Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:41:58.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reconciling conflict between the direct and indirect effects of marine reserve protection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2012

NICK T. SHEARS ,
DAVID J. KUSHNER ,
STEPHEN L. KATZ  and
STEVEN D. GAINES
NICK T. SHEARS*
Affiliation:
Marine Science Institute, University of California Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA
DAVID J. KUSHNER
Affiliation:
Channel Islands National Park, 1901 Spinnaker Drive, Ventura, CA 93001, USA
STEPHEN L. KATZ
Affiliation:
Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, NOAA, 735 State Street, Suite 619, Santa Barbara, CA 93101, USA
STEVEN D. GAINES
Affiliation:
Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA
*
*Correspondence: Dr Nick Shears, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand e-mail: n.shears@auckland.ac.nz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

No-take marine reserves directly promote the recovery of predatory species, which can have negative indirect effects on prey populations in reserves. When harvesting also occurs on prey species there is potential conflict between the direct and indirect effects of protection, and reserves may not have conservation benefits for prey species. For example, sea urchins are fished in many regions, but may decline in reserves due to increased predation rates. To investigate this potential conflict, this paper compares density, size, biomass and reproductive potential of both a harvested and an unharvested urchin species between a long-term reserve and unprotected sites in California. Consistent with density-mediated indirect interactions, densities of the unharvested species were 3.4-times higher at unprotected sites compared to reserve sites. However, for the harvested species, densities were comparable between reserve and unprotected sites. Both species were consistently larger at reserve sites, and the biomass and reproductive potential of the harvested species was 4.8- and 7.0-times higher, respectively, than at unprotected sites. This is likely due to differences in size-selectivity between harvesting and predators, and potential compensatory effects of predators. While the generality of these effects needs to be tested, these results suggest mechanisms whereby reserves can benefit both predator and prey species.

Keywords

kelp forestsmarine protected areasnorthern Channel Islandssea urchinssea urchin harvestingsize-mediated interactionsStrongylocentrotus franciscanusStrongylocentrotus purpuratustrophic cascades
Type
THEMATIC SECTION: Temperate Marine Protected Areas
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 39 , Issue 3: Thematic section. Temperate Marine Protected Areas , September 2012 , pp. 225 - 236
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andrew, N.L., Agatsuma, Y., Ballesteros, E., Bazhin, A.G., Creaser, E.P., Barnes, D.K.A., Botsford, L.W., Bradbury, A., Campbell, A., Dixon, J.D., Einarsson, S., Gerring, P.K., Hebert, K., Hunter, M., Hur, S.B., Johnson, C.R., Juinio-Menez, M.A., Kalvass, P., Miller, R.J., Moreno, C.A., Palleiro, J.S., Rivas, D., Robinson, S.M.L., Schroeter, S. C., Steneck, R.S., Vadas, R.L., Woodby, D.A. & Xiaoqi, Z. (2002) Status and management of world sea urchin fisheries. Oceanography and Marine Biology 40: 343–425.Google Scholar
Babcock, R.C., Shears, N.T., Alcala, A.C., Barrett, N.S., Edgar, G.J., Lafferty, K.D., McClanahan, T.R. & Russ, G.R. (2010) Decadal trends in marine reserves reveal differential rates of change in direct and indirect effects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 107: 18256–18261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrett, N.S., Buxton, C.D. & Edgar, G.J. (2009) Changes in invertebrate and macroalgal populations in Tasmanian marine reserves in the decade following protection. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 370: 104–119.Google Scholar
Behrens, M.D. & Lafferty, K.D. (2004) Effects of marine reserves and urchin disease on southern Californian rocky reef communities. Marine Ecology Progress Series 279: 129–139.Google Scholar
Botsford, L.W., Morgan, L.E., Lockwood, D.R. & Wilen, J.E. (1999) Marine reserves and management of the northern California red sea urchin fishery. California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations Reports 40: 87–93.Google Scholar
CDFG (2006) Review of some California fisheries for 2005: coastal pelagic finfish, market squid, Dungeness crab, sea urchin, abalone, Kellet's whelk, groundfish, highly migratory species, ocean salmon, nearshore live-fish, pacific herring, and white seabass. CALCOFI Reports 47: 9–29 [www document]. URL http://www.calcofi.org/publications/calcofireports/v47/calcofi_Rpt_Vol_47_2006.pdf Google Scholar
CDFG (2008) California Department of Fish and Game, Marine Region. Master plan for marine protected areas, revised draft January 2008. California Marine Life Protection Act California, Sacramento, CA, USA [www document]. URL http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/revisedmp0108.pdf Google Scholar
