatos horkelii) and the common angel shark (Squatina squatina, Squatinidae) (Ferretti et al. 2015). On the other hand, widely distributed shark and ray species are rarely panmictic from one end of their distribution area to the other, and instead, they show partitioning genetics (Castro et al. 2007; Ahonen et al. 2009; Clarke et al. 2015). However, low population genetic differentiation may not be informative on the appropriate spatial scale for management decisions. For example, Schmidt et al. (2009) found only low levels of genetic differentiation between geographically dis- tinct whale shark populations, suggesting that conservation efforts must target international protection for this species. Furthermore, the asymmetric dispersal (females non-roving and males roving), consistent with male-mediated gene flow, that is common in many shark and ray species (e.g., Feld- heim et al. 2014; Sellas et al. 2015) is another factor that must be considered in management decisions. Therefore, obtaining information regarding the extent of gene flow among populations is important for determining whether a species requires the maintenance of genetic diversity through migration (Frankham et al. 2002; Allendorf et al. 2013). Genetic monitoring by sampling in temporal series to assess genetic variations over time Genetic monitoring, as defined by Schwartz et al. (2007), is the quantification of temporal changes in population genetic parameters or other population data generated using molecu- lar markers. This technique can be performed using ancient DNA (aDNA) from the dried jaws and vertebrae of sharks and rays archived in museums and private collections and even kept as exotic souvenirs (Nielsen et al. 2016). These data allow for retrospective monitoring to assess historical conditions, such as the temporal stability of the population structure, the loss of genetic diversity, and changes in the Ne, which are difficult to determine using traditional meth- ods (Schwartz et al. 2007; Nielsen and Hansen 2008). Good examples of the use of this approach are mainly demon- strated in bony fish (e.g., Hauser et al. 2002; Nielsen and Hansen 2008; Bonamoni et al. 2016). However, there are currently a few examples of the use of aDNA for shark species. Gubili et al. (2015) sequenced a small fragment (135–228 bp) of mtDNA (D-loop) from 34- to 129-year- old dried cartilage and skin samples from six Carcharodon carcharias individuals and found greater genetic diversity (number of haplotypes and nucleotide and haplotype diver- sity) in the historical samples than in contemporary samples found in the Mediterranean Sea. Moreover, Li et al. (2015) used the complete mitochondrial genome of aDNA to infer the phylogeny and gene flow of endangered river sharks (Glyphis spp., Carcharhinidae). Therefore, the management of genetically depauperate populations must embrace the identification of source founders from genetically diverse populations (Allendorf et al. 2013) and genetic monitoring through sampling in temporal series to assess genetic vari- ation over time (Allendorf et al. 2008; Laikre et al. 2008). Applications of genomics in elasmobranch genetic research DNA sequences, especially the control regions of mito- chondrial DNA and microsatellites, are the markers most widely used in elasmobranchs to date (Table 1). However, the availability of new high-resolution molecular markers such as single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), promises a marked advance in genetic studies in the future. Currently, with the advances in next-generation sequencing (NGS), there are many methods to uncover and genotype thousands of SNPs that cover the entire genome in a single step at minimal cost, thus making NGS feasible for most labs (Sta- pley et al. 2010). We will not attempt to describe NGS, its methods, or associated analyses in detail, as these have been covered in other reviews (e.g., Rocha et al. 2013; Goodwin et al. 2016). Instead, we intend to highlight the need for using NGS approaches to better answer questions pertain- ing to shark and ray population genetics in the near future. Even though 10–20 microsatellites are estimated to be equivalent to 100 SNPs, with the recent development of new methods such as the use of restriction-site-associated DNA tags (RAD-tags), tens of thousands of SNPs can be recov- ered from multiple individuals at the same time, thereby increasing the statistical power of fine-scale detection in discrete populations (Nielsen et al. 2009; Davey and Blax- ter 2011; Rocha et al. 2013). Consequently, SNP analysis requires relatively small numbers of samples from a given location, which in turn is an advantage due to the numbers of 517Conservation Genetics (2018) 19:501–525 1 3 shark and ray species that are currently threatened. Another advantage of using SNPs is that this approach aids in deter- mining which parts of the genome are responsible for local adaptation even in cases of high gene flow, thereby enabling the identification of priority areas to be conserved (Nielsen et  al. 2009). However, future studies using approaches based on genomic population outliers must be conducted carefully because these approaches still pose several chal- lenges, including genotyping errors, the