Long-term trends in lobster populations in a partially protected vs. no-take Marine Park

Shears, Nick T.; Grace, Roger V.; Usmar, Natalie R.; Kerr, Vince; Babcock, Russell C.

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2006.04.001

Cited by 88 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These might examine ecosystem changes occurring in the wake of decapod exploitation (e.g. Lafferty 2004, Shears et al 2006) or recovery (e.g. Babcock et al 1999).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mimiwhangata Park, in contrast, allowed recreational fishing and showed no significant change in the abundance or biomass of legal size lobsters, nor any spatial difference to fully fished areas adjacent to the park. Likewise, other urchin predators have not recovered following partial protection in Mimiwhangata (Shears et al 2006). Consequently, kelp forest habitats that dominated on shallow reefs up until the 1950s have been replaced by urchin barrens that have persisted at least since the 1970s (Kerr & Grace 2005).…”

Section: Conservation and Protected Areasmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ecological role of large benthic decapods in marine ecosystems: a review

Boudreau¹,

Worm²

2012

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large benthic decapods play an increasingly important role in commercial fisheries worldwide, yet their roles in the marine ecosystem are less well understood. A synthesis of existing evidence for 4 infraorders of large benthic marine decapods, Brachyura (true crabs), Anomura (king crabs), Astacidea (clawed lobsters) and Achelata (clawless lobsters), is presented here to gain insight into their ecological roles and possible ecosystem effects of decapod fisheries. The reviewed species are prey items for a wide range of invertebrates and vertebrates. They are omnivorous but prefer molluscs and crustaceans as prey. Experimental studies have shown that decapods influence the structuring of benthic habitat, occasionally playing a keystone role by suppressing herbivores or space competitors. Indirectly, via trophic cascades, they can contribute to the maintenance of kelp forest, marsh grass, and algal turf habitats. Changes in the abundance of their predators can strongly affect decapod population trends. Commonly documented nonconsumptive interactions include interference-competition for food or shelter, as well as habitat provision for other invertebrates. Anthropogenic factors such as exploitation, the creation of protected areas, and species introductions influence these ecosystem roles by decreasing or increasing decapod densities, often with measurable effects on prey communities. Many studies have investigated particular ecosystem effects of decapods, but few species were comprehensively studied in an ecosystem context. A simplified synthetic framework for interpreting eco system roles of decapods was derived from the available evidence; however, more experimental and long-term observational studies are needed to elucidate mechanisms and shed light on the longterm consequences of decapod fisheries.

show abstract

“…These might examine ecosystem changes occurring in the wake of decapod exploitation (e.g. Lafferty 2004, Shears et al 2006) or recovery (e.g. Babcock et al 1999).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Conservation and Protected Areasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological role of large benthic decapods in marine ecosystems: a review

Boudreau¹,

Worm²

2012

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The need for buffer zones around no-access/no-take reserves is attributable to the fact that the Mediterranean basin is one of the most crowded areas of the world, where human populations and related activities are concentrated in coastal areas (Airoldi & Beck 2007), and where some categories of users and stakeholders would consider no-take/no-access reserves as a contentious management option (Lester & Halpern 2008). Partially protected areas (PPAs), therefore, can be a compromise between conservation needs and human uses (Denny & Babcock 2004, Shears et al 2006, Lester & Halpern 2008 in coastal regions where activities from different categories of users are to be harmonised. Little information, however, is available about the ecological effects of PPAs (Denny & Babcock 2004, Shears et al 2006, Lester & Halpern 2008.…”

Section: Abstract: Marine Protected Areas · Fishing Regulation · Fismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Partially protected areas (PPAs), therefore, can be a compromise between conservation needs and human uses (Denny & Babcock 2004, Shears et al 2006, Lester & Halpern 2008 in coastal regions where activities from different categories of users are to be harmonised. Little information, however, is available about the ecological effects of PPAs (Denny & Babcock 2004, Shears et al 2006, Lester & Halpern 2008. Recent studies provided increasing evidence that PPAs may attract and concentrate both professional and recreational fishermen (Stelzenmuller et al 2007, Lloret et al 2008) with consequent non-negligible impacts on local fish stocks (Westera et al 2003, Cooke & Cowx 2006, Lewin et al 2006, Lloret et al 2008.…”

Section: Abstract: Marine Protected Areas · Fishing Regulation · Fismentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating effects of total and partial restrictions to fishing on Mediterranean rocky-reef fish assemblages

Franco¹,

Bussotti²,

Navone³

et al. 2009

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The benefits of MPA, particularly for fished areas, have been widely reported (Roberts et al, 2001;Halpern, 2003;Lester et al, 2009). Most of the evidence focused on the benefits of protection inside the boundaries of protected areas, measured on a set of biological variables such as species richness as well as abundance, biomass, and/or adult size of exploited species (Jennings et al, 1996;Roberts et al, 2001;Halpern, 2003;Shears et al, 2006;Lester et al, 2009). It is clear that fully protected areas confer more benefits than partially protected areas on most of these biological variables (Lester & Halpern, 2008;Gelcich et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reproductive output of two benthic resources (Fissurella latimarginata and Loxechinus albus) under different management regimes along the coast of central Chile

Fernández¹,

Blanco²,

Ruano‐Chamorro³

et al. 2017

lajar

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The biological and ecological benefits of fully and partially marine protected areas are well documented. However, the benefits reaching areas beyond the limits of the reserves are still emerging in spite the fact that they are essential for fishing grounds recovery and to gain support for the protection of the ocean among stakeholders. We analyzed the influence of protection on gonadosomatic index, and also body dry weight, of two economically and ecologically important species: the keyhole limpet, Fissurella latimarginata and the red sea urchin, Loxechinus albus, in order to determine the value of protected areas in directly enhancing reproduction, and therefore potential seeding on exploited areas. We compared two levels of protection in central Chile, determined by fisheries management regimes (in turn associated to fishing pressure): a) areas with fishing restrictions (low or none fishing effort; territorial use rights for fisheries and no-take areas) and b) open access areas (high exploitation rates). We also evaluated the independent influence of upwelling on both variables. Our results show for both species that a) body dry weight is not affected by management regime, b) management regime did not show a consistent impact on gonadosomatic index and c) upwelling did not affect the response variables. Our findings help disentangling the main factors determining reproductive patterns under contrasting human impact scenarios, suggesting that the selection of sites for establishing marine protected areas seems to be less relevant than efficient control of fishing effort and minimum legal size to assure natural seeding.

show abstract

Long-term trends in lobster populations in a partially protected vs. no-take Marine Park

Cited by 88 publications

References 37 publications

Ecological role of large benthic decapods in marine ecosystems: a review

Ecological role of large benthic decapods in marine ecosystems: a review

Evaluating effects of total and partial restrictions to fishing on Mediterranean rocky-reef fish assemblages

Reproductive output of two benthic resources (Fissurella latimarginata and Loxechinus albus) under different management regimes along the coast of central Chile

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About