Evaluating the social and ecological effectiveness of partially protected marine areas.

Ocean conservation boosts climate change mitigation and adaptation

Underprotected Marine Protected Areas in a Global Biodiversity Hotspot

The establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs), particularly of no‐take areas, is often viewed as a conflict between conservation and fishing. Partially protected areas (PPAs) that restrict some extractive uses are often regarded as a balance between biodiversity conservation and socio‐economic viability. Few attempts have been made to generalize the ecological effects of PPAs. We synthesized the results of empirical studies that compared PPAs to (i) no‐take reserves (NTRs) and (ii) to open access (Open) areas, to assess the potential benefits of different levels of protection for fish populations. Response to protection was examined in relation to MPA parameters and the exploitation status of fish. Our syntheses suggest that while PPAs significantly enhance density and biomass of fish relative to Open areas, NTRs yielded significantly higher biomass of fish within their boundaries relative to PPAs. The positive response to protection was primarily driven by target species. There was a large degree of variability in the magnitude of response to protection, although the size of the PPA explained some of this variability. The protection regime within the PPA provided useful insights into the effectiveness of partial MPAs. We conclude that MPAs with partial protection confer advantages, such as enhanced density and biomass of fish, compared to areas with no restrictions, although the strongest responses occurred for areas with total exclusion. Thus, MPAs with a combination of protection levels are a valuable spatial management tool particularly in areas where exclusion of all activities is not a socio‐economically and politically viable option.

Historical exploitation of the Mediterranean Sea and the absence of rigorous baselines makes it difficult to evaluate the current health of the marine ecosystems and the efficacy of conservation actions at the ecosystem level. Here we establish the first current baseline and gradient of ecosystem structure of nearshore rocky reefs at the Mediterranean scale. We conducted underwater surveys in 14 marine protected areas and 18 open access sites across the Mediterranean, and across a 31-fold range of fish biomass (from 3.8 to 118 g m−2). Our data showed remarkable variation in the structure of rocky reef ecosystems. Multivariate analysis showed three alternative community states: (1) large fish biomass and reefs dominated by non-canopy algae, (2) lower fish biomass but abundant native algal canopies and suspension feeders, and (3) low fish biomass and extensive barrens, with areas covered by turf algae. Our results suggest that the healthiest shallow rocky reef ecosystems in the Mediterranean have both large fish and algal biomass. Protection level and primary production were the only variables significantly correlated to community biomass structure. Fish biomass was significantly larger in well-enforced no-take marine reserves, but there were no significant differences between multi-use marine protected areas (which allow some fishing) and open access areas at the regional scale. The gradients reported here represent a trajectory of degradation that can be used to assess the health of any similar habitat in the Mediterranean, and to evaluate the efficacy of marine protected areas.

As part of international obligations and national policies, most nations are working toward establishing comprehensive, adequate, and representative systems of terrestrial and marine protected areas (MPAs). Assigning internationally recognized International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) protected area categories to these MPAs is an important part of this process. The most recent guidance from the IUCN clearly states that commercial or recreational fishing is inappropriate in MPAs designated as category II (National Park). However, in at least two developed countries with long histories of protected area development (e.g., Canada and Australia), category II is being assigned to a number of MPAs that allow some form of commercial or recreational fishing. Using Australia as a case study, this article explores the legal and policy implications of applying protected area categories to MPAs and the consequences for misapplying them. As the Australian Government is about to embark on potentially one of the largest expansions of MPA networks in the world, ensuring the application of IUCN categories is both transparent and consistent with international practice will be important, both for the sake of international conventions and to accurately track conservation progress.

MEPS Marine Ecology Progress Series Contact the journal Facebook Twitter RSS Mailing List Subscribe to our mailing list via Mailchimp HomeLatest VolumeAbout the JournalEditorsTheme Sections MEPS 367:49-56 (2008) - DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07599 Biological responses in marine no-take reserves versus partially protected areas Sarah E. Lester1,3,*, Benjamin S. Halpern2 1Institute of Marine Sciences, Long Marine Laboratory, 100 Shaffer Road, University of California, Santa Cruz, California 95060, USA 2National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, 735 State Street, Suite 300, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93101, USA 3Present address: Marine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106, USA *Email: slester@ucsc.edu ABSTRACT: Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are a common tool for conserving and managing marine and coastal ecosystems. MPAs encompass a range of protection levels, from fully protected no-take reserves to restriction of only particular activities, gear types, user groups, target species, or extraction periods. There is a growing body of scientific evidence supporting the ecological benefits of full reserve protection, but it is more difficult to generalize about the effects of other types of MPAs, in part because they include a range of actual protection levels. However, it is critical to determine whether partial protection and no-take reserves provide similar ecological benefits given potential economic costs of lost fishing grounds in no-take areas, common sociopolitical opposition to full protection, and promotion of partially protected areas as a compromise solution in ocean zoning disputes. Here we synthesize all empirical studies comparing biological measures (biomass, density, species richness, and size of organisms) in no-take marine reserves and adjacent partially protected and unprotected areas across a range of geographic locations worldwide. We demonstrate that while partially protected areas may confer some benefits over open access areas, no-take reserves generally show greater benefits and yield significantly higher densities of organisms within their boundaries relative to partially protected sites nearby. KEY WORDS: Marine reserves · Marine protected areas · Protection level · Conservation · Ocean zoning Full text in pdf format PreviousNextCite this article as: Lester SE, Halpern BS (2008) Biological responses in marine no-take reserves versus partially protected areas. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 367:49-56. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07599 Export citation RSS - Facebook - Tweet - linkedIn Cited by Published in MEPS Vol. 367. Online publication date: September 11, 2008 Print ISSN: 0171-8630; Online ISSN: 1616-1599 Copyright © 2008 Inter-Research.

The physical, economic, and sociocultural displacement of local peoples from protected areas generates intense discussion among scholars and policy makers. To foster greater precision and clarity in these discussions, we used a conceptual framework from the political economy literature to examine different forms of human displacement from protected areas. Using marine protected areas (MPAs) to ground our analysis, we characterized the 5 types of property rights that are reallocated (lost, secured, and gained) through the establishment of protected areas. All forms of MPA "displacement" involve reallocation of property rights, but the specific types and bundles of rights lost, secured, and gained dramatically shape the magnitude, extent, and equity of MPA impacts--positive and negative--on governance, economic well-being, health, education, social capital, and culture. The impacts of reallocating rights to MPA resources vary within and among social groups, inducing changes in society, in patterns of resource use, and in the environment. To create more environmentally sustainable and socially just conservation practice, a critical next step in conservation social science research is to document and explain variation in the social impacts of protected areas.

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are a cornerstone of marine conservation. Globally, the number and coverage of MPAs are increasing, but MPA implementation lags in many human-dominated regions. In areas with intense competition for space and resources, evaluation of the effects of MPAs is crucial to inform decisions. In the human-dominated Mediterranean Sea, fully protected areas occupy only 0.04% of its surface. We evaluated the impacts of full and partial protection on biomass and density of fish assemblages, some commercially important fishes, and sea urchins in 24 Mediterranean MPAs. We explored the relationships between the level of protection and MPA size, age, and enforcement. Results revealed significant positive effects of protection for fisheries target species and negative effects for urchins as their predators benefited from protection. Full protection provided stronger effects than partial protection. Benefits of full protection for fish biomass were only correlated with the level of MPA enforcement; fish density was higher in older, better enforced, and —interestingly— smaller MPAs. Our finding that even small, well-enforced, fully protected areas can have significant ecological effects is encouraging for “crowded” marine environments. However, more data are needed to evaluate sufficient MPA sizes for protecting populations of species with varying mobility levels.

Event Abstract Back to Event Biodiversity, biomass, and community organization inside and outside marine protected areas Néstor S. Martínez1*, Jose A. Sanabria1, Natalí D. Lazzari1 and Mikel A. Becerro1 1 IPNA-CSIC, The Bites Lab, Spain Human activities associated with the rise of the world population are a major driver of ecological change and have a large toll in global biodiversity including that in world oceans. Marine protected areas are one of the main conservation actions to preserve marine biodiversity and recover fish stocks. Protected areas in the Spanish waters include marine protected areas, natural parks, and other conservation areas with a variety of status (MPAs, in general). Our study tested whether MPAs are effective tools to recover fish stocks in terms of richness, abundance, or biomass, and to preserve marine biodiversity as measured with the Shannon diversity index. We used standardized underwater visual censuses as specified by the citizen-based Reef Life Survey program to quantify the number and abundance of fish and invertebrates. Abundance and size information were used to calculate fish biomass. This species-level database allowed quantification of a number of biodiversity indicators inside and outside numerous MPAs distributed along the coasts of Spain and Portugal. We used an ANOVA design to test for differences in community organization inside and outside MPAs. We also used abundance data to calculate a number of metrics such as biomass, Shannon diversity or species richness. We ran a nested ANOVA to test for difference in these metrics as a function of 4 marine ecoregions of the world (Mediterranean, South Atlantic, Alboran Sea and Macaronesia), local geographic areas (nested within ecoregion), and level of protection of each point (protected and unprotected, orthogonal). Overall, protected areas have larger fish abundance and biomass. However, we observed significant differences between areas of the same ecoregion and between MPAs. Our results showed that protection efficiency varied between MPAs. At the community level, benthic invertivores, particularly wrasses and blennies, showed the most differences between protection levels. Despite some metrics showed higher values in protected than in unprotected areas, most metrics varied as a function of geographic area, which suggests for the need to create effective MPAs in multiple geographic locations should we aim to provide more efficient measures to preserve marine biodiversity. Keywords: Biodiversity, biomass, community organization, Marine Protected Areas (MPA), ecoregions Conference: XIX Iberian Symposium on Marine Biology Studies, Porto, Portugal, 5 Sep - 9 Sep, 2016. Presentation Type: Oral Presentation Topic: 1. ECOLOGY, BIODIVERSITY AND VULNERABLE ECOSYSTEMS Citation: Martínez NS, Sanabria JA, Lazzari ND and Becerro MA (2016). Biodiversity, biomass, and community organization inside and outside marine protected areas. Front. Mar. Sci. Conference Abstract: XIX Iberian Symposium on Marine Biology Studies. doi: 10.3389/conf.FMARS.2016.05.00063 Copyright: The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers. They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters. The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated. Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed. For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions. Received: 19 May 2016; Published Online: 02 Sep 2016. * Correspondence: Mr. Néstor S Martínez, IPNA-CSIC, The Bites Lab, San Cristóbal de La Laguna, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, 38206, Spain, nestorsanchezmartinez@gmail.com Login Required This action requires you to be registered with Frontiers and logged in. To register or login click here. Abstract Info Abstract The Authors in Frontiers Néstor S Martínez Jose A Sanabria Natalí D Lazzari Mikel A Becerro Google Néstor S Martínez Jose A Sanabria Natalí D Lazzari Mikel A Becerro Google Scholar Néstor S Martínez Jose A Sanabria Natalí D Lazzari Mikel A Becerro PubMed Néstor S Martínez Jose A Sanabria Natalí D Lazzari Mikel A Becerro Related Article in Frontiers Google Scholar PubMed Abstract Close Back to top Javascript is disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser settings in order to see all the content on this page.

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are a key tool in ecosystem-based management, implementing a spatial approach to biodiversity conservation in the oceans. While the use of protected areas to conserve and/or protect resources has a long history, including centuries of royal hunting areas and traditionally managed areas, the modern conceptualization of protected areas dates to the late 19th century, with the designation of Yellowstone National Park in the United States in 1872. The first similar formally protected area with a marine component was the Royal National Park MPA in New South Wales, Australia, in 1879, although it also included a terrestrial component, as do many MPAs in coastal areas. The land/sea interface poses a challenge to delineating between terrestrial and marine parks, adding to a complex jurisdictional and legal landscape. Consequently, it is helpful to categorize MPAs based on the broad definition for protected areas offered by the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature): a clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values. As evidenced in this definition, discussions surrounding MPAs have become more amenable to soft-law approaches and/or less formal legal designations, and they are also increasingly tied to the concept of ecosystem services (i.e., protecting systems that in turn provide people with services that would be costly to otherwise reproduce, such as the coastal protection provided by mangroves and coral reefs). Of course, there are also strong arguments for protecting nature for its own intrinsic value, as well as the value it holds for non-human species. In order to fully understand the promise and efficacy of MPAs, it is necessary to examine their legal basis, their effectiveness as tools, how they can work together as networks to achieve ecological objectives, and how the global community is using protected area targets and large-scale MPAs to maximize coverage. However, it is also important to consider the socioeconomic dimensions of MPAs, as these often lead to problems with their success, including concerns with equity and justice and how well they are governed. Looking forward, future work in the field of MPAs includes ensuring they are achieving their ecological objectives, by ensuring enough areas are closed to all extractive uses, and developing a regime for designating them in areas beyond national jurisdiction, on the high seas.

Last week, the United States designated nearly 140,000 square miles of the Pacific Ocean northwest of Hawaii as the largest protected marine reserve in the world. This is good news, considering that earlier this year, 4000 delegates left the international Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (held in March 2006 in Brazil) with mixed feelings. Portrayal of the conference as successful by the Executive Secretary was in stark contrast to the frustration expressed by environmentalist groups about the failure to progress toward creating large marine protected areas. Paradoxically, the fact that the oceans are the patrimony of all nations creates a legislation gap that is the major obstacle to increasing the percent of protected ocean to the 10% targeted by the convention. This obstacle is augmented by a lack of awareness by legislators and the general public about the role, status, and prospects of biological diversity in oceans relative to the land. Until a better understanding of the diversity of and threats to life in the oceans is achieved, there will be no progress in protecting marine biodiversity. The vast richness of marine biodiversity remains to be discovered, particularly in remote habitats such as the deep ocean. There is a widespread misconception that extinction in the ocean is unlikely because of its huge biogeographical ranges and high connectivity of habitat. But recent surveys and molecular analyses of ocean samples have revealed marine invertebrates with biogeographical ranges as small as 4 km. Specialized communities in deep-sea habitats, such as hydrothermal vents and cold seeps, are isolated across thousands of kilometers. Marine diversity is much more extensive and vulnerable than previously thought. Moreover, much of this diversity is microbial and therefore generally unappealing to society. Indeed, more charismatic animals and plants receive most of the conservationists' attention. Scientific research must unveil the importance of ocean life diversity, test for declines in important taxa and ecosystems, elucidate the causes of these declines, and provide remedial options to change these perception biases. ![Figure][1] Although research on biodiversity has increased, these efforts are dominated by studies on land. Between 1987 and 2004, only 9.8% of published research dealt with marine biodiversity. This severe imbalance percolates through international programs. For instance, only about 10% of the First Open Science Conference of the Diversitas Programme (November 2005 in Mexico) that dealt with biodiversity science addressed marine biodiversity. This disproportionally small research effort on marine biodiversity is in sharp contrast to the large genomic diversity in the oceans as compared to that on land. Most branches of the evolutionary tree of life thrive in the oceans, whereas most terrestrial species are contained within only two branches, a result of the extended history of life in the oceans (3500 million years). The genomic richness of the ocean is an untapped resource for biotechnology, pharmacy, and food. The number of marine species brought into aquaculture exceeds, after only 30 years of development, the number of animal species domesticated over 10,000 years of husbandry on land. Realizing these opportunities requires progress to improve our present knowledge about sustainably managing marine resources. The oceans have lost much of their fish biomass and megafauna to hunting, and key coastal habitats are lost globally at rates 2 to 10 times faster than those in tropical forests [also see the Report by Lotze et al. in this issue (p. [1806][2])]. Anthropogenic inputs to the ocean are causing hypoxia and widespread deterioration of water quality, and anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing ocean acidification, which is emerging as a global threat to calcifying marine organisms. The concept of protected areas that emerged from studies of life on land cannot be readily extrapolated to the ocean. Until last week, the total protected marine area was 10 times smaller than that on land, and most marine protected areas are too small to be effective. Mounting evidence indicates that marine food webs are connected across oceanic scales, but the forces driving these connections are poorly understood. We must improve our understanding of how the global ocean ecosystem works in order to design networks of protected areas that effectively preserve biodiversity. Indeed, as Mora et al. point out in this issue (p. [1750][3]), the present design of some marine protected areas may not be optimal. Further promoting marine biodiversity research requires a larger scientific community and more resources than currently exist. This can be achieved through increased international cooperative efforts and networking. We must do this before we face a future depleted of marine resources. [1]: pending:yes [2]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1128035 [3]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1125295

Aim To quantify general differences in reef community structure between well enforced and poorly enforced marine protected areas (MPAs) and fished sites across the Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP) regional seascape Location The Pacific continental margin and oceanic islands of Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia and Ecuador, including World Heritage sites at Galapagos, Coiba, Cocos and Malpelo Methods Densities of reef fishes, mobile and sessile invertebrates, and macroalgae were quantified using underwater visual surveys at 136 ‘no-take’ and 54 openly fished sites associated with seven large MPAs that encompassed a range of management strategies. Spatial variation inmultivariate and univariate community metrics was related to three levels of fishing pressure (high-protection MPAs, limited-protection MPAs, fishing zones) for both continental and oceanic reefs. Results High-protection MPAs possessed a much greater biomass of higher carnivorous fishes, lower densities of asteroids and Eucidaris spp. urchins, and higher coral cover than limited-protection MPAs and fished zones. These results were generally consistent with the hypothesis that overfishing of predatory fishes within the ETP has led to increased densities of habitat-modifying macroinvertebrates, which has contributed to regional declines in coral cover. Major differences in ecological patterns were also evident between continental and oceanic biogeographic provinces. Main conclusions Fishing down the food web, with associated trophic cascades, has occurred to a greater extent along the continental coast than off oceanic islands. Poorly enforced MPAs generate food webs more similar to those present in fished areas than in well-protected MPAs.

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) encompass a range of protection levels, from fully protected no-take areas to restriction of only particular activities, gear types, user groups, target species or extraction periods. We synthesized the results of empirical studies that compared partially protected areas (PPA) to (i) no-take marine reserves (NTR) and (ii) to open access areas (Open), to assess the potential benefits of different levels of protection for fish and invertebrate populations. A systematic search for relevant articles used terms describing MPAs, the biota (e.g. fish, invertebrates) and measures (e.g. density, biomass) of interest. Articles were examined for relevance using specified inclusion criteria. Included articles were appraised critically; the influence of studies whose effect of protection was identified to be confounded by habitat was examined by running a sensitivity analysis parallel to the main analysis that included all studies. Random effect meta-analysis on ln-transformed response ratios was used to examine the response to protection. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were used to explore variation in effectiveness in relation to MPA and species covariates. Synthesis of available evidence suggests that while PPAs resulted in higher values of biological metrics (density and biomass) than unprotected areas, greatest benefits were apparent in NTR areas when NTRs and PPAs were compared. For fish, the positive response to protection, whether full or partial protection, was primarily driven by targeted fish species. Although positive benefits were also apparent in non-target fish species, the results were more variable, perhaps because of fewer studies focusing on this group. Invertebrate studies were underrepresented and those available focused mainly on scallops, lobsters and sea urchins. Among the targeted species groups, benefits from partial protection relative to fished areas were highest for scallops, whereas benefits from full relative to partial protection were highest for lobsters. The examination of fish and invertebrate response to protection in terms of species richness and length was hampered by small sample sizes. There was significant variability in the magnitude of response to protection among the MPAs included in this study. The factors determining such variation were generally unclear although the size and protection regime of the PPA explained some of this variability. The available evidence suggests that no-take reserves provide some benefit over less protected areas, nevertheless the significant ecological effects of partially protected areas relative to open access areas suggest that partially protected areas are a valuable spatial management tool particularly in areas where exclusion of all extractive activities is not a socio-economically and politically viable option. A glossary of terms is given in Appendix. CEE-09-018

