A Review of the Status of Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of Panama to Guide Research and Conservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Chondrichthyan fishes (sharks, rays and chimaeras) are a group of high conservation concern globally. Species are impacted by varying threats, although fishing pressure is the primary stressor causing population declines. Panama comprises both Pacific and Caribbean coastlines with a diversity of estuarine and marine habitats supporting small to large‐scale fisheries. Understanding the status of chondrichthyans within this Central America seascape can help inform and drive conservation and research. This paper represents the first comprehensive review of the chondrichthyans of Panama and presents a summary of (1) species diversity and distribution; (2) habitat; (3) extinction risk; (4) drivers of extinction risk; and (5) policy tools. The study also discusses current research and critical knowledge gaps and outlines recommendations for research, education and management. Panama supports 112 species of chondrichthyan, the majority of which are associated with coastal and shelf environments. Almost half (47.3%) are at risk of extinction globally, according to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Many of the most frequently encountered species in fisheries are globally threatened, such as scalloped hammerhead Sphyrna lewini and silky shark Carcharhinus falciformis . This review found a general lack of species‐specific fisheries data, limiting the assessment of local population trends. Further, although national, regional and international policy tools are in place, deficiencies in monitoring, enforcement and compliance are limiting their effectiveness. Policies should aim to improve data collection and compliance with current management tools while supporting research into life‐history, critical habitats and the socioeconomic values of chondrichthyans. Addressing the research, education and management recommendations within this paper would improve the status of Panama's chondrichthyans and assist the country in meeting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), including SDG 14, which calls to ‘conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development’.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".