Study

An assessment of the effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas in the San Juan Islands, Washington, USA

  • Published source details Tuya F., 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, 57, 1218-1226.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Cease or prohibit all fishing activity in a marine protected area with limited exceptions

Action Link
Marine Fish Conservation

Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit all types of fishing

Action Link
Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

Cease or prohibit all types of fishing in a marine protected area

Action Link
Marine Fish Conservation
  1. Cease or prohibit all fishing activity in a marine protected area with limited exceptions

    A replicated, site comparison study in 1998 of eight rocky and sandy sites in the San Juan Archipelago, northwest Pacific Ocean, USA (Tuya et al. 2000) found no differences in the abundances of copper rockfish Sebastes caurinus, quillback rockfish Sebastes maliger, China rockfish Sebastes nebulosus and lingcod Ophiodon elongatus between voluntary no-take sites (no collection of finfish except for salmon) protected for one year, no-take sites (all collection of marine organisms prohibited except for approved scientific research) protected for eight years, and nearby sites open to fishing. Results were reported only as statistical results (ordination analyses). The authors suggested the lack of increase in fish abundance inside protected compared to non-protected areas was likely due to a lack of compliance and enforcement of the restrictions. In July 1998, two marine protected areas (designated 1997 as voluntary no-take zones where no finfish except salmon could be collected – no gears specified), three research marine reserves (established 1990, extractive activities prohibited except for research, sea urchin fishery closed since late 1970s), and three unprotected openly fished areas were surveyed. Two divers identified and counted fish along 300 m2 transects on reef slopes up to 20 m deep (4 transects/site).

    (Summarised by: Rosslyn McIntyre)

  2. Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit all types of fishing

    A replicated, site comparison study in 1998 of eight rocky and sandy areas in the San Juan Archipelago, northwest Pacific Ocean, USA (Tuya et al. 2000) found that the effects of prohibiting all fishing and harvesting within marine protected areas (no-take) on the abundance of red sea urchins Strongylocentrotus franciscanus depended on the age of the protected area and the size of the urchins, and that no-take areas did not affect abundances of sea cucumbers Parastichopus californicus and scallops Chlamys rubida, Chlamys behringiana, and Hinnites giganteus. Abundances of medium and large urchins were higher in the eight-year-old no-take areas (medium: 65; large: 225 individuals/300 m2) compared to one-year-old no-take areas (medium: 21; large: 43) and unprotected areas (medium: 9; large: 21). There were no significant differences between young protected areas and unprotected areas. Abundance of small urchins was similar across areas (1–4). Abundance data for sea cucumbers and scallops were not provided. The authors suggest the lack of increase in abundances inside protected areas was likely due to a lack of compliance and enforcement of prohibitions. In July 1998, three marine preserves (established eight years prior and prohibiting the harvest of organisms; sea urchin fishery closed since the late 1970s), two marine protected area (designated in 1997; voluntary no-take zones), and three unprotected areas were surveyed. Divers counted and measured red sea urchins, sea cucumbers, and scallops along 300 m2 transects (4 transects/area).

    (Summarised by: Anaëlle Lemasson)

  3. Cease or prohibit all types of fishing in a marine protected area

    A replicated, site comparison study in 1998 of eight rocky and sandy sites in the San Juan Archipelago, northwest Pacific Ocean, USA (Tuya et al. 2000) found no differences in the abundances of copper rockfish Sebastes caurinus, quillback rockfish Sebastes maliger, China rockfish Sebastes nebulosus and lingcod Ophiodon elongatus between three marine research areas established for eight years where all fishing was prohibited, two areas protected for one year where only fishing for salmon was permitted, and sites open to fishing. Fish abundance data were not provided (reported as statistical results). The authors suggest the lack of increase in fish abundances inside protected areas was likely due to a lack of compliance and enforcement of the restrictions. In July 1998, three marine research reserves (established in 1990 and prohibiting all extractive activities except controlled research collection; sea urchin fishery closed since the late 1970s), two marine protected areas (designated in 1997; voluntary no-take zones where no finfish except salmon can be taken), and three unprotected areas were surveyed. Two divers identified and counted fish along 300 m2 transects on reef slopes up to 20 m deep (4 transects/site).

    (Summarised by: Rosslyn McIntyre)

Output references
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 19

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust