DOCSLIB.ORG

Protected Species Use of a Coastal Marine Migratory Corridor Connecting Marine Protected Areas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Protected Species Use of a Coastal Marine Migratory Corridor Connecting Marine Protected Areas Mar Biol DOI 10.1007/s00227-014-2433-7 ORIGINAL PAPER Protected species use of a coastal marine migratory corridor connecting marine protected areas Kellie L. Pendoley · Gail Schofield · Paul A. Whittock · Daniel Ierodiaconou · Graeme C. Hays Received: 2 October 2013 / Accepted: 21 March 2014 © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014 Abstract The establishment of protected corridors link- marine wildlife in this region, humpback whale migratory ing the breeding and foraging grounds of many migra- tracks overlapped with 96 % of the core corridor, while the tory species remains deficient, particularly in the world’s tracks of three other species overlapped by 5–10 % (blue oceans. For example, Australia has recently established whales, olive ridley turtles, whale sharks). The overlap a network of Commonwealth Marine Reserves, supple- in the distribution ranges of at least 20 other marine ver- menting existing State reserves, to protect a wide range tebrates (dugong, cetaceans, marine turtles, sea snakes, of resident and migratory marine species; however, the crocodiles, sharks) with the corridor also imply potential routes used by mobile species to access these sites are often use. In conclusion, this study provides valuable information unknown. The flatback marine turtle (Natator depressus) towards proposing new locations requiring protection, as is endemic to the continental shelf of Australia, yet infor- well as identifying high-priority network linkages between mation is not available about how this species uses the existing marine protected areas. marine area. We used a geospatial approach to delineate a coastal corridor from 73 adult female flatback postnesting migratory tracks from four rookeries along the north-west Introduction coast of Australia. A core corridor of 1,150 km length and 30,800 km2 area was defined, of which 52 % fell within 11 Marine protected areas (MPAs) are now being widely intro- reserves, leaving 48 % (of equivalent size to several Com- duced around the world and are often designated, at least monwealth Reserves) of the corridor outside of the reserve partly, to help protect migratory animals where they sea- network. Despite limited data being available for other sonally aggregate to breed or forage (e.g. cetaceans, Hooker et al. 1999; sharks, Kinney and Simpfendorfer 2009; sea Communicated by R. Lewison. turtles, Schofield et al. 2013a). However, migratory spe- cies are also at risk during migration along corridors con- Electronic supplementary material The online version of this necting breeding and foraging habitats (Shillinger et al. article (doi:10.1007/s00227-014-2433-7) contains supplementary 2008; Womble and Gende 2013). Yet, while studies are material, which is available to authorized users. beginning to identify key corridors used by marine wild- K. L. Pendoley · P. A. Whittock life (Mumby 2006; Block et al. 2011; Olavo et al. 2011), Pendoley Environmental Pty Ltd, 12A Pitt Way, Booragoon, the protection ofsuch areas remains primarily hypothetical WA 6154, Australia (but see Lipcius et al. 2003; Fernandes et al. 2005; King and Beazley 2005; Guzman et al. 2008) or experimental G. Schofield (*) · D. Ierodiaconou · G. C. Hays Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental (Holland 2012). The benefits of connecting protected habi- Sciences, Deakin University, Warrnambool, VIC 3280, Australia tats, including isolated areas, involve potentially reducing e-mail: [email protected] the risk of extinction by increasing species and population persistence, improving population sizes, enhancing species G. C. Hays Department of Biosciences, Swansea University, Singleton Park, diversity and/or raising genetic exchange (Newmark 1987; Swansea SA2 8PP, UK Parks and Harcourt 2002; Hilty et al. 2006). 1 3 Mar Biol Failure to implement the protection of wildlife migra- and dolphins (e.g. Double et al. 2010, 2012a, b; Bejder et al. tory corridors on land, sea or air generally arises because 2012), sharks (Wilson et al. 2006; Heithaus et al. 2007; Speed of a combination of wildlife, logistical (capacity to enforce et al. 2010) and commercially important fish stocks (Fer- and associated economic costs), stakeholder and/or politi- nandes et al. 2005). This absence of corridors is partially cal issues (Boersma and Parrish 1999; Hyrenbach et al. explained by many species migrating to oceanic (pelagic) 2000; Shillinger et al. 2008; Womble and Gende 2013). For habitats (e.g. blue whales, Branch et al. 2007; whale sharks, instance, the consistency of animal migratory routes may be Sequeira et al. 2013; sea turtles, Wallace et al. 2010), rather subjected to variation at both individual and population-level than along the coast of Australia, making viable corridors scales, complicating the delineation of key protection zones difficult to establish. Furthermore, recent research has sug- (for overview, see Akesson and Hedenstrom 2007; Agardy gested that species occupying higher latitudes invest in more et al. 2011). This issue is exacerbated in avian or marine spe- extensive migrations compared with those occupying tropical cies that traverse open expanses of ocean (e.g. Shaffer et al. regions (i.e. lower latitudes) (Laurel and Bradbury 2006). 