
==== Front
R Soc Open Sci
R Soc Open Sci
RSOS
royopensci
Royal Society Open Science
2054-5703
The Royal Society

rsos240532
10.1098/rsos.240532
100110011001607069Ecology, Conservation, and Global Change Biology
Research Articles
Beneath the surface: DNA barcoding of shark fins in Singapore
Beneath the surface: DNA barcoding of shark fins in Singapore
Saigal Manisha 1 † Formal analysis Investigation Methodology Validation Visualization Writing – original draft Writing – review and editing manishasaigal@u.yale-nus.edu.sg

Shueh Yi Hannah Ng 1 †
Rameez Nageen Ayesha 1 † Formal analysis Investigation Methodology Validation Visualization Writing – original draft Writing – review and editing nageenrameez@u.yale-nus.edu.sg

van Manen Siebe 1 2 † Formal analysis Investigation Methodology Validation Visualization Writing – original draft Writing – review and editing S.vanmanen@students.uu.nl

Van Anh Bui Tr 1 3 † Formal analysis Investigation Methodology Validation Visualization Writing – original draft Writing – review and editing btvananh2003@gmail.com

Arora Vidhi P. 1 † Formal analysis Investigation Methodology Validation Visualization Writing – original draft Writing – review and editing vidhiarora@u.yale-nus.edu.sg

Han Kai Ding Max 1 † Formal analysis Investigation Methodology Validation Visualization Writing – original draft Writing – review and editing maxhankd@gmail.com

Lee Jenelle Qian Tong 1 † Investigation Methodology Validation Visualization Writing – original draft Writing – review and editing jenelle.lee@u.yale-nus.edu.sg

Syaddad Adlan 1 † Formal analysis Investigation Methodology Validation Visualization Writing – original draft Writing – review and editing adlansyaddad@u.yale-nus.edu.sg

Tan Claudia Kexin 1 † Formal analysis Investigation Methodology Validation Visualization Writing – original draft Writing – review and editing tankexinclaudia@u.yale-nus.edu.sg

Lim Elisa X. Y. 1
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9061-5962
Wainwright Benjamin J. 1 4 Conceptualization Data curation Formal analysis Investigation Methodology Project administration Supervision Writing – original draft Writing – review and editing ben.wainwright@yale-nus.edu.sg

1 Yale-NUS College, National University of Singapore , Singapore
2 University College Utrecht, Utrecht University , Utrecht, The Netherlands
3 Fulbright University Vietnam , Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
4 Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore , Singapore
Electronic supplementary material is available online at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.7428275.

† These authors contributed equally to the study.

9 2024
04 9 2024 September 4, 2024
04 9 2024 September 4, 2024
11 9 24053202 4 2024 April 2, 2024
24 5 2024 May 24, 2024
29 7 2024 July 29, 2024
© 2024 The Author(s).
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.

The global decline of shark populations, largely driven by overfishing to supply the shark fin trade, poses a significant threat to marine ecosystems. Southeast Asia, and particularly Singapore, is a key hub for the transit and trade of shark fins that contribute to the exploitation of these apex predators. Through the use of DNA barcoding techniques, this study aimed to determine what species of shark are involved in the Singapore shark fin trade. Fins were collected from markets, dried goods shops and traditional Chinese medicine halls throughout Singapore. In total, DNA was extracted from 684 fins collected in January 2024 and PCR amplification targeted a fragment of the mitochondrial COI gene for species identification. Results revealed fins from 24 species across 16 genera, with 19 species listed on CITES Appendices II, and 16 listed as threatened on the IUCN Red List (critically endangered = 2, endangered = 4, vulnerable = 10). The top five most frequently identified species were Carcharhinus falciformis, Galeorhinus galeus, Rhizoprionodon oligolinx, Sphyrna lewini and Rhizoprionodon acutus. Of these, four are listed on CITES Appendix II and four are listed as threatened on the IUCN Red List.

elasmobranchii
; shark fin
; conservation
; Carcharhinus
; CITES
; IUCN
==== Body
pmc1. Introduction

As a result of widespread exploitation, global shark populations have suffered declines of more than 70% since 1970 [1]. Compounding these declines, many shark species have life history characteristics (e.g. late maturity, low birth rates and prolonged gestation periods) that increase their susceptibility to fishing pressures and the risk of extinction [2–4]. The primary driver of the decline in shark populations is overfishing, mainly due to the unsustainable global trade in shark fins and increasingly meat. Consequently, two-thirds of the shark species traded on international markets are at risk of extinction [5–7].

