Greenland Shark Recovery Plan
The Intention of this Document
This is a guide to the recovery of the Greenland Shark, Somniosus microcephalus. This provides a detailed direct recovery plan of action for the species labeled as Vulnerable, as of June 20, 1019, by the IUCN Red List. In this document, there are actions ranging from needing to be implemented immediately to actions that can be implemented. This action plan is primarily for NOAA fisheries to be used in discussions with the governments of Greenland, Iceland, Norway, and Canada, as the waters that this species lived in are described as a global commons.
This outline will be used to guide the recovery planning international efforts, with information provided to ensure informed decisions before they are developed, finalized, and approved by all involved parties. Public participation is encouraged as the Greenland Shark will be needing advocates. Public discourse has been seen to have great effects and encourages international cooperation as they are put under pressure by the people they govern. Any new information or comments from the public resulting from this outline should be directed towards their local and national government and should be taken into consideration during the amending and logistics of the implementation process.
Introduction
Listing information:
Scientific Name: Somniosus microcephalus
Common Name: Greenland Shark
Listing Classification: Vulnerable (IUCN Red List)
Listing Date: November 2016
Lead Agency: International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
Lead Office: IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) Shark Specialist Group
Available information on the life history, range, and habitat requirements of the Greenland Shark has been provided by the IUCN; the most significant threats and areas that need to be addressed are:
Current and historical distribution and abundance of the species
Impact of climate change on Arctic ecosystems and deep-sea habitats
Levels of bycatch and direct fishing pressures
Mercury contamination and other pollutants in marine environments
Life-history traits, including growth rate, reproductive output, and longevity
Recovery Needs Assessment
Biological Assessment
The Greenland shark, Somniosus microcephalus, is a deep-water species found in the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, including the waters around Greenland, Iceland, and Canada. It lives in depths ranging from the surface to below 2,647 meters, with temperatures from 1 to 12°C. These sharks are well known for their long lifespan, estimated to live between 250 to 400 years, which makes them the longest-living vertebrate known; for context, Greenland sharks have been living since before America was founded. Researchers determine their age by using radiocarbon dating techniques on the eye lens nuclei. They have large, heavy bodies with gray coloration, short round snouts, smaller eyes that are often afflicted by parasites, and smaller fins. They grow up to 5.5 meters, although reports say up to 7.3 meters. They have a slower metabolism that is adapted for their deep-sea environment, which contributes to their slower growth and late sexual maturity, estimated to happen when they are 150 years old. An analysis of their genome has led to the discovery of genetic mutations that are contributing to their longevity. They have a bipartite life cycle, with ovoviviparous reproduction; embryos develop internally and are nourished by a yolk sac before birth, with their litters of up to 10 pups, ranging from 0.4 to 1 meter in length. Their slow development and infrequent reproduction make them especially vulnerable to population declines from human involvement. As adults, they are mainly slow-moving, solitary creatures; however, despite this, research shows that they are active predators rather than scavengers. They prey on other sharks, skates, eels, herring, and marine mammals like seals. There are no confirmed harmful interactions between humans and Greenland sharks. There are some unreliable reports, such as an account from 1859 in Pond Inlet, Canada, that claimed that a Greenland shark was caught that had human remains in its stomach.
Threats Assessment
The Greenland shark faces multiple threats coming from direct and indirect human interactions, including overfishing and bycatch. A lack of regulations and enforcement has increased the effects that commercial fisheries have. A stable population is necessary to support their slow growth and late maturity, coming from habitat protection and strict fishery management. Historical and contemporary fishing pressures have reduced the populations, especially when the mature females are taken since reaching reproductive age takes 150 years. Fishing occurs year round and incidental bycatch contributes to their higher mortality rate. In the early 1900s, up to 30,000 of them were caught yearly and now roughly 1,200 are caught. Accidental pregnant females' catches are detrimental since an individual can have up to 10 pups in their two uteruses; unfortunately, certain areas and times can be hard to restrict due to their unknown mating behaviors and nursery locations. Catching females who have never given birth could reduce the population by 200 to 700 individuals because that is how many pups they are estimated to give birth to in their lifetimes. Their deep water habitat makes monitoring and enforcement challenging since locals reporting sightings of them is already hard to confirm. The first estimates of their populations came from research between July and September of 2015 and 2016, using 31 cameras during exploratory fishing and scientific cruises. The cameras recorded Greenland sharks at 80% of sites, identifying 142 unique individuals. Their populations are on the decline and their current numbers are hard to identify and verify; this species needs to be prioritized on an international level.
