Negative effects of ghost nets on Mediterranean biodiversity

Abstract

Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing nets (i.e., ghost nets) strongly affect biodiversity in marine ecosystems of numerous localities around the world. Based on videos posted by different people in YouTube™, we accessed the negative effects of these gears in the Mediterranean Sea. We identified 86 species, from 12 groups, in 12 countries within the Mediterranean region (including in the Africa, Europe, and Asia). Of the species entangled in ghost nets, 10 are considered threatened with extinction according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Fishes and macrocrustaceans were the most recorded groups entangled in ghost nets. We also identified algae, other invertebrates (i.e., cnidarians, echinoderms, molluscs, poriferans, tunicates) and vertebrates (i.e., turtles and mammals). The larger number of ghost fishing events were recorded in Italy and Turkey. This is the most complete study showing the negative effects of ghost nets on marine biodiversity worldwide, based on data retrieved from digital media. With the available literature, our data are important to implement measures against ghost fishing nets in the Mediterranean Sea.

Full text

Vol.: (0123456789)
1 3
Aquat Ecol (2024) 58:131–137
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10452-022-09985-3
Negative effects ofghost nets onMediterranean biodiversity
JúliaFernandesPerroca · TommasoGiarrizzo · ErnestoAzzurro ·
JorgeLuizRodrigues‑Filho · CarolinaV.Silva · MarleneS.Arcifa ·
ValterM.Azevedo‑Santos
Received: 23 June 2022 / Accepted: 26 September 2022 / Published online: 13 October 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2022
Africa, Europe, and Asia). Of the species entangled in
ghost nets, 10 are considered threatened with extinc-
tion according to the International Union for Conser-
vation of Nature. Fishes and macrocrustaceans were
the most recorded groups entangled in ghost nets. We
also identified algae, other invertebrates (i.e., cnidar-
ians, echinoderms, molluscs, poriferans, tunicates)
and vertebrates (i.e., turtles and mammals). The
larger number of ghost fishing events were recorded
in Italy and Turkey. This is the most complete study
showing the negative effects of ghost nets on marine
biodiversity worldwide, based on data retrieved from
Abstract Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded
fishing nets (i.e., ghost nets) strongly affect biodi-
versity in marine ecosystems of numerous localities
around the world. Based on videos posted by differ-
ent people in YouTube™, we accessed the negative
effects of these gears in the Mediterranean Sea. We
identified 86 species, from 12 groups, in 12 countries
within the Mediterranean region (including in the
Handling editor: Lorena Silva do Nascimento.
Supplementary Information The online version
contains supplementary material available at https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1007/ s10452- 022- 09985-3.
J.F.Perroca
Laboratory ofBiology ofMarine andFreshwater Shrimps
(LABCAM), Biological Sciences Department, Faculty
ofSciences, UNESP, Bauru17033-360, Brazil
T.Giarrizzo· V.M.Azevedo-Santos(*)
Núcleo de Ecologia Aquática E Pesca da Amazônia,
Grupo de Ecologia Aquática, Universidade Federal
doPará, 2651 Avenida Perimetral, Belém, Pará, Brazil
e-mail: valter.ecologia@gmail.com
T.Giarrizzo
Instituto de Ciências doMar (LABOMAR), Universidade
Federal doCeará (UFC), Avenida da Abolição 3207,
Fortaleza, Ceará60165-081, Brazil
E.Azzurro
CNR-IRBIM, National Research Council, Institute
ofBiological Resources andMarine Biotechnologies,
Largo Fiera della Pesca 2, 60125Ancona, Italy
J.L.Rodrigues-Filho
Laboratory ofApplied Ecology andConservation,
Department ofFisheries Engineering andBiology,
UDESC, Laguna88790-000, Brazil
J.L.Rodrigues-Filho
Post Graduate Program - Territorial Planning
andSocio-Environmental Development, UDESC,
Florianópolis, Brazil
C.V.Silva· V.M.Azevedo-Santos
Faculdade Eduvale de Avaré, Avaré, SãoPaulo, Brazil
M.S.Arcifa
Departamento de Biologia, Universidade de São Paulo, Av.
Bandeirantes, 3900, RibeirãoPreto, SãoPaulo14040-901,
Brazil
V.M.Azevedo-Santos
Programa de Pós-Graduação Em Biodiversidade, Ecologia
E Conservação, Universidade Federal doTocantins (UFT),
PortoNacional, TocantinsCEP77500-000, Brazil

132
Aquat Ecol (2024) 58:131–137
1 3
Vol:. (1234567890)
digital media. With the available literature, our data
are important to implement measures against ghost
fishingnets in the Mediterranean Sea.
Keywords Cyclical catching· Digital media·
Entanglement· Fishing· Megafauna· YouTube™
Introduction
Ghost fishing has almost certainly occurred ever
since the human began to use nets and other types
of fishing gear, although the scientific recognition of
the phenomenon only became mainstream in recent
years (e.g., Iriarte and Marmontel 2013; Leis etal.
2019; Barbosa-Filho et al. 2020; Andrades et al.
2021; Pinheiro et al. 2021; Vitorino et al. 2022).
The phenomenon may be described as the capture
of aquatic or semi-aquatic organisms by fishing
gear that has been abandoned, lost, or otherwise
discarded in the ecosystem. Capture in ghost gear
is a negative effect that causes the deaths of many
wild animals (e.g., Adelir-Alves et al. 2016; Link
etal. 2019; Beneli etal. 2020; see also TableS1). If
the gear is not found and removed, it may generate
“cyclical catching” (Macfadyen etal. 2009; p. 16).
The phenomenon involves gear such as gill nets,
lobster traps, and even hooks, which may continue
to capture fish and other organisms. Ghost nets can
be considered the most aggressive gear, given both
their relatively large size and efficiency. Spirkovski
etal. (2019), for example, observed ghost nets of up
to half a kilometer in length. However, this does not
mean that other types of ghost fishing gear deserve
less attention.
It is known that ghost nets are causing negative
effects—i.e., the entanglement of the marine biodi-
versity—in the Mediterranean Sea (e.g., Houard etal.
2012). However, we failed to find a study exploring
the capture of different groups of organisms—and the
various countries of the region—in ghost fishing gear.
Recent studies (Azevedo-Santos et al. 2021, 2022)
demonstrated that digital media are important alter-
natives to access cases of ghost nets impacting eco-
systems. Here we report the biodiversity entangled in
ghost nets in the Mediterranean Sea (Africa, Europe,
and Asia) using data from YouTube™.
Materials andmethods
We searched for material on ghost nets—and thus
on ghost fishing—on YouTube™ (https:// www.
youtu be. com). This is an open video sharing web-
site, which provides important research too for
many scientific fields (e.g., Ferraz et al. 2019;
Otsuka and Yamakoshi 2020; Sbragaglia et al.
2020; Magalhães etal. 2021; McLean etal. 2021).
We searched YouTube™ between the months
of June and September 2021 following the com-
binations of key words: “abandoned net + sea,”
“abandoned fishing net + estuary,” “fishing
net + marine animals,” “fishing net + entan-
gled marine animals,” “fishing gears + entan-
gled marine animals,” “ghost net + sea ani-
mals,” “ghost fishing + sea animals,” “ghost
fishing + sea + Mediterranean,” “ghost net + Alba-
nia,” “ghost net + Algeria,” “ghost net + Bos-
nia,” “ghost net + Croatia,” “ghost net + Egypt,”
“ghost net + France,” “ghost net + Greece,” “ghost
net + Israel,” “ghost net + Italy,” “ghost net + Leba-
non,” “ghost net + Libya,” “ghost net + Malta,”
“ghost net + Monaco,” “ghost net + Montenegro,”
“ghost net + Morocco,” “ghost net + Palestine,”
“ghost net + Slovein,” “ghost net + Spain,” “ghost
net + Syria,” “ghost net + Tunisia,” and “ghost
net + Turkey.” Searches were also conducted using
these keywords translated into Albanian, Arabic,
Croatian, English, French, Greek, Hebraic, Italian,
Slovenian, Spanish, and Turkish, to ensure the iden-
tification of the maximum possible number of cases
of entanglement recorded in the Mediterranean Sea.
From videos found on YouTube, we extracted
data on the number of entangled individuals, their
species, and locality. In the present study, we con-
sidered only reports of ghost nets, rather than any
other types of gear, considering the information
obtained from the videos or their descriptions. The
organisms were identified based on the evaluation of
experts and field guides (e.g., Louisy 2020; Trainito
and Baldacconi 2021), whenever necessary. We did
not compute individuals not identified to at least
the genus level. The common names were derived
from Palomares and Pauly (2021) and the conserva-
tion status of the species is based on IUCN (2021).
Figure1 was generated in the software RAWGraphs
(Mauri etal. 2017).