2006; Schofield et al. 2013b), because wind and ocean cur- Contradictory to these two statements, the flatback rents cause drift, with course correction being difficult in the marine turtle is endemic to the Australian continental shelf absence of visual cues, such as landmasses (e.g. Berger 2004; (Pritchard 1997), exhibiting both extensive longitudinal Alerstam et al. 2006; Broderick et al. 2007; Hays et al. 2010; (112–152°E) and latitudinal (4–27°S) migratory move- Hawkes et al. 2011). It is difficult to manage (i.e. monitor and ment between breeding and foraging grounds along the regulate) potentially detrimental human activities across vast west, north and east coasts of Australia (Marsh et al. 1993; areas (e.g. Hyrenbach et al. 2000; Hooker et al. 2011). Migra- Wallace et al. 2010), reaching as far as Papua New Guinea tory routes often traverse stakeholder properties (e.g. Innes (Limpus et al. 1983; Prince 1998). This species is consid- et al. 1998; Cherney and Clark, 2009), airways/waterways ered vulnerable in Western Australia (Wallace et al. 2010), heavily used by commercial shipping, natural energy sta- due to predation by wildlife (dingoes and introduced red tions (i.e. wind and wave) and areas used by the armed forces fox), fisheries bycatch and consumption (e.g. of eggs) by (e.g. Mullen et al. 2013; Firestone et al. 2008) or important indigenous peoples; however, the Red List of the Interna- fisheries resources (e.g. Zappes et al. 2013). Finally, migra- tionalUnion for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) catego- tory animals rarely remain within one country; hence, the rises this species as data deficient, and hence difficult to establishment of international management cooperation and assess. As the flatback sea turtle remains in coastal habitats agreed protocols is critical (Shillinger et al. 2008). Recently, throughout its life history, it could be used as a focal spe- more studies are tracking increasingly large numbers of ter- cies to model a coastal migratory corridor (King and Bea- restrial, avian and marine wildlife to accurately infer popu- zley 2005) connecting Australia’s MPAs and may inciden- lation-level movement patterns (e.g. Borger et al. 2006; Pin- tally encompass movement of other migratory species. aud 2007; Schofield et al. 2013b); however, most proposed Here, we analysed 73 adult female flatback tracking data- areas for protection continue to be based on the single-species sets from four rookeries located along the north-west coast approach, rather than at the ecosystem level (Hooker et al. of Australia between 2005 and 2012 to (1) delineate the 1999; King and Beazley 2005). At the governmental level, migratory corridor used by these individuals, (2) determine the minimal investment (or fewest hurdles to overcome) for the extent of connectivity and overlap of this corridor with the maximal output is logically sought (Shogren et al. 1999); existing State and Commonwealth Marine Reserves and (3) hence, the delineation of single corridors supporting multiple establish the potential benefits of such a corridor to other spe- species might be more likely to be considered over multiple cies through the evaluation of tracking/distribution data for corridors supporting single species (Baumgartner 2004). other wildlife in the published literature. Limited information In 2012, Australia announced the establishment of a net- about flatback sea turtles has previously been available until work of Commonwealth Marine Reserves, in addition to this study; hence, here, we evaluate the extent to which the existing State reserves, covering 36 % of the nation’s marine migratory route of an endemic species receives protection by area (Australian Government http://www.environment.gov. the existing and planned network of marine reserves along the au/marinereserves/; Supplementary Fig. 1). This network north-western continental margin of Western Australia. represents an ‘ecosystems’ approach to coastal marine man- agement, by protecting a mosaic of interconnected ecosystem types/habitats and associated biota (McNeill 1994; Fernandes Materials and methods et al. 2005; Russ et al. 2008). Yet, many of these reserves are discontinuous, lacking connecting corridors, despite being Study area and target species designed to protect a number of highly mobile species
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Blue Paradox: Preemptive Overfishing in Marine Reserves
