Marco Andrello1, François Guilhaumon2, Camille Albouy3,4,5, Valeriano Parravicini6, Joeri Scholtens7, Philippe Verley8, Manuel Barange9,10, U Rashid Sumaila11, Stéphanie Manel1, David Mouillot2,12. 1. EPHE, PSL Research University, CEFE UMR 5175, CNRS, Université de Montpellier, Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier, Biogéographie et Ecologie des Vertébrés, 1919 route de Mende, 34293 Montpellier, France. 2. UMR 9190 MARBEC, IRD-CNRS-IFREMER-UM, Université de Montpellier, 34095 Montpellier, France. 3. Landscape Ecology, Institute of Terrestrial Ecosystems, ETH Zürich, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland. 4. Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, 8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland. 5. IFREMER, Unité Ecologie et Modèles pour l'Halieutique, 44300 Nantes Cedex 3, France. 6. CRIOBE, USR 3278 CNRS-EPHE-UPVD, Labex 'Corail', University of Perpignan, 66860 Perpignan, France. 7. MARE Centre for Maritime Research, Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research, University of Amsterdam, Plantage Muidergracht 14, 1018 Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 8. IRD, UMR AMAP, TA A51/PS2, Montpellier, 05 34398 Cedex, France. 9. Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, PL1 3DH Plymouth, UK. 10. Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy. 11. Fisheries Economics Research Unit, Institute for Oceans and Fisheries &Liu Institute for Global Studies, the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z. 12. Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, 4811 Queens Land, Australia.
Abstract
Marine reserves are viewed as flagship tools to protect exploited species and to contribute to the effective management of coastal fisheries. Yet, the extent to which marine reserves are globally interconnected and able to effectively seed areas, where fisheries are most critical for food and livelihood security is largely unknown. Using a hydrodynamic model of larval dispersal, we predict that most marine reserves are not interconnected by currents and that their potential benefits to fishing areas are presently limited, since countries with high dependency on coastal fisheries receive very little larval supply from marine reserves. This global mismatch could be reversed, however, by placing new marine reserves in areas sufficiently remote to minimize social and economic costs but sufficiently connected through sea currents to seed the most exploited fisheries and endangered ecosystems.
Marine reserves are viewed as flagship tools to protect exploited species and to contribute to the effective management of coastal fisheries. Yet, the extent to which marine reserves are globally interconnected and able to effectively seed areas, where fisheries are most critical for food and livelihood security is largely unknown. Using a hydrodynamic model of larval dispersal, we predict that most marine reserves are not interconnected by currents and that their potential benefits to fishing areas are presently limited, since countries with high dependency on coastal fisheries receive very little larval supply from marine reserves. This global mismatch could be reversed, however, by placing new marine reserves in areas sufficiently remote to minimize social and economic costs but sufficiently connected through sea currents to seed the most exploited fisheries and endangered ecosystems.
Overexploitation of natural resources, climate change and other anthropogenic stressors are
threatening the integrity of coastal marine ecosystems, their biodiversity and associated
services1234. In many coastal areas, fisheries constitute a primary
source of food, income and labour and make large contributions to nation’s gross
domestic product (GDP)567. Thus, the depletion of fish stocks may lead
to social-ecological traps, where some dependent human communities increase resource use to
alleviate poverty, with negative consequences for the state of the resource base8.Marine protected areas (MPAs), and specifically no-take marine reserves (MRs), which are
MPAs classified as strict nature reserves or wilderness areas9, are widely
recognized as effective conservation tools supporting greater species biodiversity and
biomass than nearby exploited areas10111213. MRs are also promoted as
potential tools to assist the management of coastal fisheries by securing a portion of fish
stocks and buffering fluctuations of fish populations facing overexploitation14. Moreover, by hosting abundant populations of exploited species, MRs could,
through adult spillover and larval supply, provide net benefits to neighbouring areas and
contribute to rebuilding overexploited fish stocks1516171819.While adult spillover is limited to few kilometres outside the reserve1516, larval dispersal can reach up to hundreds of kilometres following prevalent sea
currents2021. For instance, larvae of coral reef groupers can disperse
up to 200 km and effectively contribute to recruitment in distant exploited
areas21. Larval connectivity can thus provide resilience to MPA networks
against species loss, improving the effectiveness of MPAs and MRs networks for both
biodiversity conservation and fisheries management support2223, and
deliver benefits to exploited areas at large spatial and temporal scales1521. However, the extent to which the global system of MPAs is interconnected and able to
seed areas where fisheries are the most critical for food and livelihood security is
unknown. This is partly because of the inherent difficulty of tracking larval dispersal
over long distances.Larval dispersal can be estimated through various techniques with different strengths and
weaknesses24. Parental genetic and otolith chemical analyses have been
successfully employed to estimate larval dispersal between MPAs2021.
