Literature DB >> 18213966

Temperate marine reserves enhance targeted but not untargeted fishes in multiple no-take MPAs.

Irene Tetreault1, Richard F Ambrose.   

Abstract

Although many papers report the effects of no-take marine protected areas (MPAs or reserves), scientifically rigorous empirical studies are rare, particularly for temperate reef fishes. We evaluated the responses of fish populations to protection from fishing in reserves by comparing densities and sizes inside and outside of five no-take reserves in southern California, USA. Our results are robust because we compared responses across multiple rocky-reef reserves in two different years and controlled for possible site differences by (a) ensuring that habitat characteristics were the same inside and outside reserves, and (b) sampling species that are not targeted, which would not be expected to have a direct response to fishing. We compared fish density and size and calculated biomass and egg production across all five sites. Fishes targeted by recreational and/or commercial fisheries consistently exhibited increases in mean density (150%), size (30%), biomass (440%), and egg production (730%) inside reserves. Reserve effects were greatest for legal-sized targeted fishes: significantly greater densities were found exclusively inside reserves for targeted species (580%), the largest size classes existed only inside reserves, and mean biomass was 1000% higher. These responses were unlikely to have been caused by habitat differences because there were no significant differences in habitat characteristics between reserve and control locations. Densities of non-targeted species did not differ between reserve and non-reserve locations, further supporting the conclusions that differences in targeted species between reserve and control locations were due to harvesting rather than site-specific effects. Although MPAs cannot replace traditional fisheries management, the concentration of increased biomass and egg production is a unique MPA benefit that serves both reserves and fisheries. Scientifically rigorous studies that include multiple reserves, such as this study, are needed to inform management and policy decisions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18213966     DOI: 10.1890/06-0161.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ecol Appl        ISSN: 1051-0761            Impact factor:   4.657


  13 in total

1.  Incorporating biogeography into evaluations of the Channel Islands marine reserve network.

Authors:  Scott L Hamilton; Jennifer E Caselle; Dan P Malone; Mark H Carr
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2010-02-22       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Exploitation and recovery of a sea urchin predator has implications for the resilience of southern California kelp forests.

Authors:  Scott L Hamilton; Jennifer E Caselle
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2015-01-22       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Extensive geographic and ontogenetic variation characterizes the trophic ecology of a temperate reef fish on southern California (USA) rocky reefs.

Authors:  Scott L Hamilton; Jennifer E Caselle; Coulson A Lantz; Tiana L Egloff; Emi Kondo; Seth D Newsome; Kerri Loke-Smith; Daniel J Pondella; Kelly A Young; Christopher G Lowe
Journal:  Mar Ecol Prog Ser       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 2.824

4.  The impacts of human visitation on mussel bed communities along the California coast: are regulatory marine reserves effective in protecting these communities?

Authors:  Jayson R Smith; Peggy Fong; Richard F Ambrose
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 3.266

5.  Spearfishing regulation benefits artisanal fisheries: the ReGS indicator and its application to a multiple-use Mediterranean marine protected area.

Authors:  Delphine Rocklin; Jean-Antoine Tomasini; Jean-Michel Culioli; Dominique Pelletier; David Mouillot
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-09-23       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Using GIS mapping of the extent of nearshore rocky reefs to estimate the abundance and reproductive output of important fishery species.

Authors:  Jeremy T Claisse; Daniel J Pondella; Jonathan P Williams; James Sadd
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-01-17       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Beyond marine reserves: exploring the approach of selecting areas where fishing is permitted, rather than prohibited.

Authors:  Natalie C Ban; Amanda C J Vincent
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-07-22       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Evidence that marine reserves enhance resilience to climatic impacts.

Authors:  Fiorenza Micheli; Andrea Saenz-Arroyo; Ashley Greenley; Leonardo Vazquez; Jose Antonio Espinoza Montes; Marisa Rossetto; Giulio A De Leo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-07-18       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Lobster and cod benefit from small-scale northern marine protected areas: inference from an empirical before-after control-impact study.

Authors:  Even Moland; Esben Moland Olsen; Halvor Knutsen; Pauline Garrigou; Sigurd Heiberg Espeland; Alf Ring Kleiven; Carl André; Jan Atle Knutsen
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2013-01-08       Impact factor: 5.349

10.  Fishers' behaviour in response to the implementation of a Marine Protected Area.

Authors:  Bárbara Horta e Costa; Marisa I Batista; Leonel Gonçalves; Karim Erzini; Jennifer E Caselle; Henrique N Cabral; Emanuel J Gonçalves
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-06-03       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.