Combining Information from Benthic Community Analysis and Social Studies to Establish No-Take Zones Within a Multiple Uses Marine Protected Area

AQUATIC CONSERVATION: MARINE AND FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 22:74–86 (2012) Published online 13 December 2011 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/aqc.1239

Combining information from benthic community analysis and social studies to establish no-take zones within a multiple uses marine protected area

ÚRSULA ROJAS-NAZARa,b,†, CARLOS F. GAYMERb,a,*, FRANCISCO A. SQUEOc,a, ROSA GARAY-FLÜHMANNb,d and DAVID LÓPEZa aCentro de Estudios Avanzados en Zonas Áridas (CEAZA), Casilla 599, La Serena, Chile bDepartamento de Biología Marina, Universidad Católica del Norte. Casilla 117, Coquimbo, Chile cUniversidad de La Serena and Instituto de Ecología y Biodiversidad (IEB), Benavente 980, La Serena, Chile dUniversidad Santo Tomás, Sede La Serena. Ruta 5 Norte No. 1068, La Serena, Chile

ABSTRACT 1. A decision support tool was used to determine priority sites for marine conservation within the Isla Grande de Atacama multiple uses marine protected area (MUMPA) in northern Chile, based on both biological and social information. Scuba diving, and an unweighted paired-group method using arithmetic average (UPGMA) analyses were used to determine the main benthic communities found in the shallow rocky and soft-sediment subtidal. 2. To establish the costs of conservation, a social survey was undertaken to identify major users, uses and localities within the MUMPA. A multi-layer database with biological, physical, and social information was generated and further defined 28 approximately 70 ha analysis units. Explicit conservation criteria were then determined and four conservation goals defined (protection of 10, 20, 50, and 70% of each of the communities). 3. Seven rocky reef and three soft-sediment communities were identified in the shallow subtidal. Four of the 28 units had high costs of conservation owing to high frequency of use by fishermen, divers, and algae harvesters (main users). These areas represented the highest risks for potential conflicts with the main users. 4. Under the conservation goals of 10% and 20%, 36.8 and 44.4% of the whole marine area were selected as priority areas for protection respectively. The units selected presented low and medium costs of conservation, thus they had low risks of potential conflicts with users. 5. This is the first study that uses a decision support tool to identify priority sites (i.e. units) in the shallow subtidal based on benthic communities and also incorporates social aspects to assess conservation costs. The use of social aspects enables the establishment of management strategies that agree both with biodiversity conservation and socio-economic development of fishing communities. This approach can be replicated for the planning of other coastal MPAs where artisanal fisheries and tourist activities co-occur and interact with conservation efforts. Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 27 January 2011; Revised 12 September 2011; Accepted 9 October 2011

KEY WORDS: Chile; coastal marine conservation; conservation costs; multiple uses marine protected area; benthic ecology; social ecology

INTRODUCTION theoretical basis of marine conservation less developed relative to that of terrestrial ecosystems The implementation of marine protected areas (Allison et al., 1998; Carr et al., 2000; NRC, 2001; (MPAs) remains in its infancy, with the new Estrada et al., 2004). Beck and Odaya (2001)

*Correspondence to: C.F. Gaymer, Departamento de Biología Marina, Universidad Católica del Norte. Casilla 117, Coquimbo, Chile. E-mail: [email protected] †Present address: School of Biological Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington. PO Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand.

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. COMBINING BENTHIC AND SOCIAL ECOLOGY FOR MPA PLANNING 75 recommend four steps to implement eco-regional to science and ensure the prevalence and diversity conservation plans and identify conservation priority of biological species and their habitats. sites: (1) identify conservation targets (e.g. habitat, A new marine-coastal management category called species); (2) gather information on the ecology and the multiple uses marine and coastal protected areas distribution of species; (3) determine conservation (MUMPAs) has recently been implemented by the goals for all the targets that must be protected; and former National Environment Commission (CONAMA, (4) identify a group of sites that meet these conservation from Spanish acronyms, presently Ministry of the targets and goals. In addition, Margules and Pressey Environment) in Chile, based on international (2000) include the additional step of establishing each agreements under the Convention for Biodiversity site and its subsequent monitoring. (CBD, 2006) and the Permanent Commission for the In general, the majority of marine protected areas South Pacific (CPPS, from Spanish acronyms). The (MPAs) have been established based on experts’ central aim of these areas is to integrate environmental criteria and ad-hoc processes focused on economic conservation needs with socio-economic interests of the and political criteria (Thiel et al., 2007; Vega, local populations, in order to contribute to biodiversity 2011). However, the recent use of decision support conservation and socio-economic development. tools (DSTs) allows for simplification of the growing Typically, the information used for the selection complexity in decision-making processes. DSTs are of priority sites for biodiversity conservation is systematic and transparent selection methods for based on physical and biological aspects (Ward areas to conserve, through the identification and et al., 1999; Beck and Odaya, 2001; Airamé et al., consideration of a combination of characteristics 2003; Ferdaña, 2005), with social aspects (e.g. (e.g. high diversity, distance from pollution sources, uses, users, effects) rarely taken into account. etc.). Therefore, this approach permits maximization The lack of limited incorporation of stakeholders of the long-term conservation goals, while seeking to and traditional users’ knowledge in the creation minimize the area protected and the associated of new MPAs has generated serious problems with conservation costs (Leslie et al., 2003). A number of the implementation and operation of MPAs, resulting different DSTs have been developed; such as in the failure of some (Mascia, 2004). In Chile, SPEXAN and MARXAN (developed at University the designation of MPAs has been a top down of Adelaide in 2000), SPOT (developed by The process, where authorities, supported by the opinions Nature Conservancy in 2003) and the newest software of experts, unilaterally decide and declare an MPA called ZONATION (developed at University of without consulting stakeholders and traditional users Helsinki in 2006). The main differences between (Thiel et al., 2007). This has prevented transparency these various DSTs are the ease of workflow between in the selection process of MPAs (Rojas-Nazar, DSTs and GIS, the facility to work with numerous 2007; Thiel et al., 2007). It has, however, been shown datasets at the same time, the ability to make that when relevant users and stakeholders are and work with thousands of grid cells (selection involved in the process it can lead to the successful units), and the degree of connectivity between grid creation of MPAs (for example see Port-Cros cells. For example, MARXAN and SPOT utilize National Park, France, Francour et al., 2005). the minimum-set framework in which the objective In the present study, a DST was used for the is to achieve a target level of each conservation feature, identification of a group of priority sites for while minimizing cost. In comparison, ZONATION conservation within the MUMPA Isla Grande de utilizes the maximum coverage framework in Atacama (northern Chile), by integrating biological which the objective is to maximize the amount of and social information. Shallow benthic communities conservation benefits, given a fixed budget. were considered as conservation surrogates because In Chile, MPAs are established under the General they are good at representing all the processes Law of Fisheries and Aquaculture (GLFA). This law and interactions that structure the shallow subtidal defines two categories of marine protected areas: zone of the central and northern Chilean coast (a) Marine Reserves: for the preservation of biological (Thiel et al., 2007). In addition, social information resources, their breeding grounds, nursery areas, fishing about the different users, types, and places of use grounds, and repopulation areas by management, within the MUMPA were considered. This study where extractive activities can only be made in presents a novel small-scale approach to the planning extraordinary circumstances; and (b) Marine Parks; process, which has normally been limited to physical to specifically preserve ecological units of interest and biological information.