However, these methods require the sampling of a large number of individuals as well as
costly and time-consuming analyses. Moreover, these methods are only effective when
differences in genetics or otolith chemical elements are sufficiently contrasted between
areas. As an alternative, biophysical dispersal models allow the indirect study of
connectivity patterns at large spatial and temporal scales2526. The main
disadvantage of such model-based estimation is the dependence on model parameterization,
among which the pelagic larval duration (PLD) has the largest effect for estimating large
scale connectivity27. While empirical validation of these models remains
challenging2829, the effects of parameter uncertainty can be partly
addressed using sensitivity analyses30.Here, we use a hydrodynamic biophysical model to provide global-scale predictions of larval
connectivity among MPAs and larval supply from MRs to areas open to fishing, particularly
in regions with high economic and livelihood dependency on fisheries. We show that most
MPAs are not interconnected and that the supply of larvae from MRs towards areas with high
dependency on coastal fisheries is very limited. On the other hand, we reveal that strong
oceanographic currents have the potential to deliver unexpected long-distance conservation
benefits even to countries where MRs are currently absent. This result demonstrates that,
beyond national conservation efforts and small-scale adult spill-overs, MRs can sustain
transnational benefits, provided that their location is planned by explicitly considering
marine connectivity patterns.
Results
Number and coverage of marine protected areas
The World Database of Protected Areas (WDPA, downloaded in June 2013)31 identifies a total of 3,061 coastal MPAs of which 695 (23%) are MRs with a
total coverage of 0.9% of the world coastal areas (Supplementary Table 1). MPAs are considered marine
reserves (MRs) if they satisfy at least one of the following criteria: they are fully
no-take zones, they include a no-take zone or they are classified as strict nature
reserves or wilderness areas (that is, IUCN categories Ia or Ib).
Connectivity between marine protected areas
To estimate the probability of larval dispersal between pairs of MPAs, we simulated
the release of ten thousand virtual larvae from each MPA four times a year for 6
years. Larvae were let to drift passively over a period of 30 days, corresponding to
the mean pelagic duration (PLD) of most fish species32. Connection
probabilities are estimated by recording the position of each individual larva at the
end of the PLD, and used to identify isolated and networked MPAs. These simulations
indicate that MPAs are globally weakly connected, with only a few large networks that
combine up to 582 MPAs in Northern Europe (Fig. 1a). The number
of isolated MPAs is remarkably high: 969 MPAs (32%) are not seeded by any
other MPA (zero incoming connections) and 61 (2%) are completely isolated
(zero incoming and outgoing connections, larger symbols in Fig.
1a). On average, each MPA receives larvae from six other MPAs
(interquartile range: 0–23) and sends larvae to 11 other MPAs (interquartile
range: 5–21) (Fig. 1b,c). When only MRs are considered as
donors, the number of isolated MPAs is even higher: 1,636 MPAs (53%) do not
receive any larvae (Fig. 1d,e).
Figure 1
Global connectivity patterns among marine protected areas and no-take marine
reserves based on larval dispersal patterns.
(a) Regions with the largest networks of marine protected areas (MPAs,
circles) and marine reserves (MRs, triangles) are enlarged for readability.
Networks of connected MPAs and MRs are coloured according to their size.
Unconnected MPAs and MRs are drawn with larger symbols. Histograms represent the
distribution of the number of outgoing (b,d) and incoming
(c,e) connections per MPA. In (b) and (c), all MPAs
are considered as donors while in (d) and (e) only MRs are
considered as donors.
In addition to direct connections, we also quantified the connectivity within each
network of MPAs using two metrics of centrality. The betweenness centrality (BC)
identifies the MPAs acting as gateways of connectivity through multi-step
connections, thus measuring their importance for multi-generational connectivity and
gene flow30. The eigenvector centrality (EC), on the other hand,
predicts the effects of catastrophic events, as it ranks single MPAs according to the
reduction in metapopulation size that would result from their local extinctions33. The BC and EC of MPAs are generally not correlated (Spearman’s
ρ between BC and EC <0.7 in 92% of networks), and are also
uncorrelated with the number of connections (ρ<0.7 in 65% and
84% of networks for number of connections and BC and EC, respectively). Thus,
central MPAs (with high BC and/or high EC) are not necessarily the ones with the
highest numbers of connections. More importantly, central MPAs are not better
protected than non-central ones since BC is not significantly different between MPAs
and MRs (Wilcoxon rank sum test, W=770,810, P=0.95) while
the ECs of MRs are lower than those of MPAs (one-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test,
W=733,070, P=0.04).As connections with low probabilities may be too weak to influence population
dynamics across MPAs3435, we assess the sensitivity of network
connectivity using different thresholds in larval connection strength. When
connectivity metrics are recalculated considering only connections above the first or
the second tertile of the connectivity probability distribution, the number of
networks and isolated MPAs is higher, but the median network size remains similar
(Supplementary Fig. 1, Supplementary Table 2).
Larval supply from marine reserves
Larval dispersal is not only a mechanism to strengthen networks of MPAs through a
spatial insurance, but a potentially effective process to seed fishing areas and thus
to provide benefits to coastal fisheries. We defined the coastal fishing area of each
country as the portion of the coastal Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) open to fishing.
