Sérgio P. Ávila1,2,3,4,5*- 1BIOPOLIS Association – Research Network on Biodiversity and Evolution Biology, Porto, Portugal
- 2CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Ponta Delgada, Azores, Portugal
- 3Departamento de Biologia, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologias, Ponta Delgada, Açores, Portugal
- 4MPB-Marine Palaeontology and Biogeography Lab, University of the Azores, Ponta Delgada, Açores, Portugal
- 5UNESCO Chair – Land Within Sea: Biodiversity & Sustainability in Atlantic Islands, Universidade dos Açores, Ponta Delgada, Portugal
A Commentary on
Sharks in Cabo Verde, Canarias, Madeira and Azores islands: species richness, conservation status and anthropogenic pressures
By Varela, J., Santos, C. P., Nunes, E., Pissarra, V., Pires, S., Ribeiro, B. P., Vieira, E., Repolho, T., Queiroz, N., Freitas, R., and Rosa, R. (2025). Front. Mar. Sci. 12:1490317. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2025.1490317
Introduction
It was with great interest that I read a recent article by Varela et al. (2025). These authors studied the sharks from the different Macaronesian archipelagos and I endorse my compliments to the authors for their study and sound data on shark diversity and the threats affecting them, and on the most appropriate management and conservation strategies. However, I herein express my concerns regarding their use of well-defined terms, such as “marine ecoregions”, and, especially, their definition of a supposed “Macaronesia marine ecoregion”.
Macaronesia as a biogeographic unit: a terrestrial versus a marine point of view
There has been a long dispute by terrestrial island biogeographers concerning the use of “Macaronesia”. The concept of a biogeographic entity called “Macaronesia” and encompassing the Azores, Madeira, Selvagens, Canaries and Cabo Verde archipelagos is valid for the terrestrial vegetation, in particular for the vascular plant geobotany (see a recent review by Fernández-Palacios et al., 2024). However, an opposite view has been expressed by Sunding (1979); Vanderpoorten et al. (2007); Rivas-Martínez (2009) and Rivas-Martínez et al. (2014, 2017), and it is not supported for terrestrial animals (Wunderlich, 1991; Machado, 1992; Fernández-Palacios et al., 2024). A Macaronesian biogeographic unit has been advocated mostly by terrestrial botanists [e.g., Engler (1879, 1910, 1914), Dansereau (1961); Sunding (1973); Bolós (1996); Santos Guerra (1977, 1999)], and although multiple studies have been published, the analysis of data is usually biased as only some families/groups of the whole terrestrial native flora and/or fauna are selected to highlight the similarities among the Macaronesian archipelagos. For example, Beyhl et al. (1995) stated that the floristic components of Macaronesia were the coastal succulent scrub and the laurel forest, but they rejected the Macaronesia biogeographic unit because of the different origins of the flora.
Morrone (2001 and references therein) showed that endemics have been used as the primary biogeographic dataset in terrestrial studies aiming to establish natural biogeographic areas. The basic assumption is that areas sharing unique taxa are more related to each other than to areas lacking these taxa. The focus of this comment is not to test the coherence of Macaronesia as a terrestrial biogeographic unit. However, Fernández-Palacios et al. (2024) provided a table that allows an analysis of the shared endemic genera of Macaronesian vascular plants based on their geographic distribution (see Table 1). PAST version 3.18 (Hammer et al., 2018) was used to select the best combination of dissimilarity measure and agglomeration method, by calculating the cophenetic correlation value between the region’s distance matrix and the dendrogram representation (Sokal and Rohlf, 1962). Figure 1 clearly shows a biogeographic pattern that is very similar to the obtained by Freitas et al. (2019) for the shared endemic marine organisms, with Canaries and Madeira clustering together and forming the core of what they called the “Webbnesia” marine ecoregion (see below). Cabo Verde is set apart from the remaining Macaronesian archipelagos and, consequently, the shared endemic genera of Macaronesian vascular plants do not support the use of Macaronesia as a coherent biogeography unit. Still, I miss a quantitative analysis of the terrestrial native species, with large multitaxa geographic distribution datasets (including continental regions) to test this hypothesis. Moreover, these taxa should have different mobility abilities in order to test the congruence of results among different phyla.
Table 1. Archipelagic distribution of the 45 Macaronesian endemic vascular plant genera (modified from Fernández-Palacios et al., 2024).
Figure 1. Dendrogram depicting the biogeographic similarity between the Macaronesian archipelagos for the shared endemic Macaronesian genera of vascular plants (Jaccard index/UPGMA; cophenetic correlation = 0.946). Numbers correspond to the bootstrap values providing support for each tree node (1,000 repetitions of 1,000 trees).
In what concerns the marine realm, Ávila (2000: 104), his Figure 1 was the first to show, using a quantitative analysis based on checklists compiled for the shallow-water marine molluscs (gastropods and bivalves), that Cabo Verde was not biogeographically related with the remaining Macaronesian archipelagos, a situation previously noticed by Wirtz (1994). Again, in a quantitative study by Almada et al. (2001), his Figure 2 who used a small dataset of just 44 blenniid fishes from the NE Atlantic (including the Macaronesian archipelagos), Cabo Verde did not cluster with any of the Macaronesian archipelagos. A larger dataset of 2,605 reef fishes was used by Floeter et al. (2008), their Figure 4, who also came to a similar conclusion. Thus, all the authors that quantitatively analysed marine datasets of coastal species reached to the conclusion that Cabo Verde does not cluster with the remaining archipelagos of the Macaronesia geographic region, being an independent biogeographic unit.
Spalding et al. (2007) coined the term “marine ecoregions”. In his seminal and highly cited work, he divided the Temperate Northern Atlantic realm in six biogeographic provinces. One of these, the Lusitanian biogeographic province, was further sub-divided into three marine ecoregions: the South European Atlantic Shelf, the Saharan Upwelling, and a group formed by the Azores, Madeira and Canaries archipelagos. To our knowledge, and in contrast with the well-defined and biogeographically supported Cabo Verde marine ecoregion of Spalding et al. (2007), no one has ever formally described a “Macaronesia marine ecoregion” which, according to the paper by Varela et al. (2025), seems to refer to the Azores, Madeira and Canaries archipelagos (presumably also Selvagens). Therefore, we suggest that caution should be exercised when using the term “ecoregion”.
Later, a large team of marine biologists used a multitaxon approach for the definition of biogeographic ecoregions within the Macaronesian archipelagos and a larger dataset with a total of 7,492 species (3,737 of which reported for the Macaronesia). These authors were able to demonstrate that the Azores ecoregion was separated from the Webbnesia ecoregion (a term coined in deference to the British botanist Phillip Barker Webb (1793-1854), and that includes the Madeira, Selvagens and Canaries archipelagos), with Cabo Verde standing alone again, in this case, as an individualized marine biogeographic subprovince (see Freitas et al., 2019).
In another paper, Melo et al. (2023) has shown that the biogeographical relationships among the Macaronesian archipelagos during the warmer period of the Last Interglacial (also known as MIS 5e, i.e., the Marine Isotopic Stage 5e), were different from those we know today. Although the pattern is not as clear as the one Freitas et al. (2019) were able to determine for their multitaxon analysis of the recent marine flora and fauna, during the MIS 5e, Canaries and Cabo Verde clustered into a single biogeographic unit (in the case of the bivalve species), Madeira clustered with Selvagens (for gastropod species) and the Azores formed, again, an isolated marine ecoregion (for gastropod species; cf. Melo et al., 2023, their Figure 2).
Discussion
In my opinion, and from a strictly marine point of view, “Macaronesia” should be used as an informal term and with a restricted geographical value or under a political/sociological framework. The discussion above illustrates our efforts to add an effective and valuable contribution to the use of the most comprehensive marine biogeographic data on the Macaronesian archipelagos. Finally, I would like to stress that, under a marine perspective and for the present times, there is no support for a “Macaronesia biogeographic region”, in contrast to the statement by Varela et al. (2025): pp. 2. In its place, and based on the most taxonomically integrated study to date, using a biogeographical quantitative analysis of primary data, we reach to the conclusion that the once called Macaronesia biogeographic region has no scientific support and should be replaced by the Azores ecoregion, the Webbnesia ecoregion, and the Cabo Verde biogeographic subprovince (cf. Freitas et al., 2019).
Author contributions
SÁ: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. FCT/2023.07418 CEEECIND research contract with BIOPOLIS (https://doi.org/10.54499/2023.07418.CEECIND/CP2845/CT0001). This work also benefited from FEDER funds, through the Operational Program for Competitiveness Factors – COMPETE, and from National Funds, through FCT (UIDB/50027/2020, POCI-01–0145-FEDER-006821, UIDB/00153/2020, LA/P/0048/2020).
Acknowledgments
SÁ acknowledges FCT/2023.07418 CEEECIND research contract with BIOPOLIS (https://doi.org/10.54499/2023.07418.CEECIND/CP2845/CT0001). I thank the Regional Government of the Azores (M1.1.a/005/Funcionamento-C-/2016, CIBIO-A; M1.1.A/INFRAEST CIENT/A/001/2021 - Base de Dados da PaleoBiodiversidade da Macaronésia.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Almada V. C., Oliveira R. F., Gonçalves E. J., Almeida A. J., Santos R. S., Wirtz P. (2001). Patterns of diversity of the north-eastern Atlantic blenniid fish fauna (Pisces: Blenniidae). Global Ecol. Biogeography 10, 411–422. doi: 10.1046/j.1466-822X.2001.00244.x
Ávila S. P. (2000). Shallow-water marine molluscs of the Azores: biogeographical relationships. Arquipélago Life Mar. Sci. Supplement 2, 99–131.
Beyhl F. E., Mies B., Ohm F. (1995). Macaronesia. A biogeographical puzzle. Boletim do Museo Municipal do Funchal 4, 107–113.
Dansereau P. (1961). _Études Macaronesiennes I: Geographie des cryptogames vasculaires. Agronomia Lusitana 23, 151–181.
Engler A. (1879). “Versuch einer Entwicklungsgeschichte der Pflanzenwelt, insbesondere der seit der Tertiärperiode,” in Erster Teil: Die extratropischen Gebiete der Nördlichen Hemisphäre (Leipzig: Leipzig, Engelmann).
Engler A. (1910). “Das afrika benachbarte makaronesien,” in Die Pflanzenwelt Afrikas insbesondere seiner tropischen Gebiete. Grundzüge der Pflanzenverbreitung in Afrika und die Charakterpflanzen. Ed. Engler A. (Leipzig: Engelmann, Leipzig), 816–870.
Engler A. (1914). “Pflanzengeographie,” in Die kultur der gegenwart. Eds. Hertwig R., Wettstein R. V. (Leipzig: Teubner, Leipzig), 187–263.
Fernández-Palacios J. M., Otto R., Capelo J., Caijapé-Castells J., de Nascimeno L., Duarte M. C., et al. (2024). In defence of the entity of Macaronesia as a biogeographical region. Biol. Rev. 99, 2060–2081. doi: 10.1111/brv.13112
Floeter S. R., Rocha L. A., Robertson D. R., Joyeux J. C., Smith-Vaniz W. F., Wirtz P., et al. (2008). Atlantic reef fish biogeography and evolution. J. Biogeography 35, 22–47. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2007.01790.x
Freitas R., Romeiras M., Silva L., Cordeiro R., Madeira P., González J. A., et al. (2019). Restructuring of the “Macaronesia” biogeographic unit: a marine multi-taxon biogeographical approach. Sci. Rep. 9, 15792. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-51786-6
Hammer Ø., Harper D. A. T., Ryan P. D. (2018). PAST: Paleontological Statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica 4 (1), 9.
MaChado A. (1992). Monografía de los Carábidos de las Islas Canarias, 734 pp (La Laguna: Instituto de Estudios Canarios).
