Optimized fishing through periodically harvested closures

Type Article
Date 2019-08
Language English
Author(s) Carvalho Paul G.1, Jupiter Stacy D.2, Januchowski‐hartley Fraser A.3, 4, Goetze Jordan5, Claudet Joachim6, Weeks Rebecca7, Humphries Austin1, 8, White Crow9
Affiliation(s) 1 : Department of Fisheries, Animal and Veterinary Sciences University of Rhode Island Kingston Rhode Island, USA
2 : Wildlife Conservation Society Melanesia Program Suva, Fiji
3 : MARBEC UMR IRD‐CNRS‐UM‐IFREMER 9190, Université Montpellier Montpellier,France
4 : Bioscience College of Sciences, Swansea University Swansea, UK
5 : Department of Environment and Agriculture Curtin University Bentley WA ,Australia
6 : National Center for Scientific Research, CRIOBE USR 3278 CNRS‐EPHE‐UPVD Maison des Océans, PSL Université Paris Paris ,France
7 : Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies James Cook University Townsville Qld ,Australia
8 : Graduate School of Oceanography University of Rhode Island Narragansett Rhode Island, USA
9 : Center for Coastal Marine Sciences California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo California, USA
Source Journal Of Applied Ecology (0021-8901) (Wiley), 2019-08 , Vol. 56 , N. 8 , P. 1927-1936
DOI 10.1111/1365-2664.13417
WOS© Times Cited 28
Keyword(s) bioeconomic model, conservation, fish behaviour, fisheries management, marine protected areas, marine reserves, periodically harvested closures, population dynamics

Periodically harvested closures are a widespread, centuries‐old form of fisheries management that protects fish between pulse harvests and can generate high harvest efficiency by reducing fish wariness of fishing gear. However, the ability for periodic closures to also support high fisheries yields and healthy marine ecosystems is uncertain, despite increased promotion of periodic closures for managing fisheries and conserving ecosystems in the Indo‐Pacific.

We developed a bioeconomic fisheries model that considers changes in fish wariness, based on empirical field research, and quantified the extent to which periodic closures can simultaneously maximize harvest efficiency, fisheries yield and conservation of fish stocks.

We found that periodic closures with a harvest schedule represented by closure for one to a few years between a single pulse harvest event can generate equivalent fisheries yield and stock abundance levels and greater harvest efficiency than achievable under conventional fisheries management with or without a permanent closure.

Optimality of periodic closures at maximizing the triple objective of high harvest efficiency, high fisheries yield, and high stock abundance was robust to fish life history traits and to all but extreme levels of overfishing. With moderate overfishing, there emerged a trade‐off between periodic closures that maximized harvest efficiency and no‐take permanent closures that maximized yield; however, the gain in harvest efficiency outweighed the loss in yield for periodic closures when compared with permanent closures. Only with extreme overfishing, where fishing under nonspatial management would reduce the stock to ≤18% of its unfished level, was the harvest efficiency benefit too small for periodic closures to best meet the triple objective compared with permanent closures.

Synthesis and applications. We show that periodically harvested closures can, in most cases, simultaneously maximize harvest efficiency, fisheries yield, and fish stock conservation beyond that achievable by no‐take permanent closures or nonspatial management. Our results also provide design guidance, indicating that short closure periods between pulse harvest events are most appropriate for well‐managed fisheries or areas with large periodic closures, whereas longer closure periods are more appropriate for small periodic closure areas and overfished systems.

Full Text
File Pages Size Access
10 1 MB Access on demand
1 31 KB Access on demand
1 47 KB Access on demand
1 95 KB Access on demand
1 147 KB Access on demand
1 78 KB Access on demand
1 79 KB Access on demand
1 188 KB Access on demand
1 167 KB Access on demand
2 160 KB Access on demand
1 178 KB Access on demand
1 11 KB Access on demand
Author's final draft 25 675 KB Open access
Top of the page