underlying popula- tion structure and false positives, variation in the mutation rate and limited sensitivity (false negatives) (Narun and Hess 2011; Tiffin and Ross-Ibarra 2014; Hoban et al. 2016; Flanagan et al. 2017). In fact, NGS technologies are hav- ing substantial effects on many areas of biology, including the analysis of genetic diversity in populations, and they promise an abrupt advance in genetic studies in the coming years (review in Nielsen et al. 2009). However, the use of NGS technologies in developing countries may still be cost- prohibitive, due to limited funding for basic research and because they require sophisticated bioinformatics systems, fast data processing and large data storage capabilities (Wil- lette et al. 2014; Puckett 2017). Furthermore, although the pitfalls of mtDNA and microsatellite studies are fairly well known and can usually be recognized and tested, the draw- backs of NGS approaches are still being identified (Bowen et al. 2014). To date, only one study has used neutral and outlier SNPs to infer the local adaptation of sharks. Using neutral SNPs (648,035 SNPs), Portnoy et al. (2015) found differences in the population structure of the bonnethead shark between the North Atlantic (North Carolina) and the Gulf of Mexico (Florida Bay, Tampa Bay and Panama City), whereas the use of 30 outlier SNPs showed fine-scale differences in population structures among all locations except for Tampa Bay and Florida Bay, where the population structures were homogenous. The authors attributed this local adaptation to north–south (latitudinal) clinal patterns in allele frequencies. More recently, Pazmiño et al. (2017) conducted a genome- wide analysis using 8103 neutral SNPs to investigate the population structure of the Galapagos shark (Carcharhinus galapangesis) over a small geographic range (Galapagos Marine Reserve). Those authors found two differentiated populations and a low estimated Ne of 200, suggesting that these populations are susceptible to extinction and are of concern for long-term conservation. In another recent paper, Corrigan et al. (2017) performed a genome-wide analysis using 2152 SNPs to examine the patterns of genetic admix- ture between the Galapagos shark and the dusky shark (Car- charhinus obscurus), two closely related sharks. However, even with genomic data providing novel insights, its use in the analysis of shark and ray species remains limited (e.g., Feutry et al. 2015; Portnoy et al. 2015; Delser et al. 2016; Pazmiño et al. 2017; Corrigan et al. 2017). Including more conservation geneticists in international developing conservation policy making The importance of genetic criteria to guarantee long-term population viability and conservation is well known in aca- demia. However, outside academia, genetics is still largely overlooked and neglected in practical management and in national and international policies, though there are some exceptions (Laikre 2010). The main agencies interested in the conservation of shark and ray species do not have many conservation genetics specialists integrated into their teams. Members of these organizations are mainly fisheries scien- tists interested in assessing stock abundance, which demon- strates the lack of concern for genetics in assessing species (Laikre 2010). Therefore, we recommend the inclusion of more conservation geneticists in conservation organizations. This inclusion would facilitate the addition of genetic cri- teria to assessments and future management plans for shark and ray species. Bridging the gap between genetic science and shark and ray conservation policies Currently, there remains a gap between the genetics research that generates knowledge about genetic data (e.g., genetic diversity, population genetic structure and demographic history) and conservation organizations that use these data to establish protection measures that aim to allow populations to recover (Laikre 2010; Hoban et al. 2013a, b; Haig et al. 2016). Typically, policymakers and managers are not geneticists, and they have difficulty interpreting genetic data correctly; consequently, these data are often used incorrectly in the creation of manage- ment plans (Hoban et al. 2013a, b; Haig et al. 2016). This issue could be resolved, for example, by providing train- ing to national and international conservation organiza- tions. Workshops, courses and lectures for non-genetics researchers, conservation practitioners and decision- makers interested in sharks and rays could be organized to show how genetic diversity can be effectively used in management plans. This approach would provide an excel- lent opportunity to show that genetic diversity data could reveal a wide variety of information for conservation poli- cies. Furthermore, the inclusion of genetics experts among national and international policymakers could be a good start for incorporating genetic information into conserva- tion policy (Fig. 4). For example, the IUCN Conservation Genetics Specialist Group (CGSG) (http://www.cgsg.uni- freiburg.de), whose mission is to promote the use of genet- ics in conservation management and decision-making, was recently created. However, the inclusion of geneti- cists among policymakers requires improvement in the