Sharks and rays of the Samoan archipelago: a review of their biological diversity, social and cultural values, and conservation status

Compilation of species list

The study applies a standard methodological approach that has been developed and peer reviewed for the wider Shark-Search Indo-Pacific program (see Hylton et al. 2017; Hari et al. 2021). Following these standard protocols, the primary taxonomic information sources consulted were Sharks of the World (Ebert et al. 2021) and Rays of the World (Last et al. 2016). These references together with other published literature, focusing primarily on local and regional literature was used to compile a list of chondrichthyan species that may be present in Samoan waters, along with their distributions, habitat, biology, and life history traits. Searches of scientific and grey literature were performed using Google Scholar and Web of Science using the search terms: ‘Samoa’; ‘American Samoa’; ‘shark’; ‘ray’; ‘Chondrichthyes’; ‘management’; ‘fishing’; ‘shark sanctuary’; and ‘culture’. In cases where taxonomy of species differed between sources, the most updated taxonomy as listed in the taxonomic databases Fishbase and World Register of Marine Species were used (Froese and Pauly 2022; Horton et al. 2022). Citizen science was also explored through social media accounts of local dive shops (who were engaged and informed of our research), where images of shark and ray species were extracted and identified accordingly. The confidence of each species’ occurrence in Samoa and American Samoa was qualitatively assessed and assigned based on specific criteria outlined by Hari et al. (2021) (Table 1). The six confidence levels were as follows: (1) unlikely; (2) plausible; (3) requires verification; (4) confirmed and verified; (5) provisionally confirmed (pending taxonomic clarification); and (6) unknown – taxonomy unclear.

Data collected for the study included a range of information on each of the species listed. For each species, this included records of occurrences, life history traits, threats, current conservation measures, as well as general information on fisheries in Samoa and America Samoa. To provide an indication of the level of conservation concern for each species, the level of global extinction risk for each species was collated from the IUCN Red List, and listed together with a species’ inclusion as a species of concern in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS). Finally, information on conservation concerns and fishery specific management was collated from the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), and where available, local government policy documents.

Current conservation and management plans and actions surrounding sharks and rays were then examined to identify the major pressures and mitigation efforts for sharks and rays in Samoa and American Samoa. This predominantly focused on fisheries and the existing fisheries management approaches. Additional resources consulted to draw these conclusions were taken from annual fisheries logbook data and bycatch statistics, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) reports, legislative documents regarding Samoa and American Samoa’s management of fisheries and marine resources, and any scientific literature available.

Productivity analysis

To identify the relative vulnerability of the different shark and ray species in Samoan waters, a biological productivity analysis was completed for each species that had sufficient published life history information (see Stobutzki et al. 2001). Due to limits on data availability a full productivity and susceptibility analysis (PSA) that would otherwise include assessing a species’ susceptibility to fishing mortality, was not completed. Although a full PSA would be beneficial, it would require data on life history traits for more species and to quantify susceptibility, would require detailed information on fishing effort and catch rates, as well as catch fate and post release survival (Walker 2005). Unfortunately, these data are not yet available for shark and rays in Samoan waters.

Meanwhile, the biological productivity component of the PSA provides a preliminary assessment of the relative vulnerability of species occurring in the Samoan archipelago based on their biological characteristics, an approach that has been employed for numerous shark and rays species (Dulvy et al. 2014; Pardo and Dulvy 2022). Five female life history traits used in the analysis included maximum size, size at maturity, age at maturity, longevity, and fecundity per year (Stobutzki et al. 2001). Each species was also assigned a trophic level based on their diet according to specific criteria (Table 2). Analysis for sharks (Selcahii) and rays (Batodeia) were completed separately and only species that had information for all five traits were included in the analysis.

Where a range of values were observed for a life history trait, the average of these values was used. For example, Sharks of the World describes female blacktip sharks (Carcharhinus limbatus) as maturing between 120 and 190 cm total length (TL) (Ebert et al. 2021), while the IUCN Red List provides a range of 145–207 cm TL (International Union for Conservation of Nature 2021). Therefore, size at maturity was determined to range from 120 to 207 cm TL, with an average length of 163.5 cm TL. Where values differed drastically between sources, the value from the most recent publication were used. If multiple size ranges were given according to size of populations in geographic locations, the size of the population closest to the Samoan archipelago was used.

