Elsevier

Biological Conservation

Volume 176, August 2014, Pages 289-296
Biological Conservation

Perspective
Long live Marine Reserves: A review of experiences and benefits

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.04.023Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Consequences of Marine Reserves in New Zealand were unexpected and some surprising.

  • Socio-economic benefits included species spillover, tourism, and education.

  • They provided controls that showed the direct and indirect effects of fishing on ecosystems.

  • Reserves can benefit conservation, science, and fisheries.

Abstract

This paper reviews the socio-economic, ecological, and conservation experiences during the establishment of Marine Reserves (no-take Marine Protected Areas (MPA)) in New Zealand in an international context. Once operational, reserves became popular with the public and provided economic benefits. In one reserve, ‘spill-over’ of lobsters counter-balanced lost fishing. The reserves provided the control sites that showed the effects of fishing on ecosystems through depleted populations and habitat change due to trophic cascades. Studies in other countries indicated that these trophic cascades were common globally. Research showed reserves protect benthic and pelagic species, including those that move outside the reserves. These findings benefited from reserves having a map of seabed habitats and data on the relative abundance of species of ecological importance. Information on other species (e.g. macro-invertebrates), and previous and nearby fishing effort over time, may have provided additional insights.

Marine Reserves can provide benefits to (1) conservation of species and habitats, (2) science as controls for fishing effects, and (3) fisheries as reference sites that conserve natural genetic and population structure, host brood-stock, and provide spill-over to nearby fisheries. They should be distributed geographically in networks that include replicated examples of habitats and species. To do so, they need to be suitably located, large enough, and enforced to fulfil these opportunities. However, these benefits remain limited by the relatively small area occupied by Marine Reserves within and between countries.

Introduction

There were many unexpected social, economic, educational and ecological changes following the creation of the first marine reserve in New Zealand. Its establishment was the basis for the first paper on Marine Reserves in this journal (Ballantine and Gordon, 1979), and the experience since then is reviewed in this issue of Biological Conservation (Ballantine, 2014). The reserve has variously been called Goat Island, Leigh, and officially the Cape Rodney to Okakari Point (CROP) Marine Reserve. It extends 800 m from the shore along 5 km of coast. A new law, the Marine Reserve Act 1971 was passed to establish this reserve and paved the way for 36 more. Here, Marine Reserves are no-take Marine Protected Areas (MPA) following legal usage in New Zealand and some other countries. There were just 10 papers on marine reserves in this journal until 1995, but 12 from 1996 to 2000, 20 from 2001–2005, 49 from 2006–2011, and over 53 since 2010, reflecting the increased scientific attention to marine conservation. This paper summarises the findings from New Zealand in the context of the history of Marine Reserve related papers in this journal.

Initially CROP Marine Reserve was proposed to keep the area free of interference so that scientists could do their research and experiments, and distinguish natural environmental change from that due to human activities. The reserve now attracts thousands of school children, and tens of thousands of members of the public every year (Walls, 1998); Hunt (2008) estimated 375,000 visitors from March 2007 to February 2008 inclusive. This ecotourism has been valued at over NZ$8 million a year, but with a conservation management budget of only NZ$70,000 (Hunt, 2008). However, the visitor’s emotional experiences may be as or more influential than these financial benefits. People now appreciate what marine life would be like around the coast if it is not fished. The New Zealand experience is that some of those who may have objected to a Marine Reserve at first, supported it once established because they could see the socio-economic benefits to the community and are not significantly deprived (Cocklin et al., 1998, Walls, 1998, Taylor and Buckenham, 2003). Nevertheless, there are usually some objections whenever a new reserve is proposed.

Economic studies that consider the wider social and economic benefits of reserves find that in some circumstances they could exceed the lost profits from fishing (The Allen Consulting Group, 2009, Yamazaki et al., 2012), can make fishing more profitable (similar catch for less effort) (Claudet and Guidetti, 2010), and fisheries displacement did not compromise the socio-economic well-being of fishermen in Hawaii (Stevenson et al., 2013). The experience at CROP Marine Reserve supports this. The presence of the reserve did not reduce regional catches of spiny lobster (crayfish) because there was a ‘spillover’ of lobsters out of the reserve (Kelly et al., 2002). Larger lobsters were captured near the reserve (Kelly et al., 2002). Socio-economic benefits have also been found in other countries, for example in Palau shark-watching has been found to be 100-times more valuable than the value of their meat (Vianna et al., 2012). Indeed, through spillover, reserves may be considered a long-term beneficial subsidy to fisheries (Cullis-Suzuki and Pauly, 2010).

It was fortunate that the first Marine Reserve in New Zealand was easily accessible to the public, and within two hours drive of the largest city in New Zealand. This meant people saw the increased abundance of fish and spiny lobsters (crayfish), and more people came to see the marine life (Walls, 1998). The fish lost their fear of people, were easily approached (Towns and Ballantine, 1993, Cole, 1994), and were more residential in the reserve than in fished areas (Parsons et al., 2010). New businesses provided the public opportunities for snorkelling, scuba diving, guided tours, accommodation, shopping, and tours on a glass-bottomed boat (Cocklin et al., 1998, Taylor and Buckenham, 2003). Visitors went home and wondered why they could not have Marine Reserves in their areas. Thus about half of all Marine Reserves in New Zealand were proposed by local community groups including universities, conservation groups, schools and diving clubs. One experience led to the establishment of the ‘Experiencing Marine Reserves’ programme which trains families to enjoy snorkelling with wildlife within and outside (for comparison) Marine Reserves (Nicholas and Yiu, 2012, http://www.emr.org.nz). Following a long campaign by a local school, a Marine Reserve was established near Whangarei in the north of New Zealand. To celebrate, about 1000 adults and children formed a human chain along its shoreline, with a flotilla of 13 boats along its sea boundary, and a helicopter in the air (Fig. 1). Their “Mexican wave” can be seen on a video posted to YouTube (Hathaway, 2009). Such community support must be a great deterrent against poaching (Taylor and Buckenham, 2003). At the offshore Poor Knights Islands, now also a Marine Reserve, former spear-fishermen look forward to the return of the “herds” of 30–100 large (<1.8 m long, 10–50 kg) hapuku wreck-fish (Polyprion oxygeneios (Schneider, 1801)) which occurred in shallow water in the 1960’s but were fished out (Doak, 2006, Grace, 2006). Reports of fish sightings indicated their grandchildren may see such impressive herds restored in the reserve.

The arguments for reserves have been not only about conservation but socio-economic and supported by the science. People wanted natural places to explore in the sea as they had on land. In reserves, the wildlife can be enjoyed by everybody for generations to come. In contrast, increasing human population pressure requires ever more stringent regulations and enforcement to maintain fish size and abundance outside reserves.

After over twenty years of research in the CROP Marine Reserve, it was discovered that habitats considered natural were in fact the result of a trophic cascade due to fishing out of large predators (reviewed by Leleu et al., 2012, Babcock, 2013). This experimentally demonstrated that this coastal sea was not a pristine environment, and ecosystems had been altered as well as the abundance of particular fished species. Indeed, it appears that (at least coastal) marine ecosystems throughout the world have been altered by human hunting of mammals, birds, fish, crustaceans, molluscs and other invertebrates for centuries (e.g. Jackson et al., 2001, Lotze et al., 2006, Worm et al., 2006), and increasingly in the deep-sea (e.g. Morato et al., 2006, Davies et al., 2007, Bo et al., 2014). The removal of two million whales from the southern hemisphere in the 20th century was probably preceded by similar reductions in marine mammals in the northern hemisphere oceans where hunting began 300 years earlier (Baker and Clapham, 2004). Four marine mammals were hunted to extinction in the northern hemisphere and about ¼ are threatened with extinction (Pompa et al., 2011). Individual whales range across entire oceans so this hunting may already have changed marine ecosystems at global scales before fisheries went global (Botsford et al., 2004, Springer et al., 2003). If so, we have no sure baselines for marine ecosystems anywhere although some remote locations may be less affected than those close to highly populated regions (Edgar et al., 2014). Marine Reserves, given space and time, are now the best way to understand what ‘natural’ ecosystems are, even though we may never know their true pristine state.

Many studies recognised the importance of habitats for biodiversity, including their use to guide selection of areas for protection (e.g. Mumby and Harborne, 1999, Edinger and Risk, 2000, Stevens and Connolly, 2004, Hawkins et al., 2006, Banks and Skilleter, 2007, Stelzenmüller et al., 2007, Howell, 2010, Howell et al., 2011, Tulloch et al., 2013). At CROP Marine Reserve a habitat map had been prepared around the time the Marine Reserve was established, enabling a quantitative spatial comparison of habitat change three decades later (Leleu et al., 2012). This before-after control-impacted (BACI) experimental design showed how, unexpectedly and indirectly, fishing had changed the benthic communities and habitats.

The second Marine Reserve in New Zealand, at the Poor Knights islands, allowed limited fishing. This attracted recreational fishers and rapidly led to a similar loss of fish as in unprotected areas and calls to ban all fishing (Denny et al., 2004). Similarly, marine “parks” which allowed partial take had the same trophic cascade effects as unprotected areas; i.e. in the absence of predators sea urchins grazed the rocks bare, creating so called ‘urchin barrens’ (Denny and Babcock, 2004, Shears et al., 2006, Taylor et al., 2011). This predator-urchin cascade seems widespread globally (reviewed in Leleu et al., 2012, Coleman et al., 2013), albeit subject to local environmental conditions (Shears et al., 2008). Thus the New Zealand, and international (e.g. Lester and Halpern, 2008, Di Franco et al., 2009), experience was that partially no-take MPA do not protect biodiversity at the species, habitat or ecosystem level. More complex rules also make policing more difficult than in Marine Reserves. Some MPA allow catch and release angling, but whether it is compatible with no-take status is unclear (Cook et al., 2006). Similar findings regarding the so called “Marine Reserve effect”, namely increased abundance of species fished and sometimes food web effects, have been found whenever no-take rules have been enforced (Molloy et al., 2008, Molloy et al., 2009) (Table 1), and this effect may extend beyond reserves through spillover (Guidetti, 2006a, Guidetti, 2006b). Edgar et al. (2014) conducted a standardised global scuba diving survey of 87 MPa and found each of the factors age, size, isolation and enforcement were significant in protecting fish abundance, biomass and species richness.

The impacts of fishing on fish stocks, prey species, bycatch, and physical damage to habitats are well known, and models can predict effects on ecosystems (e.g. Botsford et al., 2004). However, without Marine Reserves, science would not have had the experimental demonstration (i.e. with controls) of the indirect effects of fishing on communities and habitats through trophic cascades. While scientists’ research may be restricted within Marine Reserves because of their conservation status, they also have new opportunities. Marine Reserves are unparalleled ‘controls’ for understanding how human impacts, primarily fishing, impact biodiversity. For example, using MPA as controls, Edgar et al. (2014) conservatively showed that 63% of all fish, and 93% of shark, biomass has been removed from coastal reefs by fishing.

Fisheries scientists estimate fish stocks based on estimates of population abundance, but many of these populations have already been impacted (1) directly by fishing prior to having standardised data, (2) indirectly by fishing of their predators, prey, and/or by-catch mortality, and (3) possible habitat damage by seabed dredges, trawls or lost fishing gear (Pinnegar and Engelhard, 2008). In Marine Reserves fish populations can recover to more natural levels which allow examination of natural variation in abundance as well as interactions with non-fishery effects (e.g. contamination, sedimentation, warming, acidification) that reserves cannot control for. Thus reserves could provide a unique reference against which fishery managers could judge the direct and indirect effects of fishing some species (Botsford et al., 2004, Edgar et al., 2014). They may help determine maximum age and fecundity, age at maturation, natural mortality, population age and size structure, and set management targets. Indeed, it is surprising that resource management does not use Marine Reserve reference sites as a standard method to distinguish between natural and human causes of fluctuations in resources. In part, this may be because Marine Reserves have not been designed, located, of sufficient size or age, and/or sufficiently replicated to act as particular fish stock reference sites. At least some reserves should be designed as part of regional scale fishery management. Different fishery species would probably require different reserve designs. The design of a network of Marine Reserves, perhaps in conjunction with partial take MPA, may prove a more cost-effective and sustainable way to manage fisheries through providing (a) genetically healthy reference populations, (b) brood-stock habitat, and (c) spill-over.