To account for differences in fish biomass between MRs, which ultimately drives the
amount of released larvae, we predicted fish biomass per unit of area in each MR
using a statistical model fitted on a reduced number of MRs with known values10 and a set of environmental and socio-economic predictors (Supplementary Table 3 and Supplementary Data 1). Given the accuracy of the
model (R2=80%), the predicted fish biomass in all
MRs was used to weight the larval release potential of each MR and then to calculate
the number of larvae dispersing to each EEZ. At the global scale, we observed that
37% of EEZs (n=109) do not receive larvae from MRs (Fig. 2a). Many African countries are in this category,
particularly those bordering the Red Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean (Egypt and
Sudan), along the West African coast, but also in South America (for example, Peru).
Many isolated coastal areas are also unseeded, notably the Mascarene region,
including Mauritius and La Réunion, in the Indian Ocean, the Azores and Cape
Verde in the Atlantic Ocean, and many islands and archipelagos across the Pacific
Ocean (for example, the Marshall Islands, Kiribati and Vanuatu). Conversely, the
highest densities of larvae seeded from MRs are found in coastal areas of Australia,
some remote islands (South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Svalbard) and in
the Caribbean (Belize, Costa Rica and Honduras).
Figure 2
Larval supply from marine reserves to national exclusive economic zones.
(a) Global map of larval density (unit-free index bounded between 0 and 100
reflecting the number of larvae received in a fishing area relative to the surface
of the fishing area) in each country’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ), with
darker green representing a higher density and lighter green representing lower or
zero densities. (b) EEZs are coloured according to the per cent of coastal
areas in MRs, with darker blue representing a higher percentage and lighter blue
representing a zero percentage. (c) Relationship between larval density and
per cent area of MRs in EEZs (n=289,
R2=7%); dots are coloured according to the
food security fisheries dependency in the country, with darker pink representing
higher dependency and lighter pink representing lower dependency, as in Fig. 4c; countries without estimates of food security fisheries
dependency are in grey.
Global patterns of larval supply from MRs are driven by several factors. First, the
relative short pelagic larval duration (30 days) results in many larvae remaining
within country boundaries; the median percentage of larvae recruiting in the EEZ
where they originate is 86% (mean: 70%), compared to 14% (mean:
30%) dispersing to other EEZs (Supplementary Fig. 2 and Supplementary Data 2). Second, some countries have fewer and/or smaller MRs
than others so a more limited seeding capacity. For example, 175 EEZs (61%)
have no MRs (Fig. 2b). However, there is a weak relationship
between the percentage of coastal area covered by MRs and larval supply at the EEZ
level (Fig. 2c, linear regression on log-transformed values,
P<0.001, R2=7%). Some EEZs receive
very low larval densities despite considerable conservation efforts within their
boundaries (for example, the Heard and McDonald Islands or the Line Group), whereas
some EEZs with a very limited coastal surface area in MRs receive high densities of
larvae (for example, Costa Rica). Indeed, for many EEZs, larval supply can be
provided entirely by other countries (Supplementary Data 2), especially in regions where EEZs are small and
clustered. For example, in the Caribbean, the Turks and Caicos Islands have no MRs
but receive larvae from the Silver banks MR located in the Dominican Republic (Fig. 3a). In the Coral Triangle region, East Timor receives all
its larval supply from MRs located in other countries, particularly Indonesia (Fig. 3b). Thus, beyond national conservation efforts and
small-scale adult spill-over, oceanographic processes have the potential to expand
the benefits of MRs through transnational source-sink dynamics.
Figure 3
Examples of transnational larval supply from marine reserves to fishing
areas.
MRs providing larval supply to fishing areas in the Caribbean (a) and the
Coral Triangle (b) regions. Land areas are coloured in dark grey, coastal
areas in light grey, coastal areas in MRs in red and lines indicate EEZ
boundaries. The red dots are the positions of fish larvae at the end of the larval
dispersal phase (30 days).
Fisheries dependency
For a given country, the relative importance of larval supply from MRs can be
assessed in relation to the country’s dependency on coastal fisheries. The
contribution of coastal fisheries to national welfare and wellbeing is
multidimensional, with the provision of nutritious food, employment and economic
value being most explicitly highlighted in the literature153637.
We quantify this through three indices of fisheries dependency using the economic
value of coastal catches relative to the countries’ GDP (economic), the
fraction of small-scale fishers out of the total active population (employment) and
the catch per capita as a relative index of food security potential (food
security)1. The countries with the highest dependency on coastal
fisheries are located in West Africa (Guinea-Bissau, São Tomé and
Príncipe, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Western Sahara) and in the equatorial
Pacific (Kiribati, Micronesia, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu) (Fig.
4a–c). Other countries heavily dependent on coastal fisheries are
Somalia, Turks and Caicos Islands, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Maldives and
Suriname.
Figure 4
Relationships between national dependency on coastal fisheries and conservation
effort or larval supply from marine reserves.