    PAPER The blue paradox: Preemptive overfishing in COLLOQUIUM marine reserves Grant R. McDermotta,1,2, Kyle C. Mengb,c,d,1,2, Gavin G. McDonaldb,e, and Christopher J. Costellob,c,d,e aDepartment of Economics, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403; bBren School of Environmental Science & Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106; cDepartment of Economics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106; dNational Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA 02138; and eMarine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 Edited by Jane Lubchenco, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, and approved July 25, 2018 (received for review March 9, 2018) Most large-scale conservation policies are anticipated or an- This line of reasoning suggests that the anticipation of a new nounced in advance. This risks the possibility of preemptive conservation policy may give rise to a set of incentives that is resource extraction before the conservation intervention goes distinct from—but possibly just as important as—the incentives into force. We use a high-resolution dataset of satellite-based fish- arising from the policy’s implementation. While this kind of pre- ing activity to show that anticipation of an impending no-take emptive behavior has been well-documented for landowners, gun marine reserve undermines the policy by triggering an unin- owners, and owners of natural resource extraction rights, it has tended race-to-fish. We study one of the world’s largest marine not been studied in the commons. For vast swaths of the ocean, reserves, the Phoenix Islands Protected Area (PIPA), and find that no single owner has exclusive rights and so must compete against fishers more than doubled their fishing effort once this area was others for extraction.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Protected Areas (Mpas) in Management 1 of Coral Reefs
    ISRS BRIEFING PAPER 1 MARINE PROTECTED AREAS (MPAS) IN MANAGEMENT 1 OF CORAL REEFS SYNOPSIS Marine protected areas (MPAs) may stop all extractive uses, protect particular species or locally prohibit specific kinds of fishing. These areas may be established for reasons of conservation, tourism or fisheries management. This briefing paper discusses the potential uses of MPAs, factors that have affected their success and the conditions under which they are likely to be effective. ¾ MPAs are often established as a conservation tool, allowing protection of species sensitive to fishing and thus preserving intact ecosystems, their processes and biodiversity and ultimately their resilience to perturbations. ¾ Increases in charismatic species such as large groupers in MPAs combined with the perception that the reefs there are relatively pristine mean that MPAs can play a significant role in tourism. ¾ By reducing fishing mortality, effective MPAs have positive effects locally on abundances, biomass, sizes and reproductive outputs of many exploitable site- attached reef species. ¾ Because high biomass of focal species is sought but this is quickly depleted and is slow to recover, poaching is a problem in most reef MPAs. ¾ Target-species ‘spillover’ into fishing areas is likely occurring close to the MPA boundaries and benefits will often be related to MPA size. Evidence for MPAs acting as a source of larval export remains weak. ¾ The science of MPAs is at an early stage of its development and MPAs will rarely suffice alone to address the main objectives of fisheries management; concomitant control of effort and other measures are needed to reduce fishery impacts, sustain yields or help stocks to recover.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Patterns in Marine Mammal Distributions
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION I. TAXONOMIC DECISIONS In this work we followed Wilson and Reeder (2005) and Reeves, Stewart, and Clapham’s (2002) taxonomy. In the last 20 years several new species have been described such as Mesoplodon perrini (Dalebout 2002), Orcaella heinsohni (Beasley 2005), and the recognition of several species have been proposed for orcas (Perrin 1982, Pitman et al. 2007), Bryde's whales (Kanda et al. 2007), Blue whales (Garrigue et al. 2003, Ichihara 1996), Tucuxi dolphin (Cunha et al. 2005, Caballero et al. 2008), and other marine mammals. Since we used the conservation status of all species following IUCN (2011), this work is based on species recognized by this IUCN to keep a standardized baseline. II. SPECIES LIST List of the species included in this paper, indicating their conservation status according to IUCN (2010.4) and its range area. Order Family Species IUCN 2010 Freshwater Range area km2 Enhydra lutris EN A2abe 1,084,750,000,000 Mustelidae Lontra felina EN A3cd 996,197,000,000 Odobenidae Odobenus rosmarus DD 5,367,060,000,000 Arctocephalus australis LC 1,674,290,000,000 Arctocephalus forsteri LC 1,823,240,000,000 Arctocephalus galapagoensis EN A2a 167,512,000,000 Arctocephalus gazella LC 39,155,300,000,000 Arctocephalus philippii NT 163,932,000,000 Arctocephalus pusillus LC 1,705,430,000,000 Arctocephalus townsendi NT 1,045,950,000,000 Carnivora Otariidae Arctocephalus tropicalis LC 39,249,100,000,000 Callorhinus ursinus VU A2b 12,935,900,000,000 Eumetopias jubatus EN A2a 3,051,310,000,000 Neophoca cinerea
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Marine Protected Areas in Sustaining Fisheries
