Cited by 221Marine and fisheries researchTurtle Biology and ConservationMarine animal studies overview

Migratory marine species: their status, threats and conservation management needs

Open access
Lascelles, Ben, Notarbartolo Di Sciara, Giuseppe, Agardy, Tundi, Cuttelod, Annabelle, Eckert, Sara, Glowka, Lyle, Hoyt, Erich, Llewellyn, Fiona +3 more·2014·Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems

Abstract

Migratory marine species (MMS) include many of the world's most charismatic organisms such as marine mammals, seabirds, turtles, sharks, and tuna. Many are now among the most threatened due to the diverse range of pressures they encounter during their extensive movements. This paper shows that 21% of MMS are classified as threatened (i.e. categorized as Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable). Sea turtles are the most threatened group (85%), followed by seabirds (27%), cartilaginous fish (26%), marine mammals (15%) and bony fish (11%). Taken together 48% of MMS are threatened, Near Threatened or Data Deficient. As well as being threatened they share in common being wide‐ranging animals, travelling through the waters of multiple nations as well as in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ) during different times of the year. This makes their conservation a challenge, requiring coordinated action by many nations, international organizations, Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) and other stakeholders if their populations are to recover to healthy levels and be safeguarded into the future. Even though they are wide‐ranging, long‐term studies reveal considerable site fidelity and well‐defined habitats for many species and areas. These sites are prime candidates for enhanced management such as via Marine Protect Area (MPA) designations. However, existing management frameworks do not yet contribute sufficiently to MMS conservation, MPA networks need to be expanded to capture key areas, in many cases through the application of new dynamic management techniques such as time area closures. Data on the distribution, abundance, behaviours and threats faced by many MMS are now available. These data should be used to inform the design of effective management regimes, such as MPAs, both within and beyond national jurisdictions. MEAs should ensure a full complement of MMS are included within species listings, and encourage further action to safeguard their populations. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/aqc.2512

Cites

117 of 117 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • 27% of all seabirds are classified as threatened, and up to 75% of albatross species are considered threatened or endangered.

    “27% of all seabirds are classified as threatened (critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable), and the largest of all seabirds, the albatross, is the most endangered, with up to 75% of albatross species considered threatened or endangered (22 -24)”

    From Global nutrient transport in a world of giants (2016) · cites this paper as [23]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 121 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. BirdLife International. 2010. Marine Important Bird Areas toolkit: standardised techniques for identifying priority sites for the conservation of seabirds at sea. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.
  2. Davies TK, Martin S, Mees C, Chassot E, Kaplan DM. 2012. A review of the conservation benefits of marine protected areas for pelagic species associated with fisheries. ISSF Technical Report 2012-02. International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, McLean, Virginia, USA.
  3. Guénette S, Pitcher TJ, Walters CJ. 2000. The potential of marine reserves for the management of northern cod in Newfoundland. Bulletin of Marine Science 66: 831-852.
  4. Notarbartolo di Sciara G. 2011. The Pelagos Sanctuary for the conservation of Mediterranean marine mammals: an iconic High Seas MPA in dire straits. In Progress in Marine Conservation in Europe 2009, von Nordheim H, Krause JC, Maschner K (compilers). Proceedings of the Symposium, Stralsund, Germany, 2-6 November 2009. 247.
  5. Reeves RR. 2009. Proceedings of the first international conference on marine mammal protected areas, March 30- April 3, 2009, Maui, Hawai'i, USA. NOAA.
  6. URS Corp. 2010. Chemical exposures for Cook Inlet beluga whales: a literature review and evaluation. Report prepared for NOAA Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Anchorage, Alaska.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lascelles, B., Notarbartolo Di Sciara, G., Agardy, T., Cuttelod, A., Eckert, S., Glowka, L., Hoyt, E., Llewellyn, F., Louzao, M., Ridoux, V., & Tetley, M. J.
Affiliations
  • BirdLife international (GB)
  • Tethys Research Institute Milano Italy
  • Sound Seas Washington USA
  • International Union for Conservation of Nature (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Zoological Society of London (GB)
  • Convention on Migratory Species Abu Dhabi United Arab Emirates
  • Whale and Dolphin Conservation UK
  • AZTI (ES)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Corresponding author
Lascelles, Ben
Venue
Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-11
Volume
24
Issue
S2
Pages
111-127
ISSN
  • 1052-7613 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0755
OpenAlex
W1837828775
Cited by
221
References
121
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2013: 1
FWCI
7.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Aquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems (publishedVersion)
  • AZTI Institutional Repository (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Funders
Parks Canada
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Marine and fisheries research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Turtle Biology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Marine animal studies overview
Keywords
seabird migration, sea turtle migration, tuna migration, conservation status, threatened species, areas beyond national jurisdiction, marine protected areas, time-area closures, multilateral environmental agreements, site fidelity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review