The national dependency on coastal fisheries is calculated through unit-free
indices bounded between 0 and 100 that estimate the economic
(a,d,g, n=199), employment
(b,e,h, n=144) and food security
(c,f,i, n=139) dependency. Colours reflect
the fisheries dependency, with darker pink representing higher dependency and
lighter pink representing lower dependency. The violin plots in
(d–f) compare the extent of protected coastal areas
(measured as the percentage of EEZs in MRs) among countries grouped by the level
of fisheries dependency. The violin plots in (g–i) compare the
larval density from MRs among countries grouped by the level of fisheries
dependency. The statistics under the plots show the results of a
Kruskal–Wallis test. For both economic and food security dependency, the
significant difference in area protected (d,f) is due to the
difference between low and medium dependency classes (Conover post hoc test,
t=2.6, P=0.03 and t=2.9,
P=0.01, respectively). The significant difference in larval supply
among food security dependency classes (i) is due to the differences
between the high dependency class and the medium (t=2.4,
P=0.02) and low (t=3.2, P<0.01) dependency
classes.
Highly dependent countries have on average the same percentage of coastal area
covered by MRs as less dependent countries (Fig. 4d–f;
even if in absolute terms the surface area of MRs is larger for less dependent
countries; Supplementary Table 4).
However, as noted above, the percentage of coastal area covered by MRs is weakly
correlated with larval supply owing to sea current patterns. Our dispersal model
shows that larval supply from MRs is disproportionately concentrated in countries
with low economic and nutritional dependency on coastal fisheries for their economy
(Fig. 4g) and food security (Fig. 4i).
Countries with a high nutritional dependency receive significantly less larvae than
less dependent countries. Among the highly dependent countries, Guinea-Bissau,
Kiribati, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal and Sierra Leone do not
receive any larvae from MRs. Conversely, larval supply is not significantly different
among countries with different levels of fisheries dependency in terms of employment
(Fig. 4h).
Uncertainty analysis
Our results can be affected by model parametrization and limitations, in particular
larval behaviour (orientation and vertical migration) and PLD27. Due
to a limited knowledge of larval behaviour, we considered larvae to be passive
drifters, which can lead to an overestimation of dispersal distances2429. We thus run another more conservative scenario where we decreased
PLD from 30 to 20 days (corresponding to the first quartile of values for fishes32; Supplementary Table 2
and Supplementary Figs 2–5).
Reducing the PLD has a marginal effect on the average number of connections or
isolated MPAs, but as expected the larval supply to areas open to fishing decreases
(higher number of unseeded EEZs), and countries with high fisheries dependence still
receive significantly less larval supply from MRs.
Discussion
Using a global hydrodynamic model of larval dispersal, we demonstrate that many MPAs
(32%) are not connected and those that are the most important for network
connectivity (high centrality) are not necessarily better protected (that is, no-take
MRs) than less central MPAs. Connectivity confers resilience in case of local
extinction, because larval supply from undisturbed sites can recolonize empty sites38. Thus, in addition to prioritizing new sites for protection on the basis
of biodiversity needs13, spatial planning should ensure species
persistence in case of potential local extinctions by increasing connectivity39. This requires the current system of MPAs to be complemented with new
MPAs in zones that can cross-fertilize larvae with existing MPAs. For MPAs located in
remote sites with small reef areas, for which external larval sources are minimal, the
risk of catastrophic disturbance can be reduced by strengthening local protection
through stronger restrictions and extensions of the protected area. These key features,
when applying over long periods (>10 years), are known to efficiently promote fish
abundance and diversity and increase mean fish body size10, which in turn
improves the resilience of local populations to environmental disturbances4041.In addition to biodiversity conservation, MRs have the potential to provide benefits to
neighbouring fisheries even at distances up to 200 km (refs 15, 21). We have shown that larval supply
from MRs is unevenly distributed across fishing areas, with many EEZs (37%) not
benefiting from any larval supply from MRs. In particular, many unseeded fished areas
are located in countries with high fisheries dependency (for example, West Africa;
Indo-Pacific region). Importantly, this is not a consequence of the absence of MRs in
these countries4243, but rather because sea surface hydrodynamics
export larvae offshore or beyond the EEZ of the MRs.The effects of ocean dynamics on the connectivity of MPAs show the importance of placing
such areas strategically in response to conservation needs but also to the fishing needs
of the most dependent communities. We argue that MRs should be created in areas with
potential for larval transport towards fishing areas4445 to ensure
species protection, maximise provision of larval supply to neighbouring fisheries, while
at the same time minimize the costs of protection. Encouraging results show that MRs
could potentially help sustain small-scale fisheries in highly dependent countries1746. The key to MR success in these cases is the collaborative
partnership among local governments and their communities, demonstrating the potential
benefits of MRs. This approach also presents MRs as a complementary tool to broader
fisheries management frameworks, which increases effectiveness for both fisheries and
biodiversity protection1447.An alternative to creating new MRs in areas with high social costs would also be to
create new MRs in isolated or remote areas where conflicts are limited48.