133
Aquat Ecol (2024) 58:131–137
1 3
Vol.: (0123456789)
Results
We found 113 videos of ghost nets entangling numer-
ous marine organisms for the Mediterranean Sea
(TableS2 in Supplementary Material). We identified
86 entangled species (Fig. 1), including 12 groups
(TableS2), from 12 Mediterranean countries (Fig.2).
Ten of the species identified in the present study are
listed by the International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN 2021), two of which (i.e., sperm whale
and whale shark) are classified as endangered, and
eight as vulnerable (e.g., dusky grouper) (Fig.1).
Fishes, followed by crustaceans, were the most
representative groups foundentangled in ghost nets,
with higher species richness and number of individu-
als (Fig. 1). The fish species involved in the largest
numbers of ghost fishing events were Epinephelus
marginatus (Lowe, 1834), Uranoscopus scaber Lin-
naeus, 1758, Diplodus sargus(Linnaeus, 1758), and
Scorpaena scrofa Linnaeus, 1758. In the case of crus-
taceans, the most representative species were Scyllar-
ides latus (Latreille, 1803), Palinurus elephas (Fab-
ricius, 1787), and Maja squinado (Herbst, 1788)
(Fig. 1). Our finds include algae, represented by
Padina pavonica (Linnaeus, 1758), and invertebrates
such as cnidarians (e.g., jellyfish), echinoderms (e.g.,
sea cucumber), molluscs (e.g., squid and cuttlefish),
poriferans and tunicates. Vertebrates such as the com-
mon dolphin Delphinus delphis Linnaeus, 1758, the
leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea (Vandelli,
1761), and the great cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo
(Linnaeus, 1758) were also found entangled.
Fig. 1 Groups (including species, their occurrence, and conservation status) found entangled in ghost nets in Mediterranean sea.
Based on TableS2. DD data deficient, EN endangered, LC least concern, NT near threatened, VU vulnerable

134
Aquat Ecol (2024) 58:131–137
1 3
Vol:. (1234567890)
The largest number of ghost fishing events were
found in Italy and Turkey, respectively (Fig.2). The
specific regions where the gears were found include,
for example, Hatay, Marmaris, Portofino, Sassariand
Stratoni (TableS2 in Supplementary Material).
Discussion
Our data revealed that numerous species have been
affected by ghost nets in the Mediterranean region.
So far, this is the most extensive study involving the
search for abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded
fishing gear through digital media. The data indicate
important areas of the Mediterranean region where
conservation measures should be adopted.
A limitation of our study using digital media—
when compared with field studies (e.g., Tschernij and
Larsson 2003; Spirkovski et al. 2019)—is the dif-
ficulty to determine the size of the nets. In general,
videos posted in YouTube provide no mention on the
characteristic of the ghost gear. However, in spite of
this limitation, the tool is very important to detect the
entanglement of individuals of different species in
ghost gears of numerous regions.
The entanglement of some groups of organisms
recorded in the present study (reptiles and mammals)
has often been reported in scientific literature (e.g.,
Stelfox etal. 2016, 2020; Santos etal. 2012; Ramesh
etal. 2019). However, entanglementevents of Bryo-
zoa, Echinodermata, Porifera, Tunicata, and Algae
were less investigated (e.g., TableS1 in Supplemen-
tary Material). Therefore, we increased our under-
standing of the negative effects of ghost nets on these
groups.
Megafauna, such as whales and whale sharks, were
also found trapped in ghost fishing nets in this study.
Abandoned or lost fishing gear is known to be harm-
ful to these large marine animals (e.g., Stelfox etal.
2016) and represents an additional threat to a fauna
that is especially vulnerable to anthropogenic impacts
(Lewison etal. 2004; Giglio et al. 2015). That is the
Fig. 2 Number of entanglement events in ghost nets in Mediterranean countries. Based on TableS2

135
Aquat Ecol (2024) 58:131–137
1 3
Vol.: (0123456789)
case, for example, of the Balaenoptera physalus (Lin-
naeus, 1758) captured in ghost nets. These findings
reinforce the need to intensify actions against human
disturbances (including ghost fishing) on Mediterra-
nean biodiversity.
Fish were the group of organisms with the high-
est number of records, in terms of both species and
individuals, which is consistent with the findings of
previous studies (e.g., Ayaz etal. 2006; Adelir-Alves
etal. 2016). This is probably due to the fact that fish
are recurrently more susceptible to capture by fishing
nets (e.g., Ferrazi etal. 2022) because they have dif-
ferent characteristics that provide susceptibility to be
trapped, such as those morphological (e.g., opercular
opening, fins, body shape) and behavioral (e.g., fast
mobility). The high taxonomic diversity of fish com-
pared with other animals susceptible to entanglement
in ghost nets such as crabs, turtle, and mammals, may
also contribute to their more frequent records. Mac-
rocrustaceans were the second most recorded group,
a pattern also reported in previous studies (Adelir-
Alves et al. 2016). In particular, Palinurus elephas
Fabricius, 1787, and Maja squinado (Herbst, 1788),
two of the crustaceans most frequently registered in
the present study, were also captured relatively fre-
quently in previous studies (Houard etal. 2012; Angi-
olillo and Fortibuoni 2020). This may be explained by
the presence of their pereopods, which makes speci-
mens more vulnerable to entanglement when com-
pared with other groups. The relatively high diversity
of crustaceans in the environment may also contribute
to the frequency of events involving this group.
All species captured by ghost nets deserve atten-
tion, although species threatened with extinction
demand extra consideration. Ten of the species iden-
tified in the present study are classified in some cat-
egory of the IUCN, and half of these taxa have not
previously been found captured in ghost nets. In fact,
entanglement in ghost gear has only been recorded
previously for the common stingray, whale shark,
nursehound (Parton et al. 2019), sperm whale (Pace
etal. 2008), and dusky grouper (Ozyurt et al. 2017).
This reinforces the value of the digital media as an
important tool for the identification of impacts on
these threatened species (Azevedo-Santos et al.
2021), and the more systematic evaluation of species
ratings for national or international list of threatened
species around the world.
The videos identified in the present study refer to
events in 12 different Mediterranean countries, which
is almost certainly an underestimate, due in particular
to the search limitations. It is possible that additional
searches in the region’s newspapers, for example, may
have revealed much further events of ghost fishing
(see also Azevedo-Santos etal. 2021). Despite these
limitations, the findings of the present study highlight
important areas for research into the resolution of the
ghost net problem in these countries.
Italy is the country with the largest number of
ghost fishing records in this report, with mostrecords
in the Sardinia area. The country has a large fishing
activity (e.g., MacFadyen et al. 2009; Casale 2011)
anda long coast completely within the Mediterranean
Sea. Other nations (e.g., Spain, France) may use the
Atlantic Ocean as alternative fishingareas, but Italy
just have in its proximity the Mediterranean Sea to
perform catch of resources. The intense fishing activi-
ties and large costal area of the country completely
within the Mediterranean Sea certainly explain our
results.
Together with published data (e.g., Ramirez-Llo-
dra etal. 2013; Angiolillo etal. 2015; Battisti etal.
2019; Moschino etal. 2019; Consoli etal. 2020), the
results of our study provide important insights for
the development of policies to avoid the impacts of
ghost fishing in the Mediterranean region. In this con-
text, we would recommend studies based on the same
approach in other regions, such as the Atlantic and
Pacific oceans, where fisheries are also widespread.
The analysis of digital media can provide important
input for the evaluation of impacts and the planning
of strategies to reducethe problem of ghost fishing.
Conclusion
Here we provided a broad survey of aquatic groups
affected by ghost nets in the Mediterranean region.
We identified large number of entangled species
from numerous Mediterranean countries. This is a
clear indication that, despite limitations, social media
is an effective tool to be used to access the negative
effects of ghost nets. Finally, we believe our study
will serve as a basis forconservation actions in the
Mediterranean.