Cole, R.G. & Keuskamp, D. (1998) Indirect effects of protection from exploitation: patterns from populations of Evechinus chloroticus (Echinoidea) in northeastern New Zealand. Marine Ecology Progress Series 173: 215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, G.E., Kushner, D.J., Mondragon, J.M., Mondragon, J.E., Lerma, D. & Richards, D.V. (1997) Kelp forest monitoring handbook, Volume 1: Sampling protocol. 96 pp. [www document]. URL http://knb.ecoinformatics.org/knb/metacat/bowdish.217.3/nceas Google Scholar
Dayton, P.K., Tegner, M.J., Edwards, P.B. & Riser, K.L. (1998) Sliding baselines, ghosts, and reduced expectations in kelp forest communities. Ecological Applications 8: 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebert, T.A. (2008) Longevity and lack of senescence in the red sea urchin Strongylocentrotus franciscanus . Experimental Gerontology 43: 734–738.Google Scholar
Estes, J.A. & Duggins, D.O. (1995) Sea otters and kelp forests in Alaska: generality and variation in a community ecological paradigm. Ecological Monographs 65: 75–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, A. (2006) Size-dependent trait-mediated indirect interactions among sea urchin herbivores. Behavioral Ecology 17 (2): 182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaines, S.D., White, C., Carr, M.H. & Palumbi, S.R. (2010) Designing marine reserve networks for both conservation and fisheries management. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 107: 18251–18255.Google Scholar
Gerber, L.R., Keller, A.C. & DeMaster, D.P. (2007) Ten thousand and increasing: is the western Arctic population of bowhead whale endangered? Biological Conservation 137: 577–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, N.A.J., Evans, R.D. & Russ, G.R. (2003) The effects of marine reserve protection on the trophic relationships of reef fishes on the Great Barrier Reef. Environmental Conservation 30: 200–208.Google Scholar
Guidetti, P. (2006) Marine reserves reestablish lost predatory interactions and cause community changes in rocky reefs. Ecological Applications 16: 963–976.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guidetti, P., Terlizzi, A. & Boero, F. (2004) Effects of the edible sea urchin, Paracentrotus lividus, fishery along the Apulian rocky coast (SE Italy, Mediterranean Sea). Fisheries Research 66: 287–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpern, B.S., Gaines, S.D. & Warner, R.R. (2004) Confounding effects of the export of production and the displacement of fishing effort from marine reserves. Ecological Applications 14: 1248–1256.Google Scholar
Hamilton, S.L., Caselle, J.E., Malone, D.P. & Carr, M.H. (2010) Incorporating biogeography into evaluations of the Channel Islands marine reserve network. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 107: 18272–18277.Google Scholar
Hamilton, S.L., Caselle, J.E., Lantz, C.A., Egglof, T. & Kondo, E. (2011) Extensive geographic and ontogenetic variation characterizes the trophic ecology of a temperate reef fish on southern California rocky reefs. Marine Ecology Progress Series 429: 227–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrold, C. & Reed, D.C. (1985) Food availability, sea urchin grazing, and kelp forest community structure. Ecology 66: 1160–1169.Google Scholar
Lafferty, K.D. (2004) Fishing for lobsters indirectly increases epidemics in sea urchins. Ecological Applications 14: 1566–1573.Google Scholar
Lafferty, K.D. & Behrens, M.D. (2005) Temporal variation in the state of rocky reefs: does fishing increase the vulnerability of kelp forest to disturbance? In. Proceedings of the Sixth California Islands Symposium, Ventura, California, December 1–3, 2003. National Park Service Technical Publication CHIS-05–01, Institute for Wildlife Studies, Arcata, CA, USA [www document]. URL http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/medn/symposia/6th%20California%20Islands%20Symposium%20%282003%29/Marine%20Ecology%20and%20Restoration/Lafferty_Temporal_Variation_Rocky_Reef_Fishing_Disturbance.pdf Google Scholar
Lau, D.C.C., Dumont, C.P., Lui, G. & Qiu, J.W. (2011) Effectiveness of a small marine reserve in southern China in protecting the harvested sea urchin Anthocidaris crassispina: a mark-and-recapture study. Biological Conservation 144: 2674–2683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslie, H.M. & McLeod, K.L. (2007) Confronting the challenges of implementing marine ecosystem-based management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5: 540–548.Google Scholar
Levitan, D.R. (1991) Influence of body size and population density on fertilization success and reproductive output in a free-spawning invertebrate. The Biological Bulletin (Woods Hole) 181: 261–268.Google Scholar
Levitan, D.R., Sewell, M.A. & Chia, F. (1992) How distribution and abundance influence fertilization success in the sea urchin Strongylocentrotus franciscanus . Ecology 73: 248–254.Google Scholar
Linnell, J.D.C., Swenson, J.E. & Anderson, R. (2001) Predators and people: conservation of large carnivores is possible at high human densities if management policy is favourable. Animal Conservation 4: 345–349.Google Scholar
McClanahan, T.R. (2000) Recovery of a coral reef keystone predator, Balistapus undulatus, in East African marine parks. Biological Conservation 94: 191–198.Google Scholar