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 22:74–86 (2012) 76 ÚRSULA ROJAS NAZAR ET AL.

METHODS survey was undertaken using scuba diving by Vásquez (2002). The most important gap, for which Study site data were subsequently collected, corresponded to The study was carried out in the MUMPA Isla biological data from sandy beaches. Scuba divers Grande de Atacama, located between Punta Morro used an air-lift apparatus (Gaymer et al., 2004) to and the mouth of the Copiapó River, Atacama collect all macro-invertebrates (minimum length 2 Region, Chile (Figure 1). The MUMPA has an 2 cm) up to 20 cm of depth that were inside 0.25 m approximate length of 30 km and comprises quadrats randomly placed every 2 m depth interval 9703 ha of land and 3504 ha of sea (Squeo and from 3 to 26 m depth. Three replicate samples Arancio, 2007). The MUMPA includes numerous were collected per depth interval. Specimens were coastal, intertidal and subtidal ecosystems that are identified and then returned to the sea. Those representative of the upwelling system of the organisms that were not identified were fixed in 70% Humboldt Current, which are of great importance alcohol for later identification in the laboratory. Both for the conservation and preservation of marine qualitative and quantitative descriptions of the and coastal biodiversity (Thiel et al., 2007). The communities were made. Qualitative descriptions terrestrial portion of the MUMPA is a National were based on the classification of W. Stotz Priority Site for biodiversity conservation (Gaymer (unpublished data) and González (2002) for rocky et al., 2008; Squeo et al., 2008), and the islands, salt bottoms, whereas for sandy bottoms, communities marshes, sandy beaches, and rocky headlands, were determined according to depth and dominant provide habitat for a great number of species species. Dominant substrates were classified according (CONAMA, 2003a). to Wentworth (1922) as bedrock, boulders, cobbles, pebbles, shell hash, and sand. Biological data collection The biological information was summarized and organized into matrices according to substratum type All existing information for the study area (e.g. (rocky or sandy), by calculating the Bray Curtis index of baselines of the rocky zone, coastal zoning plans, similarity (Clarke, 1993). A CLUSTER analysis was bathymetric charts, information on unions and then performed using the ‘unweighted paired-group associations of fishermen, divers and algal harvesters method using arithmetic average (UPGMA)’ as of the Caldera County, management and exploitation the grouping technique (Sneath and Sokal, 1973). areas for benthic resources (MEABRs)) was compiled A non-metric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) and analysed for gaps. The rocky bottom baseline ordination analysis was used to identify differences in community structure (Clarke and Green, 1988). Homogeneous spatial units were established for each subtidal community in the MUMPA, using all the biological information and a modelled local bathymetry based on Vásquez (2002) and baseline data provided by the Hydrographical and Oceanographic Service from the Chilean Navy (SHOA from Spanish acronyms) (Figure 2).

Social data collection The impacts of anthropogenic activities, and their spatial and temporal location in the study area were identiﬁed using a combination of reviewing relevant reports (e.g. Coastal Management Plans, SERNAPESCA’s reports, CONAMA’s reports), several ﬁeld visits to the study area, non-structured interviews, and informal conversations with the main users of the area (August 2005 – September Figure 1. Multiple uses marine and coastal protected area (MUMPA) Isla Grande de Atacama at the Atacama region, Chile, located between 2006) (Rojas-Nazar, 2007). During these processes, Punta Morro and the Copiapó river mouth. we were able to develop a relationship of trust

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 22:74–86 (2012) COMBINING BENTHIC AND SOCIAL ECOLOGY FOR MPA PLANNING 77

Sample Using the questionnaire, a random sample of 130 ﬁshermen belonging to eight formal organizations (i.e. unions and associations) of artisanal ﬁshermen, divers, and algae harvesters from the Caldera County were interviewed in person by the same interviewers for the duration of the study. Interviewees were selected from formal lists with all names provided by each organization and the National Fishery Service (SERNAPESCA from Spanish acronym).

Determination of potential conflict areas Potential conflict categories were determined by using the information gathered from the questionnaire. The questionnaire allowed quantification of the intensity of use based on the overlap of uses by different users in the different zones established by fishermen. This information was used for the future cost calculation (Figure 2). From this analysis, four categories of conflict were defined:

a) High: sites that were selected by respondents with Figure 2. Areas of use in the MUMPA based on the information a frequency greater than 50% during the provided by main users. questionnaire. b) Medium-high: sites that were selected by respondents with a frequency between 30% and 49% during the questionnaire. c) Medium: sites that were selected by respondents between fishermen and researchers. Information with a frequency between 10% and 29% during about the main users of the areas was obtained. the questionnaire. Meetings were held with stakeholders (in this case, d) Low: sites that were selected by respondents with fisher organizations) in order to understand the a frequency lower than 10% during the questionnaire. complexity of uses occurring in the area. In addition, we learned about general uses, activities, Determination of high priority conservation sites biological and fishing information such as local Given the quality of the data available and the size knowledge of nursery areas, breeding grounds and and shape of the MUMPA, 28 rectangular planning fishing spots. units (PUs) of 70 ha size were established. The size of PUs was the same as used by Squeo et al. (2006) during a complementary study of the Questionnaire design and contents terrestrial portion of the same MUMPA. Planning To investigate the principal activities of users in the unit 28 corresponded to a large polygon (>70 ha) study area (including locating access areas to without information since it extended to depths conduct user activities, resources extracted from greater than 30 m, where sampling by scuba was the area, intensity of use per area, and sites affected not possible. Species richness and their relative by tourism) a questionnaire was designed using abundances for each one of the subtidal communities the information gathered during field visits, (i.e. surface areas of each community in each PU) non-structured interviews and informal conversations. were included for the other 27 PUs. The questionnaire comprised open and closed The conservation cost for each PU was estimated questions; open-ended questions permit those based on the impacts from human activities, such as interviewed to express their opinion without restraint artisanal fishing, tourist activities, and poaching. (Cinti et al., 2010). These impacts were divided into: (1) access sites;

