IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0186309.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of fish movement assumptions on the design of a marine protected area to protect an overfished stock

Author

Listed:
  • Jorge Cornejo-Donoso
  • Baldvin Einarsson
  • Bjorn Birnir
  • Steven D Gaines

Abstract

Marine Protected Areas (MPA) are important management tools shown to protect marine organisms, restore biomass, and increase fisheries yields. While MPAs have been successful in meeting these goals for many relatively sedentary species, highly mobile organisms may get few benefits from this type of spatial protection due to their frequent movement outside the protected area. The use of a large MPA can compensate for extensive movement, but testing this empirically is challenging, as it requires both large areas and sufficient time series to draw conclusions. To overcome this limitation, MPA models have been used to identify designs and predict potential outcomes, but these simulations are highly sensitive to the assumptions describing the organism’s movements. Due to recent improvements in computational simulations, it is now possible to include very complex movement assumptions in MPA models (e.g. Individual Based Model). These have renewed interest in MPA simulations, which implicitly assume that increasing the detail in fish movement overcomes the sensitivity to the movement assumptions. Nevertheless, a systematic comparison of the designs and outcomes obtained under different movement assumptions has not been done. In this paper, we use an individual based model, interconnected to population and fishing fleet models, to explore the value of increasing the detail of the movement assumptions using four scenarios of increasing behavioral complexity: a) random, diffusive movement, b) aggregations, c) aggregations that respond to environmental forcing (e.g. sea surface temperature), and d) aggregations that respond to environmental forcing and are transported by currents. We then compare these models to determine how the assumptions affect MPA design, and therefore the effective protection of the stocks. Our results show that the optimal MPA size to maximize fisheries benefits increases as movement complexity increases from ~10% for the diffusive assumption to ~30% when full environment forcing was used. We also found that in cases of limited understanding of the movement dynamics of a species, simplified assumptions can be used to provide a guide for the minimum MPA size needed to effectively protect the stock. However, using oversimplified assumptions can produce suboptimal designs and lead to a density underestimation of ca. 30%; therefore, the main value of detailed movement dynamics is to provide more reliable MPA design and predicted outcomes. Large MPAs can be effective in recovering overfished stocks, protect pelagic fish and provide significant increases in fisheries yields. Our models provide a means to empirically test this spatial management tool, which theoretical evidence consistently suggests as an effective alternative to managing highly mobile pelagic stocks.