    The role of marine protected areas in sustaining fisheries Callum Roberts University of York, UK After World War II there was much optimism that fisheries could feed the World. But at the beginning of the 21st century, we are not so sure. Quota management of fisheries in the European Union has failed to deliver sustainability 100 80 60 40 20 Percentage of Quota Fish Stocks of Quota Percentage 0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Year Healthy At risk In danger Data from ICES Cod decline in the Kattegat, North Sea Extinction is the ultimate in unsustainable fishing, whether or not the species of concern are targets of the fishery What is missing from fishery management? • Real provision for habitat protection and recovery • Precautionary targets • Resolute enforcement Objectives of marine reserves Maintaining ecosystem processes and services Conservation Sustaining fisheries Tree cover www.worldwildlife.org/oceans/pdfs/fishery_effects.pdf Spillover Reproduction & Dispersal Colonization & Growth Abundance Diversity What is the evidence that reserves work? Reserves all over the world show dramatic increases in spawning stocks Usually by at least 2-3 times in 5-10 years Long-term studies in New Zealand, Philippines, Florida and many other countries show strong responses to reserve protection Fish in reserves do live longer, grow larger and produce more eggs Egg production from protected fish stocks increases by much more than stock biomass Catches do increase Soufrière Marine Management Area, St. Lucia: Established 1995 35% of reef area closed
    [Show full text]
  • Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs
    little fish BIG IMPACT Managing a crucial link in ocean food webs A report from the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force The Lenfest Ocean Program invests in scientific research on the environmental, economic, and social impacts of fishing, fisheries management, and aquaculture. Supported research projects result in peer-reviewed publications in leading scientific journals. The Program works with the scientists to ensure that research results are delivered effectively to decision makers and the public, who can take action based on the findings. The program was established in 2004 by the Lenfest Foundation and is managed by the Pew Charitable Trusts (www.lenfestocean.org, Twitter handle: @LenfestOcean). The Institute for Ocean Conservation Science (IOCS) is part of the Stony Brook University School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences. It is dedicated to advancing ocean conservation through science. IOCS conducts world-class scientific research that increases knowledge about critical threats to oceans and their inhabitants, provides the foundation for smarter ocean policy, and establishes new frameworks for improved ocean conservation. Suggested citation: Pikitch, E., Boersma, P.D., Boyd, I.L., Conover, D.O., Cury, P., Essington, T., Heppell, S.S., Houde, E.D., Mangel, M., Pauly, D., Plagányi, É., Sainsbury, K., and Steneck, R.S. 2012. Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs. Lenfest Ocean Program. Washington, DC. 108 pp. Cover photo illustration: shoal of forage fish (center), surrounded by (clockwise from top), humpback whale, Cape gannet, Steller sea lions, Atlantic puffins, sardines and black-legged kittiwake. Credits Cover (center) and title page: © Jason Pickering/SeaPics.com Banner, pages ii–1: © Brandon Cole Design: Janin/Cliff Design Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas
    Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) Guidelines for Marine MPAs are needed in all parts of the world – but it is vital to get the support Protected Areas of local communities Edited and coordinated by Graeme Kelleher Adrian Phillips, Series Editor IUCN Protected Areas Programme IUCN Publications Services Unit Rue Mauverney 28 219c Huntingdon Road CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland Cambridge, CB3 0DL, UK Tel: + 41 22 999 00 01 Tel: + 44 1223 277894 Fax: + 41 22 999 00 15 Fax: + 44 1223 277175 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 3 IUCN The World Conservation Union The World Conservation Union CZM-Centre These Guidelines are designed to be used in association with other publications which cover relevant subjects in greater detail. In particular, users are encouraged to refer to the following: Case studies of MPAs and their Volume 8, No 2 of PARKS magazine (1998) contributions to fisheries Existing MPAs and priorities for A Global Representative System of Marine establishment and management Protected Areas, edited by Graeme Kelleher, Chris Bleakley and Sue Wells. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, The World Bank, and IUCN. 4 vols. 1995 Planning and managing MPAs Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: A Guide for Planners and Managers, edited by R.V. Salm and J.R. Clark. IUCN, 1984. Integrated ecosystem management The Contributions of Science to Integrated Coastal Management. GESAMP, 1996 Systems design of protected areas National System Planning for Protected Areas, by Adrian G. Davey. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Marine Reserves Ecological Monitoring Plan 2012
