Global baselines and benchmarks for fish biomass: comparing remote reefs and fisheries closures

Type Article
Date 2019-03
Language English
Author(s) McClanahan Tim R.1, Schroeder Robert E.2, Friedlander Alan M.3, 4, Vigliola Laurent5, Wantiez LaurentORCID6, Caselle Jennifer E.7, Graham Nicholas A. J.8, Wilson ShaunORCID9, 10, Edgar Graham J.11, Stuart-Smith Rick D.11, Oddenyo Remy M.12, Cinner J. E.13
Affiliation(s) 1 : Wildlife Conservat Soc, Marine Programs, Bronx, NY 10460 USA.
2 : Natl Ocean & Atmospher Adm Fisheries, Honolulu, HI 96818 USA.
3 : Natl Geog Soc, Pristine Seas, Washington, DC 20036 USA.
4 : Univ Hawaii, Fisheries Ecol Res Lab, Honolulu, HI 96822 USA.
5 : IRD, UMR ENTROPIE, Lab Excellence LABEX Corail, Noumea 98851, New Caledonia.
6 : Univ New Caledonia, ISEA, EA7484, Noumea 98851, New Caledonia.
7 : Univ Calif Santa Barbara, Marine Sci Inst, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 USA.
8 : Univ Lancaster, Lancaster Environm Ctr, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, England.
9 : Dept Biodivers Conservat & Attract, Kensington, WA 6151, Australia.
10 : Univ Western Australia, Oceans Inst, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia.
11 : Univ Tasmania, Inst Marine & Antarctic Studies, Hobart, Tas 7001, Australia.
12 : Wildlife Conservat Soc, Coral Reef Conservat Program, Mombasa 80107, Kenya.
13 : James Cook Univ, Australian Res Council, Townsville, Qld 4811, Australia.
Source Marine Ecology Progress Series (0171-8630) (Inter-research), 2019-03 , Vol. 612 , P. 167-192
DOI 10.3354/meps12874
WOS© Times Cited 26
Keyword(s) Baselines, Coral reef fish, Fisheries and ecological indicators, Pristine or virgin biomass, Sustainability
Abstract

Baselines and benchmarks (B&Bs) are needed to evaluate the ecological status and fisheries potential of coral reefs. B&Bs may depend on habitat features and energetic limitations that constrain biomass within the natural variability of the environment and fish behaviors. To evaluate if broad B&Bs exist, we compiled data on the biomass of fishes in similar to 1000 reefs with no recent history of fishing in 19 ecoregions. These reefs spanned the full longitude and latitude of Indian and Pacific Ocean reefs and included older high-compliance fisheries closures (>15 yr closure) and remote reef areas (>9 h travel time from fisheries markets). There was no significant change in biomass over the 15 to 48 yr closure period but closures had only similar to 40% of the biomass (740 kg ha(-1), lower confidence interval [LCI] = 660 kg ha(-1), upper confidence interval [UCI] = 810 kg ha(-1), n = 157) of remote tropical reefs (1870 [1730, 2000] kg ha(-1), n = 503). Remote subtropical reefs had lower biomass (950 [860, 1040] kg ha(-1), n = 329) than tropical reefs. Closures and remote reef fish biomass responded differently to environmental variables of coral cover, net primary productivity, and light, indicating that remote reefs are more limited by productivity and habitat than closures. Closures in fished seascapes are unlikely to achieve the biomass and community composition of remote reefs, which suggests fisheries benchmarks will differ substantially from wilderness baselines. A fishery benchmark (B-0) of similar to 1000 kg ha(-1) adjusted for geography is suggested for fisheries purposes. For ecological purposes, a wilderness baseline of similar to 1900 kg ha(-1) is appropriate for including large and mobile species not well protected by closures.

Full Text
File Pages Size Access
Publisher's official version 26 2 MB Open access
Supplementary material 6 768 KB Open access
Top of the page

How to cite 

McClanahan Tim R., Schroeder Robert E., Friedlander Alan M., Vigliola