Worth approx. $314 million, the global shark fin trade results in the death of an estimated 100 million sharks annually [8–10]. Shark fins are sourced from various locations across the globe and are then transported through regional and international trade routes with multiple connecting links and hubs [10–13], which makes them prone to mislabelling and illegal trade [14,15]. Accordingly, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) attempts to address the complexities of these global supply chains through key multilateral environmental agreements involving 183 states and the European Union [16]. Through the use of three appendices that provide varying levels of protection based on the species' evaluated threat level, CITES aims to ensure that such trade is legal, sustainable and traceable [17]. In 2023, CITES implemented a decision to add 54 species from the requiem shark family (Carcharhinidae spp.) and six species from the hammerhead family (Sphyrna spp.) to its appendices. Importantly, this update covered sharks that all appear highly similar when attempting to use morphological characteristics in their identification; a visual similarity which has previously complicated species identification in these groups. However, these new listings should simplify and facilitate improved enforcement efforts and enable more accurate record-keeping.

Southeast Asia is a global production and trading hotspot where shark and ray biodiversity are especially threatened [18–22]. In particular, Singapore is a globally significant transit and trade hub for both legal and illegal shark products [18,19,23,24], and neighbouring countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia are recognized as having important shark fisheries, with Indonesia reported to be the world’s largest lander of elasmobranchs [20,25,26].

The demand for shark fin in Southeast Asia is largely driven by culturally significant dishes such as shark fin soup, a dish that is steeped in long-standing traditions and is viewed as a symbol of luxury when it is consumed [19]. Beyond culinary use, shark fin soup symbolizes affluence and prestige, particularly during significant events such as weddings and banquets [27,28]. Additionally, it is believed to promote health and offer numerous benefits to the skin, all of which contribute to its enduring popularity, consumption and cultural importance [19,27–30].

Shark fins can be purchased easily from traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) shops, wet markets in Singapore, or dried goods retailers. The species of shark that a fin came from is rarely, if ever described and when it is, whether that identification is accurate or not is questionable. Moreover, because different species of shark have been shown to accumulate toxic metals at different rates, not knowing the species of shark consumed poses risks to consumers by potentially exposing them to unsafe concentrations of toxic metals [31–33].

Visual methods of identification that rely on the morphological characteristics of the processed fin are largely ineffective in determining the species of shark that a fin came from, especially fins that are heavily processed [34–36]. However, when a fin still has diagnostic features visible (e.g. colouration or shape) preliminary species identifications can be made using a key and then confirmed by molecular techniques or an expert [36,37]. Consequently, morphological identifications alone can give incomplete and inaccurate results [38]. Thus, molecular methodologies such as DNA barcoding are employed since they operate independently of the morphological state of specimens. This method involves examining species-specific differences in DNA sequences, which are subsequently matched to known species on publicly accessible global databases [39–43]. Upon identifying the species, extracting information on trade regulations and conservation status becomes relatively straightforward. Such methods can also be applied to shipments containing processed specimens, effectively preventing the concealment of CITES-listed species as goods that are not trade-regulated [44–47]. This study seeks to further previous work performed in Singapore and aid in the monitoring of the shark fin trade to determine the impact of new, and future regulations implemented to protect and control the wildlife trade.

2. Methods

2.1. Samples collection

Between 16 and 30 January 2024, 684 shark fin samples were purchased from TCM shops (n = 209), wholesalers (n = 29), dried goods retailers (n = 441) and wet markets (n = 5) across Singapore. Retailers were selected from a curated list of 45 shops known to sell shark fins. At the time of collection this was all-known vendors in Singapore, in total, 31 vendors were visited. When possible, samples were taken from large, mixed and unspecified containers across a variety of sizes to ensure a diverse collection of shark fins. In cases where fins came from mixed bags or containers, care was taken to ensure all shark fins were individual and separate from one another. All fins were processed, dried and not possible to identify via visual methods. Fins were purchased individually and by weight, individual fins cost between USD 9 and 18 and the price per kg ranged between USD 160 and 880 per kg. Purchased shark fins were then stored at room temperature until further processing.

2.2. DNA extraction and PCR amplification

DNA extraction was performed following the Qiagen DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit protocol with the following modifications: sample tissues weighed between 15 and 25 mg and the final elution volume was 50 μl. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was conducted in a 25 μl volume, with the following compositions: 12.5 μl GoTaq Green Master Mix, 1 μl Forward Primer at 10 μM, 1 μl Reverse Primer at 10 μM, 1 μl BSA (20 mg ml−1), 7.5 μl nuclease-free water and 2 μl of undiluted DNA template. Using the forward primer mlCOIintF (5′-GGW ACW GGW TGA ACW GTW TAY CCY CC−3′) [48] and reverse primer LoboR1 (5′-TAA ACY TCW GGR TGW CCR AAR AAY CA−3′) [49] we attempted to amplify an approximate 350 bp fragment of the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) gene. PCR thermal cycling conditions include five repeats of 94°C for 30 s, 48°C for 2 min, 72°C for 1 min, 35 repeats of 94°C for 30 s, 54°C for 2 min, 72°C for 1 min, then 72°C for 5 min [50]. Successful PCR amplification was confirmed by gel electrophoresis using a 1% TAE agarose gel.