Following collation of life history data, a productivity category of 1, 2, or 3 was assigned to each life history trait, where a productivity category value of 1 refers to the most productive (lowest risk), and 3 refers to least productive (highest risk) (Hari et al. 2021). Categories were assigned according to the value of each species trait against the range of values for that trait among all other species in the analysis. For example, maximum sizes of the shark species being analysed was 102.0–1097.0 cm TL, which results in a range of 762.5 cm. This range was then equally divided into three ‘bins’ representing low (small-bodied), moderate (medium-bodied), and high (large-bodied). Therefore, species with maximum sizes of 102.0–433.7 cm TL were assigned a rank of 1, species maximum sizes between 433.8 and 765.5 cm TL were assigned a rank of 2, and species between 765.6 and 1097 cm TL were assigned a rank of 3. This biological productivity analysis was intended to be broad in nature, and compatible to the information available across a range of species to achieve a larger sample size for relative comparisons.

Profiling fisheries

To understand the context of how marine resources including sharks and rays are being affected by human activities, the fisheries of Samoa and American Samoa were profiled by conducting a literature a search using Google Scholar and Web Of Science with the following search terms: ‘Samoa’; ‘American Samoa’; ‘fishery’; ‘commercial’; ‘small-scale’; and ‘subsistence’. Results were presented by fishery sector including subsistence and commercial fisheries.

Species diversity and biological productivity

A total of 67 species were documented for Samoa and American Samoa (Table 3). This consisted of 23 rays and 44 sharks, no chimaeras were reported. For Samoa, four species were classed as ‘confirmed and verified’, 38 as ‘requires verification’ and 25 as ‘plausible’. For American Samoa, only 1 species was ‘confirmed and verified’, 42 were classed as ‘requires verification’ and 25 as ‘plausible’. Species identified included mainly those associated with two habitat categories; approximately 40% of ray species are found in continental shelf/slope habitats and a further 40% are found in inshore habitats, while more than half of the shark species (28 individual species) are found on continental shelf/slope habitats. The checklist available as Supplementary material to this paper, includes information and sources on species occurrence, taxonomy, habitat and conservation threats for each species.

According to the IUCN Red List, most species found in Samoa and American Samoa have globally declining population trends. Four species are listed as Critically Endangered, including the giant guitarfish (Rhynchobatus djiddensis), oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus), scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini) and great hammerhead (Sphyrna mokarran). A total of 12 species are listed as ‘Endangered’, 20 as ‘Vulnerable’, seven as ‘Near Threatened’, while 19 species were listed as ‘Least Concern’. The remaining species, the Coral Sea maskray (Neotrygon cf. trigonoides), the velvet dogfish (Zameus squamulosus), and the crocodile shark (Pseudocarcharias kamoharai) were listed as ‘Data Deficient‘ (International Union for Conservation of Nature 2021). Twenty-six species are listed on at least one of CITES, CMS, or the WCPFC key species list (Table 3). A total of nine species can be found across all three conservation and management instruments, these include the: (1) giant devilray (Mobula mobular); (2) bentfin devilray (Mobula thurstoni); (3) shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus); (4) scalloped hammerhead; (5) bigeye thresher (Alopias superciliosus); (6) pelagic thresher (Alopias pelagicus); (7) whale shark (Rhincodon typus); (8) great hammerhead (Sphyrna mokarran); and (9) thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus).

Twenty-two of the 44 shark species had sufficient life history information to be included in the productivity analysis (Table 4). Five species equally ranked the highest in their productivity, reflected with the lowest risk score of 1.43, these species include: the silvertip shark (C. albimarginatus), silky shark (C. falciformis), bull shark (C. leucas), oceanic whitetip (C. longimanus), and whitetip reef shark (Triaenodon obesus). The white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) and basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) had the lowest productivity with a score of 2.14. Only four species of rays were able to be included in the analysis due to a lack of available life history information for all other ray species (Table 5). The giant devil ray (M. mobular) had the highest productivity score of 1.43 while the reef manta ray (Mobula alfredi) held the lowest productivity score of 2.29.

Fishing activities and behaviours in the Samoan archipelago

Small-scale and commercial fishing are important occupations in both Samoa and American Samoa (Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2018), with both men and women involved in fishing activities (Titii et al. 2014). In 1980, approximately 7860 Samoans were employed through fishery-based work; this increased to 12,500 in 2000 before decreasing to 530 in 2015 (Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2018). Fishing contributes to the culture of Samoan communities. For example, in American Samoa, skipjack tuna (locally referred to as ‘atu’) is seen as a nutritionally and traditionally valued species that is distributed among the community according to ceremonial traditions (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Council 2010).

