4.6 Article

Restricted grouper reproductive migrations support community-based management

期刊

ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE
卷 3, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.150694

关键词

fish spawning aggregation; Epinephelidae; movement ecology; marine protected areas; acoustic telemetry; marine reserve

资金

  1. Australian Research Council (ARC), ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies
  2. Nature Conservancy, Sea World Research and Rescue Foundation
  3. King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST)
  4. KAUST Red Sea Research Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Conservation commonly requires trade-offs between social and ecological goals. For tropical small-scale fisheries, spatial scales of socially appropriate management are generally small-the median no-take locally managed marine area (LMMA) area throughout the Pacific is less than 1 km(2). This is of particular concern for large coral reef fishes, such as many species of grouper, which migrate to aggregations to spawn. Current data suggest that the catchment areas (i.e. total area from which individuals are drawn) of such aggregations are at spatial scales that preclude effective community-based management with no-take LMMAs. We used acoustic telemetry and tag-returns to examine reproductive migrations and catchment areas of the grouper Epinephelus fuscoguttatus at a spawning aggregation in Papua New Guinea. Protection of the resultant catchment area of approximately 16 km(2) using a no-take LMMA is socially untenable here and throughout much of the Pacific region. However, we found that spawning migrations were skewed towards shorter distances. Consequently, expanding the current 0.2 km(2) no-take LMMA to 1-2 km(2) would protect approximately 30-50% of the spawning population throughout the non-spawning season. Contrasting with current knowledge, our results demonstrate that species with moderate reproductive migrations can be managed at scales congruous with spatially restricted management tools.

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

4.6
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