ReviewStudies of no-take marine reserves: Methods for differentiating reserve and habitat effects
Introduction
Worldwide, fisheries stocks and marine environments are severely affected by anthropogenic impacts. Excessive declines of fish stocks and catch-per-unit-effort are indicative of collapsing fisheries (Froese et al., 2012, Jackson et al., 2001, Myers and Worm, 2003, Pauly et al., 2002, Watson et al., 2012) and many iconic marine habitats are declining in quality and geographic extent (Burrows et al., 2011, De’ath et al., 2012, Wilkinson, 2004). No-take marine reserves (NTMRs) are often promoted as a tool to manage ecosystems more holistically and fisheries more conservatively. In this review, NTMRs are defined as marine protected areas in which all extractive activities, including fishing or resource extraction, are prohibited (Sobel and Dahlgren, 2004).
No-take marine reserves aim to spatially restrict impacts from fishing effort and fishing mortality (Allison et al., 1998, Lubchenco et al., 2003). They are usually employed for one or both of two broad objectives: to protect marine biodiversity and ecosystem health and services (Bohnsack, 1998, Lubchenco et al., 2003, Russ, 2002), and to improve fisheries by protecting a portion of stocks (Gell and Roberts, 2003, Pauly et al., 2002, Russ, 2002, Sale et al., 2005). Many studies worldwide of NTMRs have demonstrated positive reserve effects on targeted species (Babcock et al., 1999, Edgar and Barrett, 1999, Polunin and Roberts, 1993, Russ and Alcala, 2010). Meta-analyses generally conclude that NTMRs enhance density, biomass, body size, diversity, and fecundity of targeted species within their boundaries (Côté et al., 2001, Halpern, 2003, Lester et al., 2009, Molloy et al., 2009, Mosquera et al., 2000). However, the use and efficacy of NTMRs are controversial with vocal critiques (Agardy et al., 2003, Rife et al., 2012, Willis et al., 2003) and support (Lubchenco et al., 2003, Pauly et al., 2002, Roberts et al., 2005).
Possibly the greatest source of controversy regarding NTMR science is the quality of empirical evidence supporting their benefits, which is a function of study design (Jones et al., 1992, Russ, 2002, Willis et al., 2003). The most robust methods for evaluating environmental and ecological impacts, including NTMR implementation, are before-after-control-impact (BACI) (Underwood, 1992, Underwood, 1994) and before-after-control-impact-pair (BACIP) designs (Jones et al., 1992, Russ, 2002). However, if a study begins after reserve implementation, or resources for monitoring are limited, rigorous temporal or spatial sampling with baseline (“before”) data may not be possible (Claudet and Guidetti, 2010, Mosquera et al., 2000), leaving spatial comparisons as the only study option (Evans and Russ, 2004, Guidetti et al., 2005, Kamukuru et al., 2004, Miller et al., 2012, Polunin and Roberts, 1993). The majority of studies on NTMR effects lack baseline data and thus may confound reserve effects with spatial heterogeneity of the environment, particularly the benthic environment. A recent meta-analysis of reserve studies found that only 23 of 221 studies (10.4%) were of a BACI design (Lester et al., 2009), suggesting the large potential for confounding NTMR effects with habitat effects.
Few, if any, NTMRs are placed randomly. Reserves may be located deliberately in areas of high habitat quality, species richness, or fish biomass for conservation or tourism objectives (Roberts et al., 2003, Willis et al., 2003), e.g. Apo Island NTMR in the Philippines (Russ and Alcala, 2010). Other sites with lower targeted fish biomass may be designated as reserves for opportunism and socio-economic priorities (Pressey et al., 1993, Roberts, 2000), e.g. the Galapagos Islands (Edgar et al., 2004). If NTMR and control sites are initially dissimilar in factors such as habitat, larval supply, or history, their comparison is inevitably confounded by inherent site differences.
Habitat differences between NTMR and fished sites may confound analyses of NTMR effects, even when attempts were made to ensure sites were as similar as possible. Many NTMR studies have not accounted for potential confounding effects of habitat on marine assemblages, resulting in ambiguous conclusions about NTMR effectiveness and utility (Osenberg et al., 2006, Osenberg et al., 2011). Proponents of NTMRs may unintentionally overstate reserve benefits, and critics may claim that benefits are uncertain due to poor study design. Differentiating NTMR and habitat effects is a priority for NTMR assessments (Claudet and Guidetti, 2010).