136
Aquat Ecol (2024) 58:131–137
1 3
Vol:. (1234567890)
Acknowledgements We are grateful to Donald C. Taphorn
for suggestions on the manuscript.
Authors’ contribution JFP: Writing—original draft, Writ-
ing—review & editing, Data curation, Formal analysis. TG:
Formal analysis, Writing—review & editing. EA: Formal
analysis, Writing—review & editing. JLRF: Writing—review
& editing. CVS: Writing—review & editing. MSA: Formal
analysis, Writing—review & editing. VMAS: Conceptualiza-
tion, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing—original draft,
Writing—review & editing.
Funding JFP was supported by São Paulo Research Founda-
tion—FAPESP [grant number 2019/01308–5]. TG was sup-
ported by National Council for Scientific and Technological
Development (CNPq # 311078/2019–2).
Declarations
Conflict of interest None.
References
Adelir-Alves J, Rocha GRA, Souza TF, Pinheiro PC, Freire
KMF (2016) Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fish-
ing gears in rocky reefs of Southern Brazil. Braz J Ocean-
ogr 64(4):427–434. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1590/ s1679- 87592
01612 48064 04
Andrades R, Trindade PAA, Giarrizzo T (2021) A novel facet
of the impact of plastic pollution on fish: silver croaker
(Plagioscion squamosissimus) suffocated by a plas-
tic bag in the Amazon estuary Brazil. Mar Pollut Bull
166:112197. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. marpo lbul. 2021.
112197
Angiolillo M, Fortibuoni T (2020) Impacts of marine litter on
Mediterranean reef systems: from shallow to deep waters.
Front Mar Sci 7:581966. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fmars.
2020. 581966
Angiolillo M, di Lorenzo B, Farcomeni A, Bo M, Bavestrello
G, Santangelo G, Canese S (2015) Distribution and
assessment of marine debris in the deep Tyrrhenian Sea
(NW Mediterranean Sea, Italy). Mar Pollut Bull 92:149–
159. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. marpo lbul. 2014. 12. 044
Ayaz A, Acarli D, Altinagac U, Ozekinci U, Kara A, Ozen
O (2006) Ghost fishing by monofilament and multifila-
ment gillnets in Izmir Bay, Turkey. Fish Res 79:267–271.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. fishr es. 2006. 03. 029
Azevedo-Santos VM, Marques LM, Teixeira CR, Giarrizzo
T, Barreto R, Rodrigues-Filho JL (2021) Digital media
reveal negative impacts of ghost nets on Brazilian marine
biodiversity. Mar Pollut Bull 172:112821. https:// doi. org/
10. 1016/j. marpo lbul. 2021. 112821
Azevedo-Santos VM, Hughes RM, Pelicice FM (2022) Ghost
nets: a poorly known threat to Brazilian freshwater biodi-
versity. An Acad Bras Ciênc 94:e20201189. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1590/ 0001- 37652 02120 201189
Barbosa-Filho ML, Seminara CI, Tavares DC, Siciliano S,
Hauser-Davis RA, da Silva MJ (2020) Artisanal fisher per-
ceptions on ghost nets in a tropical South Atlantic marine
biodiversity hotspot: challenges to traditional fishing cul-
ture and implications for conservation strategies. Ocean
Coast Manag 192:105189. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. oceco
aman. 2020. 105189
Battisti C, Kroha S, Kozhuharova E, De Michelis S, Fanelli G,
Poeta G, Pietrelli L, Cerfolli F (2019) Fishing lines and
fish hooks as neglected marine litter: first data on chemical
composition, densities, and biological entrapment from
a Mediterranean beach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:1000–
1007. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11356- 018- 3753-9
Beneli TM, Pereira PHC, Nunes JACC, Barros F (2020) Ghost
fishing impacts on hydrocorals and associated reef fish
assemblages. Mar Environ Res 161:105129. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1016/j. maren vres. 2020. 105129
Casale P (2011) Sea turtle by-catch in the Mediterranean. Fish
Fish 12:299–316. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1467- 2979.
2010. 00394.x
Consoli P, Sinopoli M, Deidun A, Canese S, Berti C, Andal-
oro F, Romeo T (2020) The impact of marine litter from
fish aggregation devices on vulnerable marine benthic
habitats of the central Mediterranean sea. Mar Pollut Bull
152:110928. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. marpo lbul. 2020.
110928
Ferraz JD, Garcia DAZ, Casimiro ACR, Yabu MHS, Geller IV,
Magalhães ALB, Vidotto-Magnoni AP, Orsi ML (2019)
Descarte de peixes ornamentais em águas continentais
brasileiras registrados no youtubeTM: ausência de infor-
mação ou crime ambiental deliberado? Rev Bras Zoociên-
cias 20:1–20. https:// doi. org/ 10. 34019/ 2596- 3325. 2019.
v20. 26202
Ferrazi R, Correia-Silva G, Bonan MEP, Giarrizzo T, Silva CV,
Fearnside PM, Azevedo-Santos VM (2022) Unregulated
sales of fishing nets: consequences and possible solutions
in Brazil. Environ Conserv 1–4. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/
S0376 89292 20002 73
Giglio VJ, Luiz OJ, Gerhardinger LC (2015) Depletion of
marine megafauna and shifting baselines among artisa-
nal fishers in eastern Brazil. Anim Conserv 18:348–358.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ acv. 12178
Houard T, Boudouresque CF, Barcelo A, Cottalorda JM, For-
mentin JY, Jullian E, Kerlidou B, Pironneau E (2012)
Occurrence of a lost fishing net within the marine area of
the Port-Cros national Park (Provence, northwestern Med-
iterranean sea). Sci Rep Port-Cros natl Park 26:109–118
Iriarte V, Marmontel M (2013) River dolphin (Inia geoffrensis,
Sotalia fluviatilis) mortality events attributed to artisanal
fisheries in the Western Brazilian Amazon. Aquat Mamm
39:116–124. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1578/ AM. 39.2. 2013. 116
IUCN (2021) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Ver-
sion 2021–3. https:// www. iucnr edlist. org. Accessed on
[14 December 2021]
Leis MO, Devillers R, Medeiros RP, Chuenpagdee R (2019)
Mapping fishers’ perceptions of marine conservation in
Brazil: an exploratory approach. Ocean Coast Manag
167:32–41. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. oceco aman. 2018. 09.
017
Lewison RL, Crowder LB, Read AJ, Freeman SA (2004)
Understanding impacts of fisheries bycatch on marine
megafauna. Trends Ecol Evol 19:598–604. https:// doi. org/
10. 1016/j. tree. 2004. 09. 004

