Frameworks for marine conservation — non‐hierarchical approaches and distinctive habitats

• 1. Conservation efforts have traditionally been directed to ‘flagship’ species (whales, seals, migratory birds, etc.) that capture public attention. Often these flagship species occupy distinctive habitats. Distinctive habitats appear to be distinguished because of anomalous physical structures and unique oceanographic processes occurring within them, whereas representative habitats are not notable in this way. Distinctive habitats are found in areas of various physical anomalies described primarily by temperature, chlorophyll and topography.
• 2. Several different kinds of distinctive habitats can be defined by their anomalous physical structures and oceanographic and biological processes. Species diversity may be either higher or lower in distinctive than in representative habitats. Distinctive habitats predominantly belong to a class of environments called ‘ergoclines’, and are typically associated with elevated resources at some ‘trophic level’.
• 3. These elevated resources may be either the product of true production (i.e. they are generated (in situ), or they are the product of physical accumulation due to circulation mechanisms. These processes lie at the heart of the ecology of distinctive habitats, and are fundamental to maintenance of ecosystem health, ecological integrity, distributions, abundances and recruitment of species, patterns of animal migrations, and potential or actual fisheries yields.
• 4. Conservation strategies need to examine the relationships between distinctive and representative habitats and species diversity. A strategy, leading from studies on flagship or other focal species, could have several advantages. It should rejuvenate the inherent appeal and significance of ‘species’ approaches to marine conservation, provide a rationale for human interest and a new foundation for examination of marine ecological interactions. It would also require a novel synthesis of relationships between ‘species’ and ‘spaces’ approaches to marine conservation by asking how we can take the best advantage of both approaches, rather than seeing them as in conflict.

Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Geophysical approaches to the classification,delineation and monitoring of marine habitats and their communities

• 1. If marine environments are to be systematically protected from the adverse effects of human activities, then identification of the types of marine habitats and the communities they contain, and delineation of their boundaries utilizing a consistent classification is required. Human impacts on defined communities can then be assessed, the ‘health’ of these communities can be monitored, and marine protected areas can be designated as appropriate.
• 2. Schemes to classify habitats at local and regional scales, according to their geophysical properties, may identify different factors as determinants, and/or use them in different sequences in a hierarchical classification. We examined the reasons for these differences in local and regional applications of a global concept, and argue that a common set of factors could be applied in a defined and defensible sequence to produce a common hierarchy of habitat types among geographic regions.
• 3. We show how simple mapping and GIS techniques, based on readily available data, can lead to the identification of representative habitat types over broad geographic regions. We applied a geophysical framework first to the entire Canadian coastline and second to the Scotian Shelf of Atlantic Canada to establish broad scale marine natural regions and ‘seascapes’, respectively. This ecosystem level approach — which defines representative habitat types — is a fundamental prerequisite for many purposes. It can form the basis for further analyses including: definition of community types from habitat — community relationships; evaluation of the potential roles of focal species in marine conservation; evaluation of candidate marine protected areas; definition of unaffected reference areas against which the effects of human activities can be gauged; guidance for water quality monitoring studies; management of marine resources.

Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Conservation of Mediterranean habitats and biodiversity countdowns: what information do we really need?

• 1. The relentless increase in both human activities and exploitation of marine resources is a threat to marine habitats and species.
• 2. For marine systems, several protection initiatives have been outlined over the past decade to significantly reduce the current rate of biodiversity loss at global, regional, and national levels, and to establish representative networks of marine protected areas with the aim of protecting 10–30% of marine habitats.
• 3. Reliable estimates of the total area occupied by each habitat are crucial to set adequate protection initiatives. Habitat mapping requires a sound habitat classification. Many classification schemes have been developed in different areas of the world, sometimes based on questionable criteria.
• 4. A critical analysis of the most recent marine habitat classification list produced for the Mediterranean Sea from the Regional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas (RAC/SPA) showed that (i) 39% of habitats and associated species considered in the list are scarcely covered by scientific knowledge from Web‐based resources; (ii) 62% of the species/genera included in the list are primary producers; (iii) quantitative information about the geographical distribution of selected habitats and associated species is scant; and (iv) when available, information is largely unbalanced and biased towards the shallow western Mediterranean Sea.
• 5. Improved inventories of marine habitats are needed to support accurate and consistent mapping activities. The combination of large‐scale mapping and sound habitat classifications will allow better estimates of biodiversity distribution, to reverse regional/global habitat loss rates through the achievement of conservation targets and deadlines that, for the moment, are systematically not met. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

