Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Elasmobranchii

Elasmobranchii is a subclass within the class , comprising , skates, and rays, characterized by endoskeletons of , five to seven pairs of slits exposed directly to the exterior without an operculum, and dermal denticles known as placoid scales covering . These fishes exhibit via claspers in males and lack swim bladders, relying on hydrodynamic lift from fins and oil-filled livers for . Elasmobranchs occupy a wide array of aquatic environments, from deep oceans to freshwater rivers, playing key roles as apex predators and influencing trophic dynamics through their predatory behaviors and life histories. Their evolutionary lineage traces back over 400 million years, with a record primarily of teeth and spines revealing diversification through periods of mass and recovery, underscoring their resilience amid environmental upheavals.

Morphology and Anatomy

General Body Plan

Elasmobranchii encompass , rays, and skates, exhibiting diverse body plans adapted to pelagic, benthic, and demersal habitats. typically possess a , spindle-shaped with a pointed , aiding in efficient cruising through water, whereas batoids (rays and skates) feature dorso-ventrally flattened with enlarged pectoral fins that extend anteriorly, facilitating along the . A defining external feature across elasmobranchs is the presence of five to seven pairs of slits opening individually to the exterior, without an opercular cover, allowing direct water expulsion. The skin is adorned with placoid scales—small, dentine-based structures resembling tiny teeth—that provide abrasion resistance, hydrodynamic benefits, and sensory functions. Paired pectoral and pelvic fins, along with unpaired and caudal fins, support and ; in batoids, the pectoral fins dominate for motion, while caudal fins are often heterocercal, with an enlarged dorsal lobe enhancing thrust.

Skeletal and Dermal Structures

The of elasmobranchs consists primarily of unmineralized hyaline-like that forms both embryonic and adult structures without undergoing into true , distinguishing it from the bony endoskeletons of osteichthyan fishes. This core is enveloped by a thin, mineralized surface layer known as tessellated , where polygonal tesserae—small blocks typically under 500 μm in diameter—tile the exterior, providing enhanced rigidity in high-stress areas such as the jaws, , and supports. Tesserae mineralization involves deposits, including crystals, arranged in patterns with Liesegang rings and radial spokes at intertesseral joints, developing from isolated globular islets in early embryos (around 6 cm disc width in some species) and expanding via appositional growth without the cellular remodeling seen in . Chondrocytes reside in lacunae within the uncalcified , connected by canalicular networks, but the structure lacks osteocytes and repair mechanisms, relying instead on the fibrous for integration. In vertebral , supplementary calcification forms areolar , characterized by concentric mineralized annuli surrounding the notochordal remnant, which contribute to axial but remain less extensively studied than . Prismatic calcified may appear in specific elements like the , where mechanical demands necessitate denser mineralization, though overall mineral content varies (e.g., approaching levels in compact in some vertebrae). Dermal structures in elasmobranchs are dominated by placoid scales, or dermal denticles, which embed in as an exoskeletal armor and are developmentally homologous to gnathostome teeth, featuring similar odontogenic tissues. Each denticle comprises a rectangular basal plate anchored in the and a projecting, often posteriorly oriented that imparts a rasping to . Internally, a vascular pulp cavity supplies nutrients, surrounded by a middle layer of dentine and an outer capping of vitrodentine—a hard, enameloid material resistant to abrasion. Unlike or ctenoid scales in bony fishes, placoid scales do not expand with somatic growth; juveniles add new denticles interstitially, resulting in denser coverage over time, with size, shape, and spination varying by species (e.g., more pronounced thorns in certain ) and body region to optimize protection or hydrodynamics.

Sensory Organs

Elasmobranchs possess a diverse array of sensory organs finely tuned to detect chemical, mechanical, electrical, and visual stimuli in aquatic environments, enabling prey detection, navigation, and predator avoidance. These include the for chemical cues, adapted for low-light conditions, electroreception via the , mechanoreception through the , and audition via the . The features paired nares leading to olfactory sacs with rosettes containing 31 to 300 lamellae, which increase surface area by 70 to 495% through secondary folding, enhancing detection of at concentrations from 10^{-7} to 10^{-9} M; the scalloped hammerhead shark detects at 10^{-11} M. can comprise over 30% of mass in deep-water , reflecting specialization for odor localization via bilateral timing differences and somatotopic mapping. This system drives behaviors such as prey tracking in nurse sharks, which rely on olfactory cues for feeding, and detection of sex pheromones or predator odors. Vision occurs through duplex retinas with and cones, supported by a —a reflective layer of mirrored crystals behind the that amplifies in dim conditions, allowing to see approximately 10 times better than humans in low . Eye varies from 0.3 cm in small to 6.2 cm in thresher , with rod-dominated sensitivity peaking around 500 nm and potential dichromatic or trichromatic capabilities in some batoids and via multiple cone pigments. Temporal resolution reaches 20 to 45 Hz, up to 54 Hz in sandbar , aiding pursuit of fast-moving prey. Electroreception is mediated by the , dermal pores connected by jelly-filled canals to electrosensory cells that detect electric fields as weak as 5 nV/cm, primarily in the 0.1 to 15 Hz range for bioelectric signals from prey muscle activity. These organs, numbering in the hundreds around the head, facilitate prey localization even when buried or hidden, predator avoidance, and geomagnetic via field and . varies by , with neural up to 24 spikes/s per μV/cm in some rays. The lateral line system comprises fluid-filled canals beneath the skin, housing neuromasts that sense water velocity on the order of μm/s and up to mm/s², sensitive to low-frequency (≤200 Hz) from nearby movements. This mechanoreceptive array detects hydrodynamic disturbances up to 1-2 body lengths away, supporting rheotaxis for plume tracking, school coordination, and prey localization via eddies. Audition and balance are handled by the , featuring three and end organs including the unique macula neglecta, which enhances low-frequency detection (best sensitivity 20-300 Hz). size scales hypoallometrically with body mass and is larger in piscivorous and reef-associated species, correlating with enhanced auditory sensitivity for prey sounds and habitat-specific soundscapes; are smaller in pelagic forms, reflecting locomotor demands.

Physiology

Osmoregulation and Metabolism

Elasmobranchs maintain osmotic balance primarily through a ureosmotic strategy, retaining high concentrations of (typically 350–600 mmol L⁻¹) and trimethylamine oxide (TMAO, around 70–120 mmol L⁻¹) in their plasma, resulting in total osmolarities of approximately 1000–1100 mOsm L⁻¹, which is iso- or slightly hyperosmotic to (about 1000 mOsm L⁻¹). This approach minimizes passive water loss across permeable gills and skin while countering the inward diffusion of salts, differing from the hypoosmotic strategy of teleosts that rely on active . serves as the primary osmolyte, synthesized in the liver via the ornithine- cycle and actively reabsorbed in the kidneys through specialized urea transporters (e.g., UT family proteins), preventing excessive urinary loss despite glomerular filtration rates of 15–20% of plasma flow. Excess sodium and ions gained from are excreted via the rectal gland, a specialized that secretes a fluid isoosmotic to but with high NaCl concentrations (up to 500 mmol L⁻¹ each), driven by Na⁺/K⁺- pumps and coupled channels. The gills contribute minimally to extrusion compared to teleosts but handle some Na⁺ and Cl⁻ uptake regulation, while the produces dilute (200–400 mOsm L⁻¹) relative to , aiding . In euryhaline species, such as bull sharks (Carcharhinus leucas), reduced salinity triggers downregulation of synthesis and retention, lowering to 100–300 mmol L⁻¹ to avoid in hypoosmotic environments, supplemented by increased active uptake at gills and kidneys. TMAO counteracts urea's perturbing effects on proteins, maintaining cellular function at these elevated levels. Elasmobranch metabolism is generally ectothermic and lower than in comparably sized teleosts, with routine metabolic rates scaling at 1.5–3.0 mg O₂ kg⁻¹ h⁻¹ for many species at 20°C, reflecting adaptations to intermittent feeding and energy conservation in cartilaginous skeletons that reduce structural mass. Preferred fuels include lipid-derived ketones (e.g., β-hydroxybutyrate) over glucose, enabling sustained activity during fasting via efficient hepatic ketogenesis, though amino acids contribute during protein catabolism. Select taxa, such as lamniform sharks (e.g., great white, Carcharodon carcharias), exhibit regional endothermy via vascular counter-current heat exchangers, elevating red muscle temperatures by 10–20°C above ambient to support burst swimming, which increases metabolic scope but raises overall energy demands by 2–3 times compared to ectothermic congeners. In rays, benthic habits correlate with even lower rates (0.5–2.0 mg O₂ kg⁻¹ h⁻¹), with diel rhythms showing peaks at dusk in species like epaulette sharks (Hemiscyllium ocellatum), independent of temperature fluctuations. Osmoregulatory costs, including urea synthesis (about 10–15% of total energy budget), integrate with metabolism, as high protein turnover for urea production demands dietary nitrogen intake exceeding that of teleosts.

