Options for management of MPAs in response to climate change can be organized at two levels: actions at existing sites and establishment of new sites, particularly if they are arranged as networks (Table
3). Within MPAs, managers can increase efforts to ameliorate existing anthropogenic stressors with a goal of reducing the overall load of multiple stressors (Breitburg and Riedel
2005). For example, the concept of protecting or enhancing coral reef resilience has been proposed to help ameliorate negative consequences of coral bleaching (Hughes and others
2003,
2005; West and Salm
2003; Marshall and Schuttenberg
2006a; Salm and others
2006). Under this approach, resilience is an ecosystem property that can be managed, and is defined as the ability of an ecosystem to resist or absorb disturbance while maintaining key functions and processes (Gunderson
2000; Nyström and others
2000; Hughes and others
2003; McLeod and others
2008b). Managing for resilience includes addressing causes of disturbance and decline at a local scale such as overfishing and pollution, identifying and protecting potentially resilient areas, and designing networks of MPAs to address threats at broader scales. Networks of MPAs should be designed to take advantage of properties of systems of sites. These properties include connectivity, protection of ecologically critical areas, and replication and representation of multiple habitat types (Salm and others
2006; McLeod and others
2008b).
Table 3
Management options for MPA managers in the context of climate change (see McLeod and others
2008b)
✓ Manage human stressors such as fishing and inputs of nutrients, sediments, and pollutants within MPAs. |
✓ Improve water quality by raising awareness of adverse effects of land-based activities on marine environments, implementing integrated coastal and watershed management, and developing options for advanced wastewater treatment. |
✓ Manage functional species groups necessary to maintaining the health of reefs and other ecosystems. |
✓ Identify and protect areas that appear to be resistant to climate change effects or to recover from climate-induced disturbances. |
✓ Identify and protect ecologically significant (“critical”) areas such as nursery grounds, spawning grounds, and areas of high species diversity. |
✓ Identify ecological connections among ecosystems and use them to inform the design of MPAs and management decisions such as protecting resistant areas to ensure sources of recruitment for recovery of populations in damaged areas. |
✓ Design MPAs with dynamic boundaries and buffers to protect breeding and foraging habits of highly migratory and pelagic species. |
✓ Establish dynamic MPAs defined by large-scale oceanographic features such as oceanic fronts where changes in types and abundances of organisms often occur. |
✓ Maximize habitat heterogeneity within MPAs and consider protecting larger areas to preserve biodiversity, ecological connections among habitats, and ecological functions. |
✓ Include entire ecological units (e.g., coral reefs with their associated mangroves and seagrasses) in MPA design to help maintain ecosystem function and resilience. |
✓ Ensure that the full breadth of habitat types is protected (e.g., fringing reef, fore reef, back reef, patch reef). |
✓ Replicate habitat types in multiple areas to spread risks associated with climate change. |
Ameliorate Existing “Traditional” Stressors
Managers may be able to increase resilience to climate change within MPAs by reducing impacts of local- and regional-scale stressors, such as fishing, input of nutrients, sedimentation and pollutants, and degraded water quality. While this concept is logical and has considerable appeal, evidence in support of this approach is limited. Behrens and Lafferty (
2004) found that kelp forest ecosystems in no-take marine reserves were more resilient to ocean warming than in reference areas as a result of changes in trophic structure of communities in and around reserves. In reference areas where predators such as spiny lobster were fished, herbivorous sea urchin prey increased in abundance and consumed giant kelp and other algae. In reserves where fishing was prohibited, lobster populations were larger, urchin populations were diminished, and kelp forests persisted over a period of 20 years, including four ENSO cycles (Behrens and Lafferty
2004). Although MPAs have been shown to be effective at mitigating stresses at local scales, they may be less effective at addressing global climate change threats such as mass bleaching events (see Bruno and Selig
2007) unless they are designed specifically to address resilience.