2.3. Species identification

PCR products were Sanger Sequenced by Bio-Basic Asia Pacific. Quality control was performed with Geneious Prime v2024.0 [51], and only sequences that contained no ambiguous base calls and had clear, well-defined peaks were used in downstream analysis. Sequences were then queried in both the Barcode of Life Data System (BOLD) [52] and the Nucleotide BLAST (BLASTn) [53] function in Genbank to make species identifications. To be considered an accurate species identification, we used two criteria: (i) BOLD indicated a solid identification with no closely allied congeneric species known, and (ii) the same species was returned as the top match in Genbank [18].

3. Results

After quality control, the sequence length ranged from a maximum of 272 bp to a minimum of 96 bp to a maximum of 272 bp. Out of 684 samples, 547 were successfully identified at either the genus or species level, 137 sequences failed to amplify or produce a sequence that could be used in species identifications (e.g. contained ambiguous base calls or did not have well-defined peaks). Of those that could be identified to the genus or species level, we identified 24 species spanning 16 genera, with 19 of the identified shark species currently listed on the 2024 CITES Appendices II list (n = 353, table 1 and figure 1). Two of the 24 species are classified as critically endangered by the IUCN (n = 107), with four classified as endangered (n = 26), ten as vulnerable (n = 145), and seven as near threatened (n = 58). One species was classified as least concern (n = 17) (table 1 and figure 1). Among the top five identified species, two are classified as critically endangered by the IUCN (n = 107), two are classified as vulnerable (n = 117) and one is classified as near threatened (n = 39). Altogether, these constituted 263 of the 547 successfully identified samples, or 48% of the total samples. The most frequently identified species was Carcharhinus falciformis (n = 97; vulnerable), followed by Galeorhinus galeus (n = 82; critically endangered) and Rhizoprionodon oligolinx (n = 39; near threatened). We were unable to identify 194 fins beyond the level of genus, the majority of these came from the genus Carcharhinus (n = 145), with 31 from the genus Mustelus, 12 from the genus Sphyrna, and two from each of the genera Glyphis, Hemigaleus and Rhiozoprionodon (table 1 and figure 1).

Table 1. Details of scientific name, common name, occurrence, relative occurrence, IUCN Red List status (CR = critically endangered, EN = endangered, VU = vulnerable, NT = near threatened, LC = least concern), and CITES list status of all identified samples.

scientific name	common name	occurrence	occurrence %	IUCN status	CITES	
Carcharhinus falciformis	silky shark	97	18	VU	II	
Galeorhinus galeus	tope	82	15	CR	not listed	
Rhizoprionodon oligolinx	grey sharpnose shark	39	7	NT	II	
Sphyrna lewini	scalloped hammerhead	25	5	CR	II	
Rhizoprionodon acutus	milk shark	20	4	VU	II	
Alopias pelagicus	pelagic Thresher	19	3	EN	II	
Furgaleus macki	whiskery shark	17	3	LC	not listed	
Sphyrna zygaena	smooth hammerhead	10	2	VU	II	
Galeocerdo cuvier	tiger shark	6	1	NT	not listed	
Carcharhinus leucas	bull shark	4	1	VU	II	
Carcharhinus sorrah	spot-tail shark	4	1	NT	II	
Lamiopsis temminckii	broadfin shark	4	1	EN	not listed	
Triaenodon obesus	whitetip reef shark	4	1	VU	II	
Carcharhinus amblyrhynchoides	graceful shark	3	1	VU	II	
Carcharhinus brevipinna	spinner shark	3	1	VU	II	
Carcharhinus macloti	hardnose shark	3	1	NT	II	
Prionace glauca	blue shark	3	1	NT	II	
Eusphyra blochii	winghead shark	2	<1	EN	II	
Hemipristis elongata	snaggletooth shark	2	<1	VU	not listed	
Scoliodon laticaudus	spadenose shark	2	<1	NT	II	
Carcharhinus amboinensis	pigeye shark	1	<1	VU	II	
Carcharhinus dussumieri	whitecheek shark	1	<1	EN	II	
Carcharhinus melanopterus	blacktip reef shark	1	<1	VU	II	
Loxodon macrorhinus	sliteye shark	1	<1	NT	II	
Carcharhinus spp.	N/A	145	27	N/A	All CITES II	
Mustelus spp.	N/A	31	6	N/A	none listed	
Sphyrna spp.	N/A	12	2	N/A	All CITES II	
Glyphis spp.	N/A	2	<1	N/A	All CITES II	

Figure 1. (a) Pie chart showing the distribution of identified samples by genus. (b) Pie chart showing the distribution of identified samples by IUCN status. (c) Bar chart showing the occurrence of samples identified at the species level. Asterisk (*) indicates species that are listed in CITES Appendix II. Numbers on pie charts indicate the per cent of each component.

(a) Pie chart showing the distribution of identified samples by genus.