Locomotion and Respiration

Elasmobranchs demonstrate specialized locomotion adapted to aquatic environments, with sharks relying on lateral undulations of the body and tail that propagate from an anguilliform to thunniform mode depending on speed and species. The heterocercal caudal fin, featuring a larger dorsal lobe, generates thrust by producing a posteroventral water jet angled 40–45° below horizontal, simultaneously providing lift to counteract negative buoyancy. Swimming speeds typically range from 0.5 to 2.0 body lengths per second, with body angle decreasing toward horizontal at higher velocities for streamlined efficiency. Pectoral fins in sharks contribute minimally to steady propulsion but adjust dynamically for vertical maneuvers, such as increasing chord angle to +14° for ascent. In batoids (rays and skates), propulsion shifts to undulatory or motions of enlarged pectoral fins, which form a disc-like structure enabling hovering, precise turns, and benthic punting via pelvic fins in some species. Chimaeras employ pectoral fin flapping combined with body undulations. Dermal denticles covering the skin reduce drag by aligning and minimizing , particularly evident in fast- forms. These mechanisms optimize use, with undulation suiting slow, maneuverable and oscillation favoring sustained cruising. Respiration in elasmobranchs occurs through 5 to 7 pairs of external gill slits per side, facilitating water flow over vascularized gill lamellae for oxygen extraction via counter-current exchange. Ventilation modes include ram ventilation, where forward motion passively streams water through the open mouth and over the gills, predominant in active pelagic species, and buccal pumping, involving pharyngeal contractions to actively draw and expel water, common in demersal forms. Most elasmobranchs are facultative, switching modes to rest without suffocation, but obligate ram ventilators—such as great white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias), shortfin makos (Isurus oxyrinchus), and whale sharks (Rhincodon typus)—lack sufficient buccal musculature and must swim continuously to maintain gill perfusion, achieving high respiratory efficiency at speeds above 0.5 body lengths per second. Batoids supplement primary with spiracles—vestigial first slits posterior to the eyes—that oxygenated water from above the head, crucial for buried or substrate-resting postures where the mouth ingests sediment. function yields efficient oxygen uptake, often exceeding arterial relative to expired water, supporting active metabolisms despite urea-based .

Evolutionary History

Origins and Early Diversification

The origins of Elasmobranchii, the subclass encompassing modern sharks, skates, and rays, trace to the , with the earliest evidence of shark-like chondrichthyans appearing approximately 410 million years ago in the . Fossils such as teeth from Doliodus problematicus exhibit primitive features including multiple cusps and vascularization patterns indicative of early cartilaginous fish , marking the onset of chondrichthyan evolution before the full diversification of elasmobranch-specific traits. These forms likely arose from stem-group chondrichthyans amid the of aquatic vertebrates following the , driven by ecological opportunities in marine predation niches. By the Middle Devonian (late Givetian stage, around 383 million years ago), unambiguous total-group elasmobranchs emerged, represented by Phoebodus, whose dental morphology and skeletal elements from Late Devonian (Famennian) deposits in reveal hybodontiform affinities with cladodont teeth suited for grasping prey. This genus underscores the transition from basal chondrichthyans to more derived elasmobranchs, featuring enhanced jaw mechanics and body streamlining for active swimming. Early diversification accelerated in the Late Devonian and extended into the , where fossil assemblages from regions like the Canning Basin in document at least 18 taxa, including ctenacanthiforms with robust, multi-cuspidate teeth adapted to durophagous diets. These developments coincided with the proliferation of reefal and nearshore habitats, facilitating niche partitioning among predatory forms. Carboniferous elasmobranchs, such as Ctenacanthus and cladoselachians, exemplify early morphological experimentation, with elongated bodies, heterocercal tails, and calcified cartilage skeletons preserving well in anoxic sediments. Diversity peaked with over 20 genera in some assemblages, reflecting adaptations to both marine and freshwater incursions during the period's climatic fluctuations. However, elasmobranchs remained stem-like compared to neoselachians, lacking the specialized fins and placoid scales of modern lineages, and many lineages experienced bottlenecks at the Permo-Triassic extinction. This early phase laid foundational traits like and precursors, setting the stage for subsequent radiations.

Fossil Record and Extinctions

The fossil record of Elasmobranchii, comprising , rays, and skates, is dominated by disarticulated elements such as teeth, spines, and calcified vertebral centra, as their cartilaginous endoskeletons rarely preserve intact. Earliest elasmobranch remains appear in the Period, around 400 million years ago, with primitive taxa like ctenacanthiforms documented from Late deposits. Diversification accelerated in the and Permian, encompassing diverse morphologies including hybodonts, before a radiation of neoselachians around 250 million years ago. All modern orders and most families have representatives, with exhibiting deeper temporal ranges than rays; for instance, extant genera trace back to the (~190 million years ago), and some species to the (~66 million years ago). Elasmobranchs demonstrated resilience across major mass extinctions, surviving the end-Permian event (~252 million years ago) through habitat contraction into deep-sea refugia, as evidenced by the persistence of stem chondrichthyan lineages into the . The Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction (66 million years ago) inflicted heavier tolls on neoselachians, extinguishing 17% of families (7 of 41) and 56% of genera (60 of 107), with disproportionate impacts on batoids (rays and skates) and open-marine apex predators like anacoracid sharks, while benthopelagic and deep-water forms fared better. Post-extinction recovery involved the emergence of modern families such as Carcharhinidae by the stage of the , restoring diversity by the early Eocene. Overall, elasmobranchs endured at least four mass extinctions with selective survivorship favoring adaptable, ecologically flexible lineages.

Modern Evolutionary Patterns

The Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg) mass extinction event, occurring approximately 66 million years ago, resulted in the loss of over 60% of elasmobranch diversity, with net diversification rates turning strongly negative during this interval. Recovery followed in the and Eocene, marked by increased in surviving lineages, though overall rates remained subdued compared to ray-finned fishes (teleosts), which experienced more pronounced post-extinction radiations due to higher speciation efficiencies. Elasmobranch persistence is evidenced by the survival of basal groups like , contributing to a modern total of over 1,200 across , skates, and rays. Cenozoic diversification showed episodic bursts, particularly in the and , linked to biogeographic drivers such as , tectonic uplift, and eustatic sea-level changes that fragmented habitats and opened new niches. For instance, (requiem sharks) and Orectolobidae (wobblegills) exhibited rapid during these periods, coinciding with the proliferation of coastal and reef environments. Batoids (rays and skates) displayed relatively higher diversification within Elasmobranchii, with molecular phylogenies indicating Cenozoic radiations tied to benthic adaptations and , contrasting slower turnover in shark-dominated Selachii. Key innovations, such as in deep-sea Etmopteridae, further accelerated in isolated realms by facilitating prey detection and mate recognition. Trophic ecology has profoundly shaped modern patterns, with morphology and dietary specialization driving partitioning rather than direct . Time-calibrated phylogenies reveal stable dental disparity in since the , peaking with generalist diets amid Eocene coral reef expansions, while experienced Late Cretaceous highs followed by post-K-Pg declines and recoveries, correlating with piscivory and environmental shifts like sea-level regression. evolved convergently multiple times (e.g., in filter-feeding rhincodontids and lamnids), tied to resource abundance in open oceans, but increased extinction vulnerability in apex predators during Miocene-Pliocene cooling. interactions, including prey availability and competitor exclusion, underscore low net rates, with viviparous lineages diversifying at roughly twice the pace of oviparous ones due to enhanced maternal investment and juvenile survival.

