Marine protected areas can benefit biodiversity even when bycatch species only partially overlap fisheries

Philip Erm,Andrew Balmford,Nils C. Krueck,Nao Takashina,Matthew H. Holden

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14595

IF: 6.865

2024-02-06

Journal of Applied Ecology

Abstract:Our results showed that MPAs could still deliver biodiversity benefits in otherwise well‐regulated fisheries when species' ranges and fishing grounds did not fully overlap, and particularly when sensitive species and habitats were present. Well‐placed MPAs should thus be considered in such settings. However, MPAs were also less likely to be useful when range overlaps were low and always resulted in higher fishing effort to maintain the same catches. Marine protected areas (MPAs) are increasingly relied upon to preserve biodiversity and ensure fisheries sustainability. Although recent analyses have shown that MPAs can provide overall biodiversity benefits even when they only redistribute fishing effort, these did not account for refuges outside of fishing grounds for non‐target species. It has been argued that such refuges could render MPAs obsolete where their chief benefit is to ensure species persistence. Here, we modelled the outcomes associated with placing MPAs within a seascape where non‐target species' ranges can extend beyond fishing grounds. In scenarios with no explicit fishing‐induced habitat damage, we found that MPAs provided a net biodiversity benefit so long as there was at least an approximately 60% overlap between fishing grounds and non‐target species' ranges. In scenarios with explicit fishing‐induced habitat damage for non‐target species, we found that MPAs instead benefitted biodiversity at all overlaps, but that this was reduced if target species' abundances also declined with damage. Additionally, we identified counterintuitive mechanisms by which MPAs could either help or harm the same species depending on their location by changing fishing effort distribution patterns. However, MPAs did always increase the total fishing effort required to reach a catch target. Policy implications: Our results showed that MPAs could still deliver biodiversity benefits in otherwise well‐regulated fisheries when species' ranges and fishing grounds did not fully overlap, and particularly when sensitive species and habitats were present. Well‐placed MPAs should thus be considered in such settings. However, MPAs were also less likely to be useful when range overlaps were low and always resulted in higher fishing effort to maintain the same catches. 抄録 海洋保護区(MPA)は,生物多様性を保全し漁業の持続可能性を確保するため,その必要性が年々増加している。近年の分析では,MPAが漁獲努力を再分配させるだけでも全体的な生物多様性への利益をもたらすことが示されているが,これらの分析では非漁獲対象種の漁場外のレヒュージについては考慮されていない。このようなレヒュージは,種の存続確保が主目的であるMPAを無用の長物にする可能性があると論じられてきた。 本研究では,非漁獲対象種の生息域が漁場を超えて広がるような海域においてMPAを設置する状況をモデル化し,その結果を議論した。 漁業による生息域破壊が考慮されていない状況では,漁場と非漁獲対象種の生息域が少なくとも60%程度重複していれば,MPAは生物多様性に利益をもたらすことが示された。漁業による非漁獲対象種の生息域破壊が考慮されている状況では,上記のいかなる重複度合いのもとでもMPAは生物多様性に対する利益をもたらすが,生息域破壊によって漁獲対象種の個体数が減少する場合には,その利益も減少することが示された。 さらに漁獲努力の分布パターンを変化させることで,MPAの設置場所によって,ある種に対し正または負の効果を生じさせる非直感的なメカニズムを明らかにした。しかし,MPAは常に目標漁獲量達成に必要な総漁獲努力を増加させた。 政策的含意:我々の結果は,生息域と漁場が完全に重なっていない場合,そして特に混獲の影響を受けやすい種および漁業による生息域破壊を受けやすい領域が存在する場合,MPAは十分に規制された漁業においても生物多様性に対する利益をもたらすことを示す。したがって,このような状況下では適切な場所にMPAを設置することが検討されるべきである。しかし,生息域と漁場の重複が少なく,漁獲量を維持するために常に漁獲努力が高くなるような場合には,MPAが有用である可能性が低い。

biodiversity conservation,ecology