http://www.cgsg.uni-freiburg.de http://www.cgsg.uni-freiburg.de 518 Conservation Genetics (2018) 19:501–525 1 3 communication between scientists and policymakers. To bridge the divide between conservation genetics research and practice, Conservation Genetic Resources for Effective Species Survival (ConGRESS), a freely available online resource (http://congressgenetics.eu) that increases access to current knowledge, facilities implementation of studies and interpretation of available data, and fosters collabora- tion between researchers and practitioners, was recently launched (Hoban et al. 2013c). Thus, geneticists’ research could help with elaborating on and revising regional and global reports on sharks and rays and proposals that incor- porate genetic data for the management and research of these species. Conclusions In light of the above considerations, we can assume that the increasing overexploitation of shark popula- tions, mainly by fisheries, will have a long-term impact on the genetic variability of these populations and thus will reduce their fitness and responsiveness to environ- mental changes. Therefore, future assessments of shark and ray populations by conservation organizations should definitely include genetic parameters. Furthermore, as an important outcome of this synthesis, we highlighted the limitations and future challenges to overcoming the gap in current knowledge through genetic studies of sharks and rays. Finally, we argue that geneticists can inform policymakers when and where genetic diversity will be important for shark and ray conservation. Acknowledgements The authors thank three anonymous reviewers and the editors of Conservation Genetics for their valuable suggestions for strengthening the manuscript during peer review. This work was sup- ported by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP #2009/54660-6 and #2013/08675-7) and by a grant from the Brazilian National Coun- cil for Scientific and Technological Development to OBFG (CNPq #308430-8). References Ahonen H, Harcourt RG, Stow AJ (2009) Nuclear and mitochondrial DNA reveals isolation of imperiled grey nurse shark populations (Carcharias taurus). Mol Ecol 18:4409–4421 Allendorf FW, England PR, Ritchie PA, Ryman N (2008) Genetic effects of harvest on wild animal populations. Trends Ecol Evol 23:327–337 Allendorf FW, Luikart G, Aitken SN (2013) Conservation and the genetics of population. Blackwell, Oxford Andreotti S, von der Heyden S, Henriques R, Rutzen M, Meÿer M, Oosthuizen H, Metthee CA (2015) New insights into the evo- lutionary history of white sharks, Carcharodon carcharias. J Biogeogr 43:328–339 Andreotti S, Rutzen M, van der Walt, von der Heyden S, Henriques R, Meÿer M, Oosthuizen H, Metthee CA (2016) An integrated mark-recapture and genetic approach to estimate the popula- tion size of white sharks in South Africa. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 552:241–253 Arlyza IS, Shen KN, Durand JD, Borsa P (2013) Mitochondrial hap- lotypes indicate parapatric-like phylogeographic structure in blue-spotted maskray (Neotrygon kuhlii) from the coral Triangle Region. J Hered 4:725–733 Fig. 4 The link between scientific knowledge and conservation policies aimed at preserving the genetic diversity of shark and ray species. Scien- tists must generate knowledge that identifies the main threats to genetic diversity and their deleterious effects on shark and ray populations, whereas policymakers must consider the information provided by scien- tists and apply this information to their conservation policies in order to effectively manage species populations http://congressgenetics.eu 519Conservation Genetics (2018) 19:501–525 1 3 Ashe JL, Feldhei KA, Fields AT, Reyier EA, Brooks EJ, O’Connell MT, Skomal G, Gruber SH, Chapman DD (2015) Local popula- tion structure and context-dependent isolation by distance in a large coastal shark. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 520:203–216 Barker AM, Nosal AP, Lewallen EA, Burton RS (2015) Genetic structure of leopard shark (Triakis semifasciata) populations along the Pacific coast of North America. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 472:151–157 Barreto R, Ferretti F, Flemming JM, Amorim A, Andrade H, Worm B, Lessa R (2016) Trends in the exploitation of South Atlantic shark populations. Cons Biol 30:792–804 Belgrano A, Fowler CW (2013) How fisheries affect evolution. Sci- ence 342:1176 Benavides MT, Feldheim KA, Duffy CA et al (2011a) Phylogeography of the copper shark (Carcharhinus brachyurus) in the southern hemisphere: implications for the conservation of a coastal apex predator. Mar Freshw Res 62:861–869 Benavides MT, Horn RL, Feldheim KA et al (2011b) Global phylo- geography of the dusky shark Carcharhinus obscurus: impli- cations for fisheries management and monitoring the shark fin trade. Endanger Species Res 14:13–22 Bernal MA, Sinai NL, Rocha C, Gaither MR, Dunker F, Rocha LA (2015) Long-term sperm storage in the brownbanded bamboo shark Chiloscyllium punctatum. J Fish Biol 86:1171–1176 Bernard AM, Feldheim KA, Heithaus MR, Wintner SP, Wetherbee BM, Shivji MS (2016) Global population genetic dynamics of a highly migratory, apex predator shark. Mol Ecol 25:5312–5329 Bernard AM, Rebekah LH, Chapman DD, Feldheim KA, Garla RC, Brooks EJ, Gore MA, Shivji MS (2017) Genetic connectivity of a coral reef ecosystem predator: the population genetic structure and evolutionary history of the Caribbean reef shark (Carcharhi- nus perezi). J Biogeogr 44:2488–2500 Bitalo DN, Maduna SN, da Silva C, Roodt-Wilding R, van der Merwe AE (2015) Differential gene flow patterns for two commercially exploited shark species, tope (Galeorhinus galeus) and common smoothhound (Mustelus mustelus) along the south-west coast of South Africa. Fish Res 172:190–196 Blower DC, Pandolfi JM, Bruce BD, Gomez-Cabrera MD, Ovenden JR (2012) Population genetics of Australian white sharks reveals fine-scale spatial structure, transoceanic dispersal events and low effective population sizes. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 455:229–244 Bonamoni S, Therkildsen NO, Retzel A et al (2016) Historial DNA documents long distance natal homing in marine fish. Mol Ecol 25:2727–2734 Boomer JJ, Harcourt RG, Francis M, Stow AJ (2012) Genetic diver- gence, speciation and biogeography of Mustelus (sharks) in the central Indo-Pacific and Australasia. Mol Phylogenet Evol 64:697–703 Booth W, Schuett GW (2011) Molecular genetic evidence for alterna- tive reproductive strategies in North American pitvipers (Ser- pentes: Viperidae): long-term sperm storage and facultative parthenogenesis. Biol J Linn Soc 104:934–942 Bowen BW, Shanker K, Yasuda N et  al (2014) Phylogeography unplugged: comparative surveys in the genome era. Bull Mar Sci 90:13–46 Bräutigam A, Callow M, Campbell IR, Camhi MD, Cornish AS, Dulvy NK, Fordham SV, Fowler SL, Hood AR, McClennen C, Reuter EL, Sant G, Simpfendorfer CA, Welch DJ (2015) Global priori- ties for conserving sharks and rays: a 2015–2025 Strategy Byrne RJ, Avise JC (2012) Genetic mating system of the brown smoothhound shark (Mustelus henlei), including a literature review of multiple paternity in other elasmobranch species. Mar Biol 159:749–756 Camargo SM, Coelho R, Chapman D, Howey-Jordan L et al (2016) Structure and genetic variability of the oceanic whitetip shark, Carcharhinus longimanus, determined using mitochondrial DNA. PLoS ONE 11:e0155623. https://doi.org/10.1371/jour- nal.pone.0155623 Cardeñosa D, Hyde J, Caballero S (2014) Genetic diversity and population structure of the pelagic shark (Alopias pelagicus) in the Pacific Ocean: evidence for two evolutionary significant units. PLoS ONE 9:e110193. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0110193 Castillo-Olguín E, Uribe-Alcocer M, Díaz-Jaimes P (2012) Assess- ment of the population genetic structure of Sphyrna lewini to identify conservation units in the Mexican Pacific. Cienc Mar 38:635–652 Castillo-Páez A, Sosa-Nishizaki O, Sandoval-Castillo J, Galván- Magaña F, Blanco-Parra MD, Rocha-Olivares A (2014) Strong population structure and shallow mitochondrial phylogeny in the banded guitarfish, Zapteryx exasperate (Jordan y Gilbert, 1880), from the Northen Mexican Pacific. J Hered 105:91–100 Castro ALF, Stewart BS, Wilson SG, Hueter RE, Meekan MG, Motta PJ (2007) Population genetic structure of Earth’s largest fish, the whale shark (Rhincodon typus). Mol Ecol 16:5183–5192 Catarino D, Knutsen H, Veríssimo A et al (2015) The pillars of Her- cules as a bathymetric barrier to gene flow promoting isolation in a global deep-sea shark (Centroscymnus coelolepis). Mol Ecol 24:6061–6079 Chabot CL (2015) Microsatellite loci confirm a lack of population connectivity among globally distributed populations of the tope shark Galeorhinus galeus (Triakidae). J Fish Biol 87:371–385 Chabot CL, Allen LG (2009) Global population structure of the tope (Galeorhinus galeus) inferred by mitochondrial control region sequence data. Mol Ecol 18:545–552 Chabot CL, Espinoza M, Mascareñas-Osorio I, Rocha-Olivares A (2015) The effect of biogeographic and phylogeographic bar- riers on gene flow in the brown smoothhound shark, Mustelus henlei, in the northeastern Pacific. Ecol Evol 5:1585–1600 Chapman DD, Prodöhl PA, Gelsleichter J, Manire CA, Shivji MS (2004) Predominance of genetic monogamy by females in a hammerhead shark, Sphyrna tiburo: implications for shark conservation. Mol Ecol 13:1965–1974 Chapman DD, Shivji MS, Louis E, Sommer J, Fletcher H, Prodöhl PA (2007) Virgin birth in a hammerhead shark. Biol Lett 3:425–427 Chapman DD, Pinhal D, Shivji MM (2009) Tracking the fin trade: genetic stock identification in western Atlantic scalloped hammerhead sharks Sphyrna lewini. Endanger Species Res 9:221–228 Chapman DD, Simpfendorfer C, Wiley TR, Poulakis GR, Curtis C, Tringali M, Carlson J, Feldheim K (2011) Genetic diversity despite population collapse in a critically endangered marine fish: the smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata). J Hered 102:643–652 Chapman DD, Feldheim KA, Papastamatiou YP, Hueter RE (2015) There and back again: a review of residency and return migra- tions in sharks, with implications for population structure and management. Ann Rev Mar Sci 7:547–570 Chevolot M, Hoarau G, Stam WT, Olsen J (2006) Phylogeography and population structure of thornback rays (Raja clavata L., Rajidae). Mol Ecol 15:3693–3705 Chevolot M, Wolfs PH, Pálsson K, Riijnsdorp AD, Wytze TS, Olsen JL (2007a) Population structure and historical