Such conservation efforts are rapidly expanding to fulfil at low cost the Aichi
Biodiversity Target of 10% sea coverage but are coined as ‘residual’
reserves to extractive uses4849. This is true inside MRs, given the
limited net benefit of protection when human impact is almost absent50,
but potentially wrong when expanding the benefits at larger scale given potential
long-distance larval dispersal2151. Another option is to place new MRs
in the EEZs of countries with low fisheries dependency, from where larval dispersal
through marine currents can seed critical fishing areas. Thus, adopting a transnational
strategy to rebuild coastal fisheries through MRs would contribute to a more legitimate
marine spatial planning, with more attention to the winners and losers of management
intervention. This is even more important in the light of a recent study showing that
individual reserves should export 30% or more of locally produced larvae to
fishing grounds to sustain and rebuild adjacent fisheries and that 20–30%
of fished habitats must be protected in 1–20 km wide reserves52. Unfortunately, such targets remain ambitious in many regions and
alternative or complementary solutions must be found.The importance of long-distance larval supply from MRs for fish population dynamics
depends on mortality of fish larvae in open oceanic areas24 and on the
intensity of exploitation and type of regulations in the seeded EEZ1418, which will dictate whether incoming larvae constitute a significant and persistent
contribution to recruitment. A few empirical studies support the benefits of larval
export from MRs to adjacent fisheries1553, but evidence of
long-distance benefits is still scarce and in need of further work2151.
Another challenge is to show that the incoming species really contributes to biomass
production and sustains fisheries. Depending on the country, some species contribute
more to food security or economic incomes than others. However, larval supply could be
relevant even if species are not consumed directly by humans. Sea currents will
transport larvae of prey (fishes and invertebrates) and habitat builders, like on coral
reefs, which altogether promote biodiversity and productivity of higher trophic levels
that are consumed41. Given the high prevalence of diverse and
non-selective fishing activities in countries highly dependent on fisheries, we consider
that larval seeding from MRs could potentially benefit indirectly food security and
human livelihoods.Alternatively or in complement to larval supply from MRs, well-managed fisheries can be
larval sources since (i) reductions in fishing effort can have larger benefits than the
expansion of MRs47 and (ii) some areas where human populations and use of
ecosystem resources is high can have surprisingly high fish biomass54.
These ‘bright spots’ of management, able to be important sources of larvae
while being fished, are not included in our model since (i) their extent is limited,
(ii) their distribution highly patchy and (iii) their probability of occurrence
challenging to predict at the global scale54. So, our study only focuses
on larval supply by MRs where high fish biomass are consistently found while, for
instance, more than a third of the fished reefs across the Indian Ocean show a biomass
lower than 25% of that found in MPAs55.In conclusion, the limited surface area protected in the sea and the unbalanced spatial
design of MRs are failing to achieve the potential of current global conservation
efforts to sustain human welfare and livelihoods. This global mismatch, given the target
of 10% sea surface protected by 2020, could be reversed by the strategic
establishment of new MRs in areas sufficiently remote to minimize social and economic
costs and sufficiently connected through sea currents to seed the most critical
fisheries and ecosystems.
Methods
Marine protected areas and marine reserves
The MPA database was downloaded from the World Database on Protected Areas31 in June 2013 and filtered before downloading to only keep protected
areas known as ‘marine’. From this first set containing 9,600 MPAs, we
retained only MPAs that passed the following sequential filtering criteria. First, we
removed MPAs located completely on land using the land ecoregion of the world polygon
(www.worldwildlife.org/biomes). Second, we removed MPAs covering pelagic area totally
or for most of their surface using a depth limit of 200 m derived from the
world bathymetric database ETOPO1 (ref. 56). Third, we
deleted MPAs designated to protect species not considered in this study (for example,
birds) by inspecting the ‘Designation’ field of the MPA shapefile.
Fourth, in attempting to eliminate unreliable MPAs, we removed features with IUCN
categories ‘Not recorded’ or ‘Not applicable’ (except
national parks). The final database includes 3,061 MPAs of which 185 are classified
as ‘fully no-take’ and 131 as ‘partly no-take’ (Supplementary Table 1). However, the fully and
partly no-take designations do not coincide with the IUCN category Ia. We consider
the 695 MPAs that are either in IUCN category Ia or Ib or designed at least partially
no-take as effective MPAs (marine reserves, MRs). This criterion is less conservative
than the one used in other studies finding a lower proportion of MRs, such as the one
by Costello and Ballantine9 who considered only MPAs in IUCN category
Ia as MRs (360 MPAs), concluding that only 6% of coastal and open sea MPAs are
MRs.