Systematics and Taxonomy

Higher Classification

Elasmobranchii is recognized as a subclass within the class , which encompasses all cartilaginous fishes distinguished by their composed primarily of rather than , multiple unpaired slits, and placoid scales in most species. The class Chondrichthyes diverged from bony fishes () approximately 420–450 million years ago during the Silurian-Devonian periods, forming one of the two major lineages of jawed vertebrates (). This division is supported by molecular phylogenies, including mitochondrial genome analyses, which confirm Elasmobranchii's alongside the sister subclass (chimaeras). Higher in the hierarchy, belongs to the subphylum Vertebrata (craniates with a ), phylum Chordata (characterized by a , , pharyngeal slits, and post-anal tail at some life stage), and kingdom Animalia. This placement reflects shared traits with other vertebrates, including and advanced sensory systems, though uniquely retain urea-based and intestines. Taxonomic ranks above subclass remain stable in contemporary classifications, with no major revisions altering Elasmobranchii's position since the integration of molecular data in the early 2000s. Phylogenetic studies, such as those using mitogenomic sequences from over 80 species, reinforce Elasmobranchii as a well-supported within , excluding based on differences in jaw suspension, cloacal structure, and reproductive anatomy. While some early classifications elevated Elasmobranchii to , current consensus subordinates it to subclass to accommodate the basal split with , avoiding . This hierarchy aligns with fossil evidence from deposits, where primitive elasmobranch-like forms predate holocephalan diversification.

Major Orders and Families

The subclass Elasmobranchii comprises approximately 1,192 species across 14 orders and 60 families, representing the sharks, rays, skates, and allied forms. These taxa are united by features such as multiple rows of replaceable teeth, placoid scales, and a spiral valve intestine, with modern diversity concentrated in the superorder Euselachii under the subclass. Extant elasmobranchs divide into two primary clades: Selachimorpha (sharks, ~500 species in ~34 families) and Batoidea (batoids, including rays and skates, ~689 species in ~42 families), reflecting adaptations to predatory and benthic lifestyles. Phylogenetic analyses confirm this bipartition, with Selachimorpha branching earlier and exhibiting greater morphological disparity in body form compared to the dorsoventrally flattened batoids. Within Selachimorpha, eight principal orders encompass the shark diversity, each characterized by distinct dentition, fin morphology, and habitat preferences:
  • Hexanchiformes: Primitive six- or seven-gilled , including families Hexanchidae (e.g., ) and Chlamydoselachidae (), totaling ~6 species; these retain archaic traits like multiple gill slits.
  • Squaliformes: and gulper , with families such as and Centrophoridae (~100 species); known for luminescent organs and deep-sea adaptations.
  • Squatiniformes: (family Squatinidae, ~20 species), ambush predators with pectoral fins fused to the head, resembling flattened rays.
  • Pristiophoriformes: Sawsharks (family Pristiophoridae, ~7 species), distinguished by elongate rostral teeth used for prey manipulation.
  • Heterodontiformes: Bullhead (family Heterodontidae, ~9 species), with molariform posterior teeth for crushing mollusks.
  • Orectolobiformes: , including families Orectolobidae (wobbegongs) and (~45 species); feature barbels and nocturnal habits in tropical reefs.
  • Lamniformes: Mackerel , with families (e.g., ) and Alopiidae (thresher , ~60 species); noted for regional endothermy and high-speed cruising.
  • Carcharhiniformes: Ground , the most speciose order (~280 species in ~8 families like Carcharhinidae and Scyliorhinidae); includes and catsharks, dominant in coastal and pelagic zones.
The Batoidea exhibit greater uniformity in body plan, with enlarged pectoral fins for undulatory or oscillatory locomotion, and include four to six orders in contemporary schemes, aggregating ~20 families:
  • : Guitarfishes, wedgefishes, and sawfishes (families Rhinobatidae, Pristidae; ~60 species); transitional forms between sharks and rays, with sawfishes possessing rostral serrations for hunting.
  • Torpediniformes: (families Torpedinidae, Narcinidae; ~60 species), equipped with paired electric organs derived from kidney tissue for prey stunning and defense.
  • Rajiformes: Skates (families Rajidae, Arhynchobatidae; ~200 species), oviparous benthic forms with thorned dorsal surfaces and tail fins for propulsion.
  • : Stingrays, eagle rays, and manta rays (families Dasyatidae, Myliobatidae; ~300 species); venomous tail spines and diamond-shaped discs, with some species performing benthic "aquatic flight" via pectoral undulations.
These classifications draw from morphological and molecular data, with ongoing revisions; for instance, the erection of in separated guitarfishes from traditional based on cladistic analyses. Family-level diversity peaks in and , reflecting ecological opportunism in nearshore environments.

Phylogenetic Insights and Recent Updates

Molecular phylogenetic analyses, particularly those utilizing complete mitochondrial genomes from 82 elasmobranch species, have resolved key relationships within Elasmobranchii, confirming the of (rays and skates) and their sister-group position to Pristiophoriformes (sawsharks), rendering traditional shark groupings paraphyletic. Squatiniformes (angelsharks) emerge as the basal lineage, followed by the clade comprising Pristiophoriformes + Squalea, where Squalea encompasses (e.g., sharks) and (e.g., requiem and carpet sharks) as reciprocally monophyletic sister groups to . These findings, derived from concatenated nucleotide sequences of 13 protein-coding genes and ribosomal RNAs, underscore convergent morphological traits such as body flattening in batoids, which had previously obscured relationships in morphology-based trees. Recent genome-scale studies have extended these insights into chromosomal , revealing that elasmobranch karyotypes typically feature high counts (often 80–200), attributable to repeated events rather than fusions seen in fishes. For instance, chromosome-level assemblies from like the (Rhincodon typus) and (Scyliorhinus canicula) highlight conserved synteny blocks amid variability, suggesting adaptive chromosomal rearrangements linked to ecological diversification. Such data challenge earlier assumptions of chromosomal stasis in chondrichthyans and provide a framework for integrating calibrations into divergence time estimates, placing crown-group Elasmobranchii origins in the Permian-Triassic boundary. Diversification analyses from 2023–2025 indicate heterogeneous and rates across elasmobranch clades, with batoids exhibiting elevated net diversification during the , driven by ecological opportunities in benthic habitats, while squalomorph show slower rates in deep-sea niches. These patterns, modeled using time-calibrated phylogenies from and mitochondrial loci, resolve prior conflicts between and molecular clocks by accounting for incomplete sampling and trait-dependent shifts. Taxonomic updates informed by phylogenomics include molecular re-evaluations of batoid interrelationships, affirming (e.g., eagle rays) as derived within but noting in pectoral fin morphology. In 2025, a holomorphic stem batomorph fossil from the integrated into Bayesian phylogenetic frameworks extended the lineage's ghost range, supporting a mid-Mesozoic predating modern skate-ray splits. Regional molecular-assisted revisions, such as those in southeastern Arabia, have synonymized cryptic species in carcharhinid sharks using barcoding, refining alpha amid phylogenetic stability.

Reproduction and Life History

Reproductive Modes

Elasmobranchii universally employ , with males using paired claspers—modified pelvic fins equipped with grooves and spines—to insert sperm directly into the female's during copulation. This mechanism ensures high fertilization efficiency in aquatic environments, contrasting with in most bony fishes, and supports diverse reproductive strategies adapted to varying ecological pressures such as predation risk and habitat stability. Reproductive modes in elasmobranchs are classified primarily by embryonic and nutrition: , (including yolk-sac ), and (encompassing aplacental and placental forms). , the ancestral mode, involves females depositing fertilized s encased in a tough, leathery egg case that affords mechanical protection and via fibrous strands anchoring to substrates. relies solely on reserves (lecithotrophy), with hatching times ranging from weeks to over a year depending on and ; examples include skates (Rajidae), which produce "mermaid's purses," and oviparous sharks like catsharks (Scyliorhinidae) and horn sharks (Heterodontidae). Approximately 40% of elasmobranch are oviparous, predominantly in smaller, benthic taxa where egg cases mitigate high predation. Ovoviviparity features retention of eggs within the until embryos hatch internally, nourished exclusively by yolk-sac lecithotrophy without maternal input beyond shelter. This mode, common in about 10-20% of , reduces exposure to external threats but demands extended (up to 24 months in some species like the ). It prevails in mid-sized pelagic and , such as (Carcharhinidae), where unhatched siblings may compete for limited uterine space. Viviparity, the derived and most prevalent mode (roughly 50% of species), yields live young after maternal provisioning via matrotrophy, supplementing yolk with nutrients like histotroph (uterine "milk" secretions) or, in placental forms, direct yolk-sac placental transfer of uterine fluids and proteins. Aplacental viviparity involves oophagy (embryos consuming unfertilized eggs) or intrauterine cannibalism in species like sand tiger sharks (Carcharias taurus), where the strongest embryo devours siblings. Placental viviparity, seen in hammerhead and tiger sharks, features a transient yolk-sac placenta enabling efficient nutrient uptake, correlating with larger body sizes and higher fecundity (litters of 10-100 pups). These modes enhance offspring survival in open-water habitats but impose energetic costs on females, often leading to biennial or triennial reproductive cycles. Rare variants include facultative in captive bamboo sharks (Chiloscyllium punctatum), where unfertilized eggs develop into female offspring via automixis, observed as early as 2001 but not confirmed in wild populations. Such may serve as a reproductive assurance mechanism under low mate availability, though it risks . Overall, mode distribution reflects phylogenetic patterns, with evolving multiple times from oviparous ancestors, driven by selection for increased maternal guarding in predator-rich environments.