137
Aquat Ecol (2024) 58:131–137
1 3
Vol.: (0123456789)
Link J, Segal B, Casarini LM (2019) Abandoned, lost or oth-
erwise discarded fishing gear in Brazil: a review. PECON
17:1–8. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. pecon. 2018. 12. 003
Louisy P (2020) Guida all’identificazione dei pesci d’Europa e
del Mediterraneo, 512 pp
Macfadyen G, Huntington T, Cappell R (2009) Abandoned,
lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear. In: UNEP
regional seas reports and studies No.185; FAO fisheries
and aquaculture technical paper, No. 523. UNEP/FAO,
Rome, p 115
Magalhães AL, Azevedo-Santos VM, Pelicice FM (2021)
Caught in the act: youtube™ reveals invisible fish inva-
sion pathways in Brazil. J Appl Ichthyol 37:125–128.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jai. 14159
Mauri M, Elli T, Caviglia G, Uboldi G, Azzi M (2017) RAW-
Graphs: a visualisation platform to create open outputs.
In: Proceedings of the 12th Biannual conference on Ital-
ian SIGCHI chapter (p. 28:1–28:5). ACM, New York, NY,
USA. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 31255 71. 31255 85
McLean HE, Jaebker LM, Anderson AM, Teel TL, Bright
AD, Shwiff SA, Carlisle KM (2021) Social media as a
window into human-wildlife interactions and zoonotic
disease risk: an examination of wild pig hunting vid-
eos on youtube. Hum Dimens Wildl. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1080/ 10871 209. 2021. 19502 40
Moschino V, Riccato F, Fiorin R, Nesto N, Picone M, Boldrin
A, Da Ros L (2019) Is derelict fishing gear impacting
the biodiversity of the Northern Adriatic sea? An answer
from unique biogenic reefs. Sci Total Environ 663:387–
399. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. scito tenv. 2019. 01. 363
Otsuka R, Yamakoshi G (2020) Analyzing the popularity of
youtube videos that violate mountain gorilla tourism regu-
lations. PLoS ONE 15:e0232085. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/
journ al. pone. 02320 85
Ozyurt CE, Buyukdeveci F, Kiyaga VB (2017) Ghost fishing
effects of lost bottom trammel nets in a storm: a simula-
tion. Fresenius Environ Bull 26:8109–8118
Pace DS, Miragliuolo A, Mussi B (2008) Behaviour of a social
unit of sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) entangled
in a driftnet off Capo Palinuro (Southern Tyrrhenian sea,
Italy). J Cetacean Res Manag 10:131–135
Palomares MLD, Pauly D (2021) SeaLifeBase. World Wide
Web electronic publication www. seali febase. org, version
(12/2021)
Parton KJ, Galloway TS, Godley BJ (2019) Global review of
shark and ray entanglement in anthropogenic marine
debris. Endang Species Res 39:173–190. https:// doi. org/
10. 3354/ esr00 964
Pinheiro LM, Junior EL, Denuncio P, Machado R (2021) Fish-
ing plastics: a high occurrence of marine litter in surf-
zone trammel nets of Southern Brazil. Mar Pollut Bull
173:112946. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. marpo lbul. 2021.
112946
Ramesh CH, Koushik S, Shunmugaraj T, Ramana Murthy MV
(2019) Mortality of sea turtles Chelonia mydas and Lepi-
dochelys olivacea due to entanglement in fishing nets, in
Mandapam region. Int J Curr Res 11:3660–3662. https://
doi. org/ 10. 24941/ ijcr. 35256. 05. 2019
Ramirez-Llodra E, De Mol B, Company JB, Coll M, Sardà F
(2013) Effects of natural and anthropogenic processes in
the distribution of marine litter in the deep Mediterra-
nean sea. Prog Oceanogr 118:273–287. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. pocean. 2013. 07. 027
Santos AJ, Bellini C, Bortolon LF, Coluchi R (2012) Ghost
nets haunt the olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea)
near the Brazilian islands of Fernando de Noronha and
Atol das Rocas. Herpetol Rev 43:245–246
Sbragaglia V, Correia RA, Coco S, Arlinghaus R (2020) Data
mining on youtube reveals fisher group-specific harvest-
ing patterns and social engagement in recreational anglers
and spearfishers. ICES J Mar Sci 77:2234–2244. https://
doi. org/ 10. 31230/ osf. io/ fd9yh
Spirkovski Z, Ilik-Boeva D, Ritterbusch D, Peveling R, Piet-
rock M (2019) Ghost net removal in ancient Lake Ohrid: a
pilot study. Fish Res 211:46–50. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
fishr es. 2018. 10. 023
Stelfox M, Hudgins J, Sweet M (2016) A review of ghost gear
entanglement amongst marine mammals, reptiles and
elasmobranchs. Mar Pollut Bull 111:6–17. https:// doi. org/
10. 1016/j. marpo lbul. 2016. 06. 034
Stelfox M, Burian A, Shanker K, Rees AF, Jean C, Wilson MS,
Manik NA, Sweet M (2020) Tracing the origin of olive
ridley turtles entangled in ghost nets in the Maldives: a
phylogeographic assessment of populations at risk. Biol
Conserv 245:108499. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. biocon.
2020. 108499
Trainito E, Baldacconi R (2021) Atlante di flora e fauna del
Mediterraneo. Guida alla biodiversità degli ambienti
marini. Il Castello. 448 p
Tschernij V, Larsson PO (2003) Ghost fishing by lost cod gill
nets in the Baltic sea. Fish Res 64:151–162. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1016/ S0165- 7836(03) 00214-5
Vitorino H, Ferrazi R, Correia-Silva G, Tinti F, Belizário AC,
Amaral FA, Ottoni FP, Silva CV, Giarrizzo T, Arcifa MS,
Azevedo-Santos VM (2022) New treaty must address
ghost fishing gear. Science 376(6598):1169–1169. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1126/ scien ce. adc92 54
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this
article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other
rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript
version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such
publishing agreement and applicable law.