Historically, they were targeted for their liver oil, which is commercially valuable. Although large animal hunting has declined, they remain susceptible to bycatch in industrial trawl, longline, and gillnet fisheries. Due to their low reproductive rate, overfishing can disproportionately affect them. Population estimates show declines of 30 to 49% which led to their classification of “Vulnerable” by IUCN. Climate change has reduced sea ice, altered their habitat, and exposed them to increasing fishing pressures. Changes in the ocean currents reduce prey availability, which in turn changes where they are hunting. As the prey moves, they move as well. The Greenland Sharks favor deep, cold waters and the warming oceans could force them into their less preferred habitats, causing unforeseen changes in their behavior.
Greenland sharks are listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), which is responsible for regulating international trade. Current efforts focus on bycatch reduction, where fisheries are being encouraged to adopt new gear modifications and practices that minimize captures. The IUCN recommends increases in regulatory measures and habitat protections to mitigate threats. Preliminary DNA analysis shows a lack of significant genetic differentiation across regions, showing a high level of gene flow, which could be helping population stability. There is still a need for research and monitoring of population trends, distribution, ecological roles, and resilience to environmental and anthropogenic pressures.
In some northern communities, their meat is traditionally consumed after fermentation to neutralize toxins. Iceland's national dish, hákarl or kæstur hákarl, is made from their fermented meat. The fermentation removes the trimethylamine oxide, TMAO, which can cause intestinal problems and symptoms similar to alcohol intoxication. The dried meat is chewy with a strong ammonia smell; Ainsley Eats, a chef, described the taste as “blue cheese but a hundred times stronger” and “like chewing a urine-infested mattress.” Although it can be a source of protein and omega-3s when fermented, it is still high in sodium and cholesterol, which prevents some people from eating it. This dish is an intensive process that requires a lot of time, as the meat is fermented for six to twelve weeks before being hung to dry for several months. Their dried meat has also been used as sled dog food and their skin has been used to repurpose leather goods. Effective conservation measures are crucial to ensuring the survival of this unknown, mysterious deep-sea giant. Future management should prioritize habitat protection, bycatch mitigation, and continued genetic and ecological studies.
Conservation Assessment
There are inconsistencies in fishery management regulations, leading to gaps in policy enforcement, which has allowed for overfishing to continue. Without improved compliance, and an international agreement, unregulated fishing will continue to impact this species. Changes in oceanic conditions, pollution, and climate change will impact their prey availability, overall health, and the ecosystems where they act as a keystone species role by stabilizing food webs, controlling the spread of disease, and protecting carbon stores by eating herbivorous fishes. Habitat loss is currently considered a lower risk than overfishing; however, if their numbers stabilize, they will not have a stable, healthy place to live and to protect. Conservation efforts must focus on the immediate threat of overfishing and preventing any more irreversible damage to their habitat as a long-term strategy. Indecisiveness will lead to Greenland sharks suffering from further population decline and a lower quality of life.
Summary of Assessment
The Greenland shark, a deep-water fish with the longest known vertebrate lifespan, is facing significant threats from overfishing, bycatch, and climate change, exacerbated due to its slow growth and late maturity; this has led to population declines of 30 to 49%. Conservation efforts should focus on bycatch reduction, stricter fishery regulations, and habitat protection, especially since inconsistencies in enforcement and international agreements are reducing progress. As keystone species, they play a vital role in stabilizing their ecosystem, making immediate conservation actions critical.
Preliminary Recovery Strategy
Recovery Priority Number With Rationale
The recovery priority number is a ranking system that is used by the US Fish and Wildlife Service to determine whether a species recovery should be prioritized under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); the number is based on three main factors: degree of threat, recovery potential, and taxonomic distinctiveness. The numbers range from 1 to 18, with lower numbers indicating high threats and high recovery potential and lower numbers indicating species with low threats and low recovery potential. The Greenland Shark is not listed under the ESA, but if it were to be listed, the number would be from 3 to 6. Due to their facing a high degree of threats: overfishing, bycatch, slow reproduction, climate change, and being hunted for liver oil, meat, and skin. It has a high potential for recovery but does require significant conservation intervention since the existing regulations are ineffective and underenforced. The moderate taxonomic distinctiveness comes from it being a keystone species and fulfilling an irreplaceable role, as they have for around 2 million years. The species' longevity shows that protecting the current population will yield long-term benefits and further population resilience for themselves, as well as benefit the entire ecosystem. Public education and community engagement will be crucial for cooperation in sustainable conservation efforts.