Growth, Maturity, and Longevity

Elasmobranchs generally display slow somatic growth rates as part of their K-selected life history strategy, characterized by low intrinsic population growth potential (r') and extended developmental periods, with growth coefficients (k) in the von Bertalanffy model often ranging from 0.05 to 0.3 yr⁻¹ across species, lower than typical teleost values. This pattern stems from physiological constraints including slow digestion, intermittent feeding, and cartilaginous skeletal deposition, though growth is indeterminate and continues post-maturity at decelerating rates. Empirical studies using vertebral band counts, tag-recapture, and multi-model approaches confirm variability, with smaller coastal species like the Australian sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon taylori) exhibiting faster initial growth (k ≈ 3.69 yr⁻¹ for males) compared to larger pelagic forms. Sexual maturity in elasmobranchs is typically delayed, with age at 50% maturity (A₅₀) correlating positively with body size and often reached at approximately 50% of maximum lifespan, reflecting trade-offs in energy allocation between growth and . Males generally attain maturity earlier and at smaller sizes than females; for example, in the crocodile shark (Pseudocarcharias kamoharai), males mature at 4.55 years versus 5.91 years for females. Larger species delay maturity further, as seen in great white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias), where females reach A₅₀ around 33 years and males around 26 years, validated via bomb radiocarbon analysis of vertebral cores. Across taxa, maturity ogives are size-dependent, with batoids often maturing later relative to sharks due to discoidal body plans affecting locomotion and energy budgets. Longevity estimates for elasmobranchs, derived from age-validation techniques like tag-recapture, oxytetracycline marking, and , reveal extended lifespans often exceeding prior assessments, with many species surviving 20–70+ years and natural mortality (M) scaling inversely with maximum age. Females typically outlive males, as in shortfin mako sharks (Isurus oxyrinchus), where maximum ages approach 30–40 years amid rapid early growth tapering to slower rates. Reassessments using multi-decadal data indicate underestimation in historical studies, with white sharks reaching 73 years in males and potentially over 100 in some rays, underscoring low annual mortality (e.g., M ≈ 0.1–0.2 yr⁻¹) that buffers populations against perturbations but heightens to .

Ecology and Distribution

Habitats and Geographic Range

Elasmobranchs occupy diverse marine habitats globally, distributed across all major ocean basins from polar regions to the , including coastal shelves, pelagic zones, reefs, mangroves, and deep-sea environments. Their latitudinal range spans and waters to tropical seas, with species adapted to temperatures from near-freezing to over 30°C. Depth utilization varies extensively, from intertidal and shallow coastal areas to abyssal depths exceeding 3,000 meters for certain deep-sea species like the ( griseus) and various skates. While predominantly , approximately 5% of elasmobranch , or around 60 taxa, inhabit freshwater or environments beyond tidal influence, primarily in rivers and lakes of (e.g., potamotrygonid stingrays), , , and . Obligate freshwater elasmobranchs, such as the (Glyphis gangeticus) and various river stingrays, are confined to inland systems, whereas like the (Carcharhinus leucas) migrate between and freshwater habitats.00745-9) These freshwater occurrences represent a small fraction of the subclass's overall , with most showing strong fidelity shaped by physiological tolerances to , oxygen levels, and . (rays and skates) predominantly favor benthic substrates on continental shelves and slopes, whereas many Selachii (sharks) exhibit pelagic or migratory behaviors across open ocean expanses.

Trophic Roles and Interactions

Elasmobranchs occupy diverse trophic positions in marine s, ranging from low-level like the (Cetorhinus maximus) to apex predators such as the (Carcharhinus carcharias), with most species functioning as mid-level or mesopredators. Their diets typically include fishes, cephalopods, crustaceans, and occasionally other elasmobranchs, reflecting opportunistic or generalist feeding strategies that contribute to trophic structuring and energy transfer across levels. In tropical marine networks, certain elasmobranch species participate in multiple roles simultaneously, acting as both predators and prey across up to four trophic levels, thereby enhancing food web connectivity and stability. Sharks often exert predation pressure that influences prey behavior, distribution, and , with large-bodied species mediating partitioning and preventing of lower trophic resources through top-down control. Rays and skates, predominantly benthic feeders, primarily consume crustaceans, polychaetes, and small fishes, occupying lower trophic positions than many and facilitating recycling in demersal ecosystems. Trophic interactions among elasmobranchs include , where larger individuals prey on smaller conspecifics or heterospecifics, and , which can significantly impact in oviparous species. As prey, elasmobranchs are consumed by larger , marine mammals like orcas, and humans, with juveniles and egg cases particularly vulnerable, underscoring their role in supporting higher trophic levels. Declines in elasmobranch populations due to can lead to release and cascading effects, such as altered prey abundances and reduced , though the strength of these top-down impacts varies by and . In subtropical food webs, elasmobranchs demonstrate topological importance, with some identified as keystones that, if removed, could destabilize network structure.

Conservation and Human Impacts

Population Status and Threats

Approximately one-third of assessed elasmobranch species—sharks, rays, and skates—are classified as threatened with extinction (Vulnerable, Endangered, or ) on the , with identified as the primary driver affecting all such species. Global population abundances of and rays have declined by more than 50% since 1970, with species experiencing a 71% reduction due to intensified pressure. These declines are exacerbated by elasmobranchs' slow growth rates, late maturity, and low reproductive output, which limit population recovery even under reduced exploitation. Overfishing, encompassing targeted fisheries for fins, meat, and gill plates as well as incidental in trawl and gillnet operations, accounts for the sole or primary threat to nearly two-thirds of . degradation from coastal development, , and further compounds risks, particularly for benthic rays and skates dependent on shallow nurseries. driven by human-shark conflicts and the illegal trade in body parts also contributes, though less universally than pressures. Regional variations highlight acute vulnerabilities: wedgefishes and giant guitarfishes face near-total depletions in some fisheries, while Mediterranean elasmobranch assemblages show accelerating declines from small-scale and industrial catches. Approximately 10% of species remain , underscoring gaps in monitoring that may conceal additional at-risk populations. Despite these trends, localized recoveries in protected areas demonstrate potential for rebound where fishing mortality is curtailed.

Fisheries Exploitation and Management

Elasmobranchs are harvested globally in both directed fisheries targeting species such as , requiem sharks, and stingrays, and as in and longline fisheries, with reported annual landings to the FAO exceeding 500,000 metric tons in the early , reflecting an upward trend driven by expanded fishing into previously unexploited areas and shifts toward lower-value species. Primary products include fins for (primarily from larger ), meat for human consumption, and gill plates from mobulid rays for , though official statistics underrepresent true exploitation levels, with less than 25% of catches identified to or and significant omissions from artisanal and unreported fisheries. Approximately 50% of global elasmobranch catches occur as , often discarded at sea, exacerbating mortality due to the group's K-selected life history traits including slow , late maturity, and low . Shark finning—the removal of fins for high-value trade while discarding the carcass—has historically amplified waste and , prompting regulatory responses such as the EU's 2003 finning ban requiring a fin-to-carcass weight no greater than 5% and similar "fins-attached" policies in the since 1993, which facilitate enforcement and stock assessments by mandating whole-animal landings. These measures address inefficiencies where fins constitute only 2-5% of body weight but up to 90% of economic value in some markets, though illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) persists, particularly in developing regions with limited monitoring. Management frameworks include the FAO's International Plan of Action for (IPOA-Sharks), adopted in 1999, which urges voluntary national shark plans encompassing assessments, , and precautionary quotas tailored to productivity; implementation varies, with stronger adherence in high-capacity nations like the , where species-specific quotas (e.g., for blacktip and sharks) are set based on annual stock assessments. Regionally, RFMOs such as the Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) enforce binding measures including retention bans on overfished species like sharks and finning prohibitions since 2004, while Appendix II listings for over 60 elasmobranch species since 2013 regulate through non-detriment findings and export quotas to curb unsustainable harvests. Despite these advances, gaps, deficiencies, and capacity constraints in small-scale fisheries hinder , with studies indicating that well-enforced spatiotemporal closures and gear restrictions could rebuild depleted , but global declines persist absent comprehensive and incentives for compliance. Trade-driven regulations have improved reporting in some Appendix II , yet multispecies exploitation and transboundary challenge unilateral efforts, underscoring the need for integrated, science-based approaches prioritizing empirical catch over generalized assumptions of resilience.

