Spatially congruent sites of importance for global shark and ray biodiversity

S13 Fig. Spatially congruent areas between biodiversity hotspots derived from different species richness measures represented as the richest 10% of grid cells. Spatially congruent areas between total species, ED species, and endemic species at (a) 1˚ resolution, (b) 4˚ resolu- tion, and (c) 8˚ resolution, and (d-f) for the subset of threatened species, corresponding to res- olution levels of (a-c). The data used for this figure under CC BY license is granted permission from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), original copyright 2011. (DOCX) S1 Table. Spatial congruency (measured as percent overlap) of shark and ray hotspots between three species richness measures: Total species, evolutionary distinct (ED) species, and endemic species. Congruency is compared between three levels of spatial resolution: 1˚, 4˚, and 8˚, for total number of species and the subset of threatened species, and at three levels of defining hotspot (2.5%, 5%, and 10% of richest cells). (DOCX) Acknowledgments We thank all of the IUCN SSG members and all additional experts who have contributed their data and expertise to the IUCN Red List assessments of all Chondrichthyans. We also thank all members of the Dulvy Lab for helpful input. Author Contributions Conceptualization: Danielle H. Derrick. Data curation: Danielle H. Derrick. Formal analysis: Danielle H. Derrick. Funding acquisition: Nicholas K. Dulvy. Methodology: Danielle H. Derrick. Supervision: Nicholas K. Dulvy. Validation: Jessica Cheok. Writing – original draft: Danielle H. Derrick.

Writing – review & editing: Danielle H. Derrick, Jessica Cheok, Nicholas K. Dulvy. References 1. Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM. The spatial distribution of threatened species: Macroscales and New World birds. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 1996; 263: 235–240. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1996.0037 2. Gaston KJ. Biodiversity—Latitudinal gradients. Prog Phys Geogr. 1996; 20: 466–476. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/030913339602000406 3. Lucifora LO, Garcı´a VB, Menni RC, et al. Spatial patterns in the diversity of sharks, rays, and chimaeras (Chondrichthyes) in the Southwest Atlantic. Biodivers Conserv. 2012; 21: 407–419. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10531-011-0189-7 4. Tittensor DP, Mora C, Jetz W, et al. Global patterns and predictors of marine biodiversity across taxa. Nature. 2010; 466: 1098–1101. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09329 PMID: 20668450 5. Lucifora LO, Garcia VB, Worm B. Global diversity hotspots and conservation priorities for sharks. PLoS One. 2011; 6: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1371/Citation 6. Chaudhary C, Saeedi H, Costello MJ. Bimodality of latitudinal gradients in marine species richness. Trends Ecol Evol. 2016; 31: 670–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.06.001 PMID: 27372733 7. Gagne TO, Reygondeau G, Jenkins CN, et al. Towards a global understanding of the drivers of marine and terrestrial biodiversity. PLoS One. 2020; 15: 1–17. PLOS ONE Spatially congruent sites of importance for global shark and ray biodiversity PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235559 July 6, 2020 16 / 19