Fisheries interactions with sharks and rays

Interactions between fisheries and sharks and rays are better documented in the American Samoa commercial fisheries, which have publicly available logbook reports, while shark and ray interactions in Samoa’s commercial fishery are much less understood. A report by the United States Office of the Federal Register (2015) indicates the following shark species to be of potential harvested coral reef taxa in the American Samoa coral reef fishery; grey reef shark (Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos), silvertip shark, Galapagos shark (Carcharhinus galapagensis), blacktip reef shark (Carcharhinus melanopterus) and the whitetip reef shark (T. obesus). An array of shark and ray species are caught as bycatch each year in the American Samoa longline tuna fishery. The American Samoa Longline Limited-entry Fishery Annual Report for 2019 indicates the capture of 3207 individual sharks. These interactions are incidental, and only eight of these individuals were reported to be retained and the remainder released (NOAA et al. 2020). The blue shark (Prionace glauca) accounted for 51% catch, silky shark represented 28% of catch, followed by the oceanic white tip with 12% and mako and thresher species each representing 4% of the total catch (NOAA et al. 2020). Of the eight individuals retained, seven were thresher sharks and one a mako shark (NOAA et al. 2020).

In 2020, COVID-19 affected the deployment of observers onboard fishing trips due to government regulations (McCracken and Cooper 2022). As a result, only one observed trip occurred in 2020 and thus, observer data over the years 2012–2019 were used to estimate the 2020 bycatch estimates (McCracken and Cooper 2022). Total estimated bycatch for sharks was 5125 tonnes, with the majority of bycatch represented by species in the family Carcharinidae (McCracken and Cooper 2022). Blue sharks accounted for 58% of total catch, silky sharks 24%, oceanic white tips 9% and shortfin mako sharks accounted for 4.5% (McCracken and Cooper 2022). The remainder of catch comprised of bigeye and pelagic threshers, Galapagos sharks, longfin and shortfin mako, crocodile sharks, velvet dogfish and smooth and scalloped hammerheads (McCracken and Cooper 2022). Total estimated catch for ray species was 8416 tonnes, with the Pelagic stingray (Pteroplatytrygon violacea) accounting for 99% of the total ray catch (McCracken and Cooper 2022). Other bycatch species include the giant manta ray (Mobula birostris) and giant devil ray (McCracken and Cooper 2022). Giant manta rays, however, are not common bycatch species with three reported catches in 2010 and none in the following consecutive years. According to annual reports of logbooks, majority of shark and ray bycatch are released (NOAA et al. 2020; NOAA and NMFS 2022), however, no information on post release mortality for this fishery exists.

Meanwhile, there is very little information available to indicate any commercial capture (targeted or incidental) of sharks and rays in Samoa. Sharks are caught within the WCPFC jurisdiction (see section ‘Shark and ray management’) and annual reports may include data on shark by-catch. Samoa’s annual report to the WCPFC reports only 27 individual oceanic whitetip sharks being captured in 2021 and 0.03 mt of mako shark (Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries 2022). Aggregate catch data from 2017 to 2021 report very few sharks in the dataset, with 0.2 mt of hammerheads reported in 2020 and 1.0 mt of thresher shark reported in 2017; otherwise, there was no reported catch of blue sharks, hammerhead sharks, silky sharks, and thresher sharks over the 5-year period (Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries 2022).

Shark and ray management

Both Samoa and American Samoa have management in place to protect their marine resources. In 1974, Samoa was the first Pacific Island country to establish a national marine reserve, the Palolo Deep National Marine Reserve (Skelton et al. 2003) and in 2018 created a national shark sanctuary. Marine protected areas have also been established in American Samoa at the federal and local government levels, and also by some communities (Montgomery et al. 2019). Both Samoa and American Samoa are signatories to tCITES, CMS, and members of the FAO.

Social and cultural values of sharks and rays

Little information was retrieved from Google Scholar or Web of Science about the social and cultural values of sharks and rays in Samoa. Jones (2020) writes about the Samoan folktale of a woman and child navigating a famine by casting their fate to the sea. Jumping into the ocean, they transformed into a shark and turtle, and upon re-emerging on another island, they were welcomed and fed by the island Chief. To show their gratitude, they vow to live in the sea and return when needed. Leaving a song for the Samoans to sing when they wish to call back the turtle and the shark.

