Response to Limitations on inferring shark vulnerability from spatial habitat protection

Abstract Our paper entitled “Shark conservation hindered by lack of habitat protection” ( Birkmanis et al., 2020a ), prompted Braccini and Newman to write a reply based on (i) our title, which they thought implied that a global assessment was made, and (ii) their interpretation of our paper “that shark conservation depends predominantly on establishing MPAs in highly suitable habitats”. We clearly state in the Abstract that we “determine suitable habitat for pelagic sharks within the Australian continental Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)” and that our results suggest that “strong fisheries management in addition to MPAs is necessary for pelagic shark conservation”. Braccini and Newman claim that our paper “implies that fisheries management in Australia is not strong”. On the contrary, we specifically state that “Australia has strict fisheries legislation protecting pelagic sharks”. Additionally, the concerns highlighted by Braccini and Newman regarding the inference of shark vulnerability was based on a single (and appropriately cautious) use of the word ‘vulnerability’ in the Abstract (“suitable habitats were found mostly at locations exposed to fishing pressure, potentially increasing the vulnerability of the pelagic shark species considered”). The contextualisation of Braccini and Newman’s comment as a reply to our paper is therefore misconstrued.