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 22:74–86 (2012) 78 ÚRSULA ROJAS NAZAR ET AL.

(2) major activities and places where these were algae Halopteris sp. and Rhodymenia skottsbergii performed; (3) sites of continuous exploitation of (González, 2002) (Figure 3). A seventh community resources; (4) sites of sporadic exploitation of called Pyura (PI) was dominated by the ascidian resources; (5) resources extracted in a continuous Pyura chilensis and was first described by this study. or sporadic manner on a seasonal basis; and (6) From all the associations, LE and AT showed the technology used to extract resources. From the highest species richness (Figure 4). Three soft bottom information supplied by respondents to the types of associations were identified: shallow questionnaire information related to recreational sediment bottoms (SSB); intermediate sediment and tourist activities was compiled. The Spatial bottoms (ISB); and deep sediment bottoms (DSB) Portfolio Optimization Tool program (SPOT) was (Figure 3). The ISB association showed the highest used as a DST (Shoutis, 2003) to create conservation species richness among soft bottoms (Figure 4). scenarios with different conservation goals (i.e. protection of 10, 20, 50, and 70% of the area for each fl shallow subtidal community and species). For Areas of potential con ict each scenario, SPOT (using simulated annealing Areas of potential conflict were defined according algorithm) was run five times with 106 iterations for to their intensity of anthropogenic use. An area each run. A boundary length modifier (BLM) of 0.2 intensely used was considered to have a high was used in order to search for solutions mainly considering the conservation costs. The BLM value used indicates the fragmentation level taken into account for analysis of the cost function (Shoutis, 2003). The two first scenarios (10% and 20%) were consistent with the national conservation strategy proposed by CONAMA (2003b). Under the National Chilean Biodiversity Strategy (ENB from Spanish acronym), the Chilean Government aims to establish a network of protected areas for a full range of habitats and ecosystems to effectively protect biodiversity. Goals include having 10% of ecosystems in a national network of protected areas by 2015 (CONAMA, 2005). The 20% scenario was proposed by the World Park Congress and the other two scenarios (50% and 70%) were experiments to evaluate higher conservation goals than those proposed.

RESULTS

Subtidal communities The identiﬁcation and classiﬁcation of subtidal communities was based on community-structuring or dominant species. For the shallow rocky subtidal, there were seven main communities/ associations: shallow barrens (SB); deep barrens (DB); Lessonia communities (LE) dominated by the kelp Lessonia trabeculata (Stotz et al., unpubl. data); barnacles (BA) dominated by the barnacles Balanus laevis and Austromegabalanus psittacus; Figure 3. Rocky and sandy subtidal communities/associations at the Phragmatopoma (PH) dominated by tube worms MUMPA. The blank fringe denotes a zone deeper than 30 m without of that genus; and algal turf (AT) dominated by the information.

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 22:74–86 (2012) COMBINING BENTHIC AND SOCIAL ECOLOGY FOR MPA PLANNING 79

Figure 4. Species richness in the MUMPA. The blank fringe denotes a Figure 5. Conservation costs for each planning unit (PU), obtained zone deeper than 30 m without information. from a social study with a questionnaire applied to main users of the MUMPA. conflict potential, therefore having a high conservation cost. The conservation costs were divided into three observed compared with the analysis considering categories based on natural breaks in the data: all species, as SPOT found the same unique solution high, medium and low. Four areas of high conflict on all runs. potential (i.e. with high conservation cost, in red) for biodiversity conservation goals were identified in the AMCP-MU: from north to south, Salto del Gato, 10% community conservation goal most of Playa El Cisne and Caleta El Cisne, and Islas To achieve the 10% goal, 10 of the 28 PUs considered Chatas (Figures 2, 5). in the study were needed, which corresponded to 694 ha (36.8% of the study area). Under this scenario, 100% of the barnacles and Pyura communities were Design of a conservation portfolio with different selected, while only 18.7% of the shallow sediment protection goals bottoms (SSB) association was selected (Table 1). The four scenarios based on different conservation Of the 10 selected PUs, two represented a low goals (10, 20, 50, and 70%), showed different conservation cost, while the other eight had a options to develop an effective protection moderate cost. This indicates that the best solutions programme (Figure 6). When species that were only were prioritized among those units that presented less observed once were excluded, no differences were conflicts for conservation; for example, from north

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 22:74–86 (2012) 80 ÚRSULA ROJAS NAZAR ET AL.

(a) (b)

Figure 6. Sites selected by SPOT with an explicit criterion of 10% (a), 20% (b), 50% (c) and 70% (d) of the occupation area by shallow subtidal species/ communities in the MUMPAIsla Grande de Atacama. to south the areas named Rock A, B, C, and D barnacle and Pyura communities were still 100% (Figures 2, 5, 6(a)). selected and the association SSB remained the least selected (21.2%) (Table 1, Figures 3, 6(b)). 20% community conservation goal Under this scenario, 12 PUs were needed to meet the 50% community conservation goal goals for the conservation targets, corresponding to 838 ha (44.4% of the study area). Five of the 12 PUs In order to achieve the 50% conservation goal 20 corresponded to areas with a low conservation cost, planning units were required, resulting in very low while the other seven had a medium cost. Nine of fragmentation, as 73.8% of the total area (1395 ha) the 12 selected PUs matched those selected for the was selected. In addition to the barnacles and 10% goal, while the other three were close to the Pyura communities, 100% of Phragmatopoma and initial PUs, thus decreasing fragmentation and Lessonia communities were selected. All remaining favouring connectivity between selected units. The communities were selected at more than 50%