Apart from this story, further accounts of the social and cultural values of sharks and rays in the Samoan archipelago were not evident in published or grey literature. While this likely exists, it was not retrieved using our search terms and sources.

Biodiversity, conservation concerns and values

This review presents a synthesis of available literature on the diversity of sharks and rays found in the Samoan archipelago, and their conservation status, threats, and a summary of current management. The number of shark and ray species recorded for Samoan waters (n = 67) is relatively high compared to previous information synthesis from the Pacific, with 56 species identified from Palau (Hari et al. 2021) and 50 species identified form the Solomon Islands (Hylton et al. 2017). The cause of this is not clear given that Samoa is more distant from the Indo-Pacific centre of biodiversity than the Solomon Islands, and consist of a collection of islands and reefs within a vast ocean area similar to Palau. While this potential anomaly could result from the general lack of information on shark and ray diversity in the region, it also highlights the potential for further research to document and explain chondrichthyan biogeographic patters across the Pacific.

The lack of available data required information to be collated from a wide range of sources including primary and grey literature, government reports, fishery status reports, and IUCN Red List assessments. Species reference books (e.g. ‘Sharks of the World’ Ebert et al. 2021) and peer-reviewed scientific literature accounted for majority of species reports. However, grey literature and unpublished data were also important sources in compiling the species list. The scarcity of extensive, region-specific species-level data in the Samoan archipelago means that this synthesis is not definitive and should be treated as a preliminary review with potential for further research. Nevertheless, this synthesis does provide a reference point of the present understanding from which to build upon moving forward. The possibility of more sharks and rays being present in Samoa and American Samoa is high, given the lack of current knowledge and research in the region.

Meanwhile, conservation concerns regarding the sharks and rays of Samoa appears to be relatively high, with 35 of the 67 species potentially found in these waters listed as threatened on the IUCN Red List. Furthermore, nine species in Samoan waters were listed across CITES Appendix II, the CMS, and the WCPFC ‘key species’ list. This overlap between listings on independent measures for species occurring in the Samoan archipelago suggests that Samoa and American Samoa can play important roles in the efficacy of these conservation measures. For example, seven of these species have been recorded as bycatch in American Samoa tuna fisheries (NOAA et al. 2020; McCracken and Cooper 2022). A key outstanding knowledge gap is to gain an understanding of the post-release survival in fisheries within the Samoan archipelago, as currently the impact of fisheries between these nations remains poorly understood. It should also be noted that the conservation status of each species should be treated as a preliminary account, as understanding the nation specific risks and conservation status will require species-by-species risk assessments. The current IUCN Red List assessments used for each species are based on global population trends, and therefore do not necessarily reflect the local and regional situation. For example, the blue shark has a global conservation assessment of ‘Near Threatened’; however, given the high levels of bycatch of the species in American Samoa’s tuna fishery and no records of post-release survival, there is potential for this assessment to vary on at the local stock level. What these global conservation status and conservation agreements indicate, is that there are several species that are vulnerable to fisheries in the Samoan archipelago, and efforts will be needed to ensure their interactions with fisheries are sustainable, to assist in stabilising global declines (Pacoureau et al. 2021).

The conservative nature of the confidence criteria for species occurrence validation meant that even if certain species are likely to occur in Samoan waters, their occurrence could not be verified without explicit taxonomic certainty. For example, species such as the smooth and scalloped hammerhead are reported in American Samoa fisheries bycatch accounts and have been confirmed to be found in waters of bordering countries (Ebert et al. 2021). Given their large migratory range (Gallagher and Klimley 2018; Santos and Coelho 2018), it is very plausible that these species occur in Samoan waters also. However, with the possibility of misidentification between the two species, no explicit reference of their occurrence in species reference books, and no photographic evidence of their occurrence in Samoa, these species still require validation. Taxonomic uncertainty also limits the number of species that can be considered confirmed and verified. For example, photographic evidence of a Neotrygon species was obtained (Fig. 1a); however, it was not possible to confirm its identification due to the lack of certainty around the ranges of each of these newly classified Neotrygon species (W. White, pers. comm.). Therefore, this record could be a range extension of the Coral Sea maskray (Neotrygon trigonoides) or an undescribed Neotrygon spp. That may be restricted to Samoa and/or the Central Pacific, but further taxonomic work is needed. No chimaeras were reported, hinting to a possible absence of chimaera species in the region or (more likely) the lack of research around these species. Further, given the geographical location of the Samoan archipelago the likelihood of more deepwater species is highly plausible, however, with large knowledge gaps surrounding deepwater environments this remains unconfirmed. Overall, the high number of species requiring validation in Samoa underlines the lack of shark and ray orientated research in this nation.