Supplementary Material
Table S1 – Examples of groups found entangled in ghost nets in several regions of the world.
Taxon
Species
Common name
Occurrence/number
Region
References
Algae
Laminaria rodriguezii
Bornet, 1888
entanglement
Mediterranean Sea
Consoli et al. (2018)
Annelida
Polychaeta
Spirobranchus
giganteus (Pallas,
1766)
Christmas tree worm
entanglement
Brazil
Atlantic Ocean
de Carvalho-Souza et al. (2018)
Pherecardia striata
(Kinberg, 1857)
Lined firewom
entanglement
Hawaii
Pacific Ocean
Donahue et al. (2001)
Annelida-
Sipuncula
Several spp
entanglement
Hawaii
Pacific Ocean
Donohue et al. (2001)
Echinoderma
ta
Eucidaris tribuloides
(Lamarck, 1816)
Slate pencil urchin
entanglement
Brazil Atlantic Ocean
de Carvalho-Souza et al. (2018)
Ophiocoma erinaceous
Müller and Troschel,
1842
Spiny brittle star
entanglement
Hawaii
Pacific Ocean
Donohue et al. (2001)
Strongylocentrotus
droebachiensis(O.F.
Müller, 1776)
Green sea urchin
entanglement
1
USA
Pacific Ocean
Gilardi et al. (2010)
Mesocentrotus
franciscanus (A.
Agassiz, 1863)
Red sea urchin
entanglement
1
USA
Pacific Ocean
Gilardi et al. (2010)
Strongylocentrotus
droebachiensis (O.F.
Müller, 1776)
Green sea urchin
entanglement
817 alive
55 dead
USA
Pacific Ocean
Good et al. (2010)
Mesocentrotus
franciscanus (A.
Agassiz, 1863)
Red sea urchin
290 alive
4 dead
USA
Pacific Ocean
Good et al. (2010)

Pyncnopodia
helianthoides (Brandt,
1835)
Sunflower star
163 alive
21 dead
USA
Pacific Ocean
Good et al. (2010)
Henricia leviuscula
(Stimpson, 1857)
Blood star
598 alive
14 dead
USA
Pacific Ocean
Good et al. (2010)
Henricia
sanguinolenta (O.F.
Müller, 1776)
Fat Henricia
7 alive
1 dead
USA
Pacific Ocean
Good et al. (2010)
Apostichopus
californicus
(Stimpson, 1857)
California sea
cucumber
503 alive
0 dead
USA
Pacific Ocean
Good et al. (2010)
Ophiopholis aculeata
(Linnaeus, 1767)
Daisy brittle star
100 alive
0 dead
USA
Pacific Ocean
Good et al. (2010)
Orthasterias koehleri
(deLoriol, 1897)
Painted star
90 alive
0 dead
USA
Pacific Ocean
Good et al. (2010)
Pisaster brevispinus
(Stimpson, 1857)
Spiny pink star
11 alive
0 dead
USA
Pacific Ocean
Good et al. (2010)
Cucumaria miniata
(Brandt, 1835)
Orange sea cucumber
10 alive
0 dead
USA
Pacific Ocean
Good et al. (2010)
Evasterias troschelii
(Stimpson, 1862)
Mottled star
9 alive
0 dead
USA
Pacific Ocean
Good et al. (2010)
Luidia foliolata Grube,
1866
Spiny mud star
3 alive
0 dead
USA
Pacific Ocean
Good et al. (2010)
Solaster stimpsoni
Verrill, 1880
Striped sunstar
2 alive
0 dead
USA
Pacific Ocean
Good et al. (2010)
Mediaster aequialis
Stimpson, 1857
Vermilion sea star
2 alive
0 dead
USA
Pacific Ocean
Good et al. (2010)
Strongylocentrotus
purpuratus (Stimpson,
1857)
Purple sea urchin
2 alive
0 dead
USA
Pacific Ocean
Good et al. (2010)
Stylasterias forreri
(deLoriol, 1887)
Long ray star
1 alive
0 dead
USA
Pacific Ocean
Good et al. (2010)

Gephyreaster swifti
(Fisher, 1905)
Gunpowder star
1 alive
0 dead
USA
Pacific Ocean
Good et al. (2010)
Crossaster papposus
(Linnaeus, 1767)
Rose star
1 alive
0 dead
USA
Pacific Ocean
Good et al. (2010)
Astrospartus
mediterraneus (Risso,
1826)
Basket star
entanglement
Portugal
Atlantic Ocean
Oliveira et al. (2015)
Centrostephanus
longispinus (Philippi,
1845)
Haptin
urchin
entanglement
Portugal
Atlantic Ocean
Oliveira et al. (2015)
Cidaris
cidaris (Linnaeus,
1758)
Long-spine slate pen
sea urchin
entanglement
Portugal
Atlantic Ocean
Oliveira et al. (2015)
Leptometra celtica
(M'Andrew and
Barrett, 1857)
Feather star
entanglement
Portugal
Atlantic Ocean
Oliveira et al. (2015)
Porifera
Aphrocallistes vastus
Schulze, 1886
Cloud sponge
entanglement
5 alive
0 dead
USA
Pacific Ocean
Good et al. (2010)
Suberities subarea
(Montagu, 1814)
Hermit crab sponge
entanglement
2 alive
0 dead
USA
Pacific Ocean
Good et al. (2010)
Desmapsamma
anchorata (Carter,
1882)
Lumpy overgrowing
sponge
entanglement
Brazil
Atlantic Ocean
de Carvalho-Souza et al. (2018)
Callyspongia sp.
entanglement
Brazil
Atlantic Ocean
de Carvalho-Souza et al. (2018)
Craniella villosa
Lambe, 1893
Tennis ball sponge
9 alive
0 dead
USA
Pacific Ocean
Good et al. (2010)
Non-identified
sponges
tissue abrasion
USA Atlantic Ocean
Chiappone et al. (2002)

Non-identified
sponges
tissue abrasion
USA Atlantic Ocean
Chiappone et al. (2005)
Aplysina insularis
(Duchassaing and
Michelotti, 1864)
Yellow candle
sponge
entanglement
Brazil Atlantic Ocean
de Carvalho-Souza et al. (2018)
Agelas oroides
(Schmidt, 1864)
Orange crater sponge
smothering
Mediteranean Sea
Gerovasileiou et al. (2018)
Aplysina
aerophoba (Nardo,
1833)
Aureate sponge
smothering
Mediteranean Sea
Gerovasileiou et al. (2018)
Sarcotragus foetidus
Schmidt, 1862
Dark stinging sponge
smothering
Mediteranean Sea
Gerovasileiou et al. (2018)
Asconema setubalense
Kent, 1870
Glass sponge
entanglement
Portugal
Atlantic Ocean
Oliveira et al. (2015)
Pseudotrachya
hystrix (Topsent,
1890)
entanglement
Azores
Atlantic Ocean
Rodríguez and Pham (2017)
Chordata
Tunicata
Boltenia villosa
(Stimpson, 1864)
Stalked hairy sea
squirt
entanglement
1591 alive
1 dead
USA
Pacific Ocean
Good et al. (2010)

