The influence of life history attributes and fishing pressure on the efficacy of marine reserves
Two key questions regarding ‘‘no-take’’ marine reserves are: (1) how effective are reserves likely to be, and (2) how does effec- tiveness vary with life history attributes and the relative size of reserves. To investigate these questions, we use a simple Ricker model that includes fishing, larval disp...
| Autores: | , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2002 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) |
| Repositorio: | DIGITAL.CSIC. Repositorio Institucional del CSIC |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:digital.csic.es:10261/41720 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/10261/41720 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Marine reserves Ricker model Fishing pressure Life history Reserve size |
| id |
ES_be16ca774c2cc3d5a4e04ab34815b129 |
|---|---|
| oai_identifier_str |
oai:digital.csic.es:10261/41720 |
| network_acronym_str |
ES |
| network_name_str |
España |
| repository_id_str |
|
| spelling |
The influence of life history attributes and fishing pressure on the efficacy of marine reservesGerber, Leah R.Kareiva, Peter M.Bascompte, JordiMarine reservesRicker modelFishing pressureLife historyReserve sizeTwo key questions regarding ‘‘no-take’’ marine reserves are: (1) how effective are reserves likely to be, and (2) how does effec- tiveness vary with life history attributes and the relative size of reserves. To investigate these questions, we use a simple Ricker model that includes fishing, larval dispersal, and larval loss while in a planktonic pool, and that tracks protected and unprotected populations. We applied two different measures of reserve effectiveness to our simulation results. One metric was intended to reflect goals oriented towards conservation and the second was intended to reflect fishery enhancement goals. Both metrics compare the situation before reserves are established to after the reserve has been in place and a new equilibrium was reached. Yield effectiveness is defined as the total equilibrium annual harvest after reserves are established divided by the total annual harvest before reserves are established. Conservation effectiveness is defined as the average adult density inside the reserve divided by the average density in the same area prior to reserve establishment. A substantial fraction of the 5120 simulated parameter combinations representing different harvest rates and life history attributes went extinct in the absence of a reserve, and these scenarios leading to extinction could be predicted accurately (85% aptly classified) simply on the basis of exploitation rate and population growth rate. Of the cases that did not go extinct, we compared the performance of reserves as measured by each effectiveness metric. Few of the cases (less than 8%) produced effective reserves as measured in terms of increased harvest; whereas over half of the cases resulted in effective reserves as measured by conservation effectiveness. Moreover, the two measures of reserve effectiveness were only weakly correlated. Simple linear regression or polynomial regression could explain at most 23% of the variation in reserve effectiveness as measured by either metric. As expected, the size of the reserve area had a marked and typically negative effect on total annual yield, which suggests that while marine protected areas may do a good job of conserving protected populations, there will generally be pressure from the fishing community to keep them small because of their tendency to reduce total catchPeer reviewedElsevier201120112002info:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501http://hdl.handle.net/10261/41720reponame:DIGITAL.CSIC. Repositorio Institucional del CSICinstname:Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)Ingléshttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00063207/106/1info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:digital.csic.es:10261/417202026-05-22T06:33:51Z |
| dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
The influence of life history attributes and fishing pressure on the efficacy of marine reserves |
| title |
The influence of life history attributes and fishing pressure on the efficacy of marine reserves |
| spellingShingle |
The influence of life history attributes and fishing pressure on the efficacy of marine reserves Gerber, Leah R. Marine reserves Ricker model Fishing pressure Life history Reserve size |
| title_short |
The influence of life history attributes and fishing pressure on the efficacy of marine reserves |
| title_full |
The influence of life history attributes and fishing pressure on the efficacy of marine reserves |
| title_fullStr |
The influence of life history attributes and fishing pressure on the efficacy of marine reserves |
| title_full_unstemmed |
The influence of life history attributes and fishing pressure on the efficacy of marine reserves |
| title_sort |
The influence of life history attributes and fishing pressure on the efficacy of marine reserves |
| dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv |
Gerber, Leah R. Kareiva, Peter M. Bascompte, Jordi |
| author |
Gerber, Leah R. |
| author_facet |
Gerber, Leah R. Kareiva, Peter M. Bascompte, Jordi |
| author_role |
author |
| author2 |
Kareiva, Peter M. Bascompte, Jordi |
| author2_role |
author author |
| dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv |
Marine reserves Ricker model Fishing pressure Life history Reserve size |
| topic |
Marine reserves Ricker model Fishing pressure Life history Reserve size |
| description |
Two key questions regarding ‘‘no-take’’ marine reserves are: (1) how effective are reserves likely to be, and (2) how does effec- tiveness vary with life history attributes and the relative size of reserves. To investigate these questions, we use a simple Ricker model that includes fishing, larval dispersal, and larval loss while in a planktonic pool, and that tracks protected and unprotected populations. We applied two different measures of reserve effectiveness to our simulation results. One metric was intended to reflect goals oriented towards conservation and the second was intended to reflect fishery enhancement goals. Both metrics compare the situation before reserves are established to after the reserve has been in place and a new equilibrium was reached. Yield effectiveness is defined as the total equilibrium annual harvest after reserves are established divided by the total annual harvest before reserves are established. Conservation effectiveness is defined as the average adult density inside the reserve divided by the average density in the same area prior to reserve establishment. A substantial fraction of the 5120 simulated parameter combinations representing different harvest rates and life history attributes went extinct in the absence of a reserve, and these scenarios leading to extinction could be predicted accurately (85% aptly classified) simply on the basis of exploitation rate and population growth rate. Of the cases that did not go extinct, we compared the performance of reserves as measured by each effectiveness metric. Few of the cases (less than 8%) produced effective reserves as measured in terms of increased harvest; whereas over half of the cases resulted in effective reserves as measured by conservation effectiveness. Moreover, the two measures of reserve effectiveness were only weakly correlated. Simple linear regression or polynomial regression could explain at most 23% of the variation in reserve effectiveness as measured by either metric. As expected, the size of the reserve area had a marked and typically negative effect on total annual yield, which suggests that while marine protected areas may do a good job of conserving protected populations, there will generally be pressure from the fishing community to keep them small because of their tendency to reduce total catch |
| publishDate |
2002 |
| dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2002 2011 2011 |
| dc.type.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 |
| format |
article |
| dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/10261/41720 |
| url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10261/41720 |
| dc.language.none.fl_str_mv |
Inglés |
| language_invalid_str_mv |
Inglés |
| dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00063207/106/1 |
| dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
| dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Elsevier |
| publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Elsevier |
| dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:DIGITAL.CSIC. Repositorio Institucional del CSIC instname:Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) |
| instname_str |
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) |
| reponame_str |
DIGITAL.CSIC. Repositorio Institucional del CSIC |
| collection |
DIGITAL.CSIC. Repositorio Institucional del CSIC |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv |
|
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
| _version_ |
1869418256686645248 |
| score |
15,81155 |