Managing water quality has been identified as a key strategy for maintaining ecological resilience (Salm and others
2006; Marshall and Schuttenberg
2006a). In the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park water quality protection is recognized as an essential component of management (USDOC
1996; Grigg and others
2005). Strong circumstantial evidence links poor water quality to increased macroalgal abundances, increased bioerosion, and higher susceptibility to some diseases in corals and octocorals (Fabricius and De’ath
2004). Addressing sources of pollution, especially nutrient enrichment that can lead to increased algal growth and reduced coral settlement, is critical to ecosystem structure and function. In addition to limiting point-source pollution within an MPA, sources from beyond MPA boundaries should be controlled as much as possible through collaborations with appropriate authorities in adjacent areas (see Crowder and others
2006). For example, MPA managers should work with land and watershed managers to develop and implement strategies to reduce land-based pollution, decrease nutrient and sediment runoff, eliminate the use of persistent pesticides, and increase filtration of effluent through wetlands to improve quality of coastal waters. Actions such as these should be coupled with research to investigate their efficacy.
Another mechanism that may help maintain resilience of coral reef ecosystems is the management of functional groups, specifically herbivores (Hughes and others
2003; Bellwood and others
2004; McLeod and others
2008b). Bellwood and others (
2004) identified three functional groups of herbivores that assist in maintaining coral reef resilience: bioeroders, grazers, and scrapers. These groups work together to break down dead coral to allow substrate for recruitment, graze macroalgae, and reduce the development of algal turfs to provide substrata suitable for coral settlement. Attention must also be paid to the roles of individual species within these groups (Burkepile and Hay
2008). Bellwood and others (
2006) identified the need to protect both the species that prevent phase shifts from coral- to algal-dominated reefs and species that help reefs recover from algal dominance. While parrotfishes and surgeonfishes appear to play a critical role in preventing phase shifts to macroalgae [but see Ledlie and others (
2007)], they may have limited ability to reverse such a shift. In one study, phase-shift reversal from macroalgal- to a coral- and epilithic algal-dominated state surprisingly was caused by a single batfish species (
Platax pinnatus) rather than parrotfishes and other herbivores (Bellwood and others
2006).
Although protecting functional groups may be a component of MPA management to enhance resilience, understanding which groups should be protected requires a detailed knowledge of species and interactions that is not often available. Coral reefs appear to require key herbivores in sufficient numbers to reduce macroalgae and enhance coral settlement, whereas kelp forests may require key predators on herbivores to reduce herbivory and promote kelp recruitment and growth. Manipulating functional groups should be field tested at different locations to verify their appropriateness. As a precaution, managers should strive to maintain the maximum number of species, particularly in the absence of detailed ecological data.
Protect Potentially Resilient Areas
Marine ecosystems face potential loss of habitat structure as climate change progresses (e.g., coral reefs, seagrass beds, kelp forests, and deep coral communities) (see Hoegh-Guldberg
1999; Steneck and others
2002; Roberts and others
2006; Orth and others
2006). It is likely that climate change contributes to mass coral bleaching events (Reaser and others
2000), which became global in 1998 (Wilkinson
1998,
2000) and have affected large regions in subsequent years (Wilkinson
2002,
2004; Whelan and others
2007). The amount of live coral has declined dramatically in the Caribbean region over the past 30 years as a result of bleaching, diseases, and hurricanes (Gardner and others
2003,
2005). In the Florida Keys, some fore-reef environments that formerly supported dense growths of coral are now depauperate, and highest coral cover is in patch reef environments (Porter and others
2002; Lirman and Fong
2007). Irrespective of the mechanism—resistance, resilience, or exposure to relatively low levels of past environmental stress—these patch reefs are good candidates for additional protective measures because they may have high potential to survive climate stress.
