How much protection is enough?
28 Feb 2013
Protection of marine areas from fishing increases density and biomass of fish and invertebrates (such as lobster and scallops) finds a systematic review published in BioMed Central’s open access journal Environmental Evidence. The success of a protected area was also dependent on its size and on how it was managed, however even partial protection provides significant ecological benefits.
Marine ecosystems worldwide are suffering from a loss of biodiversity due to destruction of food chains and habitats. Increasingly areas are being set aside to protect sensitive environments and species, or to provide a safe pocket from which fish and larvae can re-seed over-exploited seas.
By performing a meta-analysis, the Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation and School of Ocean Sciences at Bangor University and the National Oceanography Centre Southampton found that protection of marine areas increased fish density and that even partial protection increased fish biomass by almost 50%, while fully protected ‘no take’ areas had double the biomass. This effect was most noticeable for target species, which were the reason the protection areas were set up. In particular lobsters and scallops showed a positive response to partial protection. None of the styles of protection increased the number of fish species.
Overall marine protection is a success story however the success of a reserve also depended on its size and how it was managed. Marija Sciberras, from Bangor University, explained, “Even within partial protection reserves there was variation - the ones which allowed recreational fishing had more biomass than open areas, whereas the ones that were previously commercially dredged showed no real improvement relative to open (or fished) areas. Interestingly we found that increasing the size of partial protection areas above 1000km2 reduced their effectiveness. While this is worrying, we suspect that it may be due to increased poaching.”
- ENDS -
Dr Hilary Glover
Scientific Press Officer, BioMed Central
Tel: +44 (0) 20 3192 2370
Mob: +44 (0) 778 698 1967
1. Evaluating the biological effectiveness of fully and partially protected marine areas
Marija Sciberras, Stuart R Jenkins, Michel J Kaiser, Stephen J Hawkins and Andrew S Pullin
Environmental Evidence (in press)
Please name the journal in any story you write. If you are writing for the web, please link to the article. All articles are available free of charge, according to BioMed Central’s open access policy.
Article citation and URL available on request on the day of publication.
2. Environmental Evidence is the open access, peer-reviewed journal of the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (www.environmentalevidence.org) that facilitates rapid publication of systematic reviews and evidence syntheses which report on the effectiveness of environmental management interventions and on the impact of human activities on the environment.
3. BioMed Central (http://www.biomedcentral.com/) is an STM (Science, Technology and Medicine) publisher which has pioneered the open access publishing model. All peer-reviewed research articles published by BioMed Central are made immediately and freely accessible online, and are licensed to allow redistribution and reuse. BioMed Central is part of Springer Science+Business Media, a leading global publisher in the STM sector. @BioMedCentral
4. Bangor University’s School of Ocean Sciences, a multidisciplinary department, and one of the largest university Marine Science departments in Europe. The University has a long record of academic excellence and has particular strengths in the fields of Environmental Science (including Ocean Sciences), Health (including Psychology, Neuroscience and Sports Science), Humanities, Physical Sciences, Business, Law, Social Sciences and Education. It is a research-led university, and the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise demonstrated that it had ‘world-leading’ research in every subject area assessed.