Tropical invertebrate response to marine reserves varies with protection duration, habitat type, and exploitation history

Abstract

1. Macroinvertebrates play a critical role in marine processes, are important in global fisheries, and make up the vast majority of ocean biodiversity, yet are largely overlooked in fisheries stock assessment and conservation. Marine reserves are a heavily advocated method for promoting recovery of marine biodiversity, but the design of reserves and the methods for evaluating their performance often neglect invertebrate taxa, instead assessing changes in fish abundance or biomass.2. The purpose of this study is to (1) measure the impacts of no-take marine reserves on marine macroinvertebrates, (2) identify the correlates of changes to macroinvertebrate abundance, and (3) determine if the typical taxa used to measure reserve success (finfish) can predict changes in invertebrate abundance.3. Non-coral, non-sponge, macroinvertebrates were sampled inside and outside of 10 community-managed marine reserves in the Central Philippines and compared with abundances found at distant fished sites. 4. Using generalized linear mixed effects models with multimodel inference, positive reserve effects were found in exploited invertebrate taxa both inside and outside of reserves (1.5-2.3 times greater abundances), but no effect was found in unfished taxa. 5. Habitat composition and complexity were consistently associated with higher invertebrate abundance. Most surprisingly, invertebrate abundance was not consistently predicted by that of fish. 6. These results indicate fish, in isolation, may not be an ideal indicator for biodiversity response to reserves, and habitat considerations are important when creating reserves that support invertebrates. These results are particularly relevant to practitioners in developing regions, where community-managed reserves are common and invertebrates are important in fisheries.

Ecological responses to blue water MPAs

“…• Age: The age of an MPA can significantly explain ecological responses [12,14,89]. The counterfactual assessments of the 50 and 200 nm closures employed time series after the treatments of 9-and 4-year durations, respectively.…”

“…These ecological effects are strongest for upper trophic level taxa with certain behavioral and life-history traits, that have high site fidelity and relatively limited mobility, and that were highly exploited when the MPA was established [7][8][9][10][11]. The magnitude of responses is also higher the larger the magnitude of pressures that were reduced within the MPA, the larger and older the MPA, and the more robust the management system and concomitant higher compliance with MPA rules that reduce pressures [1,[12][13][14].…”

Scyllarid Lobster Biology and Ecology

“…For example, the prohibition against landing ovigerous females of Scyllarus arctus in NE Spain has biased the fishery toward males [10], which then affects natural sex ratios, opportunities for females to find mates, and ultimately population structure. Protected natural reserves/no-take zones can, to a certain extent, help rectify these effects [137], but require governmental action and policing. A fully protected, natural reserve off the northern Mediterranean coast of Israel has demonstrated significantly higher numbers of female and male Scyllarides latus compared to a control area with the same characteristics [138].…”

Do static and dynamic marine protected areas that restrict pelagic fishing achieve ecological objectives?

“…This variability is due to factors such as the biology, life history and behavioral traits, trophic links such as whether increased predator abundance in the MPA increased predation pressure and reduced the abundance of their prey, and economic value. The types and magnitudes of ecological responses are also variable by MPA-depending in part on the type and magnitude of pressures that were reduced within the MPA, the MPA's size and age, the suitability of the MPA's design, and the efficacy of regulatory and management frameworks and compliance (McClanahan et al 1999, Mosqueira et al 2000, Halpern 2003, Micheli et al 2004a, b, Kaiser 2005, Claudet et al 2006, Le Quesne and Codling 2009, Gr€ uss et al 2011, Edgar et al 2014, Gill et al 2017, Kenchington et al 2018, Gillespie and Vincent 2019.…”