Suggested Citation

  • Jorge Cornejo-Donoso & Baldvin Einarsson & Bjorn Birnir & Steven D Gaines, 2017. "Effects of fish movement assumptions on the design of a marine protected area to protect an overfished stock," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-19, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0186309
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186309
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0186309
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0186309&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0186309?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. O'Leary, B.C. & Brown, R.L. & Johnson, D.E. & von Nordheim, H. & Ardron, J. & Packeiser, T. & Roberts, C.M., 2012. "The first network of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the high seas: The process, the challenges and where next," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 598-605.
    2. Froese, R. & Pauly, D. (eds.), 2000. "FishBase 2000: Concepts, designs and data sources," Monographs, The WorldFish Center, number 13988, April.
    3. Crow White & Christopher Costello, 2014. "Close the High Seas to Fishing?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-5, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Costello, Christopher & Molina, Renato, 2021. "Transboundary marine protected areas," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    2. Crow White & Christopher Costello, 2014. "Close the High Seas to Fishing?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-5, March.
    3. Christopher Costello & Nicolas Querou & Agnès Tomini, 2014. "Spatial concessions with limited tenure," Post-Print hal-01123392, HAL.
    4. Giovanni Strona & Pieter S. A. Beck & Mar Cabeza & Simone Fattorini & François Guilhaumon & Fiorenza Micheli & Simone Montano & Otso Ovaskainen & Serge Planes & Joseph A. Veech & Valeriano Parravicini, 2021. "Ecological dependencies make remote reef fish communities most vulnerable to coral loss," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-10, December.
    5. Hannah, Lee & Costello, Christopher & Elliot, Vittoria & Owashi, Brandon & Nam, So & Oyanedel, Rodrigo & Chea, Ratha & Vibol, Ouk & Phen, Chheng & McDonald, Gavin, 2019. "Designing freshwater protected areas (FPAs) for indiscriminate fisheries," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 393(C), pages 127-134.
    6. Quérou, Nicolas & Tomini, Agnes & Costello, Christopher, 2022. "Limited‐tenure concessions for collective goods," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    7. Rochette, Julien & Unger, Sebastian & Herr, Dorothée & Johnson, David & Nakamura, Takehiro & Packeiser, Tim & Proelss, Alexander & Visbeck, Martin & Wright, Andrew & Cebrian, Daniel, 2014. "The regional approach to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 109-117.
    8. Newell, Richard G. & Sanchirico, James N. & Kerr, Suzi, 2005. "Fishing quota markets," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 437-462, May.
    9. Freestone, David & Johnson, David & Ardron, Jeff & Morrison, Kate Killerlain & Unger, Sebastian, 2014. "Can existing institutions protect biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction? Experiences from two on-going processes," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 167-175.
    10. Louise Teh & Vicky Lam & William Cheung & Dana Miller & Lydia Teh & U. Rashid Sumaila, 2017. "Impact of high seas closure on food security in low-income fish-dependent countries," Chapters, in: Paulo A.L.D. Nunes & Lisa E. Svensson & Anil Markandya (ed.), Handbook on the Economics and Management of Sustainable Oceans, chapter 11, pages 232-262, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Lima, Daniela Oliveira de & Crouzeilles, Renato & Vieira, Marcus Vinícius, 2020. "Integrating strict protection and sustainable use areas to preserve the Brazilian Pampa biome through conservation planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    12. Schwamborn, R. & Mildenberger, T.K. & Taylor, M.H., 2019. "Assessing sources of uncertainty in length-based estimates of body growth in populations of fishes and macroinvertebrates with bootstrapped ELEFAN," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 393(C), pages 37-51.
    13. Geijer, Christina K.A. & Jones, Peter J.S., 2015. "A network approach to migratory whale conservation: Are MPAs the way forward or do all roads lead to the IMO?," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-12.
    14. Suman Barua & Qun Liu & Mohammed Shahidul Alam & Petra Schneider & Shoukot Kabir Chowdhury & Mohammad Mojibul Hoque Mozumder, 2023. "Assessment of Three Major Shrimp Stocks in Bangladesh Marine Waters Using Both Length-Based and Catch-Based Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-25, August.
    15. Gascuel, Didier & Morissette, Lyne & Palomares, Maria Lourdes D. & Christensen, Villy, 2008. "Trophic flow kinetics in marine ecosystems: Toward a theoretical approach to ecosystem functioning," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 217(1), pages 33-47.
    16. Samuel R. Borstein & Michael P. Hammer & Brian C. O’Meara & Matthew D. McGee, 2024. "The macroevolutionary dynamics of pharyngognathy in fishes fail to support the key innovation hypothesis," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.
    17. Armstrong, Claire W. & Foley, Naomi S. & Kahui, Viktoria & Grehan, Anthony, 2014. "Cold water coral reef management from an ecosystem service perspective," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(PA), pages 126-134.
    18. Christopher Costello & Bruno Nkuiya & Nicolas Querou, 2017. "Extracting spatial resources under possible regime shift," Working Papers 17-07, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier.
    19. Michael Finus & Raoul Schneider & Pedro Pintassilgo, 2019. "The Role of Social and Technical Excludability for the Success of Impure Public Good and Common Pool Agreements: The Case of International Fisheries," Graz Economics Papers 2019-12, University of Graz, Department of Economics.
    20. Takashina, Nao & Lee, Joung-Hun & Possingham, Hugh P., 2017. "Effect of marine reserve establishment on non-cooperative fisheries management," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 360(C), pages 336-342.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0186309. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.