↓ Skip to main content

Shark recreational fisheries: Status, challenges, and research needs

Overview of attention for article published in Ambio, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
26 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
160 Mendeley
Title
Shark recreational fisheries: Status, challenges, and research needs
Published in
Ambio, December 2016
DOI 10.1007/s13280-016-0856-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Austin J. Gallagher, Neil Hammerschlag, Andy J. Danylchuk, Steven J. Cooke

Abstract

For centuries, the primary manner in which humans have interacted with sharks has been fishing. A combination of their slow-growing nature and high use-values have resulted in population declines for many species around the world, and to date the vast majority of fisheries-related work on sharks has focused on the commercial sector. Shark recreational fishing remains an overlooked area of research despite the fact that these practices are popular globally and could present challenges to their populations. Here we provide a topical overview of shark recreational fisheries, highlighting their history and current status. While recreational fishing can provide conservation benefits under certain circumstances, we focus our discourse on the relatively understudied, potentially detrimental impacts these activities may have on shark physiology, behavior, and fitness. We took this angle given the realized but potentially underestimated significance of recreational fishing for shark conservation management plans and stock assessments, in hopes of creating a dialogue around sustainability. We also present a series of broad and focused research questions and underpin areas of future research need to assist with the development of this emergent area of research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 158 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 14%
Researcher 22 14%
Student > Bachelor 21 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 19 12%
Unknown 38 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 46 29%
Environmental Science 39 24%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 7 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 2%
Other 19 12%
Unknown 42 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 December 2018.
All research outputs
#1,576,591
of 25,083,571 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#268
of 1,779 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,981
of 432,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#10
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,083,571 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,779 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 432,557 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.