Fig. 1.

Photographs used in the verification process of species on the checklist: (a) Coral Sea maskray (Neotrygon cf. trigonoides) (photo credit: AquaSamoa Dive Centre); (b) Grey reef shark (Carcharhinidae amblyrhynchos) (photo credit: Samoa Dive and Snorkel Centre); (c) Blacktip reef shark (Carcharhinidae melanopterus) (photo credit: Global Fin Print); (d) Ocellated eagle ray (Aetobatus ocellatus) (photo credit: AquaSamoa Dive Centre); (e) Pink whipray (Pateobatis fai) (photo credit: Global Fin Print); and (f) Whitetip reef shark (Triaenodon obesus) (photo credit: Dr. John Costello).

Social media posts from local dive shop were useful for obtaining photographic evidence and validating species occurrences in the region (Fig. 1). For example, one source of published literature of the occurrence of the grey reef shark in Samoan waters exists (Wass 1984), this occurrence was then able to be ‘confirmed and verified’ through a photograph of a grey reef shark located on a local dive company’s social media page with geo-referenced tags indicating it was photographed in Samoa (Fig. 1b). This aspect of data verification highlights the importance of citizen science in data poor scenarios. The value of citizen science is increasingly being recognised within chondrichthyan biodiversity and conservation research (Bargnesi et al. 2020) particularly in discerning species distributions in data poor areas (Grant et al. 2022) or for species that are highly threatened and rare (McDavitt and Kyne 2020). Furthermore, citizen science may to help overcome difficulties that can arise when trying to obtain reliable catch statistics for small-scale fisheries as catch is often directly consumed or sold in unmonitored local markets (Levine and Sauafea-Le’au 2013). Samoa and American Samoa are no exception and data on shark and ray captures in small-scale sectors are extremely limited, highlighting the importance for further research into uses and value of implicit species in small-scale fisheries in this region. Unfortunately, very few photographs were sourced from the Samoan islands compared to other locations such as Palau (Hari et al. 2021), and the Solomon Islands (Hylton et al. 2017), restricting the application of this method in the present study. Samoa is not a major diving destination and paired with the impacts of COVID-19 to the tourism industry (Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2020), underwater photographs from Samoan dive operations were scarce.

There was very little information available about the social, cultural, and economic values of sharks and rays in the Samoan archipelago. This is perhaps not surprising. Much of the literature concerning shark and ray values focuses on the economic values of shark tourism (e.g. Vianna et al. 2012) and Samoa is not a major dive destination. Meanwhile, as evident here, there are also very little data on the catch and landings of sharks and rays in Samoa, let alone the economic value of these landings. It can also be very difficult to retrieve accounts of cultural values. Much of this knowledge may be in the form of traditional knowledge that is not recorded, may be sensitive, challenging, and potentially inappropriate to digitise and make available (e.g. Forsyth 2012). Traditional and cultural knowledge is also being lost which may make it unavailable for this study (Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2021). Nevertheless, we assume that cultural values relating to sharks and rays do exist across the Samoan achipelago and recommend that culturally appropriate research is initiated to explore what knowledge and cultural information may still exist, and the appropriate way to preserve it for future Samoan peoples to use as they see fit.

Management and conservation

Increasing human population size paired with limited economic resources and opportunities is a challenge that many Pacific Island countries are faced with in securing sustainable livelihood options for their populations (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Council 2010). Fish and fishing have historically been important elements of island nations, and fisheries hold strong economic, social, and cultural importance (Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2018). Approximately 500 species are caught in the Samoan small-scale fisheries sector (Zann and Mulipola 1995), with the most critical groups being: octopus, giant clams, sea cucumbers, gastropods, crab, and finfish species such as surgeonfish, grouper, mullet, and rabbitfish (Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2018). The importance of fish and fishing is particularly true for Samoa and American Samoa because fisheries have an important role in food security and is one of the largest export commodities (Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2018). This highlights the need for adequate conservation and management strategies to ensure long-term sustainability of marine resources.

