Larger biomass of targeted reeffish in no-take marine reserves on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia

被引:66
|
作者
Evans, RD [1 ]
Russ, GR [1 ]
机构
[1] James Cook Univ N Queensland, Sch Marine Biol & Aquaculture, Townsville, Qld 4811, Australia
关键词
no-take marine reserves; Great Barrier Reef; coral trout; Plectropomus spp; Lutjanus carponotatus; hook-and-line fishing; fisheries management; coral reef fishes;
D O I
10.1002/aqc.631
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
1. An expansion of no-take marine reserve zones of Australia's 348 000 km(2) Great Barrier Reef (GBR) Marine Park from 4.6% to 33.4% of the park area is proposed in 2004. However, limited evidence currently exists that no-take marine reserves on the GBR have increased abundance of reef fish targeted by fisheries. This study provides such evidence for inshore reefs of the GBR. 2. Underwater visual surveys were used to estimate the effect of no-take reserves on abundance of species targeted by hook-and-line fisheries around the Palm, Whitsunday and Keppel Islands, spanning 600 km of the length of the GBR. The reserves had been zoned 'no fishing' for 14yr. 3. Densities of Plectropomus spp. and Lutjanus carponotatus, both targeted by fisheries, were much higher in protected zones than fished zones in two of the three island groups. Plectropomus spp. were 3.6 and 2.3 times more abundant in protected than fished zones of the Palm and Whitsunday island groups. L. carponotatus were 2.3 and 2.2 times more abundant in protected zones than fished zones of the Whitsunday and Keppel island groups. 4. The biomasses of Plectropornus spp. and L. carponotatus were significantly greater (3.9 and 2.6 times respectively) in the protected zones than fished zones at all three island groups. 5. Legal minimum sizes of Plectropomus spp. and L. carponotatus are greater than or equal to38cm and 25cm TL respectively. There were significantly higher densities and biomasses of Plectropornus spp. > 35 cm TL (density: 3.8 times; biomass: 5.1 times) and L. carponotatus > 25 cm TL (density: 4.2 times; biomass: 5.3 times) in protected zones than fished zones at all three island groups. 6. No significant difference in abundance between protected and fished zones was found for two species not captured by fisheries (Siganus doliatus and Chaetodon aureofasciatus), and there were no significant differences in benthic characteristics between protected and fished zones. 7. Results suggest that no-take marine reserves have increased stock biomass of targeted fish species on inshore GBR reefs. Copyright (C) 2004 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:505 / 519
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Effects of size and fragmentation of marine reserves and fisher infringement on the catch and biomass of coral trout, Plectropomus leopardus, on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia
    Little, LR
    Smith, ADM
    McDonald, AD
    Punt, AE
    Mapstone, BD
    Pantus, F
    Davies, CR
    FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGY, 2005, 12 (03) : 177 - 188
  • [22] Establishing representative no-take areas in the Great Barrier Reef: Large-scale implementation of theory on marine protected areas
    Fernandes, L
    Day, J
    Lewis, A
    Slegers, S
    Kerrigan, B
    Breen, D
    Cameron, D
    Jago, B
    Hall, J
    Lowe, D
    Innes, J
    Tanzer, J
    Chadwick, V
    Thompson, L
    Gorman, K
    Simmons, M
    Barnett, B
    Sampson, K
    De'ath, G
    Mapstone, B
    Marsh, H
    Possingham, HP
    Ball, I
    Ward, T
    Dobbs, K
    Aumend, J
    Slater, D
    Stapleton, K
    CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 2005, 19 (06) : 1733 - 1744
  • [23] Development of reproductive potential in protogynous coral reef fishes within Philippine no-take marine reserves
    Bucol, Abner A.
    Abesamis, Rene A.
    Stockwell, Brian L.
    Lowe, Jake R.
    Russ, Garry R.
    JOURNAL OF FISH BIOLOGY, 2021, 99 (05) : 1561 - 1575
  • [24] Recruitment hotspots boost the effectiveness of no-take marine reserves
    Wen, Colin K. C.
    Almany, Glenn R.
    Williamson, David H.
    Pratchett, Morgan S.
    Mannering, Thomas D.
    Evans, Richard D.
    Leis, Jeffrey M.
    Srinivasan, Maya
    Jones, Geoffrey P.
    BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2013, 166 : 124 - 131
  • [25] Trajectories and correlates of community change in no-take marine reserves
    Micheli, F
    Halpern, BS
    Botsford, LW
    Warner, RR
    ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS, 2004, 14 (06) : 1709 - 1723
  • [26] Using no-take marine reserves as a tool for evaluating rocky-reef fish resources in the western Mediterranean
    Coll, Josep
    Garcia-Rubies, Antoni
    Morey, Gabriel
    Renones, Olga
    Alvarez-Berastegui, Diego
    Navarro, Oliver
    Grau, Antoni M.
    ICES JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE, 2013, 70 (03) : 578 - 590
  • [27] High gene flow in reef fishes and its implications for ad-hoc no-take marine reserves
    Matias, Ambrocio Melvin A.
    Anticamara, Jonathan A.
    Quilang, Jonas P.
    MITOCHONDRIAL DNA, 2013, 24 (05): : 584 - 595
  • [28] Small-Scale Habitat Structure Modulates the Effects of No-Take Marine Reserves for Coral Reef Macroinvertebrates
    Dumas, Pascal
    Jimenez, Haizea
    Peignon, Christophe
    Wantiez, Laurent
    Adjeroud, Mehdi
    PLOS ONE, 2013, 8 (03):
  • [29] Marine Reserves and Reproductive Biomass: A Case Study of a Heavily Targeted Reef Fish
    Taylor, Brett M.
    McIlwain, Jennifer L.
    Kerr, Alexander M.
    PLOS ONE, 2012, 7 (06):
  • [30] Inferring versus measuring rates of recovery in no-take marine reserves
    Russ, GR
    Stockwell, B
    Alcala, AC
    MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES, 2005, 292 : 1 - 12