Our paper entitled “Shark conservation hindered by lack of habitat protection” (Birkmanis et al., 2020a), prompted Braccini and Newman to write a reply based on (i) our title, which they thought implied that a global assessment was made, and (ii) their interpretation of our paper “that shark conservation depends predominantly on establishing MPAs in highly suitable habitats”. We clearly state in the Abstract that we “determine suitable habitat for pelagic sharks within the Australian continental Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)” and that our results suggest that “strong fisheries management in addition to MPAs is necessary for pelagic shark conservation”. Braccini and Newman claim that our paper “implies that fisheries management in Australia is not strong”. On the contrary, we specifically state that “Australia has strict fisheries legislation protecting pelagic sharks”. Additionally, the concerns highlighted by Braccini and Newman regarding the inference of shark vulnerability was based on a single (and appropriately cautious) use of the word ‘vulnerability’ in the Abstract (“suitable habitats were found mostly at locations exposed to fishing pressure, potentially increasing the vulnerability of the pelagic shark species considered”). The contextualisation of Braccini and Newman’s comment as a reply to our paper is therefore misconstrued.

我们题为“由于缺乏栖息地保护而受到阻碍的鲨鱼保护”（Birkmanis等人，2020a）的论文促使Braccini和Newman根据（i）我们的标题写了一个答复，他们认为这意味着进行了全球评估，并且（ii）他们对我们的论文“鲨鱼的保护主要取决于在高度合适的栖息地建立MPA”的解释。我们在摘要中明确指出，“我们为澳大利亚大陆专属经济区（EEZ）中的中上鲨确定合适的栖息地”，并且我们的结果表明，“强力的渔业管理以及对MPA而言，对中上层鲨鱼的保护是必要的。Braccini和Newman声称我们的论文“暗示澳大利亚的渔业管理不强”。相反，我们明确指出“澳大利亚有严格的渔业立法保护中上层鲨鱼”。此外，Braccini和Newman强调的关于鲨鱼脆弱性推断的担忧是基于摘要中“脆弱性”一词的单一（适当谨慎）使用（“合适的栖息地主要是在可能遭受捕鱼压力的地方发现的，增加了所考虑的远洋鲨鱼物种的脆弱性”）。因此，布拉奇尼和纽曼的评论语境化作为对我们论文的答复是错误的。