     

Habitat configuration for an obligate shallow‐water delphinid: The Indo‐Pacific humpback dolphin,Sousa chinensis,in the Beibu Gulf (Gulf of Tonkin)

相似文献   

Intertidal habitat conservation: identifying conservation targets in the absence of detailed biological information

• 1. Growing concern associated with threats to the marine environment has resulted in an increased demand for marine reserves that conserve representative and adequate examples of biodiversity. Often, the decisions about where to locate reserves must be made in the absence of detailed information on the patterns of distribution of the biota. Alternative approaches are required that include defining habitats using surrogates for biodiversity. Surrogate measures of biodiversity enable decisions about where to locate marine reserves to be made more reliably in the absence of detailed data on the distribution of species.
• 2. Intertidal habitat types derived using physical properties of the shoreline were used as a surrogate for intertidal biodiversity to assist with the identification of sites for inclusion in a candidate system of intertidal marine reserves for 17 463 km of the mainland coast of Queensland, Australia. This represents the first systematic approach, on essentially one‐dimensional data, using fine‐scale (tens to hundreds of metres) intertidal habitats to identify a system of marine reserves for such a large length of coast. A range of solutions would provide for the protection of a representative example of intertidal habitats in Queensland.
• 3. The design and planning of marine and terrestrial protected areas systems should not be undertaken independently of each other because it is likely to lead to inadequate representation of intertidal habitats in either system. The development of reserve systems specially designed to protect intertidal habitats should be integrated into the design of terrestrial and marine protected area systems.

Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Marine protected areas and ocean basin management

1. All reserve designs must be guided by an understanding of natural history and habitat variability. 2. Differences in scale and predictability set aside highly dynamic pelagic systems from terrestrial and nearshore ecosystems, where wildlife reserves were first implemented. Yet, as in static systems, many pelagic species use predictable habitats to breed and forage. Marine protected areas (MPAs) could be designed to protect these foraging and breeding aggregations. 3. Understanding the physical mechanisms that influence the formation and persistence of these aggregations is essential in order to define and implement pelagic protected areas. We classify pelagic habitats according to their dynamics and predictability into three categories: static, persistent and ephemeral features. 4. While traditional designs are effective in static habitats, many important pelagic habitats are neither fixed nor predictable. Thus, pelagic protected areas will require dynamic boundaries and extensive buffers. 5. In addition, the protection of far‐ranging pelagic vertebrates will require dynamic MPAs defined by the extent and location of large‐scale oceanographic features. 6. Recent technological advances and our ability to implement large‐scale conservation actions will facilitate the implementation of pelagic protected areas. 7. The establishment of pelagic MPAs should include enforcement, research and monitoring programmes to evaluate design effectiveness. 8. Ultimately, society will need a holistic management scheme for entire ocean basins. Such overarching management will rely on many innovative tools, including the judicious use of pelagic MPAs. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Key biodiversity areas as globally significant target sites for the conservation of marine biological diversity

• 1. Recent approaches to the planning of marine protected area (MPA) networks for biodiversity conservation often stress the need for a representative coverage of habitat types while aiming to minimize impacts on resource users. As typified by planning for the Australian South‐east Marine Region, this strategy can be manipulated by political processes, with consequent biased siting of MPAs. Networks thus created frequently possess relatively low value for biodiversity conservation, despite significant costs in establishment and maintenance.
• 2. Such biases can be minimized through application of the data‐driven and species‐based concept of key biodiversity areas (KBAs).
• 3. By mapping locations of threatened species and populations that are highly aggregated in time or space, the KBA process allows marine sites of global biodiversity significance to be systematically identified as priority conservation targets. Here, the value of KBAs for marine conservation planning is outlined, and guidelines and provisional criteria for their application provided.

Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Assessing the effectiveness of a long‐standing rocky intertidal protected area and its contribution to the regional conservation of species,habitats and assemblages

相似文献   

Bio‐physical models of marine environments reveal biases in the representation of protected areas

相似文献   

Designation and management of large‐scale MPAs drawing on the experiences of CCAMLR

With the adoption of the United Nations Law of the Sea came the need for effective worldwide control of marine fisheries. Initially centred on single species, the tasks have extended to ecosystem‐based management through the concept of marine‐protected areas into habitats and biodiversity. These diverse requirements have placed enhanced responsibilities on fisheries management organizations. Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) has successfully developed effective management measures for the Southern Ocean but has encountered difficulties in establishing marine‐protected areas. Key to the success of CCAMLR has been the establishment of conservation measures on clearly defined topics through decision making by consensus. It is argued that the problems that CCAMLR has encountered in establishing marine‐protected areas centre on the range of features, in terms of stakeholder interests, to be afforded protection allied to problems with the consensus process. In this paper, the approaches of CCAMLR in converting the conceptual framework of treaty language into practical management measures using consensus are discussed in relation to the manner in which marine‐protected areas might be established within other fisheries management organizations. It is concluded that the most effective approach is as a composite of strictly focussed conservation measures the sum of which cover all facets of a marine‐protected area. This approach has the further advantage that individual components can be changed without opening the whole legal instrument to re‐negotiation.     

Benthic habitat modelling and mapping as a conservation tool for marine protected areas: A seamount in the western Mediterranean

相似文献   

Contributions of marine infrastructures to marine planning and protected area networking

相似文献   

Integrating fine‐scale seafloor mapping and spatial pattern metrics into marine conservation prioritization

1. Marine protected area (MPA) planning often relies on scientific principles that help ensure that an area selected for conservation will effectively protect biodiversity. Capturing ecological processes in MPA network planning has received increased attention in recent years. High‐resolution seafloor maps, which show patterns in seafloor bio‐physical characteristics, can support our understanding of ecological processes.
2. In part, owing to a global lack of high‐resolution seafloor maps, studies that aim to integrate seascape spatial pattern and conservation prioritization often focus on shallow biogenic habitats with less attention paid to deeper benthic seascapes (benthoscapes) mapped using acoustic techniques. Acoustic seafloor mapping strategies yield the spatial information required to extend conservation prioritization research into these environments, making incorporating seafloor ecological processes into conservation prioritization increasingly achievable.
3. Here, a new method is proposed and tested that combines benthoscape mapping, landscape ecology metrics and a conservation decision support tool to prioritize areas with structural and potential connectivity value in MPA placement. Using a case study in eastern Canada, benthoscape composition and configuration were quantified using spatial pattern metrics and integrated into Marxan.
4. Results illustrate how large patches of seafloor habitat in close proximity to neighbouring patches can be preferentially selected when benthoscape configuration is considered. The flexibility of the method for including relevant spatial pattern metrics or species‐specific movement data is discussed to illustrate how benthic habitat maps can improve existing conservation planning methods and complement existing and future work to support marine biodiversity conservation.

     

Essential Fish Habitat and the Effective Design of Marine Reserves: Application for Marine Ornamental Fishes

Extensive and unregulated harvest of marine ornamental fishes can lead to localized depletion of target species and habitat degradation from inappropriate collecting techniques. One potential solution to these problems is the creation of marine reserves where fishing is prohibited. Marine reserves have been shown to increase fish abundance and protect ecosystems from habitat destruction associated with fishing. If protective areas are to be effective, they must include the diversity of habitats necessary to accommodate the wide range of fish species that are of interest to the marine ornamental fish trade.Fish assemblages with high diversity and abundance are often associated with habitats of high structural complexity. A relationship between fish size and reef complexity suggests the importance of shelter as a refuge for certain fishes in avoiding predation. Many species tend to aggregate to spawn in structurally complex habitats to reduce their risk of predation. Closing of spawning areas during aggregation periods has been shown to be a highly effective management strategy for these species. The limited home ranges and high degree of habitat specificity associated with many marine ornamental fishes should make marine reserves a highly effective strategy for managing these resources.     

Model of trawlable area using benthic terrain and oceanographic variables—Informing survey design and habitat maps in the Gulf of Alaska

Bottom trawl surveys provide fishery‐independent data on relative abundance and life history parameters for a wide range of marine taxa. Survey data are used to assess species distribution, biological interactions, and ecosystem structure and to manage marine resources. Not all bottom types or oceanographic conditions accommodate this survey method. We applied National Ocean Service hydrographic smooth sheets to evaluate physical attributes associated with habitat available to surveys. Random forests were used to evaluate the relative influence of benthic terrain and oceanographic predictors in determining accessibility to bottom trawl gear. We examined the marginal importance of each predictor, quantified the response gradient, and applied piecewise regression to determine threshold breakpoint values. Thresholds were used to develop predictive maps and distinguish untrawlable habitat at the scale of discrete towpaths and survey stations. Untrawlable habitat was associated with increased complexity in terrain, roughness, slope, surface curvature, substrate coarseness, current, and aspect. Maps of critical thresholds suggest different variables constrain the probability of a successful trawl in the nearshore, shelf, and continental slope. Overlay analysis of the model projection demonstrates the utility of archived smooth sheet data and identifies areas where higher resolution data might improve results. The model and maps produced in this analysis might be used to identify habitats available to and impacted by commercial trawl fisheries, inform the relative availability of various species and habitat types to bottom trawl surveys, evaluate bias in assessment indices and ecosystem metrics derived from survey data, and advance habitat‐specific biomass estimates.     

Effectiveness of habitat classes as surrogates for biodiversity in marine reserve planning

相似文献   

Food risk trade‐off in the Indo‐Pacific humpback dolphin: An exploratory case study

1. Based on optimal foraging theory, animals are expected to maximize foraging benefits whilst minimizing risks. Despite risking being subjected to anthropogenic impacts such as water contamination, marine traffic, and underwater noise, estuaries have been identified as the preferred habitat of the Indo‐Pacific humpback dolphin (Sousa chinensis, IPHD). However, it remains unclear why this vulnerable species favours such risky habitats.
2. Here, an exploratory case study in Zhanjiang estuary, China, was conducted to test the hypothesis that IPHDs select estuarine habitats as a trade‐off that maximizes foraging opportunities whilst minimizing the risk of mortality.
3. The results showed that IPHDs accept greater mortality risks for higher food rewards but select habitats with lower risks when food rewards are similar between two locations.
4. Although this type of information is important for underpinning models for individual dolphins, its principal role is to show environmental protection agencies why IPHDs favour estuaries despite the increased mortality risks.
5. Habitat conservation plans should carefully consider prey stocks, possibly through the presence of marine protected areas near estuaries, as local overfishing may lead vulnerable cetacean populations to take greater risks.