Exclusive economic zones
Exclusive economic zones (EEZs) are sea zones prescribed by the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) whereby a coastal State assumes jurisdiction
over the exploration and exploitation of marine resources. EEZs extend from the coast
to 200 nautical miles (370 km) off the coast. Polygons including inland
waters, territorial waters and EEZs (that is, all areas where countries have
exclusive rights and jurisdiction) were downloaded from the maritime boundary
geodatabase57.These polygons were intersected with the 12 marine biogeographic realms58 to obtain 289 biogeographic exclusive economic zones: these represent
combination of country and biogeographic data, so that for example, Australia has two
biogeographic exclusive economic zones (Central Indo-Pacific Australian region and
the Temperate Australasia Australian region).Coastal fishing areas are defined as the portion of biogeographic exclusive economic
zones that are accessible by fishers since they are not protected: we removed the 695
polygons of marine reserves from the 289 biogeographic exclusive economic regions,
using the ‘erase’ tool in ArcGIS 10.2. The resulting polygons, called
EEZs in this study, thus represent the exclusive fishing areas of each country.
Larval dispersal simulations
Sea surface current velocities are obtained by the Mercator Ocean’s Global
ocean physical reanalysis GLORYS2V1 (ref. 59). The
horizontal resolution of the model is 1/4° (∼28 km at the equator) and
the temporal resolution of stored data is one day. The surface layer is one metre
deep. The domain of the model is 180°W–180°E, 77°S–90°N.
Data covered the period from January 1st 2003 to December 31st 2008, the most recent
ones available at the time of this study.Larval dispersal simulations were performed with Ichthyop 3.2 (ref. 60). Ten thousand virtual larvae were released in the centroid
of each MPA at the midpoint of each season (that is, 2nd February,
5th May, 6th August and 11th
November) in each of 6 years between 2003–2008, for a total of 734,640,000
released larvae. The time step of iteration was set to 3,600 s (1 h),
which is sufficiently short for larvae not to cross more than one boundary of
hydrodynamic cells in a single time step. Advection was simulated using a Runge-Kutta
fourth order numerical scheme. Horizontal diffusion was applied by a random walk for
individual larvae to account for sub-grid-scale hydrodynamics associated with coastal
features (reefs, bays, gulfs, and so on) following Peliz et al.61, with a horizontal diffusion coefficient
K=ε1/3l4/3, where
ε=10−9 m2 s−3
is the constant turbulent dissipation rate62 and l is length of
the grid cell.Larvae were tracked for 30 days, corresponding to the mean PLD of fishes reported by
Luiz et al.32. Using a single PLD value is in agreement with
the most recent studies, which failed to find a latitudinal pattern in PLD63. Larvae were subject to passive dispersal only; this assumption has
critical consequences on the dispersal distances of larvae and the patterns of
connectivity, as active dispersal mechanisms such as swimming and orientation can
increase local retention rates and decrease dispersal distances27.
Integrating swimming larval traits, which are unknown for most species, would be
prohibitive. To account for the effects of larval behaviour and to simultaneously
evaluate the sensitivity of model results to the PLD, we run the hydrodynamics
simulations using a PLD=20 days, as decreasing the PLD has similar effects to
introducing some larval behaviour in the model. This is supported by results
published in a previous study30, where we showed that simulating
larval dispersal using vertical migration through current layers on 30 days is
equivalent to dispersal on the top surface layers during 20 days.
Connectivity among MPAs
We calculated the connection probabilities between all pairs of MPAs within the same
marine biogeographic realm. The spatial position of larvae relative to MPA polygons
was assessed using the function ‘gContains’ in the R package rgeos
0.3–19 on the latitude and longitude of each larva. Only the coastal portion of
MPAs (shallower than 100 m, from ETOPO1) was considered suitable for the
recruitment of larvae. Connection probabilities were used to construct a connectivity
matrix among all MPAs.Network metrics were used to characterize the global system of MPAs. In such a
system, single MPAs are the nodes and connection probabilities are the edges of the
network. Here, the word ‘network’ is used to denote a set of connected
nodes (that is, a connected component), identified using the ‘components’
function of the R package igraph 1.0.1. Four network metrics were calculated for each
node: the number of incoming edges, the number of outgoing edges, the betweenness
centrality (BC) and the eigenvector centrality (EC). Since the global system of MPAs
is composed of several independent networks, BC and EC were calculated separately for
each network.The number of incoming and outgoing edges were computed including connections of a
node with itself using the ‘degree’ function of igraph. In the context of
the present study, the number of incoming (respectively outgoing) edges measures the
number of MPAs acting as donors (respectively receivers) of larvae for the focal
MPA.The BC of a node measures the importance of the node for the connectivity of the
network. The BC of node i was calculated as the number of shortest paths
between any two nodes that go through node i. The normalized betweenness
centrality was calculated through the ‘betweenness’ function of igraph.
In the context of the present study, the BC measures the importance of central MPAs
for multi-step, multi-generational connectivity, which take advantage of single MPAs
acting as central nodes to spread genes and individuals between MPAs that are not
directly connected30.The EC measures the influence of a node in a network. It is calculated as the left
eigenvector associated with the leading eigenvalue of the connectivity matrix.
Eigenvalues and eigenvectors were calculated using the ‘eigen’ function
in R and eigenvectors were normalized between 0 and 1 to provide a ranking of nodes.
