Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Jan;11(1):20140511.
doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2014.0511.

Marine reserve design theory for species with ontogenetic migration

J Wilson White  1
Affiliations

Marine reserve design theory for species with ontogenetic migration

J Wilson White. Biol Lett. 2015 Jan.

Abstract

Models for marine reserve design have been developed primarily with 'reef fish' life histories in mind: sedentary adults in patches connected by larval dispersal. However, many fished species undertake ontogenetic migrations, such as from nursery grounds to adult spawning habitats, and current theory does not fully address the range of reserve options posed by that situation. I modelled a generic species with ontogenetic migration to investigate the possible benefits of reserves under three alternative scenarios. First, the fishery targets adult habitat, and reserves can sustain yields under high exploitation, unless habitat patches are well connected. Second, the fishery targets the nursery, and reserves are highly effective, regardless of connectivity patterns. Third, the fishery targets both habitats, and reserves only succeed if paired on adjacent, well-connected nursery and adult patches. In all cases, reserves can buffer populations against overexploitation but would not enhance fishery yield beyond that achievable by management without reserves. These results summarize the general situations in which management using reserves could be useful for ontogenetically migrating species, and the type of connectivity data needed to inform reserve design.

Keywords: connectivity; marine reserve; ontogenetic migration.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Fishery yield under various spatial management schemes for ontogenetically migrating fish. Schematic diagrams illustrate connectivity pathways and fishing patterns for each pair of results. Fish migrate from juvenile nurseries (J) to adult habitat (A), and have connectivity between adult patches (cA) and larval connectivity from adult patches to nursery patches (cJ). Fishing (indicated by grey shading in a patch) occurs in (a,b) adult spawning ground only, (c,d) juvenile nursery only or (e–h) both habitats. In (a–d), one of the fished patches is a no-take reserve (cross-hatching); in (e,f), one pair of nursery–adult patches are both reserves; in (g,h), one nursery patch and the opposite adult patch are reserves. In the square panels, shading indicates total equilibrium fishery yield relative to the maximum achieved under management without reserves, as a function of connectivity (vertical axis) and fishing exploitation (horizontal axis). Fishing is expressed in terms of the fraction of unfished lifetime egg production (FLEP) that would be realized without reserves, ranging from no fishing (FLEP = 1) to overfishing, which is unsustainable under conventional management (FLEP < 0.25). In the left-hand panels, only adult connectivity was varied, and larval connectivity was equal to the two nursery patches. In the right-hand panels, both adult and larval connectivity were varied simultaneously. Each panel has a small strip above it showing results of management without reserves for that exploitation scenario.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. White JW, Botsford LW, Baskett ML, Barnett LAK, Barr RJ, Hastings A. 2011. Linking models and monitoring data for assessing performance of no-take marine reserves. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9, 390–399. (10.1890/100138) - DOI
    1. White JW, Botsford LW, Moffitt EA, Fischer DT. 2010. Decision analysis for designing marine protected areas for multiple species with uncertain fishery status. Ecol. Appl. 20, 1523–1541. (10.1890/09-0962.1) - DOI - PubMed
    1. White JW, et al. 2013. A comparison of approaches used for economic analysis in marine protected area planning in California. Ocean Coast. Manage. 74, 77–89. (10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.06.006) - DOI
    1. Claudet J, et al. 2010. Marine reserves: fish life history and ecological traits matter. Ecol. Appl. 20, 830–839. (10.1890/08-2131.1) - DOI - PubMed
    1. Grüss A, Kaplan DM, Guénette S, Roberts CM, Botsford LW. 2011. Consequences of adult and juvenile movement for marine protected areas. Biol. Conserv. 144, 692–702. (10.1016/j.biocon.2010.12.015) - DOI

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources