Early conservation benefits of a de facto marine protected area at San Clemente Island, California

Autoři: Michael W. Esgro aff001;  James Lindholm aff001;  Kerry J. Nickols aff002;  Jessica Bredvik aff003
Působiště autorů: Institute for Applied Marine Ecology, California State University Monterey Bay, Seaside, CA, United States of America aff001;  California State University Northridge, Northridge, CA, United States of America aff002;  Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, San Diego, CA, United States of America aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 15(1)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224060


De facto marine protected areas (DFMPAs) are regions of the ocean where human activity is restricted for reasons other than conservation. Although DFMPAs are widespread globally, their potential role in the protection of marine habitats, species, and ecosystems has not been well studied. In 2012 and 2013, we conducted remotely operated vehicle (ROV) surveys of marine communities at a military DFMPA closed to all civilian access since 2010 and an adjacent fished reference site at San Clemente Island, the southernmost of California’s Channel Islands. We used data extracted from ROV imagery to compare density and biomass of focal species, as well as biodiversity and community composition, between the two sites. Generalized linear modeling indicated that both density and biomass of California sheephead (Semicossyphus pulcher) were significantly higher inside the DFMPA. Biomass of ocean whitefish (Caulolatilus princeps) was also significantly higher inside the DFMPA. However, species richness and Shannon-Weaver diversity were not significantly higher inside the DFMPA, and overall fish community composition did not differ significantly between sites. Demonstrable differences between the DFMPA and fished site for two highly sought-after species hint at early potential benefits of protection, though the lack of differences in the broader community suggests that a longer trajectory of recovery may be required for other species. A more comprehensive understanding of the potential conservation benefits of DFMPAs is important in the context of marine spatial planning and global marine conservation objectives.

Klíčová slova:

Armed forces – Conservation science – Islands – Marine conservation – Marine ecosystems – Marine fish – Oceans – Species diversity


1. Pauly D, Christensen V, Guénette S, Pitcher TJ, Sumaila UR, Walters CJ, et al. Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature. 2002 Aug;418(6898):689. doi: 10.1038/nature01017 12167876

2. Worm B, Barbier EB, Beaumont N, Duffy JE, Folke C, Halpern BS, et al. Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science. 2006 Nov 3;314(5800):787–90. doi: 10.1126/science.1132294 17082450

3. Lester SE, Halpern BS. Biological responses in marine no-take reserves versus partially protected areas. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2008 Sep 11;367:49–56.

4. Worm B, Hilborn R, Baum JK, Branch TA, Collie JS, Costello C, et al. Rebuilding global fisheries. Science. 2009 Jul 31;325(5940):578–85. doi: 10.1126/science.1173146 19644114

5. Botsford LW, Brumbaugh DR, Grimes C, Kellner JB, Largier J, O’Farrell MR, et al. Connectivity, sustainability, and yield: bridging the gap between conventional fisheries management and marine protected areas. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. 2009 Mar 1;19(1):69–95.

6. Douvere F. The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystem-based sea use management. Marine Policy. 2008 Sep 1;32(5):762–71.

7. Foley MM, Halpern BS, Micheli F, Armsby MH, Caldwell MR, Crain CM, et al. Guiding ecological principles for marine spatial planning. Marine Policy. 2010 Sep 1;34(5):955–66.

8. Halpern BS, Diamond J, Gaines S, Gelcich S, Gleason M, Jennings S, et al. Near-term priorities for the science, policy and practice of Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP). Marine Policy. 2012 Jan 1;36(1):198–205.

9. Lester SE, Halpern BS, Grorud-Colvert K, Lubchenco J, Ruttenberg BI, Gaines SD, et al. Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: a global synthesis. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2009 May 29;384:33–46.

10. Costello MJ, Ballantine B. Biodiversity conservation should focus on no-take Marine Reserves: 94% of Marine Protected Areas allow fishing. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2015 Sep 1;30(9):507–9.

11. Lubchenco J, Grorud-Colvert K. Making waves: The science and politics of ocean protection. Science. 2015 Oct 23;350(6259):382–3. doi: 10.1126/science.aad5443 26472764

12. Edgar GJ, Stuart-Smith RD, Willis TJ, Kininmonth S, Baker SC, Banks S, et al. Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key features. Nature. 2014 Feb;506(7487):216. doi: 10.1038/nature13022 24499817

13. NOAA National Marine Protected Areas Center. De facto marine protected areas. 2017. Available from: https://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/dataanalysis/defacto/

14. Shears NT, Usmar NR. The role of the Hauraki Gulf Cable Protection Zone in protecting exploited fish species: de facto marine reserve?. Science & Technical Pub., Department of Conservation; 2006.

15. Inger R, Attrill MJ, Bearhop S, Broderick AC, James Grecian W, Hodgson DJ, et al. Marine renewable energy: potential benefits to biodiversity? An urgent call for research. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2009 Dec;46(6):1145–53.

16. National Marine Protected Areas Center 2008. State of the Nation’s De Facto Marine Protected Areas, ( Grober-Dunsmore R. and Wooninck L., editors). Silver Spring, Maryland.

17. Warren SD, Holbrook SW, Dale DA, Whelan NL, Elyn M, Grimm W, et al. Biodiversity and the heterogeneous disturbance regime on military training lands. Restoration Ecology. 2007 Dec 1;15(4):606–12.

18. Roberts CM, Bohnsack JA, Gell F, Hawkins JP, Goodridge R. Effects of marine reserves on adjacent fisheries. Science. 2001 Nov 30;294(5548):1920–3. doi: 10.1126/science.294.5548.1920 11729316

19. Rogers-Bennett L, Hubbard KE, Juhasz CI. Dramatic declines in red abalone populations after opening a “de facto” marine reserve to fishing: Testing temporal reserves. Biological Conservation. 2013 Jan 1;157:423–31.

20. Carr MH, Saarman E, Caldwell MR. The role of “rules of thumb” in science-based environmental policy: California’s Marine Life Protection Act as a case study. Stanford Journal of Law, Science and Policy. 2010;2:1–7.

21. Saarman E, Gleason M, Ugoretz J, Airamé S, Carr M, Fox E, et al. The role of science in supporting marine protected area network planning and design in California. Ocean & Coastal Management. 2013 Mar 1;74:45–56.

22. San Clemente Island Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (2013) Contract No. N62473-06-D-2402/0026. 784pp

23. Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division (2009) Southern California (SOCAL) Fisheries Study: Catch Statistics (2002–2007), Fishing Access, and Fishermen Perception. 89pp

24. 33 Code of Federal Regulations Part 165 (2010) San Clemente 3 NM Safety Zone, San Clemente Island, CA. Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 97

25. Horn MH, Allen LG. A distributional analysis of California coastal marine fishes. Journal of Biogeography. 1978 Mar 1:23–42.

26. Murray SN, Littler MM, Abbott IA. Biogeography of the California marine algae with emphasis on the southern California islands.

27. Pondella DJ, Gintert BE, Cobb JR, Allen LG. Biogeography of the nearshore rocky-reef fishes at the southern and Baja California islands. Journal of Biogeography. 2005 Feb;32(2):187–201.

28. Lindholm J, Auster P, Valentine P. Role of a large marine protected area for conserving landscape attributes of sand habitats on Georges Bank (NW Atlantic). Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2004 Mar 25;269:61–8.

29. Lindholm J, Gleason M, Kline D, Clary L, Rienecke S, Cramer A, et al. Ecological effects of bottom trawling on the structural attributes of fish habitat in unconsolidated sediments along the central California outer continental shelf. Fishery Bulletin. 2015 Jan 1;113(1).

30. Bassett M, Lindholm J, Garza C, Kvitek R, Wilson-Vandenberg D. Lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus) habitat associations in California: implications for conservation and management. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 2018 Jan 1;101(1):203–13.

31. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Species likely to benefit from the establishment of marine protected areas in California. 2007. Available from: https://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/mpa/species.asp

32. Husson F, Josse J, Le S, Mazet J, Husson MF (2016) Package ‘FactoMineR’

33. Bray JR, Curtis JT. An ordination of the upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecological Monographs. 1957 Feb;27(4):325–49.

34. R Development Core Team (2011) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org/

35. White JW, Botsford LW, Hastings A, Baskett ML, Kaplan DM, Barnett LA. Transient responses of fished populations to marine reserve establishment. Conservation Letters. 2013 Jun;6(3):180–91.

36. Nickols KJ, White JW, Malone D, Carr MH, Starr RM, Baskett ML, et al. Setting ecological expectations for adaptive management of marine protected areas. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2019 Jul 16.

37. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. California Recreational Fisheries Survey (CRFS). 2019. Available from: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Marine/CRFS

38. Kaplan KA, Yamane L, Botsford LW, Baskett ML, Hastings A, Worden S, et al. Setting expected timelines of fished population recovery for the adaptive management of a marine protected area network. Ecological Applications. 2019 Jun 12:e01949.

39. Adreani MS, Erisman BE, Warner RR. Courtship and spawning behavior in the California sheephead, Semicossyphus pulcher (Pisces: Labridae). Environmental Biology of Fishes. 2004 Sep 1;71(1):13–9.

40. Topping DT, Lowe CG, Caselle JE. Site fidelity and seasonal movement patterns of adult California sheephead Semicossyphus pulcher (Labridae): an acoustic monitoring study. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2006 Nov 17;326:257–67.

