Estimating the extent of urchin barrens and kelp forest loss in northeastern Aotearoa, New Zealand

Kerr, Vince C.; Grace, Roger V.; Shears, Nick T.

doi:10.1080/00288330.2024.2336081

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Kina, through their herbivory, can shape rocky reef communities and form extensive and persistent urchin barrens (Grace, 1983;Shears & Babcock, 2003, 2004. Urchin barrens are particularly common in northeastern New Zealand (Kerr et al, 2024), but are also found in other parts of the country (Shears & Babcock, 2007). The development of urchin barrens in northeastern New Zealand has been attributed primarily to the reduction in key sea urchin predators: Australasian snapper (Chrysophrys auratus) and spiny lobster (Jasus edwardsii; Babcock et al, 1999;Dromgoole, 1964aDromgoole, , 1964bShears & Babcock, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sea urchin roe quality within urchin barrens and improvement through kelp restoration

Miller,

Balemi,

Blain

et al. 2024

Ecosphere

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sea urchin overgrazing is a major cause of kelp loss and consequently sea urchin removal is frequently promoted as a tool for restoring kelp in urchin barrens. While many sea urchin species support high‐end roe fisheries, roe condition is generally lower in barrens than in kelp forests due to reduced food availability. Understanding how roe condition varies between kelp and barren habitats, and in response to kelp restoration, is key to developing effective, culturally and socially acceptable approaches to sea urchin removal and for assessing the potential benefits of kelp restoration. We assessed whether sea urchin roe quality within urchin barrens in northeastern Aotearoa New Zealand can be sufficient for harvest, and whether sea urchin removal can ultimately enhance urchin roe condition (by increasing food quality and quantity). We monitored roe condition (roe weight and gonadosomatic index [GSI]) in kelp forest and urchin barrens monthly for one year at two sites, and quarterly over two years at four sites following large‐scale (1.6–2 ha) sea urchin removal from urchin barrens. While roe condition was generally lower in barrens, the magnitude of this difference varied seasonally and among sites. Sea urchin roe quality within barrens was sufficient for commercial harvest (GSI ≥ 6%) during spring–summer at three sites. Following large‐scale sea urchin removal, kelp and fucoid density increased over two years (~9–58 plants m−2), but remained low in barren control areas. Although variable, sea urchins from removal areas (restored kelp) typically showed increased GSI, roe weight, and improved roe color within nine months following removal. These results suggest that, at some locations, harvest may provide a viable method for removing urchins from urchin barrens for kelp restoration purposes. However, to ensure sea urchin densities are reduced and maintained below the critical levels needed to achieve restoration outcomes, strategic approaches with critical evaluation of methods are required. Furthermore, we demonstrate that effectively removing urchins and promoting kelp recovery can ultimately improve urchin roe quality.

show abstract