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
  • [41] Exploring the effect of sampling, protogyny, and larval advection on stock estimates subject to no-take closures in a spatially complex coral reef line fishery on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia
    Little, L. Richard
    Punt, Andre E.
    Tuck, Geoffrey N.
    Mapstone, Bruce D.
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FISHERIES AND AQUATIC SCIENCES, 2017, 74 (11) : 1950 - 1959
  • [42] Integration of No-Take Marine Reserves in the Assessment of Data-Limited Fisheries
    Wilson, Jono R.
    Valencia, Sarah R.
    Kay, Matthew C.
    Lenihan, Hunter S.
    CONSERVATION LETTERS, 2014, 7 (05): : 451 - 458
  • [43] Biological responses in marine no-take reserves versus partially protected areas
    Lester, Sarah E.
    Halpern, Benjamin S.
    MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES, 2008, 367 : 49 - 56
  • [44] Beyond protection: Fisheries co-benefits of no-take marine reserves
    Wilson, Jono R.
    Bradley, Darcy
    Phipps, Kristina
    Gleason, Mary G.
    MARINE POLICY, 2020, 122
  • [45] No-take areas for sustainability of harvested species and a conservation invariant for marine reserves
    Mangel, M
    ECOLOGY LETTERS, 1998, 1 (02) : 87 - 90
  • [46] The role of marine reserves in the replenishment of a locally impacted population of anemonefish on the Great Barrier Reef
    Bonin, Mary C.
    Harrison, Hugo B.
    Williamson, David H.
    Frisch, Ashley J.
    Saenz-Agudelo, Pablo
    Berumen, Michael L.
    Jones, Geoffrey P.
    MOLECULAR ECOLOGY, 2016, 25 (02) : 487 - 499
  • [47] A user-friendly tool to evaluate the effectiveness of no-take marine reserves
    Villasenor-Derbez, Juan Carlos
    Faro, Caio
    Wright, Melaina
    Martinez, Jael
    Fitzgerald, Sean
    Fulton, Stuart
    Mancha-Cisneros, Maria del Mar
    McDonald, Gavin
    Micheli, Fiorenza
    Suarez, Alvin
    Torre, Jorge
    Costello, Christopher
    PLOS ONE, 2018, 13 (01):
  • [48] Parks for sharks: human exclusion areas outperform no-take marine reserves
    Frisch, Ashley J.
    Rizzari, Justin R.
    FRONTIERS IN ECOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, 2019, 17 (03) : 145 - 150
  • [49] Studies of no-take marine reserves: Methods for differentiating reserve and habitat effects
    Miller, Kelsey Irene
    Russ, Garry Ronald
    OCEAN & COASTAL MANAGEMENT, 2014, 96 : 51 - 60
  • [50] Linking models with monitoring data for assessing performance of no-take marine reserves
    White, J. Wilson
    Botsford, Louis W.
    Baskett, Marissa L.
    Barnett, Lewis A. K.
    Barr, R. Jeffrey
    Hastings, Alan
    FRONTIERS IN ECOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, 2011, 9 (07) : 390 - 399