Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: a global synthesis
-
Published source details
Lester S., Halpern B., Grorud-Colvert K., Lubchenco J., Ruttenberg B., Gaines S., Airamé S. & Warner R. (2009) Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: a global synthesis. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 384, 33-46.
Published source details Lester S., Halpern B., Grorud-Colvert K., Lubchenco J., Ruttenberg B., Gaines S., Airamé S. & Warner R. (2009) Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: a global synthesis. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 384, 33-46.
Actions
This study is summarised as evidence for the following.
| Action | Category | |
|---|---|---|
|
Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit all types of fishing and collection Action Link |
 |
|
|
Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit all types of fishing Action Link |
 |
-
Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit all types of fishing and collection
A review of 31 studies of global protected areas (Lester et al. 2009) found that in protected areas that prohibited all types of fishing and collection, hard and soft coral density and size was similar to in unprotected areas. Density and size were not significantly different in protected compared to unprotected areas for hard corals (density: 120% higher in protected than unprotected, based on 22 studies; size: 102% higher in protected than unprotected, 1 study), soft corals (density: 14% lower in protected than unprotected, 3 studies; size: 52% higher in protected than unprotected, 1 study), or hard and soft corals combined (density: 2% lower in protected than unprotected, 4 studies, size: no data reported). In addition, when data on all species groups were included (fish, invertebrates, algae), there was no difference in biomass, density, size or richness inside and outside reserves before protection was implemented (see paper for details). The peer reviewed literature was searched for studies on fully protected, no-take marine reserves, with only those with comparisons to unprotected areas, comparisons to areas before protection, or both being included in analysis. A total of 221 studies from 1977–2006 from 124 marine reserves were retained for analysis, although only 31 of those studies included results for corals. For comparisons of inside and outside reserves before protection, 23 studies were used.
(Summarised by: William Morgan)
-
Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit all types of fishing
A systematic review of 149 studies published between 1977 and 2006 of no-take marine reserves across the world (Lester et al. 2009) found that inside marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing, invertebrate biomass, abundance, and size were greater, but species richness was not, compared to unprotected areas outside. Inside the reserves, average biomass increased by 752%, average abundance by 176%, and average size by 26%, compared to outside the reserve. Species richness decreased by a non-significant <5% inside compared to outside the reserves. When analysed by species group, molluscs and arthropods had the greatest increases (molluscs: +240% (non-significant) biomass, +422% abundance, +33% size; arthropods: +889% biomass, +323% abundance, +33% size), while there were no significant changes for any metrics for echinoderms or cnidaria. Species highly targeted by fisheries had the greatest increases in abundance (+385%) and biomass (+820%) in the reserves. The selected studies compared invertebrate abundance, biomass, size, and species richness for 124 reserves across 29 countries. Selected studies included comparisons of before-and-after the reserves were established, and comparisons of inside vs outside the reserves. A meta-analysis was performed on the selected studies.
(Summarised by: Anaëlle Lemasson)
)_2023.JPG)
