Growth parameter k and location affect body size responses to spatial protection by exploited rockfishes.

Abstract

For many fish taxa, trophic position and relative fecundity increase with body size, yet fisheries remove the largest individuals, altering food webs and reducing population productivity. Marine reserves and other forms of spatial protection can help mitigate this problem, but the effectiveness of these management tools may vary interspecifically and spatially. Using visual survey data collected on the Central Coast of British Columbia, for 12 species of exploited rockfish we found that body size responses to spatial fishery closures depended on interspecific variation in growth parameter k (the rate at which the asymptotic body size is approached) and on location. For two closures, relative body sizes were larger at protected than at adjacent fished sites, and these differences were greater for species with lower k values. Reduced fishery mortality likely drove these results, as an unfished species did not respond to spatial protection. For three closures, however, body sizes did not differ between protected and adjacent fished sites, and for another closure species with higher k values were larger at fished than at protected sites while species with lower k values had similar sizes in both treatments. Variation in the age of closures is unlikely to have influenced results, as most data were collected when closures were 13 to 15-years-old. Rather, the lack of larger fish inside four of six spatial fishery closures potentially reflects a combination of smaller size of the area protected, poor fisher compliance, and lower oceanographic productivity. Interspecific differences in movement behavior did not affect body size responses to spatial protection. To improve understanding, additional research should be conducted at deeper depths encompassing the distribution of older, larger fish. Our study—which was conceptualized and executed by an alliance of Indigenous peoples seeking to restore rockfishes—illustrates how life history and behavioral theory provide a useful lens for framing and interpreting species differences in responses to spatial protection.