Debates on Resilience and Policy

Debates persist regarding the intrinsic of elasmobranch populations to , with history traits such as slow growth rates, late maturity (often 10-20 years for large ), and low (typically 1-20 per reproductive cycle) cited as factors rendering many K-selected and thus prone to collapse. However, empirical studies from marine protected areas () demonstrate rapid recovery potential in certain contexts; for instance, abundance in Australia's MPA increased significantly within 5-10 years of no-take enforcement, suggesting that well-managed protections can reverse declines for some coastal . Critics of uniform vulnerability assessments argue that these overlook species-specific variabilities and historical biases in , which often emphasize declines while underreporting rebounds, as seen in gradual recoveries of white populations off following 1990s protections, where sightings rose over two decades. Policy responses reflect these tensions, with advocates for stringent measures like global bans and sanctuaries pointing to as the primary driver of declines in over one-third of assessed , per IUCN from 2021. In contrast, fisheries scientists contend that blanket prohibitions may hinder , noting that few elasmobranch fisheries have collapsed irreversibly when quotas align with productivity estimates, and that reductions through gear modifications offer more targeted efficacy than broad bans. International forums, such as meetings, have highlighted U.S. advocacy for evidence-based quotas over outright trade restrictions, amid critiques that non-governmental organizations sometimes amplify risks without sufficient stock assessment , potentially skewing toward emotion-driven rather than data-driven outcomes. Media portrayals exacerbate policy divides, with analyses showing frequent misrepresentation of declines—such as inflating global impacts or ignoring regional recoveries—which fuels support for overly restrictive policies disconnected from local ecological realities. Effective resilience-building policies, proponents argue, require integrating spatial data and fishery-independent surveys to tailor protections, as evidenced by positive trajectories for large coastal species under U.S. rebuilding plans since the , though challenges remain for highly migratory rays and deep-sea where enforcement lags. These debates underscore the need for causal assessments prioritizing verifiable metrics over precautionary narratives, to balance with viable human uses.