demography of the thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata, Rajidae) in the North Atlantic. Mar Biol 151:1275–1286 Chevolot M, Ellis JR, Rijnsdorp AD, Stam WT, Olsen JL (2007b) Multiple paternity analysis in the thornback ray Raja clavata L. J Hered 98:712–715 Chevolot M, Ellis JR, Rijnsdorp AD, Stam WT, Olsen JL (2008) Tem- poral changes in allele frequencies but stable genetic diversity over the past 40 years in the Irish Sea population of thornback ray, Raja clavata. Heredity 101:120–126 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155623 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155623 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110193 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110193 520 Conservation Genetics (2018) 19:501–525 1 3 Clarke SC, Magnussen JE, Abercrombie DL, McAllister MK, Shivji MS (2006) Identification of shark species composition and pro- portion in the Hong Kong shark fin market based on molecular genetics and trade records. Conserv Biol 20:201–211 Clarke SC, Harley SJ, Hoyle SD, Rice JS (2013) Population trends in pacific oceanic sharks and the utility of regulations on shark finning. Conserv Biol 27:197–209 Clarke CR, Karl SA, Horn RL, Bernard AM, Lea JS, Hazin FHZ, Prodöhl PA, Shivji MS (2015) Global mitochondrial DNA phylogeography and population structure of the silky shark, Carcharhinus falciformis. Mar Biol 162:945–955 Conrath CL, Musick JA (2012) Reproductive biology of elasmo- branchs. In: Carrier JC, Musick JA, Heithaus MR (eds) Biol- ogy of sharks and their relatives, 2rd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 291–312 Corrigan S, Delser PM, Eddy C, Duffy C, Yang L, Chenhong L, Bazinet AL, Mona S, Naylor GJP (2017) Historical introgres- sion drivers pervasive mitochondrial admixture between two species of pelagic sharks. Mol Phylogenet Evol 110:122–126 Cortés E (2002) Incorporating uncertainty into demographic mod- eling: application to shark populations and their conservation. Conser Biol 16:1048–1062 Daly-Engel TS, Grubbs RD, Feldheim KA, Bowen B, Toonen RJ (2010) Is multiple mating beneficial or unavoidable? Low mul- tiple paternity and genetic diversity in the shortspine spurdog Squalus mitsukurii. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 403:255–267 Daly-Engel TS, Seraphin KD, Holland KN, Coffey JP, Nance HA, Toonen RJ, Bowen BW (2012) Global phylogeography with mixed-marker analysis reveals male-mediated dispersal in the endangered scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini). PLoS ONE 7:e29986. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0029986 Davey JW, Blaxter ML (2011) RADSeq: next-generation population genetics. Brief Funct Genomics 5:416–423 Delser PM, Corrigan S, Hale M, Li C, Veuille M, Planes S, Naylor G, Mona S (2016) Population genomics of C. melanopterus using target gene capture data: demographic inferences and conserva- tion perspectives. Sci Rep 6:33753 DiBattista J (2008) Pattern of genetic variation in anthropogenically impacted populations. Conserv Genet 9:141–156 Domingues RR, Hilsdorf AWS, Mahmood MS, Hazin FVH, Gadig OBF (2017) Effects of the pleistocene on the mitochondrial pop- ulation genetic structure and demographic history of the silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) in the western Atlantic Ocean. Rev Fish Biol Fish. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-017-9504-z Dudgeon CL, Ovenden JR (2015) The relationship between abun- dance and genetic effective population size in elasmobranchs: an example from the globally threatened zebra shark Stegostoma fasciatum within its protected range. Conserv Gen 16:1443–1454 Dudgeon CL, Broderick D, Ovenden JR (2009) IUCN classification zones concord with, but underestimate, the population genetic structure of the zebra shark Stegostoma fasciatum in the Indo- West Pacific. Mol Ecol 18:248–261 Dudgeon CL, Blower DC, Broderick D, Giles JL, Holmes BJ, Kashi- wagi T, Krück NC, Morgan JAT, Tillett BJ, Ovenden JR (2012) A review of the application of molecular genetics for fisheries management and conservation of sharks and rays. J Fish Biol 80:1789–1843 Dulvy NK, Fowler SL, Musick JA, Cavanagh RD et al (2014) Extinc- tion risk and conservation of the world’s sharks and rays. eLife 3:e00590 Duncan KM, Martin AP, Bowen BW, Couet HG (2006) Global phylo- geography of the scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini). Mol Ecol 15:2239–2251 Ebert DA, Fowler S, Compagno L (2013) Sharks of the world: a fully illustrated guide. Wild Nature Press, Plymouth Escatel-Luna E, Adams DH, Uribe-Alcocer M, Islas-Villanueva V, Díaz-Jaimes P (2015) Population genetic structure of the bon- nethead shark, Sphyrna tiburo, from the Western North Atlantic Ocean based on mtDNA sequences. J Hered 106:355–365 Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 221 (Nov 17, 2015) Feldheim KA, Gruber SH, Ashley MV (2001) Population genetic struc- ture of the lemon shark (Negaprion brevirostris) in the western Atlantic: DNA microsatellite variation. Mol Ecol 10:295–303 Feldheim KA, Gruber SH, Dibattista JD et al (2014) Two decades of genetic profiling yields first evidence of natal philopatry and long-term fidelity to parturition sites in sharks. Mol Ecol 23:110–117 Ferretti F, Worm B, Britten GL, Heithaus MR, Lotze HK (2010) Pat- ters and ecosystem consequences of shark declines in the ocean. Ecol Lett 13:1055–1071 Ferretti BLS, Mendonça FF, Coelho R, Vasconcelos PG, Hazin FVH, Romanov EV, Oliveira C, Santos MN, Foresti F (2015) High connectivity of the crocodile shark between Atlantic and South- west Indian Oceans: highlights for conservation. PLoS ONE 10:e0117549. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117549 Feutry P, Kyne PM, Pillans RD, Chen X, Marthick JR, Morgan DL, Grewe PM (2015) Whole mitogenome sequencing population structure of the critically endangered sawfish Pristis pristis. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 533:237–244 Fields AT, Feldheim KA, Poulakis GR, Chapman DD (2015) Faculta- tive parthenogenesis in a critically endangered wild vertebrate. Curr Biol 25:446–447 Flanagan SP, Forester BR, Latch EK, Aitken SN, Hoban S (2017) Guidelines for planning genomic assessment and monitoring of locally adaptive variation to inform species conservation. Evol Appl. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12569 Forselledo R, Pons M, Miller P, Domingos A (2008) Distribution and population structure of the pelagic stingray, Pteroplatytrygon violacea (Dasyatidae), in the south-western Atlantic. Aquat Liv- ing Resour 21:357–363 Frankham R (2010) Challenges and opportunities of genetic approaches to biological conservation. Biol Cons 143:1919–1927 Frankham R (2014) Genetics in conservation management: revised recommendations for the 50/500 rules, Red List criteria and population viability analyses. Biol Conserv 170:56–63 Frankham R, Ballou JD, Briscoe DA (2002) Introduction to conserva- tion genetics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Frederico RG, Farias I, Araújo MLG, Charvet-Almeida P, Alves- Gomes JA (2012) Phylogeography and conservation genetics of the Amazonian freshwater stingray Paratrygon aiereba Müller & Henle, 1841 (Chondrichthyes: Potamotrygonidae). Neotrop Ichtyol 10:71–80 Frodella N, Cannas R, Velonà A et al (2016) population connectivity and phylogeography of the Mediterranean endemic skate Raja polystigma and evidence of its hybridization with the parapatric sibling R. montagui. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 554:99–113 Fu M, Wnag J, Ding S, Du J, Su Y (2010) Studies on the genetic structure and genetic subdividion of white spotted bamboo shark, Chiloscyllium plagiosum, by analyzing mitochondrial Cyt b genes. J Trop Ocean 29:86–91 Fung HC, Waples RS (2017) Perfomance of IUCN proxies for genera- tion length. Cons Biol 31:739–961 Gaida IH (1997) Population structure of the pacific angel shark, Squatina californica (Squatiniformes: Squatinidae), around the California Channel Islands. Copeia 4:738–744 Gallagher AJ, Hammerschlag N, Shiffman DS, Giert S (2014) Evolved for extinction: the cost and conservation implications of speciali- zation in hammerhead sharks. Bioscience 67:619–624 Galván-Tirado C, Díaz-Jaimes P, García-de León FJ, Galván-Magaña FG, Uribe-Alcocer M (2013) Historical demography and genetic differentiation inferred from the mitochondrial DNA of the silky https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029986 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029986 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-017-9504-z https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117549 https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12569 521Conservation Genetics (2018) 19:501–525 1 3 shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) in the Pacific Ocean. Fish Res 147:36–46 Garber AF, Tringali EM, Franks EJS (2005) Population genetic and phylogeographic structure of wahoo, Acanthocybium solandri, from the western central Atlantic and central Pacific Oceans. Mar Biol 147:205–214 Garcia G, Pereyra S, Gutierrez V, Oviedo S, Miller P, Domingo A (2015) Population structure of Squatina guggenheim (Squatini- formes, Squatinidae) from the south-western Atlantic Ocean. J Fish Biol 86:186–202 Gardner MG, Ward RD (1998) Taxonomic affinities within Australian and New Zealand Mustelus sharks (Chondrichthyes: Triakidae) inferred from allozymes, mitochondrial DNA and precaudal ver- tebrae counts. Copeia 2:356–363 Garza JC, Williamson EG (2001) Detection of reduction in population size using data from microsatellite loci. Mol Ecol 10:305–318 Geraghty PT, Williamson JE, Macbeth WG, Wintner SP, Harry AV, Ovenden JR, Gillings MR (2013) Population expansion genetic structure in Carcharhinus brevipinna in the southern Indo- Pacific. PLoS ONE 8:e75169 Geraghty PT, Williamson JE, Macbeth WG, Blower DC, Morgan JAT, Johnson G, Ovenden JR, Gillings MR (2014) Genetic structure and diversity of two highly vulnerable Carcharhinids in Austral- ian waters. Endanger Species Res 24:45–60 Giles JL, Ovenden JR, Almojil D, Garvilles E, Khampetch K, Man- jebrayakath H, Riginos C (2014) Extensive genetic population structure in the Indo-West Pacific spot-tail shark, Carcharhinus sorrah. Bull Mar Sci 90:427–454 Giles JL, Riginos C, Naylor GJP, Ovenden JR (2016) Genetic and phe- notypic diversity in the wedgefish Rhynchobatus australiae, a threatened ray of high value in the shark fin trade. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 548:165–180 Goodwin S, McPherson JD, McCombie WR (2016) Coming of age: ten years of next-generation sequencing technologies. Nat Rev Genet 17:333–351 Grant WS, Cheng W (2012) Incorporating deep and shallow compo- nents of genetic structure into the management of Alaskan red king crab. Evol Appl 5:820–837 Grogan ED, Lund R, Greenfest-Allen E (2012) The origin and rela- tionship of early Chondrichthyes. In: Carrier JC, Musick JA, Heithaus MR (eds) Biology of sharks and their relatives, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 3–29 Gubili C, Robinson CEC, Cliff G et al (2015) DNA from historical and trophy samples provides insights into white shark population origins and genetic diversity. Endang Species Res 27:233–241 Haig SM, Miller MP, Bellinger R, Draheim HM, Mercer DM, Mullins TD (2016) The conservation genetics juggling act: integrating genetics and ecology, science and policy. Evol Appl 9:181–195 Hare MT, Nunney L, Schwartz MK, Ruzzante DE, Burford M, Waples RS, Palstra F (2011) Understanding and estimating effective pop- ulation size for practical application in marine species manage- ment. Conserv Biol 3:438–449 Hauser L, Carvalho GR (2008) Paradigm shifts in marine fisheries genetics: ugly hypotheses slain by beautiful facts. Fish Fish 9:333–362 Hauser L, Adcock GJ, Smith PJ, Ramírez JHB, Carvalho GR (2002) Loss of microsatellite diversity and low effective population size in an overexploited population of New Zealand snapper (Pagrus auratus). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:11742–11747 Heino M, Pauli DB, Dieckmann U (2015) Fisheries-induced evolution. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 46:461–480 Heist EJ, Graves JE, Musick JA (1995) Population genetics of the sand- bar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus) in the Gulf of Mexico and Mid-Atlantic Bight. Copeia 3:555–562 Heist EJ, Musick JA, Graves JE (1996a) Genetic population struc- ture of the shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) inferred from restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of mito- chondrial DNA. Can J Fish Aquat 53:583–588 Heist EJ, Musick JA, Graves JE (1996b) Mitochondrial DNA diver- sity and divergence among sharpnose sharks, Rhizoprionodon terraenovae, from the Gulf of Mexico and Mid-Atlantic Bight. Fish Bull 94:664–668 Heithaus MR, Frid A, Wirsing AJ, Worm B (2008) Predicting eco- logical consequences of marine top predator declines. Trends Ecol Evol 23:202–210 Hernández S, Daley R, Walker T, Braccini M, Varela A, Francis MP, Ritchie (2015) Demographic history and the South Pacific dispersal barrier for school shark (Galeorhinus galeus) inferred by mitochondrial DNA and microsatellite DNA mark. Fish Res 176:132–142 Herndon A, Gallucci VF, DeMaster D, Burke W (2010) The case for an international commission for the conservation and manage- ment of sharks (ICCMS). Mar Policy 34:1239–1248 Hindrikson M, Remm J, Pilot M et al (2017) Wolf population in Europe: a systematic review, meta-analysis and suggestions for conservation and management. Biol Rev 92:1601–1629 Hobab SM, Arntzen W, Bertorelle G et al (2013c) Conservation genetic for effective species survival (ConGRESS): bridging the divide between conservation research and practice. J Nat Conserv 21:433–437 Hoban SM, Hauffe HC, Pérez-Espona S et  al (2013a) Bringing genetic diversity to the forefront of conservation policy and management. Conserv Genet Resour 5:593–598 Hoban S, Gaggiotti O, Bertorelle G (2013b) Sample planning optimi- zation tool for conservation and population genetics (SPOTG): a software for choosing the appropriate number of markers and samples. Methods Ecol Evol 4:299–303 Hoban S, Kelley JL, Lotterhos KE et al (2016) Finding the genomic basis of local adaptation: pitfalls, practical solutions, and future directions. Am Nat 188:379–397 Hoelzel AR, Shivji MS, Magnussen J, Francis MP (2006) Low worldwide genetic diversity in the basking sharks (Cetorhinus maximus). Biol Lett 2:639–642 Hoffman M, Hilton-Taylor C, Angulo A et al (2010) The impact of conservation on the status of the world’s vertebrates. Science 330:1503–1509 Jorgensen SJ, Reeb CA, Chapple TK, Anderson S, Perle C, Van Sommeran SR, Fritz-Cope C, Brown AC, Klimley AP, Block BA (2009) Philopatry and migration of Pacific white sharks. Proc R Soc B 277:679–688 Karl SA (2008) The effect of multiple paternity on the genetically effective size of a population. Mol Ecol 17:3973–3977 Karl SA, Castro ALF, Garla RC, Lopez JA, Charvet P, Burgess GH (2011) Phylogeography and conservation of the bull shark (Carcharhinus leucas) inferred from mitochondrial and micro- satellite DNA. Conserv Gen 12:371–382 Karl SA, Castro ALF, Garla RC (2012) Population genetics of the nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum) in the western Atlantic. Mar Biol 159:489–498 Kashiwagi T, Maxwell EA, Marshall AD, Christensen AB (2015) Evaluating manta ray mucus as an alternative DNA source for population genetics study: underwater-sampling, dry-storage and PCR success. PeerJ 3:e1188. https://doi.org/10.7717/ peerj.1188 Keeney DB, Heist EJ (2006) Worldwide phylogeography of the black- tip shark (Carcharhinus limbatus) inferred from mitochondrial DNA reveals isolation of western Atlantic populations