In order to properly determine the efficacy of marine protected areas (MPAs), a seascape perspective that integrates ecosystem elements at the appropriate ecological scale is necessary. Over the past four decades, Hawaii has developed a system of 11 Marine Life Conservation Districts (MLCDs) to conserve and replenish marine resources around the state. Initially established to provide opportunities for public interaction with the marine environment, these MLCDs vary in size, habitat quality, and management regimes, providing an excellent opportunity to test hypotheses concerning MPA design and function using multiple discrete sampling units. Digital benthic habitat maps for all MLCDs and adjacent habitats were used to evaluate the efficacy of existing MLCDs using a spatially explicit stratified random sampling design. Analysis of benthic cover validated the a priori classification of habitat types and provided justification for using these habitat strata to conduct stratified random sampling and analyses of fish habitat utilization patterns. Results showed that a number of fish assemblage characteristics (e.g., species richness, biomass, diversity) vary among habitat types, but were significantly higher in MLCDs compared with adjacent fished areas across all habitat types. Overall fish biomass was 2.6 times greater in the MLCDs compared to open areas. In addition, apex predators and other species were more abundant and larger in the MLCDs, illustrating the effectiveness of these closures in conserving fish populations within their boundaries. Habitat type, protected area size, and level of protection from fishing were all important determinates of MLCD effectiveness with respect to their associated fish assemblages. Although size of these protected areas was positively correlated with a number of fish assemblage characteristics, all appear too small to have any measurable influence on the adjacent fished areas. These protected areas were not designed for biodiversity conservation or fisheries enhancement yet still provide varying degrees of protection for fish populations within their boundaries. Implementing this type of biogeographic process, using remote sensing technology and sampling across the range of habitats present within the seascape, provides a robust evaluation of existing MPAs and can help to define ecologically relevant boundaries for future MPA design in a range of locations.

We have developed a spatially explicit model that simulates the interaction between fish and fishers based on past fish location, abundance and fish dispersal. We have examined four scenarios for the design and management of Marine Protected Areas (MPA) and for each we simulated fish biomass and fish catches: (1) No MPA. (2) A single MPA located at a feeding area. (3) A single MPA designed to maximise its overlap with the predominant route of fish dispersal. (4) The use of two MPAs. Each scenario was replicated with two scenarios regarding the time that fish remains within the MPA and two grid map scenarios to account for time–space effects and map/coastline characteristics. Results showed that overall closing an area increased fish biomass. However, an MPA located in the open sea for a limited time may have adverse effects on fish biomass. MPAs increased fish catches when a single large MPA or two small MPAs were located in the open sea for a limited time. The effects of time that fish remains protected in closed areas vary in combination with the spatial design: When examining time effects on the efficacy of MPAs within each scenario with an MPA located in the open sea, fish biomass was always higher in the case where fish was protected for more calendar days during each year. When comparing between different spatial designs, proximity to the coast was a more predominant factor in the efficacy of MPAs rather than time that fish was protected. The scenario that gave the highest total fish biomass was the one that covered the largest part of the migration route, despite increased edge effects. Our results suggest that it is not per se the perimeter to surface ratio that matters, but the trade-off between edge effects and maximised MPA surface in the predominant dispersal direction. Our results also have implications for the design of terrestrial reserves.