Done (
2001; see also Marshall and Schuttenberg
2006b) presented a decision tree for identifying areas that would be suitable for MPAs under a global warming scenario. Two types of favorable outcomes included reefs that survived bleaching (i.e., were resilient) and reefs that were not exposed to elevated sea surface temperatures (e.g., may be located within refugia such as areas exposed to upwelling or cooler currents). This type of decision tree has already been adapted to guide site selection for mangroves (McLeod and Salm
2006), and could be extended further for other habitat types such as seagrass beds and kelp forests.
In addition, thermally stressed corals may exhibit less bleaching and higher survival if they are shaded during periods of elevated temperatures (West and Salm
2003; Hoegh-Guldberg and others
2007b). On a small scale, MPA managers may be able to select sites that are naturally shaded by high islands, emergent rocks or corals overhead. For example, in the Rock Islands of Palau, corals in more shaded parts of the reef survived a bleaching event better than those in more exposed parts of the reef (West and Salm,
2003). MPA managers may also consider shading areas during bleaching events to reduce UV radiation impacts and overall stress (Hoegh-Guldberg and others
2007b). On a larger scale, managers should protect mangrove shorelines and support restoration of areas where mangroves have been damaged or destroyed because tannins and dissolved organic compounds from decaying mangrove vegetation contribute to absorbing light and reducing stress on adjacent coral reefs (Hallock
2005). Extensive discussions of coral bleaching and management responses are provided in Marshall and Schuttenberg (
2006a,
b), Johnson and Marshall (
2007), and McLeod and others (
2008b).
Develop MPA Networks
The concept of networks of MPAs has gained appeal for a number of reasons, and network design to address impacts of climate change was recently reviewed by McLeod and others (
2008b). Emergent properties of systems such as representation, replication, and connectivity (Ballantine
1997; NRC
2001; Roberts and others
2003a; West and Salm
2003; Salm and others
2006; McLeod and others
2008b) are attractive to MPA managers who have realized that relatively small, isolated protected areas may not adequately protect ecosystem structure and function. Also, networks likely lower the risk of catastrophic habitat loss (Palumbi
2002; Allison and others
2003), which may provide a form of “insurance” for management of biogenically structured, slow-growing habitats such as coral reefs. Finally, networks may provide functional wilderness areas sufficiently extensive to resist fundamental changes to ecosystems (Kaufman and others
2004). While MPA networks have been recognized as a valuable tool to conserve marine resources in the face of climate change, there have been a number of challenges to their implementation (Pandolfi and others
2005; Mora and others
2006). A set of recommendations has been developed to aid MPA network design and implementation, which include MPA size and spacing, risk spreading, protection of critical areas, connectivity, ecosystem function, and ecosystem-based management (McLeod and others
2008b).
Guidelines for the minimum size of MPAs and no-take marine reserves, and spacing between adjacent MPAs, vary depending on their goals (Hastings and Botsford
2003). For example, Friedlander and others (
2003) suggested that no-take zones should measure ca. 10 km
2 to ensure viable populations of a range of species in the Seaflower Biosphere Reserve, Colombia. Palumbi (
2003) concluded that marine reserves tens of km apart may exchange larvae in a single generation. Shanks and others (
2003) similarly concluded that marine reserves spaced 20 km apart would allow larvae to be carried to adjacent reserves. The Science Advisory Team to California’s Marine Life Protection Act Initiative recommended spacing highly protected MPAs, such as marine reserves, within 50–100 km in order to accommodate larval dispersal distances of a wide range of species of interest. Halpern and others (
2006) corroborated these findings using an uncertainty-modeling approach.
It has been suggested that no-take zones measuring a minimum of 20 km in diameter may accommodate short-distance dispersers in addition to including a significant portion of local benthic fish populations, thus generating fisheries benefits (Shanks and others
2003; Fernandes and others
2005; Mora and others
2006; McLeod and others
2008b). A single network design is unlikely to satisfy the potential dispersal ranges for all species; Roberts and others (
2003b) recommended an approach using various sizes and spacing of MPAs in a network to accommodate the diversity of dispersal ranges, which likely will be all the more necessary in the context of further variabilities caused by climate change. Recommendations to protect highly migratory and pelagic species include designing MPAs to protect predictable breeding and foraging habits, ensuring these have dynamic boundaries and extensive buffers, and establishing dynamic MPAs that are defined by the extent and location of large-scale oceanographic features such as oceanic fronts where changes in types and abundances of marine organisms often occur (Hyrenbach and others
2000).
