4.3 Article

Spatially explicit mortality of California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus) across a marine reserve network

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
卷 39, 期 3, 页码 215-224

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0376892911000695

关键词

California; fisheries management; lobster; marine reserve; mortality; natural mortality; network; Panulirus interruptus; reserve border

资金

  1. California Ocean Protection Council/California Coastal Conservancy research award [07-021]
  2. California Sea Grant award [NA10OAR4170060]
  3. Waitt Foundation
  4. Nature Conservancy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies of marine reserves typically focus upon differences in the size and abundance of target organisms inside versus outside reserve borders, but they seldom provide spatially explicit measurements of how reserves influence mortality rates. This study investigated mortality rates for female California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus) at multiple sites inside and outside of three marine reserves at the Santa Barbara Channel Islands, California, USA. Mean total mortality (Z) of female lobsters was lower at sites inside reserves (Z = 0.22 [+/- 0.05 SE]) than at sites outside reserves (Z = 0.59 [+/- 0.02 SE]). Mean mortality at all sites inside reserves, and among sites near reserve centres (where Z = 0.17 [+/- 0.05 SE]), was similar to estimates of natural mortality for other temperate spiny lobster species. Among sites inside reserves, there was a positive relationship between mortality and proximity to reserve borders, but this relationship was absent among sites outside reserves. Mortality estimates were much more variable among sites inside reserves than at sites in fished areas. This variation is probably due to differential emigration rates from the three reserves, as well as site-specific ecological factors that influence population structure, demonstrating the importance of spatially explicit reserve sampling and understanding how ecological heterogeneity influences fisheries models.

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

4.3
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