References

  1. [1]
    Skate & Ray FAQ - Florida Museum of Natural History
    Sep 5, 2018 · The subclass Elasmobranchii includes sharks, rays, and skates. Elasmobranchs are characterized by cylindrical or flattened bodies, five to ...
  2. [2]
    Shark Taxonomy - The Shark Trust
    Nov 6, 2018 · They're further divided into two Sub-classes. Elasmobranchii (sharks, skates and rays) and Holocephali (chimaera).
  3. [3]
    World Register of Marine Species - Elasmobranchii - WoRMS
    Subclass Neoselachii. Environment. marine, brackish, fresh, terrestrial. Original description. Not documented. Taxonomic citation. Froese, R. and D. Pauly ...Missing: definition characteristics
  4. [4]
    [PDF] Sensory Biology of Elasmobranchs - LSU Faculty Websites
    12.1 Introduction. Sharks have become practically legendary for their sensory abilities. Some of the recognition is deserved, and some is often exaggerated.
  5. [5]
    Elasmobranch (Chondrichthyes, Elasmobranchii) Habitat Use in an ...
    Elasmobranchs (sharks, rays, skates, and sawfish) exert top-down pressure in tropical lagoons and are necessary for maintaining trophic balance, ...
  6. [6]
    Drivers of diversification in sharks and rays (Chondrichthyes
    Jan 10, 2025 · Elasmobranchii (sharks and rays) is a speciose clade that has undergone radical changes in diversity over the past 400 million years (Heinicke ...
  7. [7]
    Evolutionary trends of the conserved neurocranium shape in angel ...
    Jul 28, 2020 · Elasmobranchs (sharks, skates, and rays) represent a lineage of vertebrates with a fossil record extending over 400 million years. Throughout ...
  8. [8]
    The fossil record of extant elasmobranchs - Wiley Online Library
    Oct 14, 2020 · The abundant fossil record of fossil taxa has allowed the tracing of the evolutionary history of modern elasmobranchs to at least 250 MYA; ...
  9. [9]
    Skate & Ray Biology - Florida Museum of Natural History
    Sep 5, 2018 · The skin of rays and skates is similar to that of sharks. The skin feels exactly like sandpaper because it is made up of tiny teeth-like ...
  10. [10]
    Sharks & Rays - Anatomy & Physiology | United Parks & Resorts
    The skeleton of elasmobranchs is made of cartilage. Vestigial ribs give no support. The skeleton may be partially calcified to some extent with calcium ...
  11. [11]
    Ultrastructural and developmental features of the tessellated ...
    Aug 24, 2016 · The endoskeleton of elasmobranchs (sharks and rays) is comprised largely of unmineralized cartilage, differing fundamentally from the bony skeletons of other ...
  12. [12]
    Endoskeletal mineralization in chimaera and a comparative guide to ...
    Oct 14, 2020 · (a) Sharks' and rays' cartilaginous skeletons show two primary mineralized tissues, tessellated and areolar cartilage. Tessellated cartilage: ...
  13. [13]
    Placoid scales - The Australian Museum
    Placoid scales are found in sharks and rays, do not grow with the fish, and have a base plate, spines, and a pulp, dentine, and vitrodentine core.Missing: dermal | Show results with:dermal
  14. [14]
    [PDF] Sensory Physiology and Behavior of Elasmobranchs
    branch electrosensory system (reviewed above under. Section 12.5) for electric fields produced by aquatic animals (Kalmijn, 1972), the limit of detection for ...
  15. [15]
    [PDF] 5 Advances in the Sensory Biology of Elasmobranchs
    Jan 23, 2022 · Mathewson RF (eds) Sensory biology of sharks, skates and rays. US ... rays (Elasmobranchii: Potamotrygonidae). Zoomorphology. 139:61–69.
  16. [16]
    Molecular basis of ancestral vertebrate electroreception - PMC
    Elasmobranch fishes, including sharks, rays, and skates, use specialized electrosensory organs called Ampullae of Lorenzini to detect extremely small ...<|separator|>
  17. [17]
    Quantitative assessment of inner ear variation in elasmobranchs
    Jul 24, 2023 · Inner ear variation can be characterised by three primary axes that are influenced by diet and habitat, where piscivorous elasmobranchs have larger inner ears.
  18. [18]
    Active urea transport and an unusual basolateral membrane ...
    In elasmobranch fishes, urea occurs at high concentrations (350-600 mM) in the body fluids and tissues, where it plays an important role in osmoregulation.
  19. [19]
    (PDF) Osmoregulation in elasmobranchs - ResearchGate
    This chapter describes the function of major elasmobranch osmolytes, and the roles of the gill, gut, liver, kidney, and rectal gland in osmoregulation at ...
  20. [20]
    [PDF] Osmoregulation in elasmobranchs: a review for fish biologists ...
    Jan 31, 2007 · Abstract. This article provides a broad review of osmoregulation in elasmobranchs for non-specialists, focusing on recent advances.
  21. [21]
    Urea based osmoregulation and endocrine control in elasmobranch ...
    Smith recognised that urea was retained in the body fluids as part of the 'osmoregulatory ballast' of elasmobranch fish so that body fluid osmolality is raised ...
  22. [22]
    Molecular characterization of an elasmobranch urea transporter
    Marine elasmobranch fishes retain relatively high levels of urea to balance the osmotic stress of living in seawater. To maintain osmotic balance and reduce ...
  23. [23]
    Regulation of a renal urea transporter with reduced salinity in a ...
    Sep 15, 2003 · Marine elasmobranchs retain urea and other osmolytes, e.g. trimethylamine oxide (TMAO), to counterbalance the osmotic pressure of seawater.
  24. [24]
    [PDF] Energetics, Metabolism, and Endothermy in Sharks and Rays
    The original view of the energetic demands in sharks and rays was that they typically pos- sessed lower metabolic rates relative to similar sized teleosts; ...
  25. [25]
    implications for the evolution of energy metabolism in sharks and rays
    To test the hypothesis that the preference for ketone bodies rather than lipids as oxidative fuel in elasmobranchs evolved in response to the appearance of ...
  26. [26]
    Energetics, Metabolism, and Endothermy in Sharks and Rays | 15 | v2 |
    ABSTRACT. demands in sharks and rays was that they typically possessed lower metabolic rates relative to similar sized teleosts; however, this view is ...
  27. [27]
    Diel rhythm and thermal independence of metabolic rate in a benthic ...
    Here, we assess diel patterns of metabolic rates in a small meso-predator, the epaulette shark (Hemiscyllium ocellatum), across ecologically relevant ...<|separator|>
  28. [28]
    [PDF] Biomechanics of Locomotion in Sharks, Rays, and Chimaeras
    There is great variability in the morphology of the paired and unpaired fins. Four general body forms have been described for sharks that encompass this ...
  29. [29]
    3. - Management techniques for elasmobranch fisheries.
    The elasmobranchs have 5–7 gill openings on each side of the head, a body ... number of gill slits, possession of dorsal fin spines, proportional body ...
  30. [30]
    Buccal Pumping - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
    Elasmobranchs display two main respiratory modes: ram-ventilation and buccal pumping. The former is observed in pelagic, active species that move forward to ...
  31. [31]
    Do Sharks Really Die if They Stop Swimming? | Britannica
    For example, the great white shark, the whale shark, and the mako shark don't have buccal muscles at all. Instead, these sharks rely on obligate ram ventilation ...
  32. [32]
    Sharks Have To Keep Swimming, Or Else They'll Die? Well, No, Not ...
    Jun 16, 2025 · Many fish, sharks especially, do in fact use ram ventilation to breathe, and some – like white sharks, mako sharks, or whale sharks – only use ...
  33. [33]
    Spiracles: The Secret of the Benthic Shark
    Apr 29, 2025 · In order to breathe without buccal pumping or ram ventilation, they use specialized holes behind their eyes called spiracles. Spiracles act like ...
  34. [34]
    [PDF] Grigg GC and J Read 1970 Gill function in an Elasmobranch
    In teleost fish, the efficiency of gas exchange at the gills is enhanced by a counter-current flow of water and blood at the respiratory surface (Hughes and ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  35. [35]
    Shark evolution: a 450 million year timeline | Natural History Museum
    The earliest shark-like teeth we have come from an 410-million-year-old, Early Devonian fossil belonging to an ancient fish called Doliodus problematicus.
  36. [36]
    The early elasmobranch Phoebodus: phylogenetic relationships ...
    Oct 2, 2019 · Dorsal fin spines with gentle posterior curvature; basal opening extends to at least 50% of total height; insertion deep; ornament of fine ...
  37. [37]
    [PDF] Late Devonian and Early Carboniferous chondrichthyans from the ...
    Teeth from 18 shark taxa are described from Upper Devonian to Lower Carbonif- erous strata of the Lennard Shelf, Canning Basin, Western Australia.
  38. [38]
    The Structure and Affinities of the Fossil Elasmobranch Fishes from ...
    The Structure and Affinities of the Fossil Elasmobranch Fishes from the Lower Carboniferous Rocks of Glencartholm, Eskdale. J. A. Moy-Thomas M.A.,. J. A. Moy ...
  39. [39]
    The fossil record of extant elasmobranchs - ResearchGate
    Oct 10, 2020 · Modern elasmobranchs have a long evolutionary history and an abundant fossil record that consists mainly of teeth. Many fossil taxa have living ...
  40. [40]
    Diving Deeper: Leveraging the Chondrichthyan Fossil Record to ...
    May 30, 2025 · The extensive chondrichthyan fossil record spans 400+ million years and has a global distribution. Paleontological studies provide a foundation ...<|separator|>
  41. [41]
    The fossil record of extant elasmobranchs - Wiley Online Library
    Oct 14, 2020 · This study demonstrate that the fossil record of extant elasmobranchs extends deep into the geologic time, especially in the case of threatened sharks.
  42. [42]
    Cretaceous stem chondrichthyans survived the end-Permian mass ...
    Oct 29, 2013 · Our finding shows that this lineage survived mass extinctions most likely by habitat contraction, using deep-sea refuge environments during catastrophic events.
  43. [43]
    Neoselachian (Chondrichthyes, Elasmobranchii) diversity across the ...
    We show that neoselachian sharks suffered a major extinction at the K/T boundary. Out of 41 families, 7 became extinct (17±12%). The proportional measure ...
