Originating from the Second International Indian Ocean Expedition (IIOE-2), the main goal of the Western Indian Ocean (WIO) Regional Benthic Imagery Workshop, was to provide information and training on the use of various underwater imagery platforms in benthic research. To date, attempts made to explore the bottom of the ocean range from simple diving bells to more advanced camera systems, and the rapidly expanding field of underwater image-based research has supported marine exploration in many forms, from biodiversity surveys, spatial analyses and temporal studies, to monitoring schemes. Alongside the increasing use of underwater camera systems worldwide, there is an evident need to improve training and access to these techniques for students and researchers from institutes within the WIO. The week-long virtual event was conducted between 30 August and 3 September 2021 with 266 participants. Sessions consisted of lessons, practical demonstrations and interactive discussions which covered the steps required to conduct underwater imagery surveys, taking participants through elements of sampling design, data acquisition and processing, considerations for statistical analysis and, effective managment of data. The session recordings from the workshop are available online as a teaching aid which has the potential to reach marine researchers both regionally and globally. It is crucial that we build on this momentum by continuing to develop and strengthen the network established through this initiative for standardised benthic-image-based research within the WIO.

REPLYING TO A. V. Harry & J. M. Braccini Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03463-w (2021) Our global analysis1 estimated the overlap and fishing exposure risk (FEI) using the space use of satellite-tracked sharks and longline fishing effort monitored by the automatic identification system (AIS). In the accompanying Comment, Harry and Braccini2 draw attention to two localized shark–longline vessel overlap hotspots in Australian waters, stating that 47 fishing vessels were misclassified as longline and purse seine vessels in the Global Fishing Watch (GFW)3 2012–2016 AIS fishing effort data product that we used. This, they propose2, results in misidentifications that highlight fishing exposure hotspots that are subject to an unexpected level of sensitivity in the analysis and they suggest that misidentifications could broadly affect the calculations of fishing exposure and the central conclusions of our study1. We acknowledged in our previously published paper1 that gear reclassifications were likely to occur for a small percentage of the more than 70,000 vessels studied, however, here we demonstrate that even using much larger numbers of vessel reclassifications than those proposed by Harry and Braccini2, the central results and conclusions of our paper1 do not change.

REPLYING TO H. Murua et al. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03396-4 (2021) Our previously published paper1 provided global fine-scale spatiotemporal estimates (1° × 1°; monthly) of overlap and fishing exposure risk (FEI) between satellite-tracked shark space use and automatic identification system (AIS) longline fishing effort. We did not assess shark mortality directly, but in addition to replying to the Comment by Murua et al.2, we confirm—using regression analysis of spatially matched data—that fishing-induced pelagic shark mortality (catch per unit effort (CPUE)) is greater where FEI is higher. We focused on assessing shark horizontal spatiotemporal overlap and exposure risk with fisheries because spatial overlap is a major driver of fishing capture susceptibility and previous shark ecological risk assessments (ERAs) assumed a homogenous shark density within species-range distributions3,4,5 or used coarse-scale modelled occurrence data, rather than more ecologically realistic risk estimates in heterogeneous habitats that were selected by sharks over time. Furthermore, our shark spatial exposure risk implicitly accounts for other susceptibility factors with equal or similar probabilities to those commonly used in shark ERAs3,5.

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

Concurrently, assessing the effectiveness of marine protected areas and evaluating the degree of risk from humans to key species provide valuable information that can be integrated into conservation management planning. Tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier) are a wide‐ranging ecologically important species subject to various threats. The aim of this study was to identify “hotspots” of tiger shark habitat use in relation to protected areas and potential risks from fishing.

Harnessing the economic potential of the oceans is key to combating poverty, enhancing food security, and strengthening economies. But the concomitant risk of intensified resource extraction to migratory species is worrying given these species contribute to important ecological processes, often underpin alternative livelihoods, and are mostly already threatened. We thus sought to quantify the potential conflict between key economic activities (5 fisheries and hydrocarbon exploitation) and sea turtle migration corridors in a region with rapid economic development: southern and eastern Africa. We satellite tracked the movement of 20 loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and 14 leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) turtles during their postnesting migrations. We used movement-based kernel density estimation to identify migration corridors for each species. We overlaid these corridors on maps of the distribution and intensity of economic activities, quantified the extent of overlap and threat posed by each activity on each species, and compared the effects of activities. These results were compared with annual bycatch rates in the respective fisheries. Both species' 3 corridors overlapped most with longline fishing, but the effect was worse for leatherbacks: their bycatch rates of approximately 1500/year were substantial relative to the regional population size of < 100 nesting females/annum. This bycatch rate is likely slowing population growth. Artisanal fisheries may be of greater concern for loggerheads than for leatherbacks, but the population appears to be withstanding the high bycatch rates because it is increasing exponentially. The hydrocarbon industry currently has a moderately low impact on both species, but mining in key areas (e.g., Southern Mozambique) may undermine > 50 years of conservation, potentially affecting > 80% of loggerheads, 33% of the (critically endangered) leatherbacks, and their nesting beaches. We support establishing blue economies (i.e., generating wealth from the ocean), but oceans need to be carefully zoned and responsibly managed in both space and time to achieve economic (resource extraction), ecological (conservation, maintenance of processes), and social (maintenance of alternative livelihood opportunities, alleviate poverty) objectives.

Threatened species are dependent on conservation, with strategic approaches underpinned by the principle of complementarity to find efficient solutions. But are paper-efficient designs always field-effective? After 51years of monitoring a 56-km-long overlap of two turtle rookeries, there are contrasting population-recovery trends: Vulnerable loggerhead abundance is increasing; and Critically Endangered leatherback abundance is remaining constant, despite leatherback individuals having a higher reproductive output. This questions the efficacy of the conservation programme (annual monitoring and land–sea protection in a World Heritage Site). We use biotelemetry to test if the disparate recovery is biased by differences in detectability in the monitored section of the rookery, and if the reserve confers equal protection. The species' movement ecology contrasts strongly, with implications for nest-event detectability: ~66% of leatherback nesting is outside the monitoring area, compared to ~12% of loggerhead nesting. The marine reserve also strongly favours loggerheads at 95% protection, versus 25% protection for leatherbacks. We hypothesize that variability in leatherback movement ecology, and nest placement, is from ocean currents shaping their behaviour as hatchlings, potentially also determining the proportion of the population at risk of capture in pelagic fisheries. Efficient multi-species conservation strategies need to be carefully designed and adaptive to be effective.

Long-distance, ocean-traversing migrations are well documented for leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) sea turtles (e.g., Luschi et al., 2003, Benson et al., 2011), and are also a paramount driver of leatherback conservation challenges; over such expansive distances, turtles are exposed to many threats in multiple jurisdictions and on the high seas (Wallace et al., 2011). Many populations are still in peril (Wallace et al., 2011), with indications that key pressures limiting population recovery are o%en o!shore (Harris et al., 2018). "erefore, beach protection alone is not a guarantee for conservation success (Nel et al., 2013). Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) can be e!ective in protecting turtles in areas where they aggregate, like feeding or courtship areas. "is provides strong motivation for considering migration and foraging distributions of leatherback and other turtles as countries embark on Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) initiatives or MPA expansion programs. "ese could be used in concert with other conservation measures, particularly in the South Western Indian Ocean (SWIO) where leatherbacks are Critically Endangered (Wallace et al., 2013).