Variations in quality, diversity, and extent of habitats have long been identified as primary contributors to distribution and abundance of fishes and invertebrates (Almany, 2004, Bellwood and Hughes, 2001, Carpenter et al., 1981, Chittaro, 2004, Luckhurst and Luckhurst, 1978). In this review, habitat typically refers to the benthic habitat in which the organisms reside, particularly coral and rocky reef habitat. Few studies of NTMRs quantitatively describe and account for heterogeneity of habitat (Côté et al., 2001, Osenberg et al., 2006), even though confounding effects of habitat in NTMR studies have been acknowledged for over a decade (Chapman and Kramer, 1999, Edgar and Barrett, 1997, Garćla-Charton and Pérez-Ruzafa, 1999). Including measures of habitat can improve assessments of NTMR effects (Claudet and Guidetti, 2010).
Given the importance of habitat in determining fish density and assemblage structure and the non-random placement of NTMRs, with the concomitant high potential for control sites having dissimilar habitats, it is essential to determine how potential habitat variation may affect assessment of NTMR effects. No studies to date have examined how habitat has been incorporated into NTMR assessments worldwide and how these methods influence conclusions about NTMR effects. This review examines how spatial heterogeneity of habitat has been accounted for in NTMR studies globally. For the purposes of this review, “reserve effects” (=NTMR effects) are defined as significantly higher density, biomass, species richness or significantly different assemblage composition of marine organisms between NTMR and control (fished) sites caused by NTMR protection. Specifically, this review aims to critique different methodologies, statistical and sampling, for differentiating NTMR and habitat effects. These methodologies may be applied with different sampling designs: single-point-in-time, temporal sampling without baseline data, or before-after-control-impact. Thus, the review attempts to identify the combinations of methods used to account for habitat effects in NTMR studies and how these methods are combined with different sampling designs. It also suggests the best combinations of methods and sampling designs for differentiating reserve and habitat effects and describes the implications for science and management.
Section snippets
Methods: literature search
This literature review examined how habitat has been accounted for in studies of NTMR effects in combination with different sampling designs (single-point-in-time, temporal sampling without baseline data, or before-after-control-impact). Searches in ISI Web of Science using the search terms “marine reserve*” or “marine protected area” between 1 January 1965 and 15 March 2013 produced a list of over 3 000 studies that were manually searched for relevance. Only studies that empirically compared
Accounting for habitat effects in NTMR studies
Five major methods for differentiating habitat effects from NTMR effects were identified. There were studies that: a) did not account for habitat, or considered NTMR and control (fished) habitats as broadly similar (28.7%); b) chose sites with similar habitat characteristics for comparison (NTMR vs. control) or stratified sampling to similar habitats within NTMR and fished sites (43.9%); c) explicitly tested whether habitat was significantly different among NTMR and fished sites (12.8%); d)
Conclusion
This review examined five methods used to differentiate NTMR and habitat effects that have been used in conjunction with three sampling designs. Few NTMR studies have sufficiently accounted for habitat effects, either with or without incorporation of baseline data. Over half of studies in this review made no statistical attempt to account for habitat effects. Testing for significant differences in habitat between NTMR and fished sites, statistically partitioning habitat effects, and/or testing
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the School of Marine and Tropical Biology at James Cook University and Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University. Thanks to S. Leahy, E. Miller, and three anonymous reviewers for useful comments and improvements to the manuscript.
References (110)
- et al.
Assessing the effects of marine protected area (MPA) on a reef fish assemblage in a northwestern Mediterranean marine reserve: identifying community-based indicators
Biol. Conserv.
(2006) - et al.
Short term monitoring of biotic change in Tasmanian marine reserves
J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.
(1997) - et al.
Effects of the declaration of marine reserves on Tasmanian reef fishes, invertebrates and plants
J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.
(1999) - et al.
The science of European marine reserves: status, efficacy, and future needs
Mar. Policy
(2012) - et al.
Evidence for spillover of reef fishes from a no-take marine reserve: an evaluation using the before-after control-impact (BACI) approach
Fish. Res.
(2008) - et al.
Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery effects of marine reserves
Trends Ecol. Evol.
(2003) - et al.
Gradients of abundance and biomass across reserve boundaries in six Mediterranean marine protected areas: evidence of fish spillover?
Biol. Conserv.
(2008) - et al.
Effects of habitat characteristics and sedimentation on performance of marine reserves in St. Lucia
Biol. Conserv.
(2006) - et al.
When can marine reserves improve fisheries management?
Ocean. Coast. Manag.
(2004) - et al.
Marine protected area networks in the Philippines: trends and challenges for establishment and governance
Ocean. Coast. Manag.
(2012)
No-take areas, herbivory and coral reef resilience
Trends Ecol. Evol.
The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems
Adv. Mar. Biol.