  44. [44]
    Drivers of diversification in sharks and rays (Chondrichthyes - Frontiers
    Jan 9, 2025 · Elasmobranchii (sharks and rays) is a speciose clade that has undergone radical changes in diversity over the past 400 million years (Heinicke ...
  45. [45]
    Global impact and selectivity of the Cretaceous-Paleogene mass ...
    Feb 23, 2023 · Elasmobranchs (sharks, skates, and rays) represent an important component of marine ecosystems since the Mesozoic (11, 12), are further ...
  46. [46]
  47. [47]
    [PDF] Evolutionary pathways toward gigantism in sharks and rays
    Jan 4, 2019 · Through elasmobranch (sharks and rays) evolutionary history, gigantism evolved multiple times in phylogenetically distant species,.
  48. [48]
    Elasmobranchii - Taxonomy browser Taxonomy Browser () - NIH
    Lineage (full): cellular organisms; Eukaryota; Opisthokonta; Metazoa; Eumetazoa; Bilateria; Deuterostomia; Chordata; Craniata; Vertebrata; Gnathostomata; ...Missing: hierarchy | Show results with:hierarchy
  49. [49]
    The mitogenomic phylogeny of the Elasmobranchii (Chondrichthyes)
    The Elasmobranchii is a diverse subclass of Chondrichthyes, or cartilaginous fish, with about 1200 species of ocean- and freshwater-dwelling fishes spread all ...
  50. [50]
    The ancient and helical architecture of Elasmobranchii's ...
    Feb 25, 2025 · Elasmobranchii species possess big spermatozoa (compared to bony fishes) with an elongated helical head and tail similar to one currently ...
  51. [51]
    Comparative transcriptomics of elasmobranchs and teleosts ... - NIH
    Jan 30, 2017 · The extant members of the class comprise at least 1,207 species [1], divided into two major groups: Subclasses Holocephali (chimaeras) and ...
  52. [52]
    Systematics and Phylogenetic Interrelationships of the Enigmatic ...
    Elasmobranchii (sharks and rays) comprises three clades (“superorders”): Batomorphii (rays), Galeomorphii (“galeomorph sharks”), and Squalomorphii (“squalomorph ...
  53. [53]
    The fossil record of extant elasmobranchs - PubMed
    This study demonstrate that the fossil record of extant elasmobranchs extends deep into the geologic time, especially in the case of threatened sharks. As such, ...
  54. [54]
    Methods - VertLife
    The class Chondrichthyes is composed of two subclasses, the Holocephali (chimaeras) and the Elasmobranchii (sharks and rays), and includes 14 orders, 60 ...Missing: major | Show results with:major
  55. [55]
    Species diversity, taxonomy and distribution of Chondrichthyes in ...
    1,282 species of chondrichthyans are described globally. These include 1,226 of Elasmobranchii species (537 shark species belonging to 34 Families, and 689 ...
  56. [56]
    Taxonomic List of all Sharks, Rays, and Chimaeras.
    Subclass Elasmobranchii ; Carcharhiniformes – Ground Sharks ; Heterodontiformes – Bullhead Sharks ; Hexanchiformes – Sixgill, Sevengill and Frilled Sharks.
  57. [57]
    The mitogenomic phylogeny of the Elasmobranchii (Chondrichthyes)
    Here we apply a molecular systematic approach on 82 complete mitochondrial genomes to investigate the phylogeny of the Elasmobranchii.
  58. [58]
    Phylogenetic Relationships among the Major Lineages of Modern ...
    A molecular systematic approach on 82 complete mitochondrial genomes is applied to investigate the phylogeny of the Elasmobranchii and finds a clear ...
  59. [59]
    Molecular phylogenetic convergence within Elasmobranchii ...
    To this extent, DNA markers comprise a significant tool for determining such phylogenetic interrelations among closely related Elasmobranchii species.
  60. [60]
    Elasmobranch genome sequencing reveals evolutionary trends of ...
    Genomic studies of vertebrate chromosome evolution have long been hindered by the scarcity of chromosome-scale DNA sequences of some key taxa.
  61. [61]
    (PDF) Drivers of diversification in sharks and rays (Chondrichthyes
    Jan 10, 2025 · In this review, we summarise the diversification dynamics of elasmobranchs over their evolutionary history, before considering the evidence for the three ...
  62. [62]
    The Phylogeny of Rays and Skates (Chondrichthyes - MDPI
    Elasmobranchii are relatively well-studied. However, numerous phylogenetic uncertainties about their relationships remain. Here, we revisit the phylogenetic ...
  63. [63]
    Insights into stem Batomorphii: A new holomorphic ray ...
    Jan 23, 2025 · We thus extend the recent taxonomic revision of these rays and include all described holomorphic specimens in a phylogenetic framework using ...
  64. [64]
    A molecular-assisted taxonomic assessment of elasmobranch fishes ...
    Jan 24, 2025 · A molecular-assisted taxonomic assessment of elasmobranch fishes (Chondrichthyes: Elasmobranchii) from south-eastern Arabia revisited.Missing: hierarchy | Show results with:hierarchy
  65. [65]
    7. Reproductive biology
    Elasmobranch reproductive strategies include oviparity, aplacental viviparity and placental viviparity (Wourms, 1977). Oviparous species enclose eggs in an egg ...
  66. [66]
    Sharks & Rays - Reproduction | United Parks & Resorts - Seaworld.org
    Internal fertilization is a key adaptation for energy-intensive reproduction. ... Claspers are modified inner edges of the pelvic fins of male sharks and rays.
  67. [67]
    Clasper - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
    All elasmobranchs employ internal fertilization and display one of the two types of reproduction (oviparity, i.e., egg laying, and viviparity, i.e., live ...
  68. [68]
    [PDF] Reproductive Evolution of Chondrichthyans
    The living Chondrichthyes are comprised of about 1100 species of neoselachian elasmobranchs (sharks and rays) and more than 30 species of holocephalans ( ...
  69. [69]
    Shark Reproduction
    Nov 2, 2018 · There are 3 main methods of reproduction: oviparity (egg-laying), ovoviviparity and vivparity (live birth). Shark Anatomy. Sharks have a range ...Oviparity (egg-Laying) · Ovoviviparity · Why Are Sharks Under Threat?
  70. [70]
    Phylogenetic distribution of reproductive modes in elasmobranchs ...
    ... Oviparous elasmobranchs (around 40% of all elasmobranch species; Dulvy and Reynolds 1997) are particularly at risk from the threat of human activities.Missing: prevalence | Show results with:prevalence
  71. [71]
    Elasmobranch Reproductive Modes - Elasmo-research.org
    Shark reproduction can be divided into seven modes based on the method of embryonic nutrition. The system of reproductive modes used here is slightly modified ...Missing: elasmobranchii | Show results with:elasmobranchii
  72. [72]
    Factors affecting gestation periods in elasmobranch fishes - PMC
    Jun 10, 2022 · Furthermore, viviparous elasmobranchs exhibit various reproductive modes (e.g. ovoviviparous, placental viviparous), which may also influence ...
  73. [73]
    Elasmobranch Reproduction - SEZARC
    Additionally, certain species exhibit extraordinary reproductive modes such as parthenogenesis (also known as virgin births) in whitespotted bamboo sharks, and ...Missing: elasmobranchii | Show results with:elasmobranchii
  74. [74]
    Estimation and analysis of biological parameters in elasmobranch ...
    M/k and Beverton's growth–maturity–longevity plots were used to make comparisons between teleost fishes, reptiles, and elasmobranchs. We found that the M/k ...
  75. [75]
    Age and Growth of Elasmobranchs and Applications to Fisheries ...
    Elasmobranchs are often characterized as equilibrium (K-selected) species because they typically have low fecundity, late maturity, high juvenile survivorship, ...
  76. [76]
    Sharks & Rays - Longevity & Causes of Death | United Parks & Resorts
    Sharks grow slowly compared to bony fishes, possibly due to sharks' slow digestive time and feeding rates. There is considerable variation in age and growth ...
  77. [77]
    Age, growth and maturity of the Australian sharpnose shark ...
    Oct 31, 2018 · Males (L∞ = 46 cm TL, k = 3.69 yr-1, L50 = 41.7 cm TL and A50 = 0.5 years) grew at a faster rate and matured at smaller sizes and younger ages ...Missing: lifespan | Show results with:lifespan
  78. [78]
    Multi-Model Approach on Growth Estimation and Association With ...
    Feb 22, 2021 · Most elasmobranchs are characterized as slow growth, late maturation, extended longevity, few offspring, and low mortality (Hoenig and Gruber, ...Missing: elasmobranchii empirical
  79. [79]
    Life History Patterns and Correlations in Sharks - ResearchGate
    Aug 5, 2025 · Females tend to mature later and live longer than males, but age at maturity is reached at about 50% of maximum age in both sexes. Maximum size ...
  80. [80]
    Age, Growth, and Sexual Maturity of the Crocodile Shark ... - Frontiers
    Nov 16, 2020 · Male specimens attained age-at-50% maturity (4.55 years) earlier than females (5.91 years). The estimated longevities were 11.95 and 13.33 years ...
  81. [81]
    New Study Finds Extreme Longevity in White Sharks
    Jan 8, 2014 · Age estimates were up to 73 years old for the largest male and 40 years old for the largest female. “Our results dramatically extend the maximum ...
  82. [82]
    Age and growth estimates for the nurse shark (Ginglymostoma ...
    Feb 1, 2024 · Elasmobranchs (sharks, rays, and skates) have classically been described as relatively long-lived, slow-growing and late-maturing, with long ...
  83. [83]
    Many Sharks Live a Century—Longer Than Thought
    Nov 13, 2017 · A new analysis that pulled together data from more than 50 studies suggests a "widespread" underestimation of lifespans among many sharks, rays, and ...
  84. [84]
    Age, growth, maturity, longevity and natural mortality of the shortfin ...
    Shortfin makos grow very rapidly initially, increasing by ~39 cm fork length in their first year. Thereafter, males and females grow at similar but slower rates ...
  85. [85]
    Functional diversity of sharks and rays is highly vulnerable ... - Nature
    Nov 24, 2023 · Elasmobranchs (sharks, rays and skates) are among the most threatened marine vertebrates, yet their global functional diversity remains largely unknown.
  86. [86]
    Phylogeography of sharks and rays: a global review based on life ...
    Jun 1, 2023 · Habitat and depth preference clearly shapes the geographical genetic structure of sharks and rays (Hirschfeld et al., 2021; Canfield, Galván ...