    Oregon Marine Reserves Ecological Monitoring Plan 2012 Marine Resources Program Newport, Oregon Acknowledgments: Thank you to the Redfish Rocks and Otter Rock Marine Reserve Community Teams, biological working groups, local fishermen, divers and scientific experts for their time, hard work, and contribution to the development of the monitoring plan and to this document. Individual Acknowledgments: Otter Rock Community Team Biological Working Group: Jim Burke, Terry Thompson, Paul Erskine and Gary Wise Redfish Rocks Community Team Science Working Group: Jim Golden, Dick Vander Schaaf, Dave Lacey, Brianna Goodwin, Lyle Keeler Advisors: Mark Carr, Mark Hixon, Alan Shanks, Rick Starr, Brian Tissot and the members of the Ocean Policy and Advisory Council’s Science and Technical Advisory Committee. Contributors: Alix Laferriere, Cristen Don, David Fox, Keith Matteson, Mike Donnellan, Scott Groth, Annie Pollard. Cover photo: Scott Groth. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Marine Resources Program 2040 SE Marine Science Drive Newport, OR 97365 (541) 867-7701 x 227 www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/ www.oregonocean.info/marinereserves Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Table of Contents I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 A. Monitoring Plan Purpose..................................................................................................................... 1 B. Marine Reserves: Oregon’s Policy Guidance ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Biscayne National Park National Park Service
    National Park Service Marine Reserves for People A National Park Perspective Biscayne National Park National Park Service Mark Lewis Superintendent Biscayne National Park [email protected] 786-335-3643 Biscayne National Park National Park Service From just south of Key Biscayne to just north of Key Largo. Biscayne National Park National Park Service Adjacent to approx 3 million people Biscayne National Park National Park Service Biscayne National Park • preserves and protects 173,000 acres of reefs, islands and most of Biscayne Bay; • contains over 5,000 patch reefs; • is the largest tropical marine park in the National Park system; • is a tourism, recreation & education destination for over ½ million people each year. Biscayne National Park National Park Service Mission of the National Park Service ...to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. Biscayne National Park National Park Service Why consider a marine reserve for Biscayne NP? The purpose of the marine reserve would be to provide the public the opportunity to experience a healthy, natural reef with a wide diversity of fish species and sizes; Biscayne National Park National Park Service Why consider a marine reserve for Biscayne NP? to create an area of the park where visitors can experience greater abundance, larger individuals, and higher diversity of fishes, corals, and other organisms. Biscayne National Park National Park Service Why consider a marine reserve for Biscayne NP? If you go to Yellowstone NP you expect to see bison; If you go to Redwoods NP you expect to see giant trees; Biscayne National Park National Park Service Why consider a marine reserve for Biscayne NP? If you go to the largest tropical marine park in the national park system, you expect to see healthy coral reefs teeming with diverse and large fish.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economic Value of the Gladden Spit and Silk Cayes Marine Reserve, a Coral Reef Marine Protected Area in Belize
    The Economic Value of the Gladden Spit and Silk Cayes Marine Reserve in Belize. Draft report. V Hargreaves-Allen The Economic Value of the Gladden Spit and Silk Cayes Marine Reserve, a Coral Reef Marine Protected Area in Belize. By Venetia Hargreaves-Allen Conservation Strategy Fund. Acronyms. CS: consumer surplus CPUE: catch per unit effort CVM: contingent valuation method FoN: Friends of Nature GSSCMR: Gladden Spit and Silk Cayes Marine Reserve MPA: marine protected area MR: marine reserve NPV: net present value PS: producer surplus WTP: willingness to pay Acknowledgements. The author would like to thank Lindsay Garbutt, Nigel Martinez, William Muschamp, Shannon Romero, and all the rangers at Friends of Nature for their continued support and daily help, without which this research could never have happened. Technical advice was provided by Linwood Pendleton, EJ Milner-Gulland, Susana Mourato and John Dixon. Funding was this study was provided by Conservation International, under the Marine Management Area Science program and through a PhD scholarship provided by the Economic and Social Research Council and the Natural Environment research council, in the UK. The Economic Value of the Gladden Spit and Silk Cayes Marine Reserve in Belize. Draft report. V Hargreaves-Allen Executive Summary. Marine Protected Areas Maintain Economic Values Coral reef marine protected areas (MPAs) protect ecosystem services that directly and indirectly contribute to the welfare of people, both nearby and far away. They do this by protecting species and their habitats from some of the many stressors that affect reefs. For example, they reduce the damaging effects of unsustainable fishing and inappropriate gear, as well as damage from anchors and trampling associated with tourism.