4. Discussion

We successfully identified 353 samples to the species level, and 194 to the genus level with 137 samples failing to produce identifiable DNA sequences. It is likely that the inevitable degradation of sample DNA that occurs throughout the drying and processing of fins for sale is responsible for these failures. This DNA degradation necessitates the use of primers that amplify a fragment of reduced size, this smaller fragment lacks the resolving power of a full-length COI gene region, and when the known slow rate of evolution in sharks [54] is considered along with the short DNA fragment used, it is not surprising that some samples could only be resolved to the genus level. However, it should be noted that the vast majority of the genus-only level identifications made belong to Carcharhinus spp. All members of this genus are listed in CITES Appendix II meaning this information is still valuable.

The most commonly identified species was C. falciformis (n = 97, 18% occurrence), commonly known as the silky shark. It is considered vulnerable on the IUCN Red List and is listed in Appendix II of CITES. In Asia, C. falciformis is one of the most frequently encountered species in shops and trading ports [46,55–57]; this is despite the implementation of regulations to monitor, control and prevent trade that is incompatible with its continued existence [25,46,55]. Previous studies frequently identify C. falciformis as a commonly encountered species in trade regions such as Singapore, Hong Kong and Indonesia [40,56,57]. Consequently, it has been suggested that there is an urgent need to re-evaluate the CITES status of this species and include it in Appendix I of CITES [58]; the frequent occurrence of C. falciformis in this work adds weight to this claim. This suggested re-evaluation is primarily due to reports of rapid declines in its populations throughout the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic Oceans [3,59,60]. Additionally, due to life history characteristics (e.g. a long duration to sexual maturity), this species is particularly vulnerable to overfishing and may not have the capacity to reproduce fast enough to offset population losses incurred through overexploitation [6].

The second most frequently identified species (n = 82, 15% occurrence) was G. galeus, also known as the tope shark or school shark. While not listed by CITES, this species is considered critically endangered by the IUCN. Population genetic studies have shown that G. galeus is generally restricted to coastal areas where largely distinct populations can be observed [61]. Further reinforcing this population structure, the migratory range of G. galeus is generally restricted within ocean basins where migrations are primarily driven by temperature fluctuations or reproductive needs [62,63]. Further work employing advances in DNA sequencing and sequence assembly (e.g. whole genome sequencing, or reduced representation libraries) may allow us to assign individual fins of this species back to specific stocks or populations, and in doing so could allow the development of specific conservation strategies ensuring that fishing of G. galeus only occurs in sustainably managed fisheries rather than fisheries that are known to be threatened or fished unsustainably.

The third most commonly observed species was R. oligolinx (n = 39, 7% occurrence), or the grey sharp-nosed shark. R. oligolinx is considered near threatened by the IUCN and is listed on CITES Appendix II. It is often caught by gillnet fleets in the Java Sea where it is the main target of fisheries in the region [64]. While utilization of the species for human consumption in the Java Sea is currently considered sustainable, populations in other parts of the world are likely fished unsustainably. For example, research performed in the waters of Mumbai, India shows that most R. oligolinx caught in the region are not sexually mature [65], and increasing demand for this species has contributed to a rise in annual catches since 2012, with research showing that harvest of this species needs to be reduced by 40% to ensure sustainability [65]. Without the enforcement of appropriate fishing and trade regulations, it is likely this pressure will continue to increase with negative consequences for R. oligolinx populations.

Species with cosmopolitan distributions that span multiple national exclusive economic zones (EEZs) are recognized as having a higher incidence in the shark fin trade [7], these distributions make stock management and conservation efforts more difficult owing to their wide-ranging habitats and increased exposure to international fishing pressures [55,66]. In contrast, non-cosmopolitan species that are regionally restricted, such as the R. oligolinx, are subject to more stringent management guidelines tied to their locality [55,64]. Understanding the importance of multilateral efforts, technological solutions and stronger enforcement creates very different outcomes in the conservation and protection of CITES-listed endangered species (e.g. sharks) [67]. Although CITES and IUCN provide one such framework for international fisheries regulations, regional and species-specific multilateral agreements could further improve protection and conservation measures in multi-territory fisheries.

Similar to this work, Drescher et al. [40] and Shen et al. [68] also identified C. falciformis, G. galeus and R. oligolinx as the most frequent species being traded in Singapore. However, the current study had a lower occurrence of Hammerhead sharks, Sphyrna spp. 9%, in comparison to previous surveys where it accounted for 12%–15% of the samples identified [40,68]. There are several possible explanations for the lower occurrence of this species in our study; (i) it is possible that the addition of Sphyrna spp. to CITES Appendix II in February 2023 enhanced its management and contributed to a relatively lower occurrence in this work, (ii) the market could be cyclical meaning the species caught varies with global or regional fishing trends, (iii) our sampling is not reflective of the true diversity of species found in Singapore when collections were made, (iv) alternatively, it could be reflective of an overall population decline in Sphyrna spp. It is thus important to continue monitoring the relative abundance of hammerhead and other newly regulated species in the shark fin trade to determine whether newly implemented policies and regulations are working and having the desired effect.

A more comprehensive, better implemented and enforced labelling of regulated wildlife such as sharks can help mitigate illegal and unregulated trade and prevent biodiversity loss. During the collection of shark fins for this research, it was evident that the species of shark that a fin came from was not indicated. Instead, labels used generic names or terms (e.g. ‘shark fin’ or the common Mandarin name ‘鱼翅”, yu chi.) and most were stored in clear boxes or arranged according to size, but species, source or information detailing when the product was caught is not available. The long shelf life of dried fins and the rate of product turnover in each shop mean it is extremely difficult to determine exactly when the shark that a fin belonged to was caught. Consequently, the possibility that these sharks were caught or traded before current trade regulations were implemented cannot be eliminated. Ultimately, ambiguous labelling of these products impedes regulatory actions meant to protect vulnerable species. Ideally, traded fins should be accompanied by information on the species’ name, along with the date and area of capture.

From a human health perspective, inadequate labelling can also lead to the unintentional consumption of shark products that pose a higher risk of toxic metal exposure in consumers [32]. Further amplifying the need for accurate and comprehensive labelling of species, toxic metals, including mercury, arsenic, cadmium and lead do accumulate at different rates and concentrations dependent upon the species and its habitat [32,33]. Given these differences, accurate and comprehensive labelling of fins is needed for well-informed consumer choices and the avoidance of species that are acknowledged to contain significantly higher concentrations of toxic metals.

While this study only offers insights into shark products sold during a two-week period in January 2024 when samples were collected, it highlights the prevalence and accessibility of the trade of regulated and endangered species for sale in Singapore. It also emphasizes the need to consistently monitor the species of shark fins being traded both in the region and globally, doing this will better inform international policies surrounding shark fishing and trade. Future work should include analysis of samples collected at regular intervals throughout the year to shed light on seasonal variations in the sale of shark products and offer a better understanding of the shark fin market as a whole. Continued, structured monitoring and accurate species identifications are crucial to evaluating the effectiveness of fishing and trade regulations designed to prevent unsustainable shark fishing.

Acknowledgements

This paper was the result of a class project: Wildlife Forensics and the Shark Fin Trade (YID3221) at Yale-NUS College, Singapore.

Ethics

This work did not require ethical approval from a human subject or animal welfare committee.

Data accessibility

Data used are available in the electronic supplementary material [69].

Declaration of AI use

We have not used AI-assisted technologies in creating this article.

Authors’ contributions

M.S.: formal analysis, investigation, methodology, validation, visualization, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; N.A.R.: formal analysis, investigation, methodology, validation, visualization, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; SvM.: formal analysis, investigation, methodology, validation, visualization, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; B.T.V.A.: formal analysis, investigation, methodology, validation, visualization, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; V.P.A.: formal analysis, investigation, methodology, validation, visualization, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; K.D.M.H.: formal analysis, investigation, methodology, validation, visualization, writing—original draft, writing— review and editing; J.Q.T.L.: investigation, methodology, validation, visualization, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; A.S.: formal analysis, investigation, methodology, validation, visualization, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; C.K.T.: formal analysis, investigation, methodology, validation, visualization, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; B.J.W.: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, project administration, supervision, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing.

All authors gave final approval for publication and agreed to be held accountable for the work performed therein.

Conflict of interest declaration

We declare we have no competing interests.

