Effective ocean management and conservation of highly migratory species depends onresolving 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.Industrialised fishing is a major source of mortality for large marine animals (marine megafauna) 1-6 . Humans have hunted megafauna in the open ocean for at least 42,000 years 7 , but international fishing fleets targeting large, epipelagic fishes did not spread into the high seas (areas beyond national jurisdiction) until the 1950s 8 . Prior to this, the high seas constituted a spatial refuge largely free from exploitation as fishing pressure was concentrated on continental shelves 3,8 . Pelagic sharks are among the widest ranging vertebrates, with some species exhibiting annual ocean-basin-scale migrations 9 , long term trans-ocean movements 10 , and/or fine-scale site fidelity to preferred shelf and open ocean areas 5,9,11 . These behaviours could cause extensive spatial overlap with different fisheries from coastal areas to the deep ocean. On average, large pelagic sharks account for 52% of all identified shark catch worldwide in target fisheries or as bycatch 12 . Regional declines in abundance of pelagic sharks have been reported 13,14 , but it is unclear whether exposure to high fishing effort extends across ocean-wide population ranges and overlaps areas in the high seas where sharks are most abundant 5,13 .Conservation of pelagic sharkswhich currently have limited high seas management 12,15,16would benefit greatly from a clearer understanding of the spatial relationships between sharks' habitats and active fishing zones. However, obtaining unbiased estimates of shark and fisher distributions is complicated by the fact that most data on pelagic sharks come from catch records and other fishery-dependent sources 4,15,16 .Here, we provide the first global estimate of the extent of space use overlap of sharks with industrial fisheries. This is based on the analysis of the movements of pelagic sharks tagged with satellite transmitters in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans, together with fishing vessel movements m...

a b s t r a c tRecently, declining populations of several pelagic shark species have led to global conservation concerns surrounding this group. As a result, a series of species-specific banning measures have been implemented by Regional Fishery Management Organizations (RFMOs) in charge of tuna fisheries, which include retention bans, finning bans and trading bans. There are both positive and negative aspects to most management measures, but generally, the positive aspects outweigh the negatives, ensuring the measure is beneficial to the resource and its users in the long term. Banning measures are a good first step towards the conservation of pelagic shark species, especially since they improve conservation awareness among fishers, managers and the public. Measures that impose total bans, however, can lead to negative impacts that may jeopardize the populations they were intended to protect. The majority of pelagic shark catches are incidental and most sharks die before they reach the vessel or after they are released. The legislation set out by RFMOs only prevents retention but not the actual capture or the mortality that may occur as a result. Managers should be fully aware that the development and implementation of mitigation measures are critical for a more effective conservation strategy.