Risk spreading to minimize the likelihood of loss of habitat types (Salm and others
2001; West and Salm
2003; McLeod and others
2008b) involves protection of multiple samples of each type (Hockey and Branch
1994; Ballantine
1997; Roberts and others
2001,
2003b; Friedlander and others
2003; Salm and others
2006; Wells
2006). Examples of marine habitat types include coral reefs with varying degrees of exposure to wave energy (e.g
., offshore, mid-shelf, and inshore reefs) and a range of types of mangrove forests (riverine, basin, and fringe forests in areas of varying salinity, tidal fluctuation, and sea level) (Salm and others
2006).
There are several recommendations about proportions or numbers of habitat types to protect. For example, it has been recommended that more than 30% of appropriate habitats should be included in no-take marine reserves (Bohnsack
2000). In 2004, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority increased the area of no-take marine reserves from less than 5% to approximately 33% of the area of the Marine Park, ensuring that at least 20% of each bioregion (area of every region of biodiversity) was zoned as no-take (Day and others
2002; Fernandes and others
2005). Also, Airamé and others (
2003) recommended a network of three to five no-take zones in each biogeographic region of the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, comprising approximately 30–50% of the area, in order to conserve biodiversity and contribute to sustainable fisheries in the region. An additional consideration is placement of reserves, which could be designed to minimize the risk of loss to catastrophic disturbances such as mass bleaching events in order to maximize achieving conservation targets (Game and others
2008).
Biologically or ecologically significant “critical areas” should be protected; critical areas include nursery habitats, spawning aggregations or areas, areas of high species diversity, heterogeneous habitat clusters, and areas that are not exposed to extremes of climate change (Allison and others
1998; Sale and others
2005; Sadovy
2006; McLeod and others
2008b). For example, areas of coral reefs that appear to be resilient to climate change should be provided with a high level of protection to help ensure a secure source of recruitment to damaged areas within an MPA network (Salm and Coles
2001). Responses to past bleaching events and other disturbances may provide insights into resilience; some coral colonies may have genetic characteristics that confer resistance to bleaching or may avoid bleaching because of environmental factors such as currents and shading that provide protection from temperature and/or irradiance anomalies. Highly protected critical areas should be as large as possible to maximize their effectiveness as sources of recruits (Palumbi and others
1997; Bellwood and Hughes
2001; Salm and others
2006).
Connectivity via larval dispersal and the movement of adults and juveniles has been investigated and reviewed extensively (e.g., Roberts
1997; Crowder and others
2000; Stewart and others
2003; Roberts and others
2003b; Cowen and others
2006; Salm and others
2006; Steneck
2006; McLeod and others
2008b). In addition to designing MPA networks for connectivity among different sites containing a particular habitat type, connectivity among habitat types such as mangroves, coral reefs, and seagrass beds (Ogden and Gladfelter
1983; Roberts
1996; Nagelkerken and others
2000; Mumby and others
2004; McLeod and others
2008b).