References
Chiappone M, White A, Swanson DW, Miller SL (2002) Occurrence and biological impacts of
fishing gear and other marine debris in the Florida Keys. Mar Pollut Bull 44: 597-604.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(01)00290-9
Chiappone M, Dienes H, Swanson DW, Miller SL (2005) Impacts of lost fishing gear on coral
reef sessile invertebrates in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Biol Conserv
121: 221-230. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.biocon.2004.04.023
Consoli P, Andaloro F, Altobelli C, Battaglia P, Campagnuolo S, Canese S, Castriota L, Cillari
T, Falautano M, Pedà C, Perzia P, Sinopoli M, Vivona P, Scotti G, Esposito V, Galgani
F, Romeo T (2018) Marine litter in an EBSA (Ecologically or Biologically Significant
Area) of the central Mediterranean Sea: Abundance, composition, impact on benthic
species and basis for monitoring entanglement. Environ Pollut 236: 405-415.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.01.097
de Carvalho-Souza GF, Llope M, Tinôco MS, Medeiros DV, Maia-Nogueira R, Sampaio CLS
(2018) Marine litter disrupts ecological processes in reef systems. Mar Pollut Bull 133:
464-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.05.049
Donahue MJ, Boland RC, Sramek CM, Antonelis GA (2001) Derelict fishing gear in the
northwestern Hawaiian Islands: diving surveys and debris removal in 1999 confirm
threats to coral reef ecosystems. Mar Pollut Bull 42:1301-1312.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0025-326x(01)00139-4
Gerovasileiou V, Dailianis T, Sini M, Otero MDM, Numa C, Katsanevakis S, Voultsiadou E
(2018) Assessing the regional conservation status of sponges (Porifera): the case of the
Aegean ecoregion. Mediterr Mar Sci http://dx.doi.org/10.12681/mms.14461.
Gilardi KVK, Carlson-Bremer D, June JA, Antonelis K, Broadhurst G, Cowan T (2010) Marine
species mortality in derelict fishing nets in Puget Sound, WA and the cost/benefits of
derelict net removal. Mar Pollut Bull 60:376-382.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.10.016
Good TP, June JA, Etnier MA, Broadhurst G (2010) Derelict fishing nets in Puget Sound and the
Northwest Straits: Patterns and threats to marine fauna. Mar Pollut Bull 60:39-50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.09.005
Oliveira F, Monteiro P, Bentes L, Henriques NS, Aguilar R, Gonçalves JMS (2015) Marine litter
in the upper São Vicente submarine canyon (SW Portugal): Abundance, distribution,
composition and fauna interactions. Mar Pollut Bull 97:401-407.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.05.060
Rodríguez Y, Pham CK (2017) Marine litter on the seafloor of the Faial-Pico Passage, Azores
Archipelago. Mar Pollut Bull 116:448-453.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.01.018

Table S2 – Species found entangled in ghost nets in Mediterranean marine ecosystems (based on digital media). Code represents the number of
the video listed in the Supplementary Material. NE- not evaluated, DD - data deficient, LC - least concern, VU - vulnerable, EN – endangered.
Taxon
Species
Common
name
Occurence
Conservation
Status (IUCN)
Country
Region
Year
Key
references
Fishes
Balistes capriscus
Gmelin, 1789
Gray
Triggerfish
1
VU
Turkey
Marmaris
2019
90
Bothus podas (Delaroche,
1809)
Wide-eyed
Flounder
1
LC
Greece
Makronisos
2016
112
Chelidonichthys sp.
1
Croatia
NA
2019
20
Chromis chromis
(Linnaeus, 1758)
Damselfish
1
LC
Italy
NA
2009
47
Conger
conger (Linnaeus, 1758)
Conger Eel
2
LC
France
NA
2013
45
Italy
Chioggia
2012
48
Dasyatis pastinaca
(Linnaeus, 1758)
Common
Stingray
3
VU
Croatia
NA
2019
20, 21
Israel
NA
2014
103
Dentex dentex (Linnaeus,
1758)
Common
Dentex
3
VU
Greece
Korinthian
Gulf
2017
9
Greece
Stratoni
2019
39
Algeria
Oran
2018
44
Diplodus puntazzo
(Walbaum, 1792)
Sharpsnout
Seabream
1
LC
Spain
NA
2015
25

Table S2 – continued
Taxon
Species
Common
name
Occurence
Conservation
Status (IUCN)
Country
Region
Year
Key
references
Fishes
Diplodus sargus
(Linnaeus, 1758)
White
Seabream
7
LC
Malta
NA
2016
23
Spain
NA
2015
25
NA
2021
26
France
St Raphael
2014
42
Italy
Sassari
2020
64
Turkey
NA
2020
91
Hatay
2020
93
Diplodus vulgaris
(Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire,
1817)
Common
Two-banded
Seabream
3
LC
Croatia
NA
2019
20
Italy
Calafuria
2017
80
Spain
Marina Del
Este
2019
113
Epinephelus
costae (Steindachner,
1878)
Goldblotch
Grouper
2
DD
Italy
NA
2012
71
Turkey
NA
2020
89, 96
Hatay
2020
93

Table S2 – continued
Taxon
Species
Common
name
Occurence
Conservation
Status (IUCN)
Country
Region
Year
Key
references
Fishes
Epinephelus
marginatus (Lowe, 1834)
Dusky
Grouper
9
VU
Turkey
Gokova Bay
2013
14
Spain
Costa Brava
2020
28
Algeria
Oran
2018
44
Italy
NA
2013
61, 67
Portofino
2021
69
NA
2017
86
Turkey
Marmaris
2019
90
Adrasan to
Büyükada
2019
92
Israel
NA
2016
105
Epinephelus sp.
2
Turkey
Marmaris
2019
90
NA
2020
91
Euthynnus
alletteratus (Rafinesque,
1810)
Little Tunny
1
LC
Turkey
Adrasan to
Büyükada
2019
92

Table S2 – continued
Taxon
Species
Common
name
Occurence
Conservation
Status (IUCN)
Country
Region
Year
Key
references
Fishes
Fistularia
commersonii Rüppell,
1838
Bluespotted
Cornetfish
2
LC
Turkey
NA
2020
91
Adrasan to
Büyükada
2019
92
Hippocampus
guttulatus Cuvier, 1829
Long-snouted
seahorse
2
DD
Greece
NA
2019
1
Stratoni
2019
39
Hippocampus
hippocampus (Linnaeus,
1758)
Short-snouted
Seahorse
1
DD
Italy
NA
2020
84
Muraena
helena Linnaeus, 1758
Black Moray
3
LC
Montenegro
Ulcinj
2020
12
Italy
Portofino
2021
69
Turkey
NA
2020
91
Oblada
melanura (Linnaeus,
1758)
Saddled
Seabream
4
LC
Italy
Sardegna
2019
60
Turkey
Hatay
2020
93
Greece
Corfu
2020
107
Croatia
Kvarner Bay
2019
111

Table 2 – continued
Taxon
Species
Common
name
Occurence
Conservation
Status (IUCN)
Country
Region
Year
Key
references
Fishes
Parupeneus
forsskali (Fourmanoir &
Guézé, 1976)
Dash-and-dot
Goatfish
1
LC
Lebanon
NA
2021
106
Phycis phycis (Linnaeus,
1766)
Forkbeard
2
LC
Spain
Costa Brava
2020
28
Algeria
Oran
2018
44
Rhincodon typus Smith,
1828
Whale Shark
1
EN
Italy
NA
2017
81
Sargocentron
rubrum (Forsskål, 1775)
Redcoat
3
LC
Turkey
NA
2021
17
2020
91
Adrasan to
Büyükada
2019
92
Sarpa salpa (Linnaeus,
1758)
Karanteen
1
LC
Italy
NA
2011
58
Scyliorhinus
stellaris (Linnaeus, 1758)
Nursehound
3
VU
Italy
Elba
2018
8
Chioggia
2014
59
Croatia
NA
2011
101
Scorpaena sp.
2
Spain
NA
2019
32
Marina Del
Este
2019
113