Recovery Vision Statement
The Greenland shark population will stabilize and their quality of life will be prioritized, with their suffering reduced. Individuals will reach their reproductive maturity and fulfill their highest level of fitness possible. Recovery efforts will focus on reducing direct and indirect human exploitation, improving public awareness of the species' life history and ecological role, and conserving habitats that support its lifestyle. Providing education and opportunities for engagement will help to ensure long-term protection for this beautiful deep-sea keystone predator.
Initial Action Plan
Urgent Actions to Reduce Direct Threats
Ban and enforce restrictions on the hunting of liver oil - even low levels of exploitation can have devastating effects on their slow-growing and later maturity
Increase public awareness - about the species' vulnerability, slower life cycles, their unique role in their ecosystem, and show the need for community involvement in preventative conservation measures
Enhance enforcement of existing fishing regulations - prevent bycatch by implementing different types of fishing regulations, such as using “smart hooks,” depth restrictions, and specially designed shapes that deter entanglement, that mainly allow for only target species to be caught. Equipment and policies that should be utilized are:
Smart hooks that are designed with magnetic coatings or altered shapes allow target species to be caught but discourage Greenland sharks from getting caught.
Gear modifications of the size and type of hooks, line materials, and leader lines can be used to prevent the Greenland sharks from being caught.
Limiting fishing operations to depths where Greenland sharks are known to frequent.
Designate areas where Greenland sharks are known to frequent as prohibited fishing areas.
Implement strict reporting systems for the tracking and managing of bycatch; any Greenland sharks that were not meant to be caught, but were, must be reported or face severe consequences, such as fines and fishing suspensions for that vessel and crew.
Develop and implement standardized monitoring programs - tracking population trends, asses conservation progress, and strict reporting systems to track and manage bycatch
Long-Term Recovery Actions
Research the unknown aspects of the species - nursery locations, migration patterns, mating behaviors, etc.
Investigating the impact of climate change - especially how the warming waters are affecting the pre-availability and distribution.
Monitor the population dynamics - to understand their natural mortality rates, how conservation efforts are impacting this rate, and mortality behaviors through cameras placed in different places where the species is commonly spotted or thought to be located.
Marketing the conservation of Greenland sharks highlights its economic and ecological importance to raise support from the local communities that have the most power in protecting them. Simultaneously, encourage seafood industries to promote sustainable sourcing and discourage the harvest of Greenland Sharks.
Assess the impacts of deep sea fishing and industrial activities - like dredging, and bycatch, and how other commercial ways are degrading habitats.
Establishing marine corridors to protect their critical habitats and migration routes, aligns with international agreements on deep-sea fishing regulations with agreed-upon enforcement on further exploitation of Greenland Sharks.
Community and Policy-Based Conservation Actions
Community involvement initiatives to either begin or continue local stewardship and participation, especially in northern fishing communities.
Sustainable solutions made by the people who rely on them will benefit the Greenland shark and local communities, which could be highly beneficial. Fishing is a profitably unstable industry that declines as fish stocks decrease. Optimal long-term profits come from lower catch rates, which are proven by comparing Maximum Economic Yields (MEY) with Maximum Sustainable Yields (MSY), which show that the MEY is often lower than the MSY. Overfishing has caused provable genetic shifts in fish populations. Rather than imposing external regulations, having local communities manage protected areas with incentives has been proven effective in case studies; one method that could be implemented could be seasonal or area-specific fishing restrictions. Alternative fisheries with other target species could reduce the pressure on the slow-reproducing Greenland sharks, if not an all-out ban on catching Greenland sharks that are sexually mature.
Investments in ecotourism could result in an economic boom; places like Norway already made nearly 36 billion dollars in the tourism industry in 2023, a lot of which is driven by fascination with mythical trolls. Greenland sharks also have Inuit mythology roots that could be used to expand the already thriving tourism industry. This shark, known as Skalugsuak, is linked to creation myths with the sea goddess Sedna. One legend tells that the shark came from a urine-soaked cloth, used for treating head-lice, that transformed in the sea, explaining its high urea content and distinctive smell. Another story connects the shark to Sedna, where it either lived in her urine pot or formed from one of her severed fingers when her father was drowning her. Some say that the shark may be partially responsible for the Loch Ness monster and that it attacked kayaks in early Inuit stories. Creating tours based on this mythological beast could be a great way to bring in more money and promote the conservation of this ancient creature.
Developing better aquaculture practices that do not introduce toxins, antibiotics, or invasive species into the ecosystem, while also creating small-scale fisheries that prioritize local food security with abundant species over a large-scale industry that is historically exploitative.
Working with Arctic communities and fisheries to find alternatives for shark harvesting (e.g., different food sources) and promoting ethical ecotourism (e.g., Greenland shark tourism and feeding).
Although Hákarl is culturally significant and enjoyed year-round, especially during the mid-winter Þorrablót festival, there is a decline in eating this dish in the younger generations as they understand the significance of this keystone species. However, several articles have listed alternatives to this dish, like Harðfiskur (dried fish, often cod or wolffish), Skyr (a dairy product), Blóðmör (a sausage), and Svið (sheep’s head).
Market-based conservation efforts (e.g., shifting target species temporarily) can improve sustainability significantly, allowing for Greenland Sharks time to recover or other policies to be implemented for long-term success.
During tours that include diving and exploring areas where Greenland sharks are spotted, like Northern Explorers and Diving Unlimited International, need to include an educational aspect on why protecting this vulnerable species is important, with an emphasis on their declining numbers. They could donate part of their profits to charities that are working towards protecting their habitats, like Shark Stewards, Save Our Seas Foundation, Oceans, or Shark Conservation Fund. When Greenland sharks have an economic benefit, the local community will have more of an interest in protecting the species.
Ensuring consistent international regulations to protect the species across the different areas, including Norwegian and Greenlandic waters
Government subsidies for industrial fleets need to redirect towards community-based conservation efforts, and small-scale fisheries should receive the financial and logistical support that larger companies were afforded.
Greenland sharks can be protected by implementing these recovery plans, ensuring that this ancient and beautiful predator will remain a part of the Arctic marine ecosystems.
Preplanning decisions
Planning Approach
A recovery plan needs to be developed for the Greenland shark that aligns with international conservation efforts and is informed by the IUCN Red List assessment. Arctic nations must coordinate with marine conservation organizations to ensure the widespread adoption of effective conservation strategies.
Information management
All data that is relevant to the recovery and conservation of the Greenland shark should be compiled and maintained by the appropriate governments and research institution databases, such as the Icelandic Government and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). International cooperation, like data sharing, is crucial for further understanding of the species’ population trends, their role in their habitat, and the threats that are dwindling their population.
Estimating Costs
Urgent Actions to Reduce Direct Threats (USD)
Fishing Gear for 1000 units and 5 years: $19,0152.9
SMART hooks: 1,000 units over five years cost approximately $1,152.90 with minimal maintenance
Shark Exclusion Nets: around $20,000 per protected beach annually or $189,000 over five years for large-scale implementation.
Monitoring and Research Costs: $910,000 - $3.9M annually
Standardized monitoring programs: $50,000 - $200,000 annually
Population trend tracking: $100,000 - $500,000 annually
Long-term monitoring programs: $200,000 - $1M+ annually
Mandatory bycatch reporting: $10,000 - $50,000
Satellite tagging and tracking: $500,000 - $2M+
Conservation evaluation and adaptation: $50,000 - $150,000 annually
Overall Cost Estimates
Initial Year Investment: $1.7 million - $7.2M
Ongoing Annual Costs: $500,000 - $2M
Long-Term Recovery Actions
Researching the Greenland Sharks: $850,000 - $3M
Satellite Tracking & Acoustic Monitoring: $500,000 - $2M
Deep-Sea Expeditions: $250,000 - $500,000 per trip
Genetic Studies: $100,000 - $500,000
Investigate Climate Change Impacts: $350,000 - $1.15M
Prey Availability Monitoring: $50,000 - $150,000 annually
Physiological Studies: $100,000 - $500,000
Climate Modeling: $200,000 - $500,000
Monitoring Greenland Shark Population Dynamics: $200,000 - $550,000 annually
Underwater Cameras: $50,000 - $100,000 annually
Genetic Studies: $100,000 - $300,000
Bycatch Analysis: $50,000 - $150,000 annually
Promoting Conservation Efforts $250,000 - $900,000
Media Campaigns: $100,000 - $500,000
However, with the use of social media campaigns and partnerships, the cost could be reduced significantly.
Community Engagement: $50,000 - $150,000
Sustainable Seafood Initiatives: $100,000 - $250,000
Assessing Industrial Fishing Impacts: $350,000 - $1.05M
Impact Studies: $150,000 - $500,000
Industry Collaboration: $100,000 - $300,000
Policy Advocacy: $100,000 - $250,000
Establish Marine Corridors: $450,000 - $1.5M
MPA Designation & Regulation: $200,000 - $1M
International Coordination: $250,000 - $500,000 annually
Community & Policy-Based Conservation: $150,000 - $700,000 annually
Community Incentives: $100,000 - $500,000
Fishing Restrictions & Enforcement: $50,000 - $200,000 annually
Investing in Ecotourism: $150,000 - $650,000
Tourism Development: $100,000 - $500,000
Educational Content Creation: $50,000 - $150,000
Improving Aquaculture & Small-Scale Fisheries: $300,000 - $800,000
Sustainable Aquaculture: $200,000 - $500,000
Support Small Fisheries: $100,000 - $300,000
Promoting Sustainable Food Alternatives: $150,000 - $400,000
Awareness Campaigns: $50,000 - $150,000
Education Programs: $100,000 - $250,000
Strengthening International Regulations: $300,000 - $1.3M
Enforcement & Coordination: $200,000 - $1M
Regulatory Adjustments: $100,000 - $300,000
Overall Costs - $4 million to $15.45 million
Stakeholder Involvement
Key Stakeholders
International Conservation Organizations: IUCN, Arctic Council, and other environmental groups focused on deep-sea and Arctic marine ecosystems.
National and Regional Governments - Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, and other Arctic nations involved in the fisheries management.
Research Institutions - universities and marine science organizations conducting studies on deep-sea ecosystems, elasmobranch biology, conservation biology, and sustainability.
Local and Indigenous Communities - arctic coastal communities, including Indigenous groups (e.g., Inuit, Aleut, Yup'ik) with traditional knowledge of the species and its role in the ecosystem.
Fishing and Maritime Industries - commercial fisheries and shipping industries that operate in the Greenland shark’s habitat.
Stakeholder Involvement Strategies
International Collaboration - is critical since the Greenland sharks live in multiple jurisdictions, conservation efforts should build upon current regulations and agreements, like the Arctic Council’s biodiversity initiatives and regional fisheries management organizations.
Engagement with Indigenous and Local Communities - should be prioritized by incorporating traditional ecological knowledge into modern conservation planning, by promoting alternatives
Regular Communication and Coordination - through international conferences (e.g., Arctic Council meetings, marine biodiversity summits) and virtual platforms, such as promotion of the species through social media platforms, this will facilitate involvement while minimizing logistical costs
Open Review Process - transparency in developing this recovery plan that allows interested and involved parties to provide input and contribute to the development of conservation and implementation strategies
Public Education Campaigns - raising awareness about the species’ unique biology, slow growth, and vulnerability to overexploitation, this will encourage broader support for conservation efforts.
By encouraging cooperation among these stakeholders, the introduced recovery plan can be implemented and ensure long term survival of the Greenland sharks while balancing ecological, economic, and involving cultural considerations.
Literature Cited
Alverson, Dayton, et al. “A Global Assessment of Fisheries Bycatch and Discards.” Fao.org, 1994, www.fao.org/4/t4890e/t4890e00.htm.
Ardiff, Michelle. “Foods to Try in Iceland | CIE Tours.” CIE Tours, 2025, www.cietours.com/blog/foods-try-iceland. Accessed 10 Mar. 2025.
Coleman, Jude. “Greenland Sharks Can Live for Centuries. We’re Finally Learning Their Genetic Tricks.” Animals, 25 Feb. 2025, www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/greenland-shark-genetic-longevity. Accessed 2 Mar. 2025.
