Elsevier

Biological Conservation

Volume 143, Issue 9, September 2010, Pages 2039-2048
Biological Conservation

Responses to marine reserves: Decreased dispersion of the sparid Pagrus auratus (snapper)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.05.009Get rights and content

Abstract

Quantifying the movement of exploited species inside marine reserves is a popular research topic, yet few studies have quantified movement inside and outside of reserves. If individuals inside reserves behave differently to those outside, this information should be incorporated into reserve design and in management efforts to avoid the selective removal of certain behaviors. We used acoustic telemetry to monitor the movements of the sparid Pagrus auratus (snapper) inside and outside a marine reserve (the Leigh Marine Reserve, north-eastern New Zealand). We tagged 39 snapper within an array of acoustic receivers that encompassed reserve and fished areas. Nineteen snapper were resident over a 5-month period; the remainder either left the array or died. Residential fish expressed two home range types. One group had uni-modal home ranges that on average encompassed c.900 m linear distance. All nine residential snapper from the reserve displayed this behavior, as well as five of ten residential fish from the non-reserve area. The second group (five fish, all from the non-reserve area) had home ranges with two separate modes (bi-modal home ranges), which on average encompassed c.2 100 m linear distance. We suggest that some aspect of the marine reserve environment encourages extreme residency by either the modification of individual behaviors or through the removal of selective exploitation. If true this suggests that reserves and populations of exploited animals may become dependent on the life history characteristics of the individuals they encourage or select for.

Introduction

Understanding the movement dynamics of exploited species is important for the design and justification of marine reserves. Accordingly, many animal movement studies have focused on marine reserves (Attwood and Bennett, 1994, Meyer et al., 2000, Eristhee and Oxenford, 2001, Kelly and MacDiarmid, 2003, Lowe et al., 2003, Parsons et al., 2003, Starr et al., 2004, Edgar et al., 2004, Egli and Babcock, 2004), while other studies have attempted to justify reserves as a conservation tool by investigating the potential for movement from marine reserves into adjacent areas (spill-over) (Russ and Alcala, 1996, Kramer and Chapman, 1999, McClanahan and Mangi, 2000, Roberts et al., 2001, Zeller et al., 2003, Russ et al., 2004, Abesamis and Russ, 2005). Few studies, however, have concurrently tagged fish inside and adjacent to marine reserves, and as a result we have a poor understanding of how factors unique to the marine reserve environment may influence the movement dynamics of individual fish. Some factors that are known to differ inside reserves which may be potentially important include highly elevated con-specific densities (Willis et al., 2003), habitat differences resulting from trophic cascades (Shears and Babcock, 2002), reduced human disturbance (Eggleston and Parsons, 2008) and the removal (or reduction) of fisheries-induced selection (Biro and Post, 2008). If the behavior of individuals or the behavioral composition of populations is influenced by the above factors then this may be an important consideration for conservation managers designing reserves.

The few studies that have concurrently tagged animals inside and adjacent to marine reserves produced inconsistent results. Attwood and Cowley (2005) found a higher frequency of long distance movements of dart tagged galjoen (Dichistius capensis) from a fished site, in contrast to galjoen tagged inside a marine reserve. Conversely, Cole et al. (2000) obtained fewer re-sightings of blue cod (Parapercis colias) tagged inside a marine reserve, consistent with larger scale dispersal of blue cod from the marine reserve. Through the tagging of lobsters (Jasus edwardsii) inside and outside of a reserve Linnane et al. (2005) observed greater movements of lobsters tagged inside a marine reserve. Finally, Zeller and Russ (1998) observed greater movements of freeze branded coral trout (Plectropomus leopardus) inside a marine reserve, but found no difference in the mean distance moved per day (inside vs. outside), when the same comparison was made with acoustic telemetry.

If managers are to make informed decisions regarding the design of marine reserves then the expected response to protection, which is dependent on animal behavior, needs to be known. The studies listed above and the likely environmental changes expected within reserves both suggest that behavioral responses to marine reserves are not well understood and that either increased or decreased mobility may be expected. If an increase in mobility occurs, this has the potential to reduce the recovery of exploited species but increase supplementation to adjacent fisheries. In this instance managers may therefore wish to scale reserves to ensure that some central portion of the reserve provides complete protection in spite of the higher mobility of the species concerned. Alternatively, a decrease in mobility may suggest that exploited species recovery can be expected in even the smallest reserves. In this situation managers may see benefit in implementing more but smaller reserves. Behavioral responses to reserve implementation may also be opposite for different species or even interact with the habitat in which a reserve is emplaced. Managers may therefore need to prioritize the species for which the reserve is designed or adjust reserve design according to the habitat where the reserve will be located.