Shark sanctuaries have attracted much attention globally as a positive step towards multispecies shark conservation action (Techera 2019). However, many shark sanctuaries may not consider the biology and movement patterns of the species they intend to protect, may lack the legal frameworks to make them enforceable, and compliance levels are often unclear (Techera 2019; Chin et al. 2023). This is no different in Samoa, with the establishment of the shark sanctuary in 2018, as currently there are no existing laws to enforce the sanctuary. There is also a discrepancy in regulations between the ban of commercial shark fishing in the shark sanctuary (the entire EEZ) and Samoa’s Tuna Management Plan that permits the commercial catch of sharks. Samoa’s declaration of shark sanctuary demonstrates promising intent, but requires greater enforcement and clarity to achieve its intended, operational effectiveness (Techera 2019). Meanwhile, American Samoa’s enforced ban on all shark fishing activities can be seen as a progressive step in shark conservation. However, the social and economic consequences of a firmly governed and enforced ban on shark fishing for communities who may rely on sharks for their livelihoods creates challenges that require careful consideration in developing shark management approaches (Mizrahi et al. 2019; Booth et al. 2020). Developing, low-income countries, especially those who rely heavily on marine resources for protein and income, often do not have the capacity to adapt to ‘top-down’ legislation (Dunne et al. 2014; Jaiteh et al. 2016). Conservation measures developed without consideration of the livelihoods of local communities can result in non-compliance, generating a negative feedback loop, which will ultimately see the conservation goals of the shark fishing ban fail (Mizrahi et al. 2019; Haque et al. 2022). Trade-offs between biodiversity benefits and costs to livelihoods must therefore be considered when dealing with the impacts of shark fishing bans in developing nations such as Samoa, with prominent small-scale fisheries sectors (Mizrahi et al. 2019). Increased opportunities for alternative incomes or other methods of conservation such as development of alternative fisheries may need to be considered in circumstances where communities are negatively affected by prohibitions on shark fishing (e.g. Mizrahi et al. 2019). Community-based management, such as the processes already employed in Samoa, have been demonstrated to bridge the gap between resource use and sustainability by initiating collaboration between various stakeholders, to ultimately improve resource use and socio-economic conditions in local communities (Dey and Kanagaratnam 2007). The integration of shark and ray conservation into these management approaches with consideration and mitigation of the potential impacts to local communities may be a possible way forward in biodiversity conservation that does not undermine local livelihood opportunities or impede negatively on traditional practices.

Samoa’s main form of shark and ray protection resides in specific fisheries provisions that restrict commercial fisheries impacts on local shark populations. Commercial fishing regulations imposed by WCPFC and Samoa’s own tuna management plan, and marine wildlife protection regulations, directly protect threatened shark species such as the silky shark and oceanic whitetip, and discourage the practice of finning sharks at sea. These fisheries restrictions have the potential to contribute significantly to shark conservation, however, their success relies heavily on Samoa’s capacity to implement and enforce these regulations (Techera 2019). If enforced, fishery regulations are likely to protect pelagic species that interact regularly with fisheries. However, it is less clear how these management initiatives effect the various deep-sea and inshore species that are noted as being present or having the potential to be present in Samoan waters in the current study. Fisheries regulations may not directly affect these species as they do not commonly interact with these regulated fisheries that mainly target teleost species in the upper pelagic zone. There is a need for information of the fisheries risk posed to both inshore and deep-sea species by commercial fishing activities. For deep-sea species in particular, greater information availability on diversity and threats would help safeguard this vulnerable group from future expansions of fishing effort into deep waters (Finucci et al. 2021). Furthermore, the presence of regular onboard observers, such as in American Samoa’s observer program, or other means for independent validation of catch reports, would be a positive step to assessing efficacy of these measures, while simultaneously increasing the amount of reliable catch data (Tolotti et al. 2015). This need is highlighted by the lack of sharks reported in catch data in Samoa’s longline fishery. While 4.5 million hooks were deployed in 2021, catch reports of no sharks and rays strongly contradicts the records from adjacent American Samoa, indicating that there may be issues in catch reporting. It is likely that sharks are incidentally caught, as observed in longline fisheries in American Samoa and elsewhere throughout the tropical Pacific (e.g. Schaefer et al. 2019).