Micheli, F., Halpern, B.S., Botsford, L.W. & Warner, R.R. (2004) Trajectories and correlates of community change in no-take marine reserves. Ecological Applications 14: 1709–1723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mumby, P.J., Dahlgren, C.P., Harborne, A.R., Kappel, C.V., Micheli, F., Brumbaugh, D.R., Holmes, K.E., Mendes, J.M., Broad, K. & Sanchirico, J.N. (2006) Fishing, trophic cascades, and the process of grazing on coral reefs. Science 311: 98–101.Google Scholar
Pais, A., Chessa, L.A., Serra, S., Ruiu, A., Meloni, G. & Donno, Y. (2007) The impact of commercial and recreational harvesting for Paracentrotus lividus on shallow rocky reef sea urchin communities in North-western Sardinia, Italy. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 73: 589–597.Google Scholar
Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R. & Torres, F.J. (1998) Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279: 860–863.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pederson, H.G., Barrett, N.S., Frusher, S.D. & Buxton, C.D. (2008) Effect of predator-prey and competitive interactions on size at emergence in the black-lip abalone Haliotis rubra in a Tasmanian MPA. Marine Ecology Progress Series 366: 91–98.Google Scholar
Reed, D.C., Raimondi, P.T., Carr, M.H. & Goldwasser, L. (2000) The role of dispersal and disturbance in determining spatial heterogeneity in sedentary organisms. Ecology 81 (7): 2011–2026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripple, W.J. & Beschta, R.L. (2004) Wolves and the ecology of fear: can predation risk structure ecosystems? BioScience 54: 755–766.Google Scholar
Roemer, G.W. & Wayne, R.K. (2003) Conservation in conflict: the tale of two endangered species. Conservation Biology 17: 1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers-Bennett, L. (2007) The ecology of Strongylocentrotus franciscanus and Strongylocentrotus purpuratus. In: Edible Sea Urchins: Biology and Ecology, ed. Lawrence, J.M., pp-393–425. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier Science BV.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers-Bennett, L., Bennett, W.A., Fastenau, H.C. & Dewees, C.M. (1995) Spatial variation in red sea urchin reproduction and morphology: implications for harvest refugia. Ecological Applications 5: 1171–1180.Google Scholar
Salomon, A.K., Gaichas, S.K., Shears, N.T., Smith, J.E., Madin, E.M.P. & Gaines, S.D. (2010) Fishery-induced trophic cascades: key features and context-dependent effects. Conservation Biology 24: 382–394.Google Scholar
Shears, N.T. & Babcock, R.C. (2003) Continuing trophic cascade effects after 25 years of no-take marine reserve protection. Marine Ecology Progress Series 246: 1–16.Google Scholar
Shears, N.T., Babcock, R.C. & Salomon, A.K. (2008) Context-dependent effects of fishing: variation in trophic cascades across environmental gradients. Ecological Applications 18: 1860–1873.Google Scholar
Shears, N.T. & Ross, P.M. (2010) Toxic cascades: multiple anthropogenic stressors have complex and unanticipated interactive effects on temperate reefs. Ecology Letters 13: 1149–1159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, B.D., Botsford, L.W. & Wing, S.R. (1998) Estimation of growth and mortality parameters from size frequency distributions lacking age patterns: the red sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus franciscanus) as an example. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 1236–1247.Google Scholar
Steneck, R.S., Graham, M.H., Bourque, B.J., Corbett, D., Erlandson, J.M., Estes, J.A. & Tegner, M.J. (2002) Kelp forest ecosystems: biodiversity, stability, resilience and future. Environmental Conservation 29: 436–459.Google Scholar
Tegner, M.J. & Dayton, P.K. (1981) Population Structure, recruitment and mortality of two sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus franciscanus and S. purpuratus) in a kelp forest. Marine Ecology Progress Series 5: 255–268.Google Scholar
Tegner, M.J. & Levin, L.A. (1983) Spiny lobsters and sea urchins: analysis of a predator-prey interaction. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 73: 125–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tetreault, I. & Ambrose, R.F. (2007) Temperate marine reserves enhance targeted but not untargeted fishes in multiple no-take MPAs. Ecological Applications 17: 2251–2267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treves, A. & Karanth, K.U. (2003) Human-carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide. Conservation Biology 17: 1491.Google Scholar
Tuya, F.C., Soboil, M.L. & Kido, J. (2000) An assessment of the effectiveness of marine protected areas in the San Juan Islands, Washington, USA. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 57: 1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wabakken, P., Sand, H., Liberg, O. & Bjärvall, A. (2001) The recovery, distribution, and population dynamics of wolves on the Scandinavian peninsula, 1978–1998. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79: 710–725.Google Scholar
Willis, T.J. & Anderson, M.J. (2003) Structure of cryptic reef fish assemblages: relationships with habitat characteristics and predator density. Marine Ecology Progress Series 257: 209–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wing, S.R. (2009) Decadal-scale dynamics of sea urchin population networks in Fiordland, New Zealand are driven by juxtaposition of larval transport against benthic productivity gradients. Marine Ecology Progress Series 378: 125–134.Google Scholar