    [Show full text]
  • Reducing Discards and Unwanted Bycatch in European Trawl Fisheries
    Reducing d iscard s and unwanted bycatch in European trawl fisheries POSITION PAPER WWF’s mission is to conserve nature and ecological processes, while ensuring the sustainable use of renewable resources. As such, WWF works with governments and stakeholders to achieve sustainable fisheries through the implementation of ecosystem-based management March 2007 of all maritime activities. Introduction – bycatch and discards Most fisheries catch animals that were not originally targeted. This extra catch is known as bycatch . Of this bycatch some will have a commercial value and are landed by fishermen. Often, however, a proportion is unwanted and subsequently discarded (i.e. thrown back dead or dying over the side). Such unwanted bycatch is a major environmental problem in European fisheries as it is wasteful and can lead to high levels of mortality among fish that could otherwise have helped re-build and replenish stocks. Discarding of mature animals represents an immediate loss of spawning stock biomass and it is clear that a package of measures are needed to address this problem if European fisheries are to be sustainable. There are solutions to bycatch but there is not going to be a one size fits all fix. Solutions will need to be tailored to individual fisheries in response to the main cause of discarding and will likely involve not one measure but a range of measures working together to reduce the level of unwanted fish mortality. The reasons for discards are many including high-grading, the capture of fish which are below legal minimum landings size, of low economic value, or of poor marketable quality.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Research Report
    Oregon Marine Reserves Human Dimensions Monitoring Report 2010-2011 2014 Marine Resources Program Newport, Oregon Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the Redfish Rocks Community Team and the Depoe Bay Near Shore Action Team, local stakeholders, staff at the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Marine Resources Program, and all the individuals that donated their time, hard work, and contributions to the development of this document. Contributing Authors Thomas C. Swearingen, Ph.D., Marine Reserves Human Dimensions Project Leader, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Cristen Don, Marine Reserves Program Leader, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Melissa Murphy, Former Socioeconomic Analyst, Marine Reserves Program, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Shannon Davis, The Research Group, Corvallis, Oregon Hilary Polis, The Research Group, Corvallis, Oregon Cover Photo: Devil’s Punch Bowl Overlook Facing South, Otter Rock, Oregon, June 29, 2013. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Marine Resources Program 2040 SE Marine Science Drive Newport, OR 97365 (541) 867-7701 x228 www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/ www.oregonocean.info/marinereserves SUGGESTED CITATION Swearingen, T.C., Don, C., Murphy, M., Davis, S., and Polis, H. 2014. Oregon Marine Reserves Human Dimensions Monitoring Report 2010 - 2011. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Marine Resources Program. Newport, OR. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife i Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fisheries-Induced Selection Against Schooling Behaviour in Marine Fishes
    Fisheries-induced selection against royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspb schooling behaviour in marine fishes Ana Sofia Guerra1, Albert B. Kao2,3, Douglas J. McCauley1 and Andrew M. Berdahl4 Research 1Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA 2Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA Cite this article: Guerra AS, Kao AB, 3Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM 87501, USA 4 McCauley DJ, Berdahl AM. 2020 School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA Fisheries-induced selection against schooling ASG, 0000-0003-3030-9765; ABK, 0000-0001-8232-8365; DJM, 0000-0002-8100-653X; behaviour in marine fishes. Proc. R. Soc. B 287: AMB, 0000-0002-5057-0103 20201752. Group living is a common strategy used by fishes to improve their fitness. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.1752 While sociality is associated with many benefits in natural environments, including predator avoidance, this behaviour may be maladaptive in the Anthropocene. Humans have become the dominant predator in many marine systems, with modern fishing gear developed to specifically target Received: 28 July 2020 groups of schooling species. Therefore, ironically, behavioural strategies Accepted: 3 September 2020 which evolved to avoid non-human predators may now actually make certain fish more vulnerable to predation by humans. Here, we use an individual-based model to explore the evolution of fish schooling behaviour in a range of environments, including natural and human-dominated preda- tion conditions. In our model, individual fish may leave or join groups Subject Category: depending on their group-size preferences, but their experienced group Behaviour size is also a function of the preferences of others in the population.
    [Show full text]