Marine Protected Area Networks: Assessing Whether the Whole Is Greater than the Sum of Its Parts

Grorud-Colvert, Kirsten; Claudet, Joachim; Tissot, Brian N.; Caselle, Jennifer E.; Carr, Mark H.; Day, Jon C.; Friedlander, Alan M.; Lester, Sarah E.; Loma, Thierry Lison de; Malone, Daniel P.; Walsh, William J.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0102298

Cited by 100 publications

(94 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This potential for network persistence depends on the distribution of reproduction throughout a seascape and the realized connectivity among subpopulations (Burgess et al 2014, Hastings & Botsford 2006. Direct empirical evidence of reserves enabling network persistence is lacking given the comprehensive data on fecundity, survivorship, and dispersal necessary for its assessment (Burgess et al 2014), but a recent study suggests that the effect of a reserve network on abundance is greater than that expected from the sum of the individual reserves (Grorud-Colvert et al 2014).…”

Section: Protection Selectivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Ecological and Evolutionary Consequences of Marine Reserves

Baskett

Barnett

2015

Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Here we review the population, community, and evolutionary consequences of marine reserves. Responses at each level depend on the tendency of fisheries to target larger body sizes and the tendency for greater reserve protection with less movement within and across populations. The primary population response to reserves is survival to greater ages and sizes plus increases in the population size for harvested species, with greater response to reserves that are large relative to species' movement rates. The primary community response to reserves is an increase in total biomass and diversity, with the potential for trophic cascades and altered spatial patterning of metacommunities. The primary evolutionary response to reserves is increased genetic diversity, with the theoretical potential for protection against fisheries-induced evolution and selection for reduced movement. The potential for the combined outcome of these responses to buffer marine populations and communities against temporal environmental heterogeneity has preliminary theoretical and empirical support.

show abstract

Section: Protection Selectivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Ecological and Evolutionary Consequences of Marine Reserves

Baskett

Barnett

2015

Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Examples include the protection of mangroves in coastal areas to limit risks associated to extreme weather conditions and to provide benefits and opportunities to local populations; and the establishment of marine protected areas to conserve biodiversity within these areas while exporting biomass into fishing grounds (Grorud-Colvert et al 2014). This type of NBS is connected to, e. g., the concept of biosphere reserves incorporating core protected areas for nature conservation and buffer and transition areas where people live and work in a sustainable way.…”

Section: A Proposed Typologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Nature-based Solutions: New Influence for Environmental Management and Research in Europe

Eggermont¹,

Balian²,

Neto³

et al. 2015

GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society

Self Cite

440

286

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Greening roofs or walls to cool down city areas during summer, to capture storm water, to abate pollution, and to increase human well-being while enhancing biodiversity: nature-based solutions (NBS) refer to the sustainable management and use of nature for tackling societal challenges. Building on and comple- menting traditional biodiversity conservation and management strategies, NBS integrate science, policy, and practice and create biodiversity benefits in terms of diverse, well-managed ecosystems.

show abstract

“…However, as mentioned above very large marine reserves can be effective for preserving biodiversity and can have higher resilience, but are controversial as a fisheries management tool, while surveillance costs increase exponentially. A good alternative would be to establish MPA networks (Gaines et al, 2010b;Grorud-Colvert et al, 2014;Bode et al, 2016). After the results highlighted above, a network of marine reserves of around 600 ha each separated by tens of kilometres would optimize the balance between conservation efficiency and maintenance costs and have a synergistic effect on the export of biomass in fishing areas between reserves.…”

Section: Designing Network Of Mpasmentioning

confidence: 99%

North East Atlantic vs. Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas as Fisheries Management Tool

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effectiveness of management initiatives implemented in the context of the European Common Fisheries Policy has been questioned, especially with regard to the Mediterranean. Some of the analyses made to compare the fishing activity and management measures carried out in the North East Atlantic and in the Mediterranean do not take into account some of the differentiating peculiarities of each of these regions. At the same time, they resort to traditional fisheries management measures and do not discuss the role of marine protected areas as a complementary management tool. In this respect, the apparent failure of marine protected areas in the North-East Atlantic compared with the same in the Mediterranean is challenging European fishery scientists. Application of the classical holistic view of ecological succession to the functioning of fishery closures and no-use areas highlights the importance of combining both management regimes to fully satisfy both fishery-and biodiversity-oriented goals. We advocate that an optimal management strategy for designing an MPA to protect biodiversity and sustain fishing yields consists of combining a network of no-use areas (close to their mature state) with fish boxes (buffer zones maintained by fishing disturbance in a relatively early successional stage, where productivity is higher), under a multi-zoning scheme. In this framework, the importance of no-use areas for fisheries is based on several observations: (1) They preserve biological diversity at regional scale, at all levels-specific, habitat/seascape, and also genetic diversity and the structure of populations, allowing natural selection to operate. (2) They permit the natural variability of the system to be differentiated from the effects of regulation and to be integrated in appropriate sampling schemes as controls. (3) They maintain the natural size and age structure of the populations, hence maximizing potential fecundity, allowing biomass export to occur from core to regulated areas, dampening the fluctuations derived from deviations from the theoretical optimal effort in the fishing zone.

show abstract

Marine Protected Area Networks: Assessing Whether the Whole Is Greater than the Sum of Its Parts

Cited by 100 publications

References 44 publications

The Ecological and Evolutionary Consequences of Marine Reserves

The Ecological and Evolutionary Consequences of Marine Reserves

Nature-based Solutions: New Influence for Environmental Management and Research in Europe

North East Atlantic vs. Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas as Fisheries Management Tool

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About