Spatial, socio‐economic, and ecological implications of incorporating minimum size constraints in marine protected area network design

Conservation Biology - Tập 29 Số 6 - Trang 1615-1625 - 2015
Kristian Metcalfe1,2, Gregory Vaughan3, Sandrine Vaz4, Robert J. Smith2
1Centre for Ecology and Conservation, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Cornwall, TR10 9FE, UK, and Environment and Sustainability Institute, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Cornwall, TR10 9FE, United Kingdom
2Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (DICE), School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NR, United Kingdom
3Geospatial Services 2/35 Arthur Road Holloway London United Kingdom
4Institut Français de Recherche pour l'xploitation de la Mer (Ifremer) UMR MARBEC, Av. Jean Monnet, B.P.171 34200 Sète France

Tóm tắt

AbstractMarine protected areas (MPAs) are the cornerstone of most marine conservation strategies, but the effectiveness of each one partly depends on its size and distance to other MPAs in a network. Despite this, current recommendations on ideal MPA size and spacing vary widely, and data are lacking on how these constraints might influence the overall spatial characteristics, socio‐economic impacts, and connectivity of the resultant MPA networks. To address this problem, we tested the impact of applying different MPA size constraints in English waters. We used the Marxan spatial prioritization software to identify a network of MPAs that met conservation feature targets, whilst minimizing impacts on fisheries; modified the Marxan outputs with the MinPatch software to ensure each MPA met a minimum size; and used existing data on the dispersal distances of a range of species found in English waters to investigate the likely impacts of such spatial constraints on the region's biodiversity. Increasing MPA size had little effect on total network area or the location of priority areas, but as MPA size increased, fishing opportunity cost to stakeholders increased. In addition, as MPA size increased, the number of closely connected sets of MPAs in networks and the average distance between neighboring MPAs decreased, which consequently increased the proportion of the planning region that was isolated from all MPAs. These results suggest networks containing large MPAs would be more viable for the majority of the region's species that have small dispersal distances, but dispersal between MPA sets and spill‐over of individuals into unprotected areas would be reduced. These findings highlight the importance of testing the impact of applying different MPA size constraints because there are clear trade‐offs that result from the interaction of size, number, and distribution of MPAs in a network.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1890/1051-0761(2003)013[0170:AECTMR]2.0.CO;2

Ball IR, 2009, Spatial conservation prioritisation: Quantitative methods and computational tools

10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00171.x

10.1890/03-0706

CarringtonD.2013. Scientists attack government climbdown on marine protection. The Guardian 22 April:http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/22/marine‐scientists‐government‐marine‐protection.

CMLPA (California Marine Life Protection Act).2008. Master plan for marine protected areas. CMLPA California Department of Fish & Game Sacramento CA USA.

Coltman N, 2008, Developing a broadscale predictive EUNIS habitat map for the MESH study area

DEFRA (Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs).2010. Accessing and developing the required biophysical datasets and data layers for marine protected areas network planning and wider marine spatial planning purposes. Report 24. DEFRA London.

10.1093/icesjms/fsr180

10.1002/aqc.2445

10.1038/nature13022

10.1073/pnas.1002098107

GBRMPA, 2002, Technical information sheet 6

10.1111/brv.12155

10.1098/rspb.2003.2405

JNCC (Joint Nature Conservation Committee and Natural England) and Natural England, 2010, Ecological network guidance

10.1111/conl.12005

10.1093/icesjms/fsq010

10.3354/meps07599

10.1016/j.biocon.2013.12.032

McBreen F, 2011, UKSeaMap 2010: Predictive mapping seabed habitats in UK waters

10.1016/j.marpol.2010.07.001

10.1016/j.marpol.2012.12.002

10.1111/1365-2664.12404

10.1016/j.biocon.2010.09.008

Moilanen A, 2009, Spatial Conservation prioritization: quantitative methods and computational tools, 10.1093/oso/9780199547760.001.0001

NBN (National Biodiversity Network).2010. National Biodiversity Network gateway Version 3.4.1. NBN United Kingdom. Available fromhttps://data.nbn.org.uk/.

10.1890/1051-0761(2003)013[0146:PGDCAT]2.0.CO;2

10.1016/j.biocon.2013.06.025

10.1890/1051-0761(2003)013[0199:ECFECS]2.0.CO;2

RobertsCM HawkinsJP FletcherJ HandsS RaabK WardS.2010. Guidance on the size and spacing of marine protected areas in England (NECR037). Commissioned report. Sheffield United Kingdom.

10.1890/1051-0761(2003)013[0159:PDDATS]2.0.CO;2

10.1016/j.biocon.2010.06.019

10.1016/j.marpolbul.2008.08.006

10.1007/s10666-005-9001-y

10.1016/j.envsoft.2009.06.005

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Conservation Biology

Tập 29 Số 6

1615-1625

Thông tin tác giả