In the current study, we examined the movement dynamics of snapper Pagrus auratus inside, and adjacent to, the Cape Rodney to Okakari Point (CROP) Marine Reserve, near Leigh in north-eastern New Zealand. Populations of legal sized snapper (>27 cm Fork Length (FL) for recreational and >25 cm FL for commercial fishers) are estimated to be 14 times greater within the reserve than in adjacent fished areas (Willis et al., 2003). The snapper fishery is open to both commercial and recreational fishers throughout the year, although recreational fishing effort has a seasonal pattern, peaking over the austral summer (Hartill, Fishery Scientist, NIWA, unpublished data). Recreational fishers concentrate most of their effort in coastal areas and as such the majority of the snapper catch from the areas around the reserve boundaries is recreational. While accurate estimates of the catch from around the reserve are not available it is likely in the order of multiple tons annually (Hartill pers. comm.). The effect of this exploitation also impacts on lower trophic levels. Algal abundance on exploited reefs is thought to be suppressed by high abundances of herbivorous urchins, Evechinus chloroticus that are free of dominant reef carnivores such as snapper and spiny rocky lobster (Jasus edwardsii) (Shears and Babcock, 2002).

Multiple tagging studies have been conducted on snapper within the CROP reserve. These studies have confirmed that snapper within the reserve are capable of restricting their movements to small areas of rocky reef (at a scale of hundreds of meters), explaining the higher abundance compared to the adjacent fished waters (Willis et al., 2001, Parsons et al., 2003, Egli and Babcock, 2004). Conversely, movement studies outside the marine reserve have been restricted to broad spatial scale mark recapture experiments (but see Hartill et al., 2003), focused on snapper from deeper, soft sediment dominated environments (Paul, 1967, Crossland, 1976, Gilbert and McKenzie, 1999). These later studies provided only modest movement information, with poor associated spatial resolution, but did show that snapper can move over areas of many tens of kilometers. Therefore, we made direct comparisons of snapper movement inside vs. outside a marine reserve, by deploying an acoustic tracking array over both a portion of the CROP reserve, and the adjacent coastline, and tagged and released snapper in each. We then assessed the potential for differential movement dynamics between the two areas. Results suggest that reserves do have the potential to alter the behavior or the behavioral make up of individuals or populations, with likely consequences for the design of reserves and the maintenance of biodiversity within exploited populations.

Section snippets

Study area and receiver set up

This study was conducted inside and adjacent to the CROP Marine Reserve (Fig. 1) from November 2007 to April 2008. We specifically chose the eastern end of the reserve and the immediately adjacent fished coastline to compare snapper movements, as both of these sections of coast are formed from the same rock type, and have similar topographic relief, bathymetry and exposure to the prevailing wind and swell (predominantly on a SW by NE axis). An array of 30 omni-directional hydrophones (Vemco VR2 

Results

Thirty-nine snapper were tagged inside and adjacent to the CROP Marine Reserve in November 2007. The movements of these fish were monitored by an array of acoustic receivers for 5 months, although only the first 2 months of tracking were completed with a full array of receivers. Individual movement behavior of tagged snapper varied, but fell into three distinct categories. The first category was fish detected frequently throughout the tracking period (present for >65% of available half hour time

Discussion

This study is one of the first to explicitly compare the movement behavior of an animal inside and adjacent to a marine reserve concurrently. Our results show that some tagged snapper from non-reserve areas utilized space in a different manner from that of snapper tagged in the marine reserve. Specifically, of the resident snapper tagged in the non-reserve area, half had home ranges with more than one main area of use, and as a result their home ranges spanned a linear distance of ∼2127 m on

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Richard Griffiths, Drew Lorrey, Matt Smith and James Williams for assistance with field work as well as Murray Birch, Arthur Cozens, Brady Doak and Daniel Egli of the Leigh Marine Laboratory for providing research facilities, equipment loans, boat usage and mooring construction. I am extremely grateful for advice on this manuscript received from Bruce Hartill and Nick Tolimieri, as well as technical assistance from Dale Webber of VEMCO and Greg Urbahn. Thanks to Dan Breen and Thelma

References (48)

  • J. Katajisto et al.

    Kernel-based home range method for data with irregular sampling intervals

    Ecological Modeling

    (2006)
  • R.A. Abesamis et al.

    Density-dependent spillover from a marine reserve: long-term evidence

    Ecological Applications

    (2005)
  • D.J. Anderson

    The home range: a new nonparametric estimation technique

    Ecology

    (1982)
  • C.G. Attwood et al.

    Variation in dispersal of galjoen (Coracinus capensis) (Teleostei: Coracinidae) from a marine reserve

    Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

    (1994)
  • C.G. Attwood et al.

    Alternate explanations of the dispersal pattern of galjoen Dichistius capensis

    African Journal of Marine Science

    (2005)
  • R.C. Babcock et al.

    Changes in community structure in temperate marine reserves

    Marine Ecology Progress Series

    (1999)
  • M.L. Baskett et al.

    The evolution of dispersal in reserve networks

    The American Naturalist

    (2007)
  • P.A. Biro et al.

    Rapid depletion of genotypes with fast growth and bold personality traits from harvested fish populations

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

    (2008)
  • R.G. Cole et al.

    Direct evidence of limited dispersal of the reef fish Parapercis colias (Pinguipedidae) within a marine reserve and adjacent fished areas

    Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems

    (2000)
  • S.J. Cooke et al.

    Physiological and behavioral consequences of long-term artificial selection for vulnerability to recreational angling in a teleost fish

    Physiological and Biochemical Zoology

    (2007)
  • J. Crossland

    Snapper tagging in North-East New Zealand, 1974: analysis of methods, return rates, and movements

    New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research

    (1976)
  • Crossland, J., 1982. Movements of tagged snapper in the Hauraki Gulf. New Zealand Fisheries Research Division...
  • G.J. Edgar et al.

    Patterns of fish movement on eastern Tasmanian rocky reefs

    Environmental Biology of Fishes

    (2004)
  • D.B. Eggleston et al.

    Disturbance induced ‘spill-in’ of Caribbean spiny lobster to marine reserves

    Marine Ecology Progress Series

    (2008)
  • D.P. Egli et al.

    Ultrasonic tracking reveals multiple behavioural modes of snapper (Pagrus auratus) in a temperate no-take marine reserve

    ICES Journal of Marine Science

    (2004)
  • N. Eristhee et al.

    Home range size and use of space by Bermuda chub Kyphosus sectatrix (L.) in two marine reserves in the Soufrière Marine Management Area, St Lucia, West Indies

    Journal of Fish Biology

    (2001)
  • Gilbert, D.J., McKenzie, J.R., 1999. Sources of Bias in Biomass Estimates from Tagging Programmes in the SNA1 Snapper...
  • B.W. Hartill et al.

    Diurnal and tidal movements of snapper (Pagrus auratus, Sparidae) in an estuarine environment

    Marine and Freshwater Research

    (2003)
  • C. Jadot et al.

    Activity patterns, home-range size, and habitat utilization of Sarpa salpa (Teleostei: Sparidae) in the Mediterranean Sea

    ICES Journal of Marine Science

    (2006)
  • S.J. Jorgensen et al.

    Limited movement in blue rockfish Sebastes mystinus: internal structure of home range

    Marine Ecology Progress Series

    (2006)
  • S. Kelly et al.

    Movement patterns of mature spiny lobsters, Jasus edwardsii, from a marine reserve

    New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research

    (2003)
  • D.L. Kramer et al.

    Implications of fish home range size and relocation for marine reserve function

    Environmental Biology of Fishes

    (1999)
  • T.J. Langlois et al.

    Reef-associated predators influence adjacent soft-sediment communities

    Ecology

    (2005)
  • A. Linnane et al.

    Movement patterns of the southern rock lobster, Jasus edwardsii, off South Australia

    New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research

    (2005)
  • Cited by (60)

    • Fished species uniformly reduced escape behaviors in response to protection

      2018, Biological Conservation
      Citation Excerpt :

      Thus, our study provides a conservative estimate of animal response to human encounters, particularly when compared with heavily used managed areas (e.g., national parks, wildlife refuges, and dive destinations) in which highly concentrated, neutral and negative interactions between humans and animals provoke anti-predator responses and avoidance of humans (Arlinghaus et al., 2016) that suppress the recovery of wild populations (Sarmento and Berger, 2017) and impact the ecological functions of these species (Hebblewhite et al., 2005; Ripple and Beschta, 2006; Titus et al., 2015). FID in response to human approach is thought to reflect animal interactions with natural predators and prey (Parsons et al., 2010; Stankowich and Blumstein, 2005), and natural tradeoffs between anti-predator behavior and foraging (Ydenberg and Dill, 1986). If so, the impacts of management-driven changes in FID and other escape behaviors and habitat use may affect consumer ecological roles and key ecological processes.

    • Linking home ranges to protected area size: The case study of the Mediterranean Sea

      2018, Biological Conservation
      Citation Excerpt :

      Due to the need to forage further to find resources, fishes associated with fully protected areas may have larger home ranges than those at fished sites. Few studies (all conducted outside the Mediterranean Sea) have concurrently tagged individuals of the same species both inside and outside marine protected areas, and reported no clear effect due to high variability among individual movements (Parsons et al., 2010 and references therein). Despite the lack of within-study comparisons in our dataset, the home ranges of D. sargus, D. vulgaris, and S. salpa (the three species for which we had information from both marine protected areas and fished areas) from the fully protected areas were larger than their conspecifics from fished areas.

    • Challenges and opportunities in monitoring the impacts of tidal-stream energy devices on marine vertebrates

      2018, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
      Citation Excerpt :

      When stock abundance has been strongly reduced, for example by commercial fishing, the species range also usually contracts into a limited number of hot-spots [60]. Under these conditions mixing between sub-populations may be further reduced [120,121] so that present realised habitat distributions may only represent a fraction of potential habitat [122]. The high mobility of the majority of marine fish must also be considered in relation to the potential positive benefits which are sometimes claimed in relation to fisheries exclusions around MRE sites [128–130].

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text