Although maintaining connectivity within and between MPAs may help maintain marine biodiversity, ecosystem function, and resilience, many challenges exist. For example, the same currents and pathways that enable larval recruitment can expose an ecosystem to invasive species, pathogens, parasites, and pollutants, which can undermine the resilience of a system (McClanahan and others
2002). Numerous challenges also exist in estimating larval dispersal patterns. Although there have been detailed studies addressing dispersal
potential of marine species based on their larval biology (e.g., Shanks and others
2003; Kinlan and Gaines
2003), little is known about where in the oceans larvae go and how far they travel. Larval duration in the plankton also varies from minutes to years, and the more time propagules spend in the water column, the farther they tend to be dispersed (Shanks and others
2003; Steneck
2006). Evidence from hydrodynamic models and genetic structure data indicates that in addition to large variation of larval dispersal distances among species, the average scale of dispersal can vary widely—even within a given species—at different locations in space and time (e.g., Cowen and others
2003; Sotka and others
2004; Engie and Klinger
2007). Some information suggests long-distance dispersal is common, but other emerging information suggests that larval dispersal may be limited (Jones and others
1999,
2005; Swearer and others
1999; Warner and others
2000; Thorrold and others
2001; Palumbi
2003; Paris and Cowen
2004). Additional research will be required to better understand where and how far larvae travel in various marine ecosystems.
For both terrestrial and marine systems, species diversity often increases with habitat diversity, and species richness increases with habitat complexity; the greater the variety of habitats protected, the greater the biodiversity conserved (Friedlander and others
2003; Carr and others
2003). High species diversity may increase ecosystem resilience by ensuring sufficient redundancy to maintain ecological processes and protect against environmental disturbance (McNaughton
1977; McClanahan and others
2002). This is particularly the case in the context of additive or synergistic stressors. Maximizing habitat heterogeneity is critical for maintaining ecological health, thus MPAs should include large areas and depth gradients (Done
2001; Hansen and others
2003; Roberts and others
2003a). By protecting a representative range of habitat types and communities, MPAs have a higher potential to protect a region’s biodiversity, biological connections between habitats, and ecological functions (Day and others
2002).
Integrate Responses to Impacts of Climate Change in MPA Management
Scientists and managers involved with coral reef MPAs have collaborated on a guide about coral bleaching that provides a number of recommendations to MPA managers (Marshall and Schuttenberg
2006a). In contrast, impacts of ocean acidification (Caldeira and Wickett
2003) do not have clearly articulated management strategies, although efforts are currently being made to develop these strategies (McLeod and others
2008a). Further research is needed on impacts of high concentrations of CO
2 in the oceans, possible acclimation or evolution of organisms in response to changes in ocean chemistry, and how management might respond (TRS
2005). Possible responses to other climate change stressors such as sea level rise, ocean circulation, storm intensity, and freshwater influx also require further research, and may not have management options as well explored and tested as those for traditional stressors such as pollution, commercial fishing, invasive species, and diseases.
Interactions of climate change stressors with traditional stressors compress the spatial extent of impacts and management responses from global and regional scales to more local manifestations.
Nevertheless, we suspect that many management plans for coral reef and other MPAs do not explicitly address actions or options in the context of climate change, and we hope that recommendations provided here and elsewhere (Table
4) will help fill this gap. Managers and scientists need to work together closely with stakeholders to consider regional scenarios of impacts of climate change and ecosystem responses, and determine how best to implement science-based management responses.
Table 4
Integrate climate change into MPA planning, management, and evaluation: The Great Barrier Reef as an example
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) is exemplary with regard to the degree to which it has inawcorporated climate change into its management program. GBRMPA has implemented a comprehensive Climate Change Response Program ( http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/, accessed 23 May 2008) that establishes guidelines for other MPA managers to consider. A thorough assessment of vulnerabilities to climate change (Johnson and Marshall 2007) set the stage for management recommendations. “A Reef Manager’s Guide to Coral Bleaching” (Marshall and Schuttenberg 2006a) provided information on the causes and consequences of coral bleaching and management strategies to help local and regional reef managers reduce this threat to coral reef ecosystems. GBRMPA has expanded its area of no-take management of human uses from a total proportion of less than 5 to 33%, using a representative areas approach (Day and others 2002; Fernandes and others 2005). It remains to be seen whether this expansion of no-take zoning within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park will influence susceptibility of coral reefs to mass bleaching events (see Bruno and Selig 2007). |