Table S2 – continued
Taxon
Species
Common
name
Occurence
Conservation
Status (IUCN)
Country
Region
Year
Key
references
Fishes
Scorpaena porcus
Linnaeus, 1758
Black
Scorpionfish
4
LC
Croatia
NA
2019
20
Spain
Costa Brava
2020
28
NA
2020
30
Italy
Napoli
2019
79
Scorpaena scrofa
Linnaeus, 1758
Red
Scorpionfish
6
LC
Spain
NA
2020
30
Girona
2017
31
France,
Spain,
Morocco
NA
2017
46
Italy
NA
2020
55
Napoli
2019
79
Turkey
Marmaris
2019
90
Seriola dumerili (Risso,
1810)
Greater
Amberjack
1
LC
Italy
NA
2020
52
Serranus
cabrilla (Linnaeus, 1758)
Comber
1
LC
Spain
NA
2021
26
2020
30

Table S2 – continued
Taxon
Species
Common
name
Occurence
Conservation
Status (IUCN)
Country
Region
Year
Key
references
Fishes
Serranus
scriba (Linnaeus, 1758)
Painted
Comber
2
LC
Italy
NA
2020
63
Napoli
2019
79
Siganus luridus (Rüppell,
1829)
Dusky
Spinefoot
1
LC
Turkey
Hatay
2020
93
Siganus
rivulatus Forsskål &
Niebuhr, 1775
Marbled
Spinefoot
2
LC
Turkey
NA
2020
91, 94
Symphodus
tinca (Linnaeus, 1758)
East Atlantic
Peacock
Wrasse
2
LC
Italy
NA
2013
53
Spain
Marina Del
Este
2019
113
Sparisoma
cretense (Linnaeus,
1758)
Parrotfish
1
LC
Spain
NA
2015
25
Sparus aurata Linnaeus,
1758
Gilt-head
Seabream
2
LC
Croatia
NA
2019
16, 20
Thunnus
thynnus (Linnaeus, 1758)
Atlantic
Bluefin Tuna
1
LC
Algeria
Oran
2018
44
Trachinus
radiatus Cuvier, 1829
Starry
Weever
1
LC
Croatia
NA
2019
20

Table S2 – continued
Taxon
Species
Common
name
Occurence
Conservation
Status (IUCN)
Country
Region
Year
Key
references
Fishes
Trachurus sp.
1
Spain
Marina Del
Este
2019
113
Trisopterus
minutus (Linnaeus, 1758)
Poor cod
1
NE
Italy
Tegnue di
Chioggia
2013
85
Uranoscopus
scaber Linnaeus, 1758
Atlantic
Stargazer
7
LC
Croatia
NA
2020
,
2019
,
2011
7, 16, 20,
101
Kvarner Bay
2019
111
Italy
Strait of
Messina
2017
65
Turkey
NA
2020
89
Spain
Marina Del
Este
2019
113
Xiphias
gladius Linnaeus, 1758
Swordfish
1
LC
NA
NA
2019
2
Other
vertebrates
Balaenoptera
physalus (Linnaeus,
1758)
Fin Whale
2
VU
Italy
NA
2017
73
2016
78

Table S2 – continued
Taxon
Species
Common
name
Occurence
Conservation
Status (IUCN)
Country
Region
Year
Key
references
Other
vertebrates
Caretta caretta
(Linnaeus, 1758)
Loggerhead
Turtle
5
LC
France
Nice
2019
34
Italy
NA
2020
63, 66
Punta
Campanella
2021
72
NA
2015
74
Turkey
NA
2020
91
Delphinus
delphis Linnaeus, 1758
Common
Dolphin
2
LC
Algeria
Oran
2018
44
Greece
Akrotiri
2020
99
Dermochelys coriacea
(Vandelli, 1761)
Leatherback
turtle
1
VU
NA
NA
2020
13
Phalacrocorax
aristotelis (Linnaeus,
1761)
European
Shag
1
LC
Turkey
Çubuklu
2020
97
Phalacrocorax
carbo (Linnaeus, 1758)
Great
Cormorant
3
LC
Italy
NA
2020
55
Turkey
NA
2020
96
2019
98

Table S2 – continued
Taxon
Species
Common
name
Occurence
Conservation
Status (IUCN)
Country
Region
Year
Key
references
Other
vertebrates
Physeter
macrocephalus Linnaeus,
1758
Sperm whale
5
EN
Italy
Eolie
2020
4, 6, 27, 36,
40, 99
Naples
2004
5
Calabria
2013
70
Polmarola
2019
76, 77
Turkey
Marmaris
2019
90
Tursiops
truncatus (Montagu,
1821)
Common
Bottlenose
Dolphin
2
LC
Italy
Procida
2020
82
NA
2016
83
Bryozoa
Myriapora
truncata (Pallas, 1766)
1
NE
Italy
Santa
Margherita
Ligure e
Camogli
2021
88
Crustacea
Atergatis
roseus (Rüppell, 1830)
1
NE
Turkey
NA
2021
17

Table S2 – continued
Taxon
Species
Common
name
Occurence
Conservation
Status (IUCN)
Country
Region
Year
Key
references
Crustacea
Callinectes sapidus
Rathbun, 1896
Blue crab
1
NE
Turkey
Adana
Karataş
2020
15
Dromia
personata (Linnaeus,
1758)
Sleepy crab
1
NE
Algeria
Oran
2018
44
Eriphia
verrucosa (Forskål,
1775)
Yellow round
crab
3
NE
Croatia
NA
2019
16, 20
Israel
Jaffa
2019
102
Galathea
strigosa (Linnaeus, 1761)
Blue striped
squat lobster
2
NE
Greece
NA
2019
18
Croatia
NA
2011
101
Liocarcinus sp.
1
Turkey
NA
2020
89
Maja crispata Risso,
1827
Lesser spider
crab
3
NE
Italy
Aeolian
Islands
2018
11, 75
Sicilia
2020
50
Maja squinado (Herbst,
1788)
Spinous
spider crab
5
NE
Croatia
NA
2019
16, 20
Kvarner Bay
2019
111
Spain
NA
2021
26
NA
NA
2020
43

Table S2 – continued
Taxon
Species
Common
name
Occurence
Conservation
Status (IUCN)
Country
Region
Year
Key
references
Crustacea
Maja squinado (Herbst,
1788)
Spinous
spider crab
5
NE
Italy
Strait of
Messina
2017
65
Maja sp.
2
Italy
Tegnue di
Chioggia
2013
85
Greece
Evia
2017
108
Palinurus elephas (JC
Fabricius, 1787)
Common
Spiny
Lobster
5
VU
Spain
NA
2021
26
Cap de Creus
2020
29
France
NA
2020
37
Italy
Sassari
2020
64
Turkey
NA
2020
95
Pisa muscosa (Linnaeus,
1758)
1
NE
France
Calanques
National Park
2020
40
Portunus segnis (Forskål,
1775)
1
NE
Israel
Jaffa
2019
102