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 22:74–86 (2012) COMBINING BENTHIC AND SOCIAL ECOLOGY FOR MPA PLANNING 81

Table 1. Proportion (%) of shallow subtidal community/association in record catches. Presently, most of the regional the MUMPA, selected by SPOT to reach four different conservation goals (10, 20, 50, and 70%) catches are declared at Caldera Harbour, 10 km north of the MUMPA, but the locations of the Community/ Area association 10% 20% 50% 70% (ha) catches are not recorded. Thus, there are no records of catches in the MUMPA, leading to unregulated Rocky bottoms Algal turf (AT) 37.1 63.2 83.2 100 83.3 and unsupervised exploitation of resources inside Barnacles (BA) 100 100 100 100 5.5 the study area. (2) In the study area there are Lessonia 40.4 67.0 99.9 100 95.2 communities numerous unmarked roads that are currently used (LE) for different purposes (e.g. kelp harvesting, tourism) Shallow barrens 51.8 51.2 80.9 100 295.4 (SB) representing a risk of a lack of any access control to Deep barrens 42.7 48.9 79.4 100 419.9 future no-take areas. (3) The study area is visited by (DB) a great number of tourists that set camp (mainly in Phragmatopoma 31.4 31.4 100 100 12.0 (PH) summer) and generate large amounts of litter that is Pyura (PI) 100 100 100 100 7.6 left along the coast. The litter is not collected, Soft bottoms Shallow sediment 18.7 21.2 61.4 91.3 97.7 accumulating and polluting the coastal-marine bottoms (SSB) ecosystem. (4) Tourists extract marine resources Intermediate 27.8 34.4 66.1 81.9 261.2 sediment during the time they spend in the MUMPA. These bottoms (ISB) extractions are, in general, for personal consumption, Deep sediment 32.9 45.4 69.9 88.8 419.0 bottoms (DSB) however, the type, amount and size of the catch are Sandy beach 24.7 24.8 56.5 80.9 190.9 not regulated or recorded. (5) Tourists visit Islas Total (%) 36.8 44.4 73.9 92.6 1887.4 Chatas (Figure 2) mainly to collect seagull eggs, camp and drive all-terrain vehicles (during low tide), destroying the habitat and threatening the nesting sea coverage Four PU with a high base cost were birds on the island. (6) The northern limit of the included in the best solution: from north to south MUMPA is Bahía Inglesa, the main aquaculture Chorrillos, Punta Totoral, most of Playa el Cisne, development centre of central and northern Chile, and Bahía Copiapó, that could be considered as where marine cultures (mainly scallops) produce potential conflict areas with the main traditional great amounts of waste that pollute the marine users of the MUMPA (Table 1, Figures 3, 6(c)). environment and produce litter which accumulates on the beach. Coastal currents running southward 70% community conservation goal eventually carry residues and litter into the Twenty-five PUs, corresponding to 1748 ha (92.6%) MUMPA, with consequent negative impacts on of the study area were required to achieve the 70% biodiversity. (7) Bahía Inglesa is also the suspected goal. Seven subtidal communities were completely entry point of the invasive alga Codium fragile to (i.e. 100%) protected: algal turf, barnacles, Lessonia, Chile, which has recently been registered inside the shallow barrens, deep barrens, Phragmatopoma, and MUMPA (Gaymer and Rojas-Nazar, 2007; Gaymer Pyura. The remaining four soft bottom associations et al., 2007). In other locations where this species has had more than 80% inclusion (Table 1, Figures 3, 6 been introduced it has had a deleterious effect on native (d)). SPOT selected all the deep and shallow barrens species (Harris and Tyrrell, 2001; Levin et al., 2002; as part of the best solution, despite the low species Mathieson et al., 2003). (8) The development of a richness of these communities. resort project inside the MUMPA (Caldera mayor, pers. comm.) could cause the physical destruction Potential threats to MUMPA success of the coast and the adjacent habitats, and would generate a great amount of additional waste. (9) The Inside the MUMPA a number of threats have been lack of education about the needs for conserving fi identi ed that could hinder meeting the conservation biodiversity in local communities. (10) The lack of a targets in the future. (1) Within the MUMPA there is management plan that clearly defines those responsible fi an area of coastal land of cially designated as a for administration and surveillance of the MUMPA. fishing cove (caleta in Spanish) (Gelcich et al., 2005a; Castilla et al., 2007) called Caleta El Cisne DISCUSSION (Figure 2), which has not declared any extraction since 2001 (SERNAPESCA, 2010). This is due to This is the first study conducted in Chile using lack of in situ inspections by fisheries employees to shallow subtidal communities of the Humboldt

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 22:74–86 (2012) 82 ÚRSULA ROJAS NAZAR ET AL.

Current system as a basis for the selection of or dealt with and minimized, leading to more priority sites for conservation. Shallow benthic successful establishment and management of communities incorporate all or most of the life cycle protected areas. stages of most benthic species and are critical For 10% and 20% conservation goals, the SPOT for a large number of pelagic species, birds, and prioritized those sites that represented lower marine mammals (Witman and Dayton, 2001). conservation costs (i.e. sites that were only lightly Furthermore, the use of DST by the Chilean or moderately used by different users) and had Government in the conservation planning process higher species richness, and those that had unique is currently absent. Before the present study, only or irreplaceable communities, such as barnacles, one previous study used a DST to propose priority Pyura and Phragmatopoma. The species structuring areas, in this case for conservation of marine the latter communities, Austromegabalanus psittacus, vertebrates along the Chilean coast; however, that Pyura chilensis and Phragmatopoma sp. respectively, study had a low spatial resolution of information are bio-engineers that provide microhabitats and (every ~50 km, Tognelli et al., 2005, 2009). Decision refuges from predation for numerous species in the support tools are being used more frequently for shallow subtidal, generating an increase in local the planning and design of MPAs worldwide biomass while supporting a greater diversity (Possingham et al., 2000; Leathwick et al., 2006; (Hernández et al., 2001; Sepúlveda et al., 2003a, Wood and Dragicevic, 2007; Ban, 2009; Ban and 2003b). Klein, 2009; Smith et al., 2009; Watts et al., 2009). With a 50% conservation goal, other communities The analyses have focused mainly on habitat dominated by habitat-generating species, algal turf types (determined by physical characteristics of the and Lessonia, were fully selected. Both algal turf environment), or endangered and focal species and Lessonia communities play fundamental (Ward et al., 1999; Beck and Odaya, 2001; Leslie roles since their structural complexities provide et al., 2003). Nevertheless, the abiotic characteristics microhabitats for numerous organisms in the of the environment are not always appropriate under-canopy, particularly by generating refuges surrogates of the communities that inhabit a certain against predators (Vásquez and Santelices, 1984; substrate type (Stevens and Connolly, 2004), and the Palma and Ojeda, 2002), and as spawning and design of MPAs based on a few species does not feeding grounds (Duffy and Hay, 1991; Pavia et al., accurately or adequately represent the ecosystem 1999; Angel and Ojeda, 2001). When considering desired for protection. However, complementary multiple uses inherent to a MUMPA, these use of conservation objects from lower levels of conservation goals are often in conflict with other biodiversity facilitates the design of a comprehensive potential uses (e.g. fisheries, tourism). When high conservation portfolio (Squeo et al., 2012). In the conservation goals were used (i.e. 50 and 70%), sites present study, benthic communities were used since with high conservation costs were included. This they adequately represent the species that inhabit the increases the potential risk of social conflicts where coastal ecosystem and the interactions between them historical uses overlap with conservation targets and and the habitat where they are found. Furthermore, goals. this study is a good example of how to integrate We recommend selecting the second conservation different kinds of information, with the intention of scenario (20%), because it has a lower conservation making better conservation planning decisions. cost in terms of human usage, while incorporating This is a good opportunity for incorporating communities with high ecological importance social information from the beginning of the which are either irreplaceable, unique or contain decision-making process. At the same time, it helps bio-engineering species (i.e. near 50% or more of to establish strong relationships between the users rocky bottom communities, except for PH). In that will potentially be most affected by the addition, under all scenarios, the sites close to the conservation decisions and the decision makers mouth of the Copiapó River were selected. Several (Bartlett et al., 2010; Cinti et al., 2010; Dimitrakopoulos studies indicated that estuaries work as “nurseries” et al., 2010). However, in order for conservation for numerous species of fish and invertebrates plans to work these good relationships between (Spivak, 1997; Beck et al., 2001; Cervellini, 2001). affected users and decisions makers need to be Furthermore, the importance of the biodiversity found maintained. Therefore, including social information in sandy beach habitats, consisting mainly of means that potential conflicts can be avoided polychaetes of the families Nephtydae, Arabellidae,

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 22:74–86 (2012) COMBINING BENTHIC AND SOCIAL ECOLOGY FOR MPA PLANNING 83

Arenicolidae, Sigalionidae, Opheliidae and Cirratulidae, users’ knowledge. The latter is crucial for are important components for the characterization of developing good relationships between traditional distinct benthic habitats, as well as pollution-indicators users, stakeholders, and decision makers from the useful for environmental monitoring programmes beginning of MPA establishment, which increases (Carrasco and Gallardo, 1989; Cañete et al., 2000). A effectiveness of conservation policies. Ultimately, parallel analysis using SPOT to identify terrestrial MPA success will largely depend on the actions of priority sites in the MUMPA Isla Grande de Atacama users and stakeholders (Gelcich et al., 2005a, b, indicated that the terrestrial portion of the mouth of 2008; Bartlett et al., 2010). At present, DSTs are the Copiapó River, a wetland where threatened bird fundamental in the development of MPA networks species feed and nest, was a high priority site for in developed countries. However, the analysis conservation (Squeo et al., 2006; Gaymer et al., 2008). usually does not include social information as The coincidence of marine and terrestrial priority explicit conservation criteria. Other studies need to sites should allow the implementation of a joint be carried out at different scales (Andelman and conservation plan, which would facilitate management Willig, 2004), or that include a greater amount of allowing more efficient protection of species which information (e.g. intertidal, mammals, etc.) in order inhabit both marine and terrestrial habitats (e.g. to strengthen or compare this study with those in sea birds) (Gaymer et al., 2008). Marine–terrestrial other protected areas, which are considered as protection has no precedents in Chile, given that successful. Other aspects that would be important conservation efforts are performed independently on to include in the selection of priority sites are land and sea, depending on the controlling authority marine currents, larval dispersal (Simberloff, 2000; for that habitat (Rojas-Nazar, 2007; Thiel et al., 2007). Botsford et al., 2003), connectivity between The identification of marine–terrestrial hotspots is populations (Sala et al., 2002; Palumbi, 2003, a good solution for making conservation more 2004), viability of populations, determination of cost-effective and efficient from both ecological and source and sink populations (Gerber et al., 2003) socio-political perspectives, since it could reduce and invasive and extinction risks (Fisher and efforts and costs of management in protected areas, Owens, 2004). Integrated studies would allow more especially for developing countries, which have robust and well founded decisions of what is to be limited budgets to invest in conservation issues protected and maintaining and ensuring ecosystem (Stoms et al., 2005). However, the potential threats processes, in order to preserve biodiversity in the identified in this study could affect the adequate long term at all its levels, from genes to landscapes functioning of the MUMPA, thus it is necessary to (Noss, 1990; Soulé, 1991; Moritz and Faith, 1998). consider them in the creation of the management plan. These results will be a useful tool for the zoning of the Isla Grande de Atacama MUMPA. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Furthermore, conservation in this MUMPA based on the results presented here can be implemented We are grateful to A. Pérez-Matus, F. Díaz, J. easily and effectively, because local communities Barrios, C. Jeno, H. Bastías, J.D. Urriago and J. already approve them. In addition, the methodology Mitrovich for their help in the sampling in the field can be replicated in other multi-zoned areas recently and analyzing samples in the laboratory. D. Aguirre, designated Chilean MPAs, as well as in other parts from CONAMA provided useful information for of the world. This study may further contribute to this study. D. Schiappacasse, H. Rojas, A. Menares, the creation of a network of MUMPAs along C. Oroza for their help with the questionnaire as the coastal zone of the Humboldt Current Large interviewees. We also acknowledge the support Marine Ecosystem (LME), which has been defined by the GEF-Marino Project ‘Conservación de la as a high priority for conservation LME (Boersma biodiversidad de importancia mundial a lo largo et al., 2004). de la costa chilena’, and the Caldera-county fishermen The present study highlights the utility of DSTs and harvesters unions and associations. J. Vásquez when combining physical, biological, and social provided the baseline information for the MUMPA. information for the selection of priority sites J. Gardner, T. Eddy, S. Miller, T. Jones, S. Geange for conservation. In addition to a systematic and three anonymous reviewers made useful decision-making process, this approach would suggestions for improving the paper. The study was facilitate MPAs success by incorporating traditional financed by The Rufford Maurice-Laing Foundation.