Evaluating a marine protected area in a developing country: Mafia Island Marine Park, Tanzania
Ocean. Coast. Manag.
Selecting zones in a marine park: early systematic planning improves cost-efficiency; combining habitat and biotic data improves effectiveness
Ocean. Coast. Manag.
The effects of marine parks and fishing on coral reefs of northern Tanzania
Biol. Conserv.
Evaluating ontogenetic patterns of habitat use by reef fish in relation to the effectiveness of marine protected areas in West Hawaii
J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.
Beyond opportunism: key principles for systematic reserve selection
Trends Ecol. Evol.
Critical science gaps impede use of no-take fishery reserves
Trends Ecol. Evol.
Effectiveness of five small Philippines’ coral reef reserves for fish populations depends on site-specific factors, particularly enforcement history
Biol. Conserv.
Long-term trends in lobster populations in a partially protected vs. no-take Marine Park
Biol. Conserv.
Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine protected areas
Aquat. Conserv.
No-take marine reserves and reef fisheries management in the Philippines: a new people power revolution
Ambio
Assessing the effectiveness of a long-standing rocky intertidal protected area and its contribution to the regional conservation of species, habitats and assemblages
Aquat. Conserv.
Marine reserves are necessary but not sufficient for marine conservation
Ecol. Appl.
Differential effects of habitat complexity, predators and competitors on abundance of juvenile and adult coral reef fishes
Oecologia
Changes in community structure in temperate marine reserves
Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.
Decadal trends in marine reserves reveal differential rates of change in direct and indirect effects
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
Effects of marine reserves and urchin disease on southern Californian rocky reef communities
Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.
Regional-scale assembly rules and biodiversity of coral reefs
Science
Biological evaluation of marine protected area: evidence of crowding effect on a protected population of queen conch in the Caribbean
Mar. Ecol.
Application of marine reserves to reef fisheries management
Aust. J. Ecol.
The pace of shifting climate in marine and terrestrial ecosystems
Science
Marine reserves enhance abundance but not competitive impacts of a harvested nonindigenous species
Ecology
The influence of substrate structure on the local abundance and diversity of Philippine reef fishes
Are the scientific foundations of temperate marine reserves too warm and hard?
Environ. Conserv.
Gradients in coral reef fish density and size across the Barbados Marine Reserve boundary: effects of reserve protection and habitat characteristics
Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.
Fish-habitat associations across multiple spatial scales
Coral Reefs
Combined effects of levels of protection and environmental variables at different spatial resolutions on fish assemblages in a marine protected area
Conserv. Biol.
Improving assessments of marine protected areas
Aquat. Conserv.
Effects of marine reserve protection at Goat Island, northern New Zealand
N. Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res.
Effects of marine reserve characteristics on the protection of fish populations: a meta-analysis
J. Fish. Biol.
Change in size and abundance of Caribbean spiny lobsters Panulirus argus in a marine reserve in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, USA
Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.
The 27–year decline of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef and its causes
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
Evaluating effects of total and partial restrictions to fishing on Mediterranean rocky-reef fish assemblages
Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.
Bias in evaluating the effects of marine protected areas: the importance of baseline data for the Galapagos Marine Reserve
Environ. Conserv.
Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key features
Nature
Larger biomass of targeted reef fish in no-take marine reserves on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia
Aquat. Conserv.
Establishing representative no-take areas in the Great Barrier Reef: Large-Scale Implementation of theory on marine protected areas
Conserv. Biol.
Effects of habitat, wave exposure, and marine protected area status on coral reef fish assemblages in the Hawaiian archipelago
Coral Reefs
What catch data can tell us about the status of global fisheries
Mar. Biol.
Cited by (44)
Extreme events delay the detection of marine protected area effects: Implications for monitoring and management
2023, Biological ConservationA tale of two species: Vermilion and sunset rockfish in the Southern California Bight
2022, Fisheries ResearchZonation and reef size significantly influence fish population structure in an established marine protected area, iSimangaliso Wetland Park, South Africa
2020, Ocean and Coastal ManagementCitation Excerpt :Most frequently, research investigating conservation and fishing effects rely on spatial comparisons, and for these comparisons to be valid, the environment at spatially distinct locations needs to be similar (Dulvy et al., 2004; Miller and Russ, 2014; Nash and Graham, 2016). The design and location of MPAs is often not random, and to maximise conservation benefits MPAs often deliberately incorporate highly productive areas (Miller and Russ, 2014). Consequently, it is often difficult to find similar habitats outside of MPAs to make valid comparisons.
Partially protected marine areas as a conservation tool for commercially important fishes in the Philippines: Do age, size, and design matter?
2019, Regional Studies in Marine Science