Ballantine’s (2014) review focused on ecological and social changes rather than particular species of conservation concern. Dulvy (2013) was concerned that the focus on very large MPA, many of which were not preventing fishing and were thus not conserving biodiversity, was distracting from the need to protect species. At least this is not the case for the science which is giving at least as much attention to threatened species. Many studies in this journal and elsewhere consider both, that is, the role of MPA in protecting species, and such large MPA would especially benefit species with large individual ranges. Most of the most threatened species tend to be mammals, turtles and seabirds that may travel long distances. Even though they may not spend all their lives in an MPA, their time there can reduce mortality. Indeed, Marine Reserves have been found to protect pelagic fish and larger reserves to be more protective (Edgar et al., 2014). Thus papers in this journal have considered the role of protected areas for marine mammals, turtles, and birds (Table 2). A recent Special Issue of this journal (volume 156) on “Seabirds and Marine Protected Areas planning” contained 15 papers (Table 2). Although fewer fish and invertebrates are threatened with extinction, papers have also addressed the use of MPA for sharks, tuna, giant clams, and corals (Table 2). However, the primary consideration for large megafauna is to reduce mortality rates, for example due to reduce entanglement in fishing gear or ship strikes (Lewison et al., 2004). Because these species survival may be compromised if fisheries alter their food web, a more ecosystem based approach to their conservation is required. Thus Marine Reserves are also necessary to assess how particular species can survive in more natural ecosystems, regardless of whether the species is sedentary or highly mobile, or its dispersal ability during its life-cycle. It is encouraging to see some very large MPA being established which may include large no-take areas (IUCN and UNEP-WCMC 2012, Leenhardt et al., 2013).

Section snippets

Role of Marine Reserves in conservation science

It may seem radical in many countries not to allow some ‘take’ from parts of the sea on a permanent basis. In part, this may be because people, including some scientists and policy makers, underestimate the direct and indirect effects of fishing on marine ecosystems (Pauly et al., 2005). Yet, the public has restricted access to many marine areas already, such as oil and gas exploration sites, waste disposal sites, pipeline routes, fish farms, and military areas (Ballantine, 2014). In contrast,

Acknowledgments

I thank Annelies Struijcken for the use of the photograph in Fig. 1, and Bill Ballantine, Joachim Claudet, Debbie Freeman, Tim Langlois, Carolyn Lundquist, Alison MacDiarmid, Samara Nicholas, Pamela Mace, Richard Taylor, and Kathy Walls for helpful comments that improved this paper.

References (175)

  • S. Bauduin et al.

    An index of risk of co-occurrence between marine mammals and watercraft: example of the Florida manatee

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2013)
  • M. Beger et al.

    Conservation of coral reef biodiversity: a comparison of reserve selection procedures for corals and fishes

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2003)
  • M. Bo et al.

    Fishing impact on deep Mediterranean rocky habitats as revealed by ROV investigation

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2014)
  • G.M. Branch et al.

    The effects of Marine Protected Areas on the population dynamics of a South African limpet, Cymbula oculus, relative to the influence of wave action

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2003)
  • K.C.J. Camphuysen et al.

    Identifying ecologically important marine areas for seabirds using behavioural information in combination with distribution patterns

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2012)
  • M. Chiappone et al.

    Impacts of lost fishing gear on coral reef sessile invertebrates in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2005)
  • L.S. Chivers et al.

    Identifying optimal feeding habitat and proposed Marine Protected Areas (pMPAs) for the black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) suggests a need for complementary management approaches

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2013)
  • J. Claudet et al.

    Assessing the effects of marine protected area (MPA) on a reef fish assemblage in a northwestern Mediterranean marine reserve: identifying community-based indicators

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2006)
  • R.G. Cole

    Abundance, size structure, and diver-oriented behaviour of three large benthic carnivorous fishes in a marine reserve in northeastern New Zealand

    Biol. Conserv.

    (1994)
  • V.J. Cole et al.

    Marine Protected Areas export larvae of in fauna, but not of bioengineering mussels to adjacent areas

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2011)
  • M.A. Coleman et al.

    Conservation benefits of a network of marine reserves and partially protected areas

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2013)
  • M.J. Costello et al.

    Who eats sea meat? Expanding human consumption of marine mammals

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2011)
  • B.G. Curley et al.

    Enhanced numbers of two temperate reef fishes in a small, partial-take marine protected area related to spearfisher exclusion

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2013)
  • A.J. Davies et al.

    Preserving deep-sea natural heritage: Emerging issues in offshore conservation and management

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2007)
  • C.M. Denny et al.

    Do partial marine reserves protect reef fish assemblages?

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2004)
  • T.D. Eddy

    One hundred-fold difference between perceived and actual levels of marine protection in New Zealand

    Marine Policy

    (2014)
  • E.N. Edinger et al.

    Reef classification by coral morphology predicts coral reef conservation value

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2000)
  • H.J. Edwards et al.

    Incorporating ontogenetic dispersal, ecological processes and conservation zoning into reserve design

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2010)
  • C.B. Embling et al.

    Using habitat models to identify suitable sites for Marine Protected Areas for harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena)

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2010)
  • S.R. Floeter et al.

    Effects of fishing and protection on Brazilian reef fishes

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2006)
  • N.J. Fox et al.

    Priority areas for conservation of Western Australian coastal fishes: a comparison of hotspot, biogeographical and complementarity approaches

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2005)
  • S. Garthe et al.

    Protected areas for seabirds in German offshore waters: designation, retrospective consideration and current perspectives

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2012)
  • L.R. Gerber et al.

    The use of demographic sensitivity analysis in marine species conservation planning

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2004)
  • L.R. Gerber et al.

    The influence of life history attributes and fishing pressure on the efficacy of marine reserves

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2002)
  • S. Giakoumi et al.

    Designing a network of marine reserves in the Mediterranean Sea with limited socio-economic data

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2011)
  • W.J. Grecian et al.

    A novel projection technique to identify important at-sea areas for seabird conservation: an example using Northern gannets breeding in the North East Atlantic

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2012)
  • A. Gruss et al.

    Consequences of adult and juvenile movement for Marine Protected Areas

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2011)
  • A.C. Gucu et al.

    Habitat use and preliminary demographic evaluation of the critically endangered Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus) in the Cilician Basin (Eastern Mediterranean)

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2004)
  • P. Guidetti et al.

    Italian marine reserve effectiveness: does enforcement matter?

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2008)
  • R.J. Hamilton et al.

    Community-based conservation results in the recovery of reef fish spawning aggregations in the Coral Triangle

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2011)
  • R.J. Hamilton et al.

    Fishing in the dark-local knowledge, night spearfishing and spawning aggregations in the Western Solomon Islands

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2012)
  • G.J.A. Hansen et al.

    Hindsight in marine protected area selection: a comparison of ecological representation arising from opportunistic and systematic approaches

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2011)
  • M. Harmelin-Vivien et al.

    Gradients of abundance and biomass across reserve boundaries in six Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas: evidence of fish spillover?

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2008)
  • K.M. Hart et al.

    Habitat use of breeding green turtles Chelonia mydas tagged in Dry Tortugas National Park: making use of local and regional MPAs

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2013)
  • J.P. Hawkins et al.

    Effects of fishing on sex-changing Caribbean parrotfishes

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2004)
  • J.P. Hawkins et al.

    Effects of habitat characteristics and sedimentation on performance of marine reserves in St. Lucia

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2006)
  • S.L. Hazlitt et al.

    The effects of including marine ecological values in terrestrial reserve planning for a forest-nesting seabird

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2010)
  • S.K. Hooker et al.

    Ecosystem consideration in conservation planning: Energy demand of foraging bottlenose whales (Hyperoodon ampullatus) in a marine protected area

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2002)
  • K.L. Howell

    A benthic classification system to aid in the implementation of marine protected area networks in the deep/high seas of the NE Atlantic

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2010)
  • K.L. Howell et al.

    When the species is also a habitat: comparing the predictively modelled distributions of Lophelia pertusa and the reef habitat it forms

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2011)
  • Cited by (72)

    • Coral reef conservation in Bali in light of international best practice, a literature review

      2022, Journal for Nature Conservation
      Citation Excerpt :

      The remainder of this review will discuss what is being done to restore and conserve Bali’s reefs, and how this relates to what is being undertaken on a global scale. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) impose regulations on marine areas as a natural conservation and social management tool to enhance the ecological resilience of a marine area (Costello, 2014). The designation of MPAs is increasing worldwide (Edgar et al., 2014) and the IUCN has recently called for the ‘full protection’ of 30% of the worlds oceans by 2030 (Zhao et al., 2020), due to their global importance in protecting marine ecosystems from the effects of human exploitation and activities (Pérez-Ruzafa et al., 2017; Marcos et al., 2021).

    • Global Fisheries in a Warming World

      2022, Imperiled: The Encyclopedia of Conservation: Volume 1-3
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text