41. Hamilton SL, Wilson JR, Ben-Horin T, Caselle JE. Utilizing spatial demographic and life history variation to optimize sustainable yield of a temperate sex-changing fish. PloS One. 2011 Sep 6;6(9):e24580. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0024580 21915353

42. Alonzo SH, Key M, Ish T, MacCall A. Status of the California sheephead (Semicossyphus pulcher) stock (2004). Center for Stock Assessment Research, California Department of Fish and Game, University of California Santa Cruz, and National Marine Fisheries Service, Santa Cruz, California, USA. 2004.

43. California Department of Fish and Game Marine Region. Annual status of the fisheries report through 2003 –Report to the Fish and Game Commission as mandated by the Marine Life Management Act of 1998. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2004.

44. Lindholm JB, Auster PJ, Ruth M, Kaufman L. Modeling the effects of fishing and implications for the design of marine protected areas: juvenile fish responses to variations in seafloor habitat. Conservation Biology. 2001 Apr 8;15(2):424–37.

45. Oliver T, Roy DB, Hill JK, Brereton T, Thomas CD. Heterogeneous landscapes promote population stability. Ecology Letters. 2010 Apr;13(4):473–84. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01441.x 20148927

46. Starr RM, Wendt DE, Barnes CL, Marks CI, Malone D, Waltz G, et al. Variation in responses of fishes across multiple reserves within a network of marine protected areas in temperate waters. PLoS One. 2015 Mar 11;10(3):e0118502. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118502 25760856

47. Fulton CJ, Noble MN, Radford B, Gallen C, Harasti D. Microhabitat selectivity underpins regional indicators of fish abundance and replenishment. Ecological Indicators. 2016 Nov 1;70:222–31.

48. Menge BA, Daley BA, Wheeler PA, Strub PT. Rocky intertidal oceanography: an association between community structure and nearshore phytoplankton concentration. Limnology and Oceanography. 1997 Jan;42(1):57–66.

49. Ruzicka JJ, Brodeur RD, Emmett RL, Steele JH, Zamon JE, Morgan CA, et al. Interannual variability in the Northern California Current food web structure: changes in energy flow pathways and the role of forage fish, euphausiids, and jellyfish. Progress in Oceanography. 2012 Sep 1;102:19–41.

50. Nickols KJ, White JW, Largier JL, Gaylord B. Marine population connectivity: reconciling large-scale dispersal and high self-retention. The American Naturalist. 2015 Jan 13;185(2):196–211. doi: 10.1086/679503 25616139

51. Young MA, Iampietro PJ, Kvitek RG, Garza CD. Multivariate bathymetry-derived generalized linear model accurately predicts rockfish distribution on Cordell Bank, California, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2010 Sep 29;415:247–61.

52. Harmelin-Vivien M, Le Diréach L, Bayle-Sempere J, Charbonnel E, García-Charton JA, Ody D, et al. Gradients of abundance and biomass across reserve boundaries in six Mediterranean marine protected areas: Evidence of fish spillover?. Biological Conservation. 2008 Jul 1;141(7):1829–39.

53. Halpern BS, Lester SE, Kellner JB. Spillover from marine reserves and the replenishment of fished stocks. Environmental Conservation. 2009 Dec;36(4):268–76.

54. Moffitt EA, White JW, Botsford LW. Accurate assessment of marine protected area success depends on metric and spatiotemporal scale of monitoring. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2013 Aug 28;489:17–28.

55. Pedlosky J, Pratt LJ, Spall MA, Helfrich KR. Circulation around islands and ridges. Journal of Marine Research. 1997 Nov 1;55(6):1199–251.

56. United States Department of the Navy. Southern California Range Complex Environmental Impact Statement. 2008.

57. United States Department of the Navy. Hawaii-Socal Training and Testing Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement. 2013.

58. United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. Decision adopted by the conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity X/2 –The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. 2010. Available from: https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-10/cop-10-dec-02-en.pdf

59. IUCN (2016). IUCN Resolutions, Recommendations and other Decisions. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 106pp.

60. Diz D, Johnson D, Riddell M, Rees S, Battle J, Gjerde K, et al. Mainstreaming marine biodiversity into the SDGs: the role of other effective area-based conservation measures (SDG 14.5). Marine Policy. 2018 Jul 1;93:251–61.

61. United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. Decision adopted by the conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity 14/8 –Protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures. 2018. Available from: https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-14/cop-14-dec-08-en.pdf

62. Jonas HD, MacKinnon K, Dudley N, Hockings M, Jessen S, Laffoley D, et al. Editorial essay: other effective area-based conservation measures: from Aichi Target 11 to the Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework. Parks: The International Journal of Protected Areas and Conservation. 2018 Jun 1;24(Special issue):9–16.

Článek vyšel v časopise


2020 Číslo 1