In the context of the present study, a network of MPAs can be thought of as a network
of local demes constituting a metapopulation. It has been shown that the EC of a node
is proportional to the reduction in metapopulation size that would result from the
removal of that node from the network33. The EC therefore measures the
consequences of random catastrophic events leading to the extinction of local demes
located in MPAs.Theoretical studies show that external larval supply can regulate the demography of a
local population if the number of supplied individuals is larger than the number of
individuals removed from the local population (by death or emigration)3435. If the number of incoming larvae cannot offset the number of
deaths and emigrants, then larval supply has no positive effects on local demography.
Therefore, a precise assessment of persistence in a set of connected populations
requires quantifying both the number of incoming larvae (dependent on connection
probabilities and source strengths) and local mortality (dependent on local
demography), but this is beyond the scope of this study. Nevertheless, it is likely
that the weakest connections do not deliver a sufficient number of larvae to the
receiving MPAs. We thus provided all estimates of connectivity using (i) all
connections, (ii) medium and strong connections only (second and third tertiles of
connection probabilities) and (iii) strong connections only (third tertile). This
analysis allows us to assess the robustness of our results to the removal of the
weakest connections (those that might not deliver a sufficient number of
immigrants).
Fish biomass per unit of area in marine reserves
To predict fish biomass per unit area for the 695 MRs, a relationship was established
between fish biomass estimates per unit area obtained from field surveys and a set of
12 environmental and socio-economic variables (Supplementary Table 3). Estimates of fish biomass
per unit area come from Edgar et al.10 for a set of 121 MPAs
worldwide. The environmental and socio-economic variables were collected from public
databases6465. The index of population pressure was calculated by
fitting a quadratic kernel density surface (‘heatmap’ plugin in QGis) to
each settlement point on a year 2000 world population density grid66.The relationship between the log10 of fish biomass per unit area and the
12 predictors was modelled through a boosted regression tree (BRT) with an
explanatory power of R2=80% (Pearson correlation
between observed and predicted values r=0.90, t=22.46,
d.f.=119, P<2.2 × 10−16). The relative
influence of the predictors is listed in Supplementary Table 3. A simplified model retaining only the first eight
variables was used to predict fish biomass per unit area for the 695 MRs of this
study (Supplementary Data 1). The BRT
analysis was performed using the functions ‘gbm.step’,
‘gbm.simplify’ and ‘gbm.predict’ of the R packages gbm 2.1.1
and dismo 1.1-1.We calculated the connection probabilities from the 695 MRs to the 289 EEZs of the
same marine biogeographic realm. The spatial position of larvae relative to EEZ
polygons was assessed using the function ‘gContains’ in the R package
‘rgeos’ on the latitude and longitude of each larva. Only the coastal
portion of EEZs (shallower than 100 m, from ETOPO1) was considered suitable
for the recruitment of larvae. Larval density (LD) for a
given EEZ was calculated as:where e is the fraction of larvae released in MR j
that seed EEZ i, B is the fish biomass per unit of
area in MR j, A is the coastal surface area (areas
shallower than 100 m, from ETOPO1) of MR j and
A is the coastal surface area of EEZ i. The
product BA is the predicted fish
biomass in MR j and was used to account for differential larval production
among MRs. The LD values were indexed by subtracting the
minimum from the raw values and dividing them by the maximum–minimum deviation
and multiplying them by 100, so as to obtain values bounded between 0 and 100.Differences in LD among countries grouped by their level of
fishery dependency were tested using a Kruskal–Wallis test. Post hoc
differences between pairs of groups were tested using a Conover test; P values
are adjusted using the Benjamini–Hochberg method. The analyses are conducted
with the R package PMCMR 4.1.The fisheries dependency assesses the importance of a coastal country’s
small-scale fisheries in terms of their contributions to a national economy,
employment and food security. These are the socio-economic indices that are the most
explicitly highlighted in the literature153637. While additional
dimensions like recreation and tourism are important too67, we lack
quantitative assessment at the global scale and evidence that these dimensions are
directly related to larval seeding. We thus quantify fishery dependency following the
methodology proposed and applied by Barange et al.1 and
building on data obtained from the Sea Around Us project68. We focused
only on coastal small-scale fisheries, because fisheries outside EEZs and in the
high-seas are less likely to benefit from coastal MRs.The economic indicator was calculated as the ratio of landed value of small-scale
marine fishing (artisanal and subsistence fishing in the Sea Around Us database) to
the country’s gross domestic product. We average these data over five years and
use the most recent available values (2006–2010 in the Sea Around Us
database).The employment indicator was calculated as the ratio of the number of small-scale
marine fishers to the national economically active population. Contributions were
obtained from statistics of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and
International Labour Organization and from published literature56970. Data on small-scale fisheries provided by member countries typically lead to an
underestimation of employment5. The extrapolations made by Teh and
Sumaila5 compensate for the underestimation of small-scale
fisheries, but occasionally appear to overestimate employment1.