Melo C. S., da Silva C. M., Scarponi D., Martín-González E. Rolán E., Rojas A., Martinez S., et al. (2023). Palaeobiogeography of NE Atlantic archipelagos during the Last Interglacial (MIS 5e): A molluscan approach to the conundrum of Macaronesia as a marine biogeographic unit. Quaternary Sci. Rev. 319, 108313. doi: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2023.108313
Rivas-Martínez S. (2009). “Ensayo geobotánico global sobre la Macaronesia,” in Homenaje al Profesor Dr. Wolfredo Wildpret de la Torre. Eds. Tejera B., Afonso-Carrillo J., Gallo A. G., Delgado O. R. (Instituto de Estudios Canarios, La Laguna), 255–296.
Rivas-Martínez S., Lousa M., Costa J. C., Duarte M. C. (2017). Geobotanical survey of cape verde islands (West africa). Int. J. Geobotanical Res. 7, 1–103. doi: 10.5616/ijgr 170001
Rivas-Martínez S., Penas A., Díaz-González T. E., del Río S., Cantó H., Gomes C. P., et al. (2014). Biogeography of Spain and Portugal. Preliminary typological synopsis. Int. J. Geobotanical Res. 4, 1–64. doi: 10.5616/ijgr 140001
Santos Guerra A. (1977). “Vegetación de la Región Macaronésica,” in Proceedings 2° Congreso internacional pro flora macaronésica. Ed. Kunkel G.(Funchal), 185–203.
Santos Guerra A. (1999). Apuntes a la biogeografía de las islas de Cabo Verde. Rev. la Academia Canaria la Ciencia 3-4, 201–211.
Sokal R. R., Rohlf F. J. (1962). The comparison of dendrograms by objective methods. Taxon 11, 33–40. doi: 10.2307/1217208
Spalding M. D., Fox H. E., Allen G. R., Davidson N., Ferdanã Z. A., Finlayson M., et al. (2007). Marine ecoregions of the world: a bioregionalization of coastal and shelf areas. Bioscience 57, 573–583. doi: 10.1641/B570707
Sunding P. (1973). Endemism in the flora of Cape Verde islands with special emphasis on the Macaronesian floral element. Monographiae Biologicae Canariensis 4, 112–117.
Sunding P. (1979). “Origins of the macaronesian flora,” in Plants and islands. Ed. Bramwell D. (Academic Press, London), 13–30.
Vanderpoorten A., Rumsey F. J., Carine M. A. (2007). Does Macaronesia exist? Conflicting signal in the bryophyte and pteridophyte floras. Am. J. Bot. 94, 625–639. doi: 10.3732/ajb.94.4.625
Varela J., Santos C. P., Nunes E., Pissarra V., Pires S., Ribeiro B. P., et al. (2025). Sharks in Macaronesia and Cabo Verde: species richness, conservation status and anthropogenic pressures. Front. Mar. Sci. 12, 1490317. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2025.1490317
Wirtz P. (1994). Underwater guide madeira, canary islands, azores — Fish (Stuttgart: Verlag Stephanie Naglschmid).
Keywords: marine biogeography, Macaronesia, Webbnesia ecoregion, Azores ecoregion, Cabo Verde biogeographic subprovince, marine ecoregions
Citation: Ávila SP (2025) Commentary: Sharks in Cabo Verde, Canarias, Madeira and Azores islands: species richness, conservation status and anthropogenic pressures. Front. Mar. Sci. 12:1582463. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2025.1582463
Received: 24 February 2025; Accepted: 26 March 2025;
Published: 24 April 2025.
Edited by:
Fernando P. Lima, Centro de Investigacao em Biodiversidade e Recursos Geneticos (CIBIO-InBIO), PortugalReviewed by:
Rocio Nieto, Centro de Investigacao em Biodiversidade e Recursos Geneticos (CIBIO-InBIO), PortugalCopyright © 2025 Ávila. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Sérgio P. Ávila, YXZpbGFAdWFjLnB0