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 22:74–86 (2012) 84 ÚRSULA ROJAS NAZAR ET AL.

REFERENCES Cinti A, Shaw W, Torre J. 2010. Insights from the users to improve fisheries performance: Fisher’s knowledge and attitudes on fisheries policies in Bahia de Kino, Gulf of Airamé S, Dugan JE, Lafferty KD, Leslie H, McArdle DA, California, Mexico. Marine Policy 34: 1322–1334. Warner RR. 2003. Applying ecological criteria to marine Clarke KR. 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analysis reserve design: a case study from the California Channel of changes in community structure. Australian Journal of Islands. Ecological Applications 13: S170–S184. Ecology 18: 117–143. Allison G, Lubchenco J, Carr M. 1998. Marine reserves Clarke KR, Green RH. 1988. Statistical design and analysis for are necessary but not sufficient for marine conservation. a ‘biological effects’ study. Marine Ecology Progress Series Ecological Applications 8: S79–S92. 46: 213–226. Andelman SJ, Willig MR. 2004. Networks by design: a revolution in ecology. Science 305: 1565–1567. CONAMA (Corporación Nacional del Medio Ambiente). Angel A, Ojeda FP. 2001. Structure and trophic organization of 2003a. Conservación de la Biodiversidad de Importancia subtidal fish assemblages on the northern Chilean coast: the effect Mundial lo largo de la Costa Chilena. Proyecto GEF-PNUD: on habitat complexity. Marine Ecology Progress Series 217:81–91. Santiago, Chile. Ban NC. 2009. Minimum data requirements for designing a CONAMA (Corporación Nacional del Medio Ambiente). 2003b. set of marine protected areas, using commonly available Estrategia Nacional de Biodiversidad, http://www.inia.cl/ abiotic and biotic datasets. Biodiversity and Conservation recursosgeneticos/descargas/EstrategiaNAcionalBiodiversidad. 18: 1829–1845. pdf. Ban NC, Klein CJ. 2009. Spatial socioeconomic data as a cost CONAMA (Corporación Nacional del Medio Ambiente). in systematic marine conservation planning. Conservation 2005. Plan de Acción de País para la implementación de la – Letters 2: 206–215. Estrategia Nacional de Biodiversidad 2004 2015, http:// Bartlett CY, Maltali T, Petro G, Valentine P. 2010. Policy www.conama.cl/portal/1301/article-34934.html fi implementations of protected area discourse in the Pacific Dimitrakopoulos PG, Jones N, Iosi des T, Florokapi I, Lasda Islands. Marine Policy 34: 221–237. O, Paliouras F, Evangelinos KI. 2010. Local attitudes on Beck MW, Odaya M. 2001. Ecoregional planning in marine protected areas: Evidence from three Natura 2000 wetland environments: identifying priority sites for conservation in sites in Greece. Journal of Environmental Management – the northern Gulf of Mexico. Aquatic Conservation: Marine 91: 1847 1854. and Freshwater Ecosystems 11: 235–242. Duffy J, Hay ME. 1991. Food and shelter as determinants Beck MW, Heck KL, Able Jr KW, Childers DL, Eggleston of foods choice by an herbivorous amphipod. Ecology – DB, Gillanders BM, Halpern B, Hays CG, Hoshino K, 72: 1286 1298. Minello TJ, et al. 2001. The identification, conservation and Estrada R, Hernandez A, Gerhartz JL, Melero M, Bliemsrieder M, management of estuarine and marine nurseries for fish and Lyndelman K. 2004. TheNational System of Marine Protected invertebrates. BioScience 51: 633–641. Areas in Cuba National Center for Protected Areas (CNAP), Boersma D, Ogden J, Branch G, Bustamante R, Compagna C, http://www.edf.org/documents/3692_mpasCubaIngles.pdf Harris G, Pikitch E. 2004. Lines on the water ocean-use Ferdaña Z. 2005. Nearshore marine conservation planning in planning in large marine ecosystems. In Defying Ocean’s the PacificNorthwest: exploring the utility of a siting End: and Agenda for Action, Glover LK, Earle SA (eds). algorithm for representingmarine biodiversity. In Place Island Press: Washington, DC; 125–138. Matters: Geospatial Tools for Marine Science, Conservation, Botsford LW, Micheli F, Hasting A. 2003. Principles for and Management in the Pacific Northwest, Wright DJ, Scholz the design of marine reserves. Ecological Applications 13: AJ (eds). Oregon StateUniversity: Corvallis; 150–172. Supplement S25–S31. Fisher DO, Owens IPF. 2004. The comparative method in Cañete J, Leighton GL, Soto EH. 2000. Proposición de un conservation biology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19: índice de vigilancia ambiental basado en la variabilidad 391–398. temporal de la abundancia de dos especies de poliquetos Francour P, Doussan I, Sartoretto S, Martin G, Harmelin J-G, bentónicos de bahía Quintero, Chile. Revista de Biología Pollard D. 2005. Guide de création d’un espace marin protégé Marina y Oceanografía 35: 185–194. en Méditerranée : aspects juridique, biologique et écologique. Carr JMH, Neigel E, Estes JA, Andelman S, Warner RR, Les Actes, Parc National de Port-Cros: France. Largier, JL. 2000. Comparing marine and terrestrial Gaymer CF, Rojas-Nazar U. 2007. Designing priority areas for ecosystems: implications for the design of coastal marine conservation within a marine protected area in northern reserves. Ecological Applications 13: Supplement S90–S107. Chile. Final Report, http://www.ruffordsmallgrants.org/. Carrasco FD, Gallardo VA. 1989. La contaminación marina y Gaymer CF, Dutil C, Himmelman JH. 2004. Prey selection and el valor de la macroinfauna bentónica en su evaluación y predatory impact of four major sea stars on a soft bottom vigilancia: Casos de estudio en el litoral de Concepción, subtidal community. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology Chile. Biología Pesquera 18:15–27. and Ecology 313: 353–374. Castilla JC, Gelcich S, Defeo O. 2007. Successes, lessons, and Gaymer CF, Dumont C, Rojas-Nazar U. 2007. Levantamiento, projections from experience in marine benthic invertebrate análisis y diagnóstico de la flora y fauna bentónica y pelágica artisanal fisheries in Chile. In Fisheries Management. del Área Marina y Costera Protegida de Múltiples Usos Isla Progress Towards Sustainability, McClanahan TR, Castilla Grande de Atacama. Final report GEF-PNUD: Chile. JA (eds). Blackwell Publishing: Oxford; 25–39. Gaymer CF, Rojas-Nazar U, Squeo FA, Luna G, Cortés A, CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). 2006. Decisions Arancio G, Dumont C, Cortés M, Hiriart D, López D. Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on 2008. AMCP-MU Isla Grande de Atacama: Flora yFauna Biological Diversity at its Eighth Meeting (Decision VIII/15, marina y terrestre. In Libro Rojo de la Flora Nativa y de los Annex IV). Convention on Biological Diversity: Curitiba, Brazil. Sitios Prioritarios para su Conservación: Región de Atacama, Cervellini PM. 2001. Variabilidad en la abundancia y retención Squeo FA, Arancio G, Gutiérrez JR (eds). Ediciones de la de larvas de crustáceos decápodos en el estuario de Universidad de La Serena: La Serena, Chile; 213–239. Bahía Blanca, Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina. Gelcich S, Edwards-Jones G, Kaiser MJ, Watson E. 2005a. Investigaciones Marinas 29:25–33. Using discourses for policy evaluation: the case of marine