Table S2 – continued
Taxon
Species
Common
name
Occurence
Conservation
Status (IUCN)
Country
Region
Year
Key
references
Crustacea
Scyllarus
arctus (Linnaeus, 1758)
Small
European
Locust
Lobster
4
LC
Greece
Salamina
2017
3
Spain
Girona
2015
24
France
Calanques
National
Park
2020
40
Italy
Napoli
2019
79
Scyllarides
latus (Latreille, 1803)
Mediterranea
n Slipper
Lobster
11
DD
Greece
NA
2019
18
Spain
Costa
Brava
2020
28
France
Nice
2020
38
Italy
NA
2012
54
2011
56
2013
57
2016
62
2008
68
Turkey
Marmaris
2019
90
Israel
Poleg
2017
104
Greece
Fournoi
2018
111

Table S2 – continued
Taxon
Species
Common
name
Occurence
Conservation
Status (IUCN)
Country
Region
Year
Key
references
Crustacea
Xantho
granulicarpus Forest in
Drach & Forest, 1953
1
NE
Greece
Evia
2016
109
Cnidaria
Aurelia aurita (Linnaeus,
1758)
Moon Jelly
1
NE
Turkey
NA
2019
98
Cerianthus
membranaceus (Gmelin,
1791)
Tube
dwelling
anemone
1
NE
France
NA
2017
35
Eunicella
singularis (Esper, 1791)
Singular sea
fan
1
NE
Spain
NA
2021
26
Paramuricea
clavata (Risso, 1826)
Small
polyped
gorgonian
3
NE
Italy
Portofino
2013
10
Sicily
2021
87
Santa
Margherita
Ligure e
Camogli
2021
88
Rhizostoma
pulmo (Macri, 1778)
Barrel
jellyfish
1
NE
Croatia
NA
2019
20

Table S2 – continued
Taxon
Species
Common
name
Occurenc
e
Conservation
Status
(IUCN)
Country
Region
Year
Key
references
Echinodermata
Astrospartus
mediterraneus (Risso,
1826)
1
NE
France
Nice
2019
34
Holoturia sp.
2
Croatia
NA
2019
16
France
Calanques
National
Park
2020
40
Marthasterias
glacialis (Linnaeus,
1758)
Spiny
starfish
1
NE
Turkey
NA
2019
98
Ophidiaster
ophidianus (Lamarck,
1816)
Purple
seastar
1
NE
Greece
Lichadonisi
a
2019
22
Ophioderma
longicaudum (Bruzelius
, 1805)
1
NE
Greece
Stratoni
2019
19
Sphaerechinus
granularis (Lamarck,
1816)
1
NE
France
Gulf of
Lion
2016
33

Table S2 – continued
Taxon
Species
Common
name
Occurenc
e
Conservation
Status
(IUCN)
Country
Region
Year
Key
references
Mollusca
Loligo vulgaris Lamarck,
1798
European squid
2
DD
Spain
Costa
Brava
2020
28
France
Calanques
National
Park
2020
40
Mimachlamys
varia (Linnaeus, 1758)
Variegated
scallop
1
NE
Greece
Corfu
2020
107
Mytilus
galloprovincialis Lamarck
, 1819
Mediterranean
mussel
1
NE
Italy
NA
2019
51
Octopus vulgaris Cuvier,
1797
Common
octopus
1
LC
Spain
NA
2021
26
Sepia officinalis Linnaeus,
1758
Common
cuttlefish
2
LC
Algeria
NA
2018
41
Greece
Makronisos
2016
112
Porifera
Aplysina sp.
1
Turkey
NA
2021
17
Tunicata
Clavelina sp.
1
Italy
NA
2019
51
Algae
Padina
pavonica (Linnaeus)
Thivy, 1960
Peacocks tail
1
NE
Italy
Costa
Salentina
2014
48

Key references
1 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MoqlWuH2l4
2 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vpeDfoPFDs
3 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tmhHhLmUr0
4 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5Qv8E_43d8
5 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsA7iGGhvEc
6 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmzxq1HUpjQ
7 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR97V8CMLV4
8 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJdepgDqQv8
9 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGJ3OQiiqxQ
10 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcsEq2kf8H4
11 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2kXMHjSH-o
12 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP8DAxj8Hlo
13 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUJaFGbFhW4
14 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcfufRx0QA8
15 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwSVYdgRQKw
16 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdcs469iOsc
17 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9apCWAtz3WM
18 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DSvykjP7BQ
19 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRbZE9l0dA0
20 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSITDBGytf4
21 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmkkjDzpngs
22 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtDxepYj1kU
23 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b57mbLD8RY
24 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYL63CzVOiM
25 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqJH-GgpzOA
26 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7euTb5EjG0
27 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_2IWb3zQfk
28 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U3CHiukpdU
29 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPm4N2x9K3g
30 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dm2NGbDUWQ
31 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5JG5NcmCv0

32 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5QkEwAW8Qw
33 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpvCg_-5hIk
34 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVYSneX-BX0
35 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fulz039tzTQ
36 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLlFUtEid6c
37 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2hLoIhOKco
38 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPdvVO52hNo
39 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hFGC8iCepk
40 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLaxmwmqSZc
41 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWJQlKAex30
42 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuAGM88BZ-M
43 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am65TONjtcQ
44 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cYhpCmxatA
45 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlSdyxvGwUM
46 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqVALBb9ep8
47 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69-yQQJVlPA
48 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc5ZhDO33VI
49 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r12Ef2D7aUk
50 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvtOwNqrhB4
51 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdKfyiCdu7E
52 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_1bQDRDl8c
53 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAtajIrjhSo
54 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTgC6MZHwbI
55 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Exv8ymthZE
56 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv-7UOeYHWk
57 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UraFoaYhWYk
58 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJkTOOg9ZEU
59 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRuofxzPxxo
60 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBB5SJ_w4as
61 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsYM9gsb_fo
62 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6DQl23ZqV4
63 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iXPrsqRL74

64 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SvS-o2BR7E
65 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QcvOjqHDk
66 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmYjkwM1lKo
67 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPhuaLPqjjY
68 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZCEAg452FQ
69 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U10Sks0RAMw
70 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyXzmuDQRD0
71 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfau9NymaDY
72 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLWv5CwdeMY
73 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fq1Px1ayqA8
74 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JhKHi_IQjc
75 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhVjsD-kISY
76 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u67t-maqG0
77 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TPMUB0z5UI
78 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1x65tSEI5U
79 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcAMaX-ahQA
80 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHs2jqGJzKE
81 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0S4vsaMNjk
82 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=don7RWNiVKQ
83 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ji9YKSEqDg
84 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjdJrUOr4_I
85 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBYewMNAFhU
86 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpVWtQ_YIw8
87 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MhBmSbrb5I
88 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh1_kJviemA
89 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb1KKsJki8s
90 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2i3wxskQEo
91 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgNcXebu0W0
92 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDqxjx_Q3cw
93 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08XX0dh12r0
94 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhoisXWm-HQ
95 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGK8D1M2OCc

96 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb1KKsJki8s
97 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUDktRPlWVg
98 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obibOzrfohU
99 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG-2DyqnyMs
100 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAGHyvrnMsE
101 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbouZoagKgE
102 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnavbS_GBqo
103 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHjrf5gZ2ts
104 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QW9jgq9Kq3k
105 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMtMYlQ12Qk
106 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDWH_cJbYAw
107 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od0DP3SfzRw
108 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x9c-R-Pw5w
109 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASEt7cHhEPE
110 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ98DRXg4ow
111 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZL0MTo--1k
112 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fnUQgYh0GA
113 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl1K8voP76M