Funding

No funding has been received for this article.
==== Refs
References

1. Pacoureau N et al . 2021 Half a century of global decline in oceanic sharks and rays. Nature 589 , 567–571. (10.1038/s41586-020-03173-9)33505035
2. Dulvy NK et al . 2014 Extinction risk and conservation of the world’s sharks and rays. eLife 3 , e00590. (10.7554/eLife.00590)24448405
3. Cortes E , Brown CA , Beerkircher LR . 2007 Relative abundance of pelagic sharks in the western north Atlantic ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean sea. Gulf Caribbe. Res. 19 , 37–52. (10.18785/gcr.1902.06)
4. García VB , Lucifora LO , Myers RA . 2008 The importance of habitat and life history to extinction risk in sharks, skates, rays and chimaeras. Proc. Biol. Sci. 275 , 83–89. (10.1098/rspb.2007.1295)17956843
5. Clark-Shen N , Chin A , Arunrugstichai S , Labaja J , Mizrahi M , Simeon B , Hutchinson N . 2023 Status of southeast Asia’s marine sharks and rays. Conserv. Biol. 37 , e13962. (10.1111/cobi.13962)35665538
6. Sherman CS et al . 2023 Half a century of rising extinction risk of coral reef sharks and rays. Nat. Commun. 14 , 15. (10.1038/s41467-022-35091-x)36650137
7. Cardeñosa D , Shea SK , Zhang H , Fischer GA , Simpfendorfer CA , Chapman DD . 2022 Two thirds of species in a global shark fin trade hub are threatened with extinction: conservation potential of international trade regulations for coastal sharks. Conserv. Lett. 15 . (10.1111/conl.12910)
8. Cisneros-Montemayor AM , Barnes-Mauthe M , Al-Abdulrazzak D , Navarro-Holm E , Sumaila UR . 2013 Global economic value of shark ecotourism: implications for conservation. Oryx 47 , 381–388. (10.1017/S0030605312001718)
9. Worm B , Davis B , Kettemer L , Ward-Paige CA , Chapman D , Heithaus MR , Kessel ST , Gruber SH . 2013 Global catches, exploitation rates, and rebuilding options for sharks. Mar. Policy 40 , 194–204. (10.1016/j.marpol.2012.12.034)
10. Dent F , S Clarke . State of the global market for shark products. In press.
11. Bornatowski H , Braga RR , Vitule JRS . 2013 Shark mislabeling threatens biodiversity. Science 340 , 923. (10.1126/science.340.6135.923-a)
12. Fox M , Mitchell M , Dean M , Elliott C , Campbell K . 2018 The seafood supply chain from a fraudulent perspective. Food Secur. 10 , 939–963. (10.1007/s12571-018-0826-z)
13. Marín A , Serna J , Robles C , Ramírez B , Reyes-Flores LE , Zelada-Mázmela E , Sotil G , Alfaro R . 2018 A glimpse into the genetic diversity of the peruvian seafood sector: unveiling species substitution, mislabeling and trade of threatened species. PLoS One 13 , e0206596. (10.1371/journal.pone.0206596)30444869
14. Jacquet JL , Pauly D . 2008 Trade secrets: renaming and mislabeling of seafood. Mar. Policy 32 , 309–318. (10.1016/j.marpol.2007.06.007)
15. Kroetz K , Luque GM , Gephart JA , Jardine SL , Lee P , Chicojay Moore K , Cole C , Steinkruger A , Donlan CJ . 2020 Consequences of seafood mislabeling for marine populations and fisheries management. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117 , 30318–30323. (10.1073/pnas.2003741117)33199620
16. Nakamura JN . 2023 Implementing the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES) through national fisheries legal frameworks. FAO. See http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cc8051en.
17. CITES . Convention on International Trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora | CITES. In press. See https://cites.org/eng/disc/text.php (accessed 21 May 2024).
18. Choy CPP , Wainwright BJ . 2022 What is in your shark fin soup? Probably an endangered shark species and a bit of mercury. Animals (Basel) 12 , 802. (10.3390/ani12070802)35405792
19. Choy C , Booth H , Veríssimo D . 2024 Understanding consumers to inform market interventions for Singapore’s shark fin trade. People Nat. 6 , 733–748. (10.1002/pan3.10590)
20. Prasetyo AP , McDevitt AD , Murray JM , Barry J , Agung F , Muttaqin E , Mariani S . 2021 Shark and ray trade in and out of Indonesia: addressing knowledge gaps on the path to sustainability. Mar. Policy 133 , 104714. (10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104714)
21. Loh KH et al . 2023 Advancing DNA barcoding to elucidate elasmobranch biodiversity in Malaysian waters. Animals 13 , 1002. (10.3390/ani13061002)36978544
22. Klangnurak W , Arunrugstichai S , Manopawitr P , Krajangdara T . 2023 DNA-based species identification of shark fins traded in thai markets. Conserv. Genet. 24 , 1–10. (10.1007/s10592-023-01519-0)
23. Murillo Rengifo N , Choy CPP , Gowidjaja JAP , Urera MQ , Kibat C , Nott DJ , Wainwright BJ . 2024 Determining the species composition of the shark fin trade in Singapore: a globally significant Southeast Asian market. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 34 , 1101–1112. (10.1007/s11160-024-09861-3)
