4.6 Review

Evaluation of the effectiveness of marine reserves for transient spawning aggregations in data-limited situations

期刊

ICES JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE
卷 71, 期 3, 页码 435-449

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fst028

关键词

coral reef fish; fisheries closures; marine conservation; marine protected areas; protogynous hermaphrodites; resource management

资金

  1. French National Research Agency (ANR) [ANR-08-STRA-03]
  2. Marine Science for Management (MASMA) programme of the Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association (WIOMSA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many coral reef fish species form predictable, transient spawning aggregations. Many aggregations are overfished, making them a target for spatial management. Here, we develop a per-recruit model to evaluate the performance of no-take marine reserves protecting transient spawning aggregations. The model consists of only 14 demographic and exploitation-related parameters. We applied the model to a protogynous grouper and a gonochoristic rabbitfish from Seychelles and tested six scenarios regarding the extent of protected areas, the level of fish spawning-site fidelity, and fishing effort redistribution post reserve implementation. Spawning aggregation reserves improve spawning-stock biomass-per-recruit and reduce the sex ratio bias in protogynous populations for all scenarios examined. However, these benefits are often small and vary among the different scenarios and as a function of sexual ontogeny. In all scenarios, increases in yield-per-recruit do not occur or are negligible. The long-term yield increases due to spawning aggregation reserves may still occur, but only if spawning-stock biomass recovery results in a recruitment subsidy. Given these limited benefits, the value of no-take reserves must be weighed against those of other management options, such as fishing effort reduction and seasonal fishery closures. The latter is particularly appropriate when spawning and non-spawning areas overlap in space.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据