English is widely recognized as the language of science, and English‐language publications (ELPs) are rapidly increasing. It is often assumed that the number of non‐ELPs is decreasing. This assumption contributes to the underuse of non‐ELPs in conservation science, practice, and policy, especially at the international level. However, the number of conservation articles published in different languages is poorly documented. Using local and international search systems, we searched for scientific articles on biodiversity conservation published from 1980 to 2018 in English and 15 non‐English languages. We compared the growth rate in publications across languages. In 12 of the 15 non‐English languages, published conservation articles significantly increased every year over the past 39 years, at a rate similar to English‐language articles. The other three languages showed contrasting results, depending on the search system. Since the 1990s, conservation science articles in most languages increased exponentially. The variation in the number of non‐English‐language articles identified among the search systems differed markedly (e.g., for simplified Chinese, 11,148 articles returned with local search system and 803 with Scopus). Google Scholar and local literature search systems returned the most articles for 11 and 4 non‐English languages, respectively. However, the proportion of peer‐reviewed conservation articles published in non‐English languages was highest in Scopus, followed by Web of Science and local search systems, and lowest in Google Scholar. About 20% of the sampled non‐English‐language articles provided no title or abstract in English; thus, in theory, they were undiscoverable with English keywords. Possible reasons for this include language barriers and the need to disseminate research in countries where English is not widely spoken. Given the known biases in statistical methods and study characteristics between English‐ and non‐English‐language studies, non‐English‐language articles will continue to play an important role in improving the understanding of biodiversity and its conservation.

By‐catch is the most significant direct threat marine megafauna face at the global scale. However, the magnitude and spatial patterns of megafauna by‐catch are still poorly understood, especially in regions with very limited monitoring and expanding fisheries. The Indian Ocean is a globally important region for megafauna biodiversity and for tuna fisheries, but has limited by‐catch data. Anecdotal and scattered information indicates high by‐catch could be a major threat. Here, we adapt a Productivity Susceptibility Analysis tool designed for data‐poor contexts to present the first spatially explicit estimates of by‐catch risk of sea turtles, elasmobranchs, and cetaceans in the three major tuna fishing gears (purse seines, longlines, and drift gill nets). Our assessment highlights a potential opportunity for multi‐taxa conservation benefits by concentrating management efforts in particular coastal regions. Most coastal waters in the northern Indian Ocean, including countries that have had a minimal engagement with regional management bodies, stand out as high risk for fisheries interactions. In addition to species known to occur in tuna gears, we find high vulnerability to multiple gear types for many poorly known elasmobranchs that do not fall under any existing conservation and management measures. Our results indicate that current by‐catch mitigation measures, which focus on safe‐release practices, are unlikely to adequately reduce the substantial cumulative fishing impacts on vulnerable species. Preventative solutions that reduce interactions with non‐target species (such as closed areas or seasons, or modifications to gear and fishing tactics) are crucial for alleviating risks to megafauna from fisheries.