     

Seabed habitat mapping in the Kent Group of islands and its role in Marine protected area planning

• 1. Mapping of seabed habitats is increasingly being used to identify the distribution and structure of marine ecosystems and as surrogate measures of biodiversity for marine protected area (MPA) planning. In this study, the distribution of seabed habitats to the 3 nmi limit around the Kent Group of islands, south‐eastern Australia were mapped using video ground‐truthed single‐beam acoustics at the mesoscale level (10 m to 1 km) as part of an MPA planning process.
• 2. Six distinct seabed habitat types (continuous reef, patchy reef, sand, hard sand, sparse sponge, and seagrass) were identified based primarily on visual differences in the first and second echo and a further four (low, medium and high profile reef, and sand hills) on variations in seabed profile identified in the echogram. Extensive acoustic and video transects allowed an estimate of the broad‐scale spatial distribution of seabed habitats defined at several hierarchical levels and provided information on the cover of the dominant benthic species or assemblages.
• 3. The island group supports a range of consolidated habitats, including rocky reefs of varying profile dominated by the macroalgae Phyllospora comosa and Ecklonia radiata in depths down to around 45 m, adjacent to deeper sponge‐dominated reefs containing encrusting, erect and branching forms. Unconsolidated habitats occurred broadly through the island group, with the offshore region dominated by hard sand (sand with scallop shells and/or shell grit) and sparse sponge‐habitats (sand interspersed with low cover of sponge‐dominated assemblages). The sheltered coves were dominated by sand and seagrass habitats consisting of beds of the seagrasses Halophila australis, Zostera tasmanica and Posidonia australis, with variations in species composition, patchiness and percentage cover evident within and between coves.
• 4. In February 2004 the Kent Group MPA was announced, covering all waters out to the 3 nmi limit containing two areas defined as a Sanctuary Zone (‘no take’) and a Habitat Protection Zone (‘restricted take’). Overall, seabed habitat mapping generated a capability to define the boundary and size of potential MPA zones within the Kent Group of islands and was an essential component of the planning process to improve the likelihood that the MPA was comprehensive, adequate and representative (CAR).
• 5. The need to define habitats at multiple scales within a hierarchical classification scheme that are meaningful in terms of biodiversity and CAR principles and identifiable using mapping techniques is discussed.

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Habitat diversity relative to wave action on rocky shores: implications for the selection of marine protected areas

• 1. Current selection of marine protected areas in South Africa is based on objective criteria including biogeographic representation and habitat heterogeneity. This paper specifically examines rocky shores on the west coast of South Africa to determine whether they are divisible into discrete ‘habitats’ that need independent conservation.
• 2. Seventeen rocky shores spanning the full spectrum of wave exposure were compared in terms of maximum wave forces, biomass, species richness and diversity among zones and sites. Three biotic assemblages were identified, characterizing sheltered, semi‐exposed to exposed, and very exposed habitats. Differences among these were clear‐cut low on the shore but disappeared at the top of the shore where wave action was attenuated and desiccation uniformly intense.
• 3. The recognition of three discrete biologically‐defined habitats means that rocky shores cannot be regarded as a uniform habitat for conservation purposes. All three components need protection if the full spectrum of rocky‐shore communities is to be conserved.
• 4. It is argued that this approach allows habitats to be defined in an objective manner, and that once this has been done, habitat heterogeneity constitutes a better measure of conservation value of an area than a ‘hotspot’ approach based on species richness and endemism.

Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Characterising reef fish populations and habitats within and outside the US Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument: a lesson in marine protected area design

Abstract  Marine protected areas are an important tool for management of marine ecosystems. Despite their utility, ecological design criteria are often not considered or feasible to implement when establishing protected areas. In 2001, the Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument (VICRNM) in St John, US Virgin Islands was established by Executive Order. The VICRNM prohibits almost all extractive uses. Surveys of habitat and fishes inside and outside of the VICRNM were conducted in 2002–2004. Areas outside the VICRNM had significantly more hard corals, greater habitat complexity, and greater richness, abundance and biomass of reef fishes than areas within the VICRNM. The administrative process used to delineate the boundaries of the VICRNM did not include a robust ecological characterisation of the area. Because of reduced habitat complexity within the VICRNM, the enhancement of the marine ecosystem may not be fully realised or increases in economically important reef fishes may take longer to detect.