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 22:74–86 (2012) COMBINING BENTHIC AND SOCIAL ECOLOGY FOR MPA PLANNING 85

commonproperty rights in Chile. Society and Natural epiphytic macroalgae. Journal of Experimental Marine Resources 18: 377–391. Biology and Ecology 236:15–32. Gelcich S, Edwards-Jones G, Kaiser MJ. 2005b. Importance of Possingham HP, Ball IR, Andelman S. 2000. Mathematical attitudinal differences among artisanal fishers with respect methods for identifying representative reserve networks. to comanagement and conservation of benthic resources. In Quantitative Methods for Conservation Biology, Ferson Conservation Biology 19: 865–875. S, Burgman MA (eds). Springer-Verlag: New York; Gelcich S, Kaiser MJ, Castilla JC, Edwards-Jones G. 2008. 291–305. Engagement in co-management of marine benthic resources Rojas-Nazar UA. 2007. Selección de Zonas con Alta Prioridad influences environmental perceptions of artisanal fishers. de Conservación en el Área MarinaCostera Protegida de Environmental Conservation 35:36–45. Múltiples Usos (AMCP-MU) Isla Grande de Atacama, III Gerber LR, Botsford LW, Hastings A, Possingham HP, Gaines Región, Chile. Honors thesis, Universidad Católica del SD, Palumbi SR, Andelman S. 2003. Population models Norte, Coquimbo, Chile. for marine reserve design: a retrospective and prospective Sala E, Aburto-Oropeza O, Paredes G, Parra I, Barrera JC, synthesis. Ecological Applications 13: Supplement S47–S64. Dayton PK. 2002. A general model for designing networks González S. 2002. Descarga de sólidos inertes en suspensión of marine reserves. Science 298: 1991–1993. sobre las comunidades de fondos rocosos en el norte de Sepúlveda RD, Moreno RA, Carrasco FD. 2003a. Diversidad Chile: efectos y posibilidades de recuperación. MSc thesis, de macroinvertebrados asociados a arrecifes de Phragmatopoma Universidad Católica del Norte, Coquimbo, Chile. moerchi Kinberg, 1867 (Polychaeta: Sabellaridae) en el Harris L, Tyrrell M. 2001. Changing community states in the intermareal rocoso de Cocholgüe, Chile. Gayana 67:45–54. Gulf of Maine: synergism between invaders, overfishing and Sepúlveda RD, Cancino JM, Thiel M. 2003b. The peracarid climate change. Biological Invasions 3:9–21. epifauna associated with the ascidian Pyura chilensis Molina, Hernández CE, Muñoz G, Rozbaczylo N. 2001. Poliquetos 1782 (Ascidiacea: Pyuridae). Journal of Natural History 37: asociados con Autromegabalanus psittacus (Molina,1782) 1555–1569. (Crustacea : Cirripedia) en Península Hualpén, Chile central: SERNAPESCA (Servicio Nacional de Pesca). 2010. Anuario Biodiversidad y efecto del tamaño del sustrato biológico. estadístico de pesca, www.sernapesca.cl Revista de Biología Marina y Oceanografía 36:99–108. Shoutis D. 2003. The Spatial Portfolio Optimization Tool Leathwick J, Julian K, Francis M. 2006. Exploration of the use (SPOT). The Nature Conservancy: Arlington, VA. of reserve planning software to identify potential Marine Simberloff D. 2000. No reserve is an island: marine reserves Protected Areas in New Zealand’s Exclusive Economic Zone. and nonindigenous species. Bulletin of Marine Science 66: Technical Report. Department of Conservation & NIWA: 567–580. New Zealand. Smith RJ, Eastwood PD, Ota Y, Rogers SI. 2009. Developing Leslie H, Ruckelshaus M, Ball IR, Andelman S, Possingham HP. best practice for using Marxan to locate marine protected 2003. Using siting algorithms in the design of marine reserves areas in European waters. – ICES Journal of Marine Science networks. Ecological Applications 13: Supplement S185–S198. 66: 188–194. Levin PS, Coyer JA, Petrik R, Good TP. 2002. Community-wide Sneath PHA, Sokal RR. 1973. Numerical Taxonomy. The effects of nonindigenous species on temperate rocky reefs. Principles and Practice of Numerical Classification. W.H. Ecology 83:3182–3193. Freeman and Company: San Francisco. Margules C, Pressey R. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Soulé M. 1991. Conservation: tactics for a constant crisis. Nature 405:243–253. Science 253: 744–750. Mascia, M. 2004. Social dimensions of marine reserves. In Spivak ED. 1997. Cangrejos estuariales del Atlántico sudoccidental Marine Reserves: a Guide to Science, Design and Use. The (25º–41ºS) (Crustacea: Decápoda: Brachyura). Investigaciones Ocean Conservancy, Sobel J, Dahlgren C (eds). Island Press: Marinas 25:105–120. Washington, DC; 164–186. Squeo, FA, Arancio G. 2007. Biodiversidad terrestre del Mathieson AC, Dawes CJ, Harris LG, Hehre EJ. 2003. AMCP-MU Isla Grande de Atacama. In Áreas Marinas y Expansion of the Asiatic green alga Codium fragile subsp. Costeras Protegidas de Múltiples Usos. Alcances y desafíos del tomentosoides in the Gulf of Maine. Rhodora 105:1–53. modelo de gestión para la conservación de la biodiversidad Moritz C, Faith DP. 1998. Comparative phylogeography marina en Chile, Badal G (ed.). Gobierno de Chile, Proyecto and the identification of genetically divergent areas for GEF Marino, PNUD. Ocho Libro Editores: Santiago, Chile; conservation. Molecular Ecology 7: 419–429. 98–103. NRC (National Research Council). 2001. Marine Protected Squeo FA, Arancio G, Cortés A, Hiriart D, López D. 2006. Areas: Tools for Sustaining Ocean Ecosystem. National Estudio de línea base de recursos bióticos terrestres del AMCP Academy Press; Washington, DC. Isla Grande de Atacama (Punta Morro – Desembocadura del Noss TR. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a río Copiapó). Final report. GEF-PNUD: Chile. hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology 4: 355–364. Squeo FA, Letelier L, López D, Estévez R. 2008. Antecedentes Palma AT, Ojeda FP. 2002. Abundance, distribution and de los Sitios Prioritarios para la Conservación de la Flora feeding patterns of a temperate reef fish in subtidal environments Nativa Amenazada de la Región de Atacama. In Libro Rojo of the Chilean coast: the importance of understory algal turf. de la Flora Nativa y de los Sitios Prioritarios para su Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 75:189–200. Conservación: Región de Atacama, Squeo FA, Arancio G, Palumbi SR. 2003. Population genetics, demographic connectivity, Gutiérrez JR (eds). Ediciones Universidad de La Serena: La and the design of marine reserves. Ecological Applications 13: Serena. Chile; 185–200. Supplement S146–S158. Squeo FA, Estévez RA, Stoll A, Gaymer CF, Letelier L, Palumbi SR. 2004. Marine reserves and ocean neighborhoods: Sierralta L. 2012. Towards the creation of an integrated the spatial scale of marinepopulations and their management. system of protected areas in Chile: achievements and Annual Review of Environment and Resources 29:31–68. challenges. Plant Ecology & Diversity: in press. Pavia H, Carr H, Åberg P. 1999. Habitat and feeding Stevens T, Connolly RM. 2004. Testing the utility of abiotic preferences of crustacean mesoherbivores inhabiting the surrogates for marine habitat mapping at scales relevant to brown seaweed Ascophyllum nodosum (L.) Le Jol. and its management. Biological Conservation 119: 351–362.

