4.7 Article

Ecological effects of full and partial protection in the crowded Mediterranean Sea: a regional meta-analysis

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-08850-w

关键词

-

资金

  1. ANR fellowship [ANR-16-ACHN- 0016-01]
  2. Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation (Monaco)
  3. Total Corporate Foundation (France)
  4. MedPAN (France)
  5. RAC-SPA (Tunisia)
  6. Agence Francaise de la Biodiversite (France)
  7. WWF (Italy)
  8. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-16-ACHN-0016] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)
  9. Villum Fonden [00007178] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are a cornerstone of marine conservation. Globally, the number and coverage of MPAs are increasing, but MPA implementation lags in many human-dominated regions. In areas with intense competition for space and resources, evaluation of the effects of MPAs is crucial to inform decisions. In the human-dominated Mediterranean Sea, fully protected areas occupy only 0.04% of its surface. We evaluated the impacts of full and partial protection on biomass and density of fish assemblages, some commercially important fishes, and sea urchins in 24 Mediterranean MPAs. We explored the relationships between the level of protection and MPA size, age, and enforcement. Results revealed significant positive effects of protection for fisheries target species and negative effects for urchins as their predators benefited from protection. Full protection provided stronger effects than partial protection. Benefits of full protection for fish biomass were only correlated with the level of MPA enforcement; fish density was higher in older, better enforced, and -interestingly-smaller MPAs. Our finding that even small, well-enforced, fully protected areas can have significant ecological effects is encouraging for crowded marine environments. However, more data are needed to evaluate sufficient MPA sizes for protecting populations of species with varying mobility levels.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据