  87. [87]
    The vulnerability of sharks, skates, and rays to ocean deoxygenation ...
    Jun 9, 2024 · Oxygen was found to be a stronger predictor of bull shark habitat choice than temperature and salinity in sharks of this age class, though it ...
  88. [88]
    Deep-sea mining risks for sharks, rays, and chimeras - ScienceDirect
    Oct 2, 2025 · Most species' depth ranges (83%, 25/30, range: 3%–80%) overlapped vertically with the benthic mining footprint, while all species overlapped ...
  89. [89]
    Movement, depth and temperature preferences of an important ...
    The depth range occupied by Arctic skate largely overlapped with that of ... effects of fishing on sharks, rays, and chimaeras (chon- drichthyans), and ...Missing: scientific | Show results with:scientific
  90. [90]
    Decline or stability of obligate freshwater elasmobranchs following ...
    Sharks and rays live mostly in marine environments, but approximately 60 species (5%) of elasmobranchs occur in freshwater environments. Some species, termed ...
  91. [91]
    [PDF] Biology and Conservation of Freshwater Elasmobranchs - Canada.ca
    Aug 1, 2004 · Approximately 45 species of elasmobranch, in four families and ten genera, are found in fresh water far beyond tidal influences in rivers and ...
  92. [92]
    Influence of environmental factors on shark and ray movement ...
    Aug 5, 2025 · This paper reviews the role of abiotic factors as a driver of movement and changes in behaviour and habitat use in elasmobranchs.
  93. [93]
    Ecological Importance of Sharks | FIU Institute of Environment
    While often considered top predators, the majority of elasmobranchs are mid-level predators and have diets and roles that likely overlap with large bony fishes ...
  94. [94]
    Diet, trophic interactions and possible ecological role of commercial ...
    A total of 865 non-empty stomachs were analysed. Off northern Peru, elasmobranchs function as upper-trophic-level species consuming 78 prey items, predominantly ...
  95. [95]
    How many trophic roles can elasmobranchs play in a marine tropical ...
    Jan 11, 2017 · These species had roles as both predator and prey in four trophic levels of the web, participating in most of the roles identified, and are ...
  96. [96]
    Trophic-Mediated Pelagic Habitat Structuring and Partitioning by ...
    Jun 16, 2022 · Large-bodied elasmobranchs shape the structure of marine ecosystems via trophic-related relationships mediated by direct predation upon lower ...
  97. [97]
    (PDF) Standardized diet compositions and trophic levels of skates ...
    Aug 10, 2025 · Standardized diet composition results revealed that decapods and fishes were the main prey taxa of most skate species followed by amphipods and polychaetes.
  98. [98]
    (PDF) Predation on elasmobranch eggs - ResearchGate
    During embryogenesis, oviparous elasmobranch embryos are particularly vulnerable to predation by other elasmobranchs ... We found 29 unique predator–prey species ...
  99. [99]
    [PDF] Predicting ecological consequences of marine top predator declines
    Declines in top predator abun- dance should release mesoconsumers from predation and indirectly increase the mortality rate of resource species. [5,19]. The ...
  100. [100]
    Ecological importance of sharks and rays in a structural foodweb ...
    Mar 5, 2014 · In this study, we evaluated the ecological importance of sharks and rays in a subtropical ecosystem off the coast of southern Brazil by using topological ...
  101. [101]
    A third of sharks, rays, and chimaeras are threatened with extinction ...
    Dec 2, 2024 · A third of sharks, rays, and chimaeras are threatened with extinction, as new report narrows in on solutions - Press release | IUCN.
  102. [102]
    Overfishing drives over one-third of all sharks andrays toward a ...
    Three species are Critically Endangered (Possibly Extinct), representing possibly the first global marine fish extinctions due to overfishing. Consequently, the ...
  103. [103]
    Shark and ray populations halved by overfishing in last 50 years
    Dec 10, 2024 · A new study has shown that populations of sharks, rays and chimaeras have declined by more than 50 per cent over the last 50 years.
  104. [104]
    Half a century of global decline in oceanic sharks and rays | Nature
    Jan 27, 2021 · We find that, since 1970, the global abundance of oceanic sharks and rays has declined by 71% owing to an 18-fold increase in relative fishing pressure.
  105. [105]
    Global Extinction Risk for Sharks and Rays Is High, United States ...
    Dec 6, 2024 · Sharks Are In Rough Shape Globally · Extinction Risk Differs by Habitat and Region · Sharks and Ray Threats and Conservation Measures.
  106. [106]
    Overfishing drives over one-third of all sharks and rays toward a ...
    Nov 8, 2021 · It has survived at least five mass extinctions in its 420 million year history, and has radiated throughout the major marine (and some ...
  107. [107]
    The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species and Sharks
    By 2021, almost all known sharks (~1250 species) have been assessed using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria.
  108. [108]
    [PDF] Chapter 40 Sharks and Other Elasmobranchs - the United Nations
    In 2012, landings were 14 per cent lower than in 2000. The increasing trend in global catches reflected a combination of fisheries expansions into previously- ...
  109. [109]
    Official catch data underrepresent shark and ray taxa caught in ...
    Less than 25% of the shark catch reported to the FAO is identified below the genus level; the other 75% is lumped into categories such as “sharks”, “rays”, or “ ...
  110. [110]
    An overview on elasmobranch release as a bycatch mitigation strategy
    Sep 22, 2022 · Data on incidental capture is sparse, but it is estimated that about 50% of reported global catches of elasmobranchs are from bycatch.<|separator|>
  111. [111]
    Initiative to stop trade of shark fins within the EU: Is it a good thing for ...
    In 2003, finning was banned by the EU in agreement with the Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003 [3] due to social pressures and ethical issues associated with this ...
  112. [112]
    How Our Shark Finning Ban Helps Us Sustainably Manage Shark ...
    Feb 11, 2020 · Under federal law, U.S. fishermen are only allowed to remove and sell shark fins after bringing the animal to shore—as long as the shark was ...
  113. [113]
    Fisheries management. 1. Conservation and management of sharks
    These Guidelines have been produced to support implementation of the International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks ...
  114. [114]
    Six Steps to Sustainable Sharks | NOAA Fisheries
    Aug 11, 2021 · Keeping US shark fishery sustainable is a complicated scientific and management process. To help explain it, we've broken down our approach into six steps.Step One: Research · Step Two: Assessment · Step Three: ManagementMissing: strategies global
  115. [115]
    [PDF] 24-12 - ICCAT
    ACKNOWLEDGING that mobulid rays require protection in all Oceans and that in line with the United. Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA) Article 5e appropriate ...
  116. [116]
    [PDF] DEEP DIVING INTO SHARK CATCH AND TRADE MISMATCHES
    Nov 13, 2023 · Catch reporting was considered from 1993, ten years prior to the first listing of an elasmobranch on CITES, until 2021 (the most recent year.
  117. [117]
    Good fisheries management, if enforced, can help sharks and rays ...
    Feb 3, 2023 · Global catches, exploitation rates, and rebuilding options for sharks. Marine Policy, 40, 194-204. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2012.12.034. FEEDBACK ...
  118. [118]
    Global habitat predictions to inform spatiotemporal fisheries ...
    While spatiotemporal management has demonstrable potential for blue sharks to effectively mitigate fishing mortality on sensitive life stages, we identify ...
  119. [119]
    Trade regulations drive improved global shark and ray management
    Many shark species have conservative life history traits: they are intrinsically susceptible to overexploitation, and their populations can be slow to ...
  120. [120]
    Evidence for rapid recovery of shark populations within a coral reef ...
    Our study shows that shark communities can recover rapidly after exploitation in a well-managed no-take MPA.
  121. [121]
    White Shark Recovery | NOAA Fisheries
    Sep 7, 2014 · It's been a gradual recovery over a 20-year period. It's positive signs that the population is growing, but we're not there yet. Jose Castro ...
  122. [122]
    Decline of coastal apex shark populations over the past half century
    Dec 13, 2018 · Promising signs of recovery have been reported from coastal shark populations that have undergone a history of severe exploitation in the ...<|separator|>
  123. [123]
    Overfishing of Sharks - Shark Allies
    Sep 13, 2025 · Generally, most fisheries data obtained regarding elasmobranch bycatch don't provide species-level data. Instead, mass/weight of elasmobranchs ...
  124. [124]
    International Shark Debates put U.S. Positions in Spotlight
    Nov 12, 2019 · Conservationists look to the U.S. for leadership ahead of an international fisheries meeting that could turn the tide for endangered sharks.
  125. [125]
    Everything You Know about Shark Conservation Is Wrong
    May 24, 2022 · Sharks need our help, but many widespread conservation messages are not based on scientific evidence.Missing: controversies | Show results with:controversies
  126. [126]
    Inaccurate and Biased Global Media Coverage Underlies Public ...
    Jun 17, 2020 · We analyzed popular press coverage of shark conservation topics. Topics were frequently covered in a biased, misleading, or incorrect way.
  127. [127]
    Sharks, spatial data, and a conservation success story
    Jan 23, 2023 · The findings show a positive trajectory for shark populations where regulations have been put in place, with large species such as the great ...Missing: evidence | Show results with:evidence
  128. [128]
    Conservation successes and challenges for wide-ranging sharks ...
    The remainder of the reported catch is from fisheries that are generally located in lower capacity regions yet are still subject to heavy exploitation and are ...