Therefore, we took the average value of the extrapolated data of Teh and Sumaila5 and the reported data from available country-level studies6970.The food security indicator was calculated as the ratio of the biomass of small-scale
marine fishing per capita (using the 2006–2010 average values form the Sea
Around Us) scaled to an indicator of national diet adequacy. The indicator of diet
adequacy is the ratio of national average animal protein intake per capita per day to
the required level of 36 g per capita per day1. In this way, a
country is considered highly dependent on marine fisheries in terms of food security
if fish consumption (derived from artisanal and subsistence fisheries) per capita is
high and if total animal protein consumption is low compared to a reference point
(indicating an overall inadequate diet).The three indicators were indexed by subtracting the minimum from the raw values and
dividing them by the maximum–minimum deviation, and multiplying them by 100, so
as to obtain values bounded between 0 and 100.The implicit assumption of the analysis of larval supply in relation to fisheries
dependency is that the extra influx of larvae can directly or indirectly contribute
to the fisheries. While some species may contribute more to food security and others
to economy, all larvae can affect the dynamics of fished ecosystem and thus
contribute to local fisheries. Thus, larval supply can be relevant even if species
are not consumed directly by the human communities.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding
author upon reasonable request.
Additional information
How to cite this article: Andrello, M. et al. Global mismatch between
fishing dependency and larval supply from marine reserves. Nat. Commun.
8, 16039 doi: 10.1038/ncomms16039 (2017).Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Authors: James R Watson; David A Siegel; Bruce E Kendall; Satoshi Mitarai; Andrew Rassweiller; Steven D Gaines Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-10-10 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Hugo B Harrison; David H Williamson; Richard D Evans; Glenn R Almany; Simon R Thorrold; Garry R Russ; Kevin A Feldheim; Lynne van Herwerden; Serge Planes; Maya Srinivasan; Michael L Berumen; Geoffrey P Jones Journal: Curr Biol Date: 2012-05-24 Impact factor: 10.834
Authors: Boris Worm; Ray Hilborn; Julia K Baum; Trevor A Branch; Jeremy S Collie; Christopher Costello; Michael J Fogarty; Elizabeth A Fulton; Jeffrey A Hutchings; Simon Jennings; Olaf P Jensen; Heike K Lotze; Pamela M Mace; Tim R McClanahan; Cóilín Minto; Stephen R Palumbi; Ana M Parma; Daniel Ricard; Andrew A Rosenberg; Reg Watson; Dirk Zeller Journal: Science Date: 2009-07-31 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Eric A Treml; Jason J Roberts; Yi Chao; Patrick N Halpin; Hugh P Possingham; Cynthia Riginos Journal: Integr Comp Biol Date: 2012-07-19 Impact factor: 3.326
Authors: Joshua E Cinner; Eva Maire; Cindy Huchery; M Aaron MacNeil; Nicholas A J Graham; Camilo Mora; Tim R McClanahan; Michele L Barnes; John N Kittinger; Christina C Hicks; Stephanie D'Agata; Andrew S Hoey; Georgina G Gurney; David A Feary; Ivor D Williams; Michel Kulbicki; Laurent Vigliola; Laurent Wantiez; Graham J Edgar; Rick D Stuart-Smith; Stuart A Sandin; Alison Green; Marah J Hardt; Maria Beger; Alan M Friedlander; Shaun K Wilson; Eran Brokovich; Andrew J Brooks; Juan J Cruz-Motta; David J Booth; Pascale Chabanet; Charlotte Gough; Mark Tupper; Sebastian C A Ferse; U Rashid Sumaila; Shinta Pardede; David Mouillot Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Lea-Anne Henry; Claudia G Mayorga-Adame; Alan D Fox; Jeff A Polton; Joseph S Ferris; Faron McLellan; Chris McCabe; Tina Kutti; J Murray Roberts Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-08-16 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Alpina Begossi; Svetlana Salyvonchyk; Branko Glamuzina; Shirley Pacheco de Souza; Priscila F M Lopes; Regina H G Priolli; Djalma Osmanir do Prado; Milena Ramires; Mariana Clauzet; Cleverson Zapelini; Daiana T Schneider; Luis T Silva; Renato A M Silvano Journal: J Ethnobiol Ethnomed Date: 2019-11-06 Impact factor: 2.733
Authors: Tom Van der Stocken; Dustin Carroll; Dimitris Menemenlis; Marc Simard; Nico Koedam Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2018-12-31 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Nestor E Bosch; Jacquomo Monk; Jordan Goetze; Shaun Wilson; Russell C Babcock; Neville Barrett; Jock Clough; Leanne M Currey-Randall; David V Fairclough; Rebecca Fisher; Brooke A Gibbons; David Harasti; Euan S Harvey; Michelle R Heupel; Jamie L Hicks; Thomas H Holmes; Charlie Huveneers; Daniel Ierodiaconou; Alan Jordan; Nathan A Knott; Hamish A Malcolm; Dianne McLean; Mark Meekan; Stephen J Newman; Ben Radford; Matthew J Rees; Benjamin J Saunders; Conrad W Speed; Michael J Travers; Corey B Wakefield; Thomas Wernberg; Tim J Langlois Journal: Conserv Biol Date: 2021-07-27 Impact factor: 7.563