coupled with recent Pacific dispersal. Mol Ecol 15:3669–3679 Keeney DB, Heupel ME, Hueter RE, Heist EJ (2003) Genetic heteroge- neity among blacktip shark, Carcharhinus limbatus, continental nurseries along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Mar Biol 143:1039–1046 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1188 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1188 522 Conservation Genetics (2018) 19:501–525 1 3 Keeney DB, Heupel M, Hueter RE, Heist EJ (2005) Microsatellite and mitochondrial analyses of the genetic structure of blacktip shark (Carcharhinus limbatus) nurseries in the northwestern Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea. Mol Ecol 14:1911–1923 Kenchington E, Heino M, Nielsen EE (2003) Managing marine genetic diversity: time for action? ICES J Mar Sci 60:1172–1176 King JR, Wetklo M, Supernaul J, Taguchi M, Yokawa K, Sosa-Nishi- zaki O, Withler RE (2015) Genetic analysis of stock structure of blue shark (Prionace glauca) in the north Pacific. Fish Res 172:181–189 Kousteni V, Kasapidis P, Kotoulas G, Megalofonou P (2015) Strong population genetic structure and contrasting histories for the small-spotted catshark (Scyliorhinus canicula) in the Mediter- ranean Sea. Heredity 114:1–11 Laikre L (2010) Genetic diversity is overlooked in international con- servation policy implementation. Conserv Genet 11:349–354 Laikre L, Larsson LC, Palmé A, Charlier J, Josefsson M, Ryman N (2008) Potentials for monitoring gene level biodiversity: using Sweden as an example. Biodivers Conserv 17:893–910 Laikre L, Schwartz MK, Waples RS et al (2010b) Compromising genetic diversity in the wild: unmonitored large-scale release of plants and animals. Trends Ecol Evol 25:520–529 Larson S, Farrer D, Lowry D, Ebert DA (2015) Preliminary observa- tions of population genetics and relatedness of the broadnose sev- engill shark, Notorynchus cepedianus, in two Northeast Pacific estuaries. PLoS ONE 10:e0129278. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0129278 Larson SE, Daly-Engel TS, Phillips NM (2017) Review of current con- servation genetic analyses of Northeast Pacific sharks. Adv Mar Biol 77:79–110 Last PR, White WT, Carvalho MR, Séret B, Stehmann MFW, Naylor GJP (2016) Rays of the world. Cornell University Press, Ithaca Lavery S, Shaklee JB (1989) Population genetics of two tropical sharks, Carcharhinus tilstoni and C. sorrah in Northern Australia. Mar Freshw Res 40:541–547 Le Port A, Lavery S (2012) Population structure and phylogeography of the short-tailed stingray, Dasyatis brevicaudata (Hutton 1875), in the southern Hemisphere. J Hered 103:1–12 Leberg P (2005) Genetic approaches for estimating the effective size of populations. J Wildl Res 69:1385–1399 Lessa R, Batista VS, Santana FM (2016) Close to extinction? The col- lapse of the endemic daggernose shark (Isogomphodon oxyrhyn- chus) off Brazil. Global Ecol Evol 7:70–81 Letessier TB, Bouchet PJ, Meeuwig JJ (2017) Sampling mobile oce- anic fishes and sharks: implications for fisheries and conservation planning. Biol Rev 92:627–646 Lewallen EA, Anderson TW, Bohonak AJ (2007) Genetic structure of leopard shark (Triakis semifasciata) populations in California waters. Mar Biol 152:599–609 Li N, Song N, Cheng G, Gao T (2013) Genetic diversity and population structure of the red stingray, Dasyatis akajei inferred by AFLP marker. Biochem Syst Ecol 51:130–137 Li N, Chen X, Sun D, Song N, Lin Q, Gao T (2015) Phylogeogra- phy and population structure of the red stingray, Dasyatis aka- jei inferred by mitochondrial control region. Mitochondr DNA 26:505–513 Li W, Dai X, Zhu J, Tian S, He S, Wu F (2016) Genetic differentiation in blue shark, Prionace glauca, from the central Pacific Ocean, as inferred by mitochondrial cytochrome b region. Mitochondr DNA 28:575–578 Lieber L, Berrow S, Johnston E, Graham H, Hall J, Gubili C, Sims DW, Jones CS, Noble LR (2013) Mucus: aiding elasmobranch conservation through non-invasive genetic sampling. Endanger Species Res 21:215–222 Lucifora LO, García VB, Worm B (2011) Global diversity hotspots and conservation priorities for sharks. PLoS ONE 6:e19356 Maduna SN, da Silva C, Wintner SP, Roodt-Wilding R, van der Merwe AE (2016) When two oceans meet: regional population genetics of an exploited coastal shark, Mustelus mustelus. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 544:183–196 Martin AP, Naylor GJP, Palumbi SR (1992) Rate of mitochondrial evolution is low in sharks compared to mammals. Nature 357:153–155 Massa A, Hozbor N, Chiaramonte GE, Balestra AD, Vooren CM (2006) Mustelus schmitti. The IUCN Red List of threatened species 2006: e.T60203A12318268. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/ IUCN.UK.2006.RLTS.T60203A12318268.en. Accessed 07 Nov 2016 McClenachan L, Cooper AB, Dulvy NK (2016) Rethinking trade- driven extinction risk in marine and terrestrial megafauna. Curr Biol 26:1–7 McCusker MR, Bentzen P (2010) Positive relationships between genetic diversity and abundance in fishes. Mol Ecol 19:4852–4862 MacDonald CM (1988) Genetic variation, breeding structure andtaxo- nomic status of the gummy shark Mustelus antarticus in South- ern Australian waters. Mar Freshw Res 39:641–648 McNelly JA, Miller KR, Reid WV, Mittermeier RA, Werner TB (1