A General Model for Designing Networks of Marine Reserves

Sala, Enric; Aburto‐Oropeza, Octavio; Paredes, Gustavo; Parra, Iván Ocadiz; Barrera, Juan C.; Dayton, Paul K.

doi:10.1126/science.1075284

Cited by 343 publications

(299 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

292

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Management of nursery habitats, from these perspectives, is critical for biodiversity conservation and fishery management (Beck et al 2001;Sala et al 2002). The nursery role of coastal habitats, however, has been often addressed to single species and poorly investigated from a quantitative viewpoint (Beck et al 2001;Dahlgren et al 2006), especially in the Mediterranean region.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Timing and habitat preferences for settlement of juvenile fishes in the Marine Protected Area of Torre Guaceto (south-eastern Italy, Adriatic Sea)

Bussotti

Guidetti

2011

Italian Journal of Zoology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Timing and habitat preferences for settlement of juvenile fishes were investigated at the Marine Protected Area (MPA) of Torre Guaceto (SE Adriatic Sea) from April 2005 to March 2006. Data were obtained by visual census (on a fortnightly basis) in 10 habitat types identified within the depth range 0-6 m. A total of 22 taxa of juvenile fish was recorded: juveniles of 14 taxa were analysed for settlement timing and habitat preferences, whereas the other 8 taxa were only occasionally observed. Diplodus vulgaris and Sarpa salpa showed two settlement peaks, while the other 12 species displayed a single annual peak. Most species (10 out of 14) settled between late spring and early autumn. Juvenile labrids and Oblada melanura were mostly associated with exposed shallow rocks, while Diplodus sargus, D. vulgaris, D. puntazzo and S. salpa chiefly settled in shallow sheltered coves. Juveniles of Chromis chromis were found in sublittoral rocks and Posidonia oceanica beds. Spondilyosoma cantharus, Diplodus annularis and Dicentrarchus labrax mostly associated to P. oceanica and small-sized seagrasses for settlement, while Mullus surmuletus chiefly used sublittoral sands. This study provides evidence of clear coherence during settlement of many fishes in terms of habitat for settlement, while some discrepancy was found in terms of timing across the year. In addition, this study provided suggestive evidence of the potential of the MPA, relative to the habitats included within its borders, in hosting juvenile fish stages and thus contributing to sustain local diversity of the coastal fish fauna. Similar data would deserve to be properly considered to design MPAs and refine conservation targets.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Timing and habitat preferences for settlement of juvenile fishes in the Marine Protected Area of Torre Guaceto (south-eastern Italy, Adriatic Sea)

Bussotti

Guidetti

2011

Italian Journal of Zoology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They will also generally be more desirable biologically because many marine species as well as crucial ecological processes have very large spatial requirements (4,11,15). Nevertheless, small reserves may be appropriate where marine habitats are patchily distributed, and coalescence may be further constrained insofar as extremely large no-take MPAs may reduce overall fish catches.…”

Section: Costing a Global Mpa Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Evidence is mounting that marine protected areas (MPAs), where fishing and other human activities are restricted or prohibited, conserve habitats and populations (1,(11)(12)(13) and, by exporting biomass, may also sustain or increase the overall yield of nearby fisheries (1,11,12). There has been considerable progress in identifying priority areas and efficient MPA configurations for marine conservation (14,15). However, despite their growing significance for policy, we have virtually no data on how much MPAs cost to establish and run, how these costs vary, or whether a substantially expanded global network of MPAs could be afforded.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The worldwide costs of marine protected areas

Balmford

Gravestock²,

Hockley³

et al. 2004

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

272

199

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

T he world's oceans are in trouble. Global fish catches are declining (1), numerous populations of marine animals have collapsed (2-5), and communities and habitats have been extensively damaged or destroyed (6-10). Evidence is mounting that marine protected areas (MPAs), where fishing and other human activities are restricted or prohibited, conserve habitats and populations (1, 11-13) and, by exporting biomass, may also sustain or increase the overall yield of nearby fisheries (1, 11, 12). There has been considerable progress in identifying priority areas and efficient MPA configurations for marine conservation (14, 15). However, despite their growing significance for policy, we have virtually no data on how much MPAs cost to establish and run, how these costs vary, or whether a substantially expanded global network of MPAs could be afforded. To address these questions, we conducted the most extensive survey to date of how much MPAs cost. Our SurveyTo evaluate the costs of MPAs, we sent a questionnaire (see supporting information, which is published on the PNAS web site) to Ϸ500 individuals involved in running MPAs worldwide. We requested information on MPA area, protection type and goals, staffing, recurrent income and expenditure, and how much (if any) extra expenditure and staff were required for minimum effective protection. We supplemented questionnaire returns with information from the published and gray literature. All costs were converted to year 2000 U.S. dollars by using the local currency to U.S. dollar exchange rate for the reported year and a U.S. gross domestic product deflator index.We excluded from our analyses MPAs whose marine components covered Ͻ50% of the MPA area. In order for our calculations to overestimate, if anything, the costs of marine conservation, for all other partially terrestrial reserves, we attributed all costs to their marine sector if we did not have a more detailed cost breakdown. To be similarly conservative, we excluded five MPAs whose questionnaire returns suggested that, despite having no budget at present, they required no extra money.This left us with data for a total of 83 MPAs worldwide (12 from Africa, 12 from Asia, 10 from Australasia and Oceania, 13 from Europe, 13 from Latin America and the Caribbean, and 23 from North America), ranging in size from Ͻ0.1 km 2 to Ͼ300,000 km 2 . As well as encompassing a broad geographic and size range, our sample included a wide spectrum of management types (run by government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and local communities; zoned and not zoned), objectives (e.g., biodiversity protection, recreation, conflict reduction, and fishery enhancement), and resources protected (e.g., coral reefs, whales, and coastal scenery). Of the 76 MPAs that reported their purpose, 75 (98.7%) listed habitat and species protection (the remaining MPA was solely for research), and protection was the primary purpose for 58 (76.5%). Therefore, our sample is broadly representative of the range of MPAs in use worldwide (16), and should produc...

show abstract

“…Tropical marine ecosystems typically have exceptionally high levels of water clarity, and remote-sensing methods have been applied to map habitats with great accuracy (Mumby et al 1998). Despite the relative ease of habitat mapping tropical marine habitats, and the need to quantify biodiversity for marine reserve selection algorithms (e.g., Sala et al 2002, Leslie et al 2003, few empirical studies evaluate the adequacy of remotely sensed habitat maps as biodiversity surrogates. Friedlander et al (2003a) used habitat maps and the distinct inter-habitat differences in coral and fish communities to aid the design of an effective marine protected area in Colombia.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tropical Coastal Habitats as Surrogates of Fish Community Structure, Grazing, and Fisheries Value

Harborne

Mumby

Kappel

et al. 2008

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Habitat maps are frequently invoked as surrogates of biodiversity to aid the design of networks of marine reserves. Maps are used to maximize habitat heterogeneity in reserves because this is likely to maximize the number of species protected. However, the technique's efficacy is limited by intra-habitat variability in the species present and their abundances. Although communities are expected to vary among patches of the same habitat, this variability is poorly documented and rarely incorporated into reserve planning. To examine intra-habitat variability in coral-reef fishes, we generated a data set from eight tropical coastal habitats and six islands in the Bahamian archipelago using underwater visual censuses. Firstly, we provide further support for habitat heterogeneity as a surrogate of biodiversity as each predefined habitat type supported a distinct assemblage of fishes. Intrahabitat variability in fish community structure at scales of hundreds of kilometers (among islands) was significant in at least 75% of the habitats studied, depending on whether presence/absence, density, or biomass data were used. Intra-habitat variability was positively correlated with the mean number of species in that habitat when density and biomass data were used. Such relationships provide a proxy for the assessment of intra-habitat variability when detailed quantitative data are scarce. Intra-habitat variability was examined in more detail for one habitat (forereefs visually dominated by Montastraea corals). Variability in community structure among islands was driven by small, demersal families (e.g., territorial pomacentrid and labrid fishes). Finally, we examined the ecological and economic significance of intra-habitat variability in fish assemblages on Montastraea reefs by identifying how this variability affects the composition and abundances of fishes in different functional groups, the key ecosystem process of parrotfish grazing, and the ecosystem service of value of commercially important finfish. There were significant differences in a range of functional groups and grazing, but not fisheries value. Variability at the scale of tens of kilometers (among reefs around an island) was less than that among islands. Caribbean marine reserves should be replicated at scales of hundreds of kilometers, particularly for species-rich habitats, to capture important intra-habitat variability in community structure, function, and an ecosystem process.

show abstract

A General Model for Designing Networks of Marine Reserves

Cited by 343 publications

References 25 publications

Timing and habitat preferences for settlement of juvenile fishes in the Marine Protected Area of Torre Guaceto (south-eastern Italy, Adriatic Sea)

Timing and habitat preferences for settlement of juvenile fishes in the Marine Protected Area of Torre Guaceto (south-eastern Italy, Adriatic Sea)

The worldwide costs of marine protected areas

Tropical Coastal Habitats as Surrogates of Fish Community Structure, Grazing, and Fisheries Value

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About