24. Ya BP . Shark and Ray Trade in Singapore - wildlife trade report from TRAFFIC. In press. See https://www.traffic.org/publications/reports/shark-and-ray-trade-in-singapore/ (accessed 4 October 2023).
25. Seah YG , Kibat C , Hew S , Wainwright BJ . 2022 DNA barcoding of traded shark fins in peninsular Malaysia. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 32 , 993–999. (10.1007/s11160-022-09713-y)
26. Okes N , Sant G . Traders catchers and species. In press, p. 38.
27. Dell’Apa A , Smith MC , Kaneshiro-Pineiro MY . 2014 The influence of culture on the international management of shark finning. Environ. Manage. 54 , 151–161. (10.1007/s00267-014-0291-1)24828065
28. Zhou X , Booth H , Li M , Song Z , MacMillan DC , Zhang W , Wang Q , Veríssimo D . 2021 Leveraging shark‐fin consumer preferences to deliver sustainable fisheries. Conserv. Lett. 14 , e12842. (10.1111/conl.12842)
29. Fabinyi M . 2012 Historical, cultural and social perspectives on luxury seafood consumption in China. Environ. Conserv. 39 , 83–92. (10.1017/S0376892911000609)
30. Clarke S , Milner-gulland EJ , Bjørndal T . 2007 Social, economic, and regulatory drivers of the shark fin trade. Mar. Resour. Econ. 22 , 305–327. (10.1086/mre.22.3.42629561)
31. Kim SW et al . 2019 Heavy metal accumulation in and food safety of shark meat from Jeju Island, Republic of Korea. PLoS One 14 , e0212410. (10.1371/journal.pone.0212410)30865667
32. Chan KH , Gowidjaja JAP , Urera MQ , Wainwright BJ . 2023 Analysis of toxic metals found in shark fins collected from a global trade hub. Environ. Sci. Technol. 57 , 12620–12631. (10.1021/acs.est.3c02585)37582282
33. Garcia Barcia L , Argiro J , Babcock EA , Cai Y , Shea SKH , Chapman DD . 2020 Mercury and arsenic in processed fins from nine of the most traded shark species in the Hong Kong and China dried seafood markets: the potential health risks of shark fin soup. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 157 , 111281. (10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111281)32469749
34. Choy CPP , Jabado RW , Clark-Shen N , Huang D , Choo MY , Rao M . 2022 Unraveling the trade in wedgefishes and giant Guitar fishes in Singapore. Mar. Policy. 136 , 104914. (10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104914)
35. Villate‐Moreno M , Pollerspöck J , Kremer‐Obrock F , Straube N . 2021 Molecular analyses of confiscated shark fins reveal shortcomings of CITES implementations in Germany. Conservat. Sci. Prac. 3 , e398. (10.1111/csp2.398)
36. Partin TG , Gonzalez AJ , Burnham-Curtis MK . 2022 Sharks on a plane: large shark fin seizure shines light on shark exploitation. Forensic Sci. Int. 2 , 100055. (10.1016/j.fsiae.2022.100055)
37. Barone M , Mollen FH , Giles JL , Marshall LJ , Villate-Moreno M , Mazzoldi C , Pérez-Costas E , Heine J , Guisande C . 2022 Performance of isharkfin in the identification of wet dorsal fins from priority shark species. Ecol. Inform. 68 , 101514. (10.1016/j.ecoinf.2021.101514)
38. da Silva Ferrette BL et al . 2019 DNA-based species identification of shark finning seizures in Southwest Atlantic: implications for wildlife trade surveillance and law enforcement. Biodivers. Conserv. 28 , 4007–4025. (10.1007/s10531-019-01862-0)
39. Ward RD , Zemlak TS , Innes BH , Last PR , Hebert PDN . 2005 DNA barcoding Australia’s fish species. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 360 , 1847–1857. (10.1098/rstb.2005.1716)16214743
40. Drescher L et al . 2022 Blood in the water: DNA barcoding of traded shark fins in Singapore. Front. Mar. Sci. 9 . (10.3389/fmars.2022.907714)
41. Ward RD , Holmes BH , White WT , Last PR . 2008 DNA barcoding Australasian chondrichthyans: results and potential uses in conservation. Mar. Freshwater Res. 59 , 57. (10.1071/MF07148)
42. French I , Wainwright BJ . 2022 DNA barcoding identifies endangered sharks in pet food sold in Singapore. Front. Mar. Sci. 9 , 9. (10.3389/fmars.2022.836941)
43. Neo S , Kibat C , Wainwright BJ . 2022 Seafood mislabelling in Singapore. Food Cont. 135 , 108821. (10.1016/j.foodcont.2022.108821)
44. Magnussen JE , Pikitch EK , Clarke SC , Nicholson C , Hoelzel AR , Shivji MS . 2007 Genetic tracking of basking shark products in international trade. Anim. Conserv. 10 , 199–207. (10.1111/j.1469-1795.2006.00088.x)
45. Sims DW , Frost MT . 2019 Trade in mislabeled endangered sharks. Science 364 , 743–744. (10.1126/science.aax5777)
46. Liu CJN et al . 2021 Sharks in hot soup: DNA barcoding of shark species traded in Singapore. Fish. Res. 241 , 105994. (10.1016/j.fishres.2021.105994)
47. Rehman A , Jafar S , Ashraf Raja N , Mahar J . 2015 Use of DNA barcoding to control the illegal wildlife trade: a CITES case report from Pakistan. J. Bioresource Manage. 2 , 3. (10.35691/JBM.5102.0017)
48. Leray M , Yang JY , Meyer CP , Mills SC , Agudelo N , Ranwez V , Boehm JT , Machida RJ . 2013 A new versatile primer set targeting a short fragment of the mitochondrial COI region for metabarcoding metazoan diversity: application for characterizing coral reef fish gut contents. Front. Zool. 10 , 34. (10.1186/1742-9994-10-34)23767809
49. Lobo J , Costa PM , Teixeira MAL , Ferreira MSG , Costa MH , Costa FO . 2013 Enhanced primers for amplification of DNA barcodes from a broad range of marine metazoans. BMC Ecol. 13 , 34. (10.1186/1472-6785-13-34)24020880
50. Wainwright BJ , Ip YCA , Neo ML , Chang JJM , Gan CZ , Clark-Shen N , Huang D , Rao M . 2018 DNA barcoding of traded shark fins, meat and mobulid gill plates in Singapore uncovers numerous threatened species. Conserv. Genet. 19 , 1393–1399. (10.1007/s10592-018-1108-1)
51. Kearse M et al . 2012 Geneious basic: an integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics 28 , 1647–1649. (10.1093/bioinformatics/bts199)22543367
52. Ratnasingham S , Hebert PDN . 2007 Bold: the barcode of life data system (http://www.barcodinglife.org). Mol. Ecol. Notes 7 , 355–364. (10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01678.x)18784790
53. Sayers EW et al . 2022 Database resources of the national center for biotechnology information. Nucleic Acids Res. 50 , D20–D26. (10.1093/nar/gkab1112)34850941
54. Martin AP , Naylor GJP , Palumbi SR . 1992 Rates of mitochondrial DNA evolution in sharks are slow compared with mammals. Nature 357 , 153–155. (10.1038/357153a0)1579163
55. Cardeñosa D , Fields AT , Babcock EA , Zhang H , Feldheim K , Shea SKH , Fischer GA , Chapman DD . 2018 CITES‐listed sharks remain among the top species in the contemporary fin trade. Conserv. Lett. 11 , e12457. (10.1111/conl.12457)
56. Sembiring A et al . 2015 DNA barcoding reveals targeted fisheries for endangered sharks in Indonesia. Fish. Res. 164 , 130–134. (10.1016/j.fishres.2014.11.003)
57. Fields AT , Fischer GA , Shea SKH , Zhang H , Abercrombie DL , Feldheim KA , Babcock EA , Chapman DD . 2018 Species composition of the international shark fin trade assessed through a retail-market survey in Hong Kong. Conserv. Biol. 32 , 376–389. (10.1111/cobi.13043)29077226
58. Sembiring A et al . 2023 The genetic connectivity of the silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) across Indonesia. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 68 , 103230. (10.1016/j.rsma.2023.103230)
59. Jauharee R , Anderson RC . Opinions count: decline in abundance of silky sharks in the central Indian ocean reported by Maldivian fishermen. In press. See https://openknowledge.fao.org/items/d358bfb6-947e-4805-869e-e8ab8736c525 (accessed 21 May 2024).
60. Clark S . 2011 Analysis of north pacific shark data from japanese commercial longline and research/training vessel records | WCPFC meetings. See https://meetings.wcpfc.int/node/7310 (accessed 21 May 2024).
61. Chabot CL , Allen LG . 2009 Global population structure of the tope (Galeorhinus galeus) inferred by mitochondrial control region sequence data. Mol. Ecol. 18 , 545–552. (10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.04047.x)19161473
62. Nosal AP et al . 2021 Triennial migration and philopatry in the critically endangered soupfin shark Galeorhinus galeus. J. Appl. Ecol. 58 , 1570–1582. (10.1111/1365-2664.13848)
63. Jaureguizar AJ , Argemi F , Trobbiani G , Palma ED , Irigoyen AJ . 2018 Large-scale migration of a school shark, Galeorhinus galeus, in the southwestern Atlantic. Neotrop. Ichthyol. 16 . (10.1590/1982-0224-20170050)
64. Ernawati T , Wijopriono . 2020 Assessing stock status of grey sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon oligolinx Springer, 1964) in java sea. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 404 , 012076. (10.1088/1755-1315/404/1/012076)
65. Purushottama GB , Dash G , Das T , Akhilesh KV , Kizhakudan SJ , Zacharia PU . Population dynamics and stock assessment of grey sharpnose shark Rhizoprionodon oligolinx Springer, 1964 (Chondrichthyes: Carcharhinidae) from the north-west coast of India. Indian J. Fish. 64 . (10.21077/ijf.2017.64.3.67657-02)
66. Bonfil R . 2008 The biology and ecology of the silky shark, carcharhinus falciformis. In Sharks of the open ocean, pp. 114–127. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. (10.1002/9781444302516)
67. Ugochukwu AI , Hobbs JE , Phillips PWB , Kerr WA . 2018 Technological solutions to authenticity issues in international trade: the case of CITES listed endangered species. Ecol. Econ. 146 , 730–739. (10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.12.021)
68. Selena Shen KL et al . 2024 DNA barcoding continues to identify endangered species of shark sold as food in a globally significant shark fin trade hub. PeerJ 12 , e16647. (10.7717/peerj.16647)38188178
69. Saigal M , Ng H , Rameez NA , van Manen S , Van Anh BT , Han KDM et al . 2024 Supplementary material from: Beneath the surface: DNA barcoding of shark fins sold in singapore. Figshare (10.6084/m9.figshare.c.7428275)