Dalton, Scott. Shark Meshing (Bather Protection) Program 2022/23 Annual Performance Report Prepared in Accordance with the 2017 Joint Management Agreement and Associated Management Plan. NSW Department of Primary Industries, July 2023.
Devine, Brynn M., et al. “First Estimates of Greenland Shark (Somniosus Microcephalus) Local Abundances in Arctic Waters.” Scientific Reports, vol. 8, no. 1, 17 Jan. 2018, www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-19115-x, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-19115-x.
Dulvy, Nicholas K, et al. “Ecological Erosion and Expanding Extinction Risk of Sharks and Rays.” Science, vol. 386, no. 6726, 5 Dec. 2024, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adn1477.
FAO. 2024. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2024 – Blue Transformation in Action. Rome. openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/66538eba-9c85-4504-8438-c1cf0a0a3903/content/cd0683en.html.
Fisheries, NOAA. “Climate Change | NOAA Fisheries.” NOAA, 19 Sept. 2022, www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/climate-change.
“Greenland Shark.” Discover Fishes, 2019, www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/discover-fish/species-profiles/greenland-shark/.
Hall, Danielle. “In the Eyes of One Shark, Age Is Nothing to Fear | Smithsonian Ocean.” Ocean.si.edu, Aug. 2016, ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/sharks-rays/eyes-one-shark-age-nothing-fear.
Mackenzie, Willie. “A Brief History of Commercial Whaling and Greenpeace.” Greenpeace International, 10 Sept. 2018, www.greenpeace.org/international/story/18307/history-commercial-whaling-greenpeace/.
Nicholas Dulvy (Simon Fraser University, Canada / IUCN SSC Shark Specialist Group), et al. “IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Somniosus Microcephalus.” IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, 20 June 2019, www.iucnredlist.org/species/60213/124452872.
NOAA. “How Long Do Greenland Sharks Live?” Oceanservice.noaa.gov, 16 June 2024, oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/greenland-shark.html.
NOAA Fisheries. “Endangered Species Conservation | NOAA Fisheries.” Noaa.gov, 2019, www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/endangered-species-conservation.
“OMTD Smart Hooks - Tackle Warehouse.” Tacklewarehouse.com, 2025, www.tacklewarehouse.com/catpage-OMTD.html. Accessed 12 Mar. 2025.
Phillips, Adrian. “The History of the International System of Protected Area Management Categories.” The International Journal for Protected Area Managers, vol. 14, no. 3, 2004. World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) of IUCN The World Conservation Union.
Schultis, Jessa. “The Rise of Eco-Tourism in Costa Rica and Its Effects.” Undergraduate Research Journal, vol. 22, no. 1, 1 Jan. 2018, openspaces.unk.edu/undergraduate-research-journal/vol22/iss1/11/.
Sigurðardóttir, Johanna. “The Truth about Fermented Shark in Iceland.” Www.reykjavikcars.com, 15 Dec. 2023, www.reykjavikcars.com/blog/cuisine/fermented-shark-iceland.
South. “Action to Help Protect South Australians from Sharks This Summer.” Premier of South Australia, 25 Nov. 2024, www.premier.sa.gov.au/media-releases/news-archive/action-to-help-protect-south-australians-from-sharks-this-summer. Accessed 12 Mar. 2025.
Sureda Anfres, Miquel. “Near-Blind Shark Is World’s Longest-Lived Vertebrate.” Nature, 11 Aug. 2016, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.20406. Accessed 4 Nov. 2019.
Vignaud, Thomas M., et al. “Genetic Structure of Populations of Whale Sharks among Ocean Basins and Evidence for Their Historic Rise and Recent Decline.” Molecular Ecology, vol. 23, no. 10, May 2014, pp. 2590–2601, https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12754.
Waries, Sarah. “Project News: Five Years On.” Save Our Seas Foundation, 22 Jan. 2019, saveourseas.com/update/five-years-on/.
“What Is Satellite Telemetry?” Smithsonian’s National Zoo, 28 Feb. 2018, nationalzoo.si.edu/migratory-birds/what-satellite-telemetry.
Whoriskey, Frederick. “Building Ocean Biodiversity Monitoring Capacity: Tracking Marine Animals with Acoustic Telemetry and the Role of the Ocean Tracking Network.” Oceanography, 2025, https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2025e103. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.