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 22:74–86 (2012) 86 ÚRSULA ROJAS NAZAR ET AL.

Stoms DM, Davis FW, Andelman SJ, Carr MH, Gaines SD, Punta Morro–Desembocadura río Copiapó. Final report, Halpern BS, Hoenicke R, Leibowitz SG, Leydecker A, CONAMA, III Región, Chile. Madin EMP, et al. 2005. Integrated coastal reserve planning: Vega C. 2011. Criterios que Guiaron la Declaración de las making the land-sea connection. Frontiers in Ecology and the Áreas Marinas Protegidas en las Regiones de Atacama y Environment 3: 429–436 Coquimbo, Chile. Honors thesis, Universidad Católica del Thiel M, Macaya EC, Acuña E, Arntz WE, Bastias H, Norte, Coquimbo, Chile. Brokordt K, Camus PA, Castilla JC, Castro LR, Cortes M, Ward TJ, Vanderklift MA, Nicholls AO, Kenchington RA. et al. 2007. The Humboldt current system of Northern-central 1999. Selecting marine reserves using habitats and species Chile. Oceanographic processes, ecological interactions and assemblages as surrogates for biological diversity. Ecological socio-economic feedback. Oceanography and Marine Biology Applications 9: 691–698. 45:195–344. Watts ME, Ball IR, Stewart RR, Klein CJ, Wilson K, Tognelli MF, Silva-Garcia C, Labra FA, Marquet PA. 2005. Steinback C, Lourival R, Kircher L, Possingham HP. 2009. Priority areas for the conservation of coastal marine Marxan with zones: software for optimal conservation based vertebrates in Chile. Biological Conservation 126: 420–428. land- and sea-use zoning. Environmental Modelling and Tognelli MF, Fernández M, Marquet PA. 2009. Assessing the Software 24: 1513–1521. performance of the existing and proposed network of marine Wentworth CK. 1922. A scale of grade and class terms for protected areas to conserve marine biodiversity in Chile. clastic sediments. Journal of Geology 30: 377–392. Biological Conservation 142: 3147–3153. Witman JD, Dayton PK. 2001. Rocky Subtidal Communities. Vásquez J, Santelices B. 1984. Comunidades de macro In Marine Community Ecology, Bertness MD, Gaines SD, invertebrados en discos adhesivos de Lessonia nigrescens Hay ME (eds). Sinauer Associates: Massachussets; Bory (Phaeophyta) en Chile central. Revista Chilena de 339–366. Historia Natural 57: 131–154. Wood LJ, Dragicevic S. 2007. GIS-based multicriteria Vásquez JA. 2002. Evaluación base para una eventual área evaluation and fuzzy sets to identify priority sites for marine marina protegida (AMP) en el norte de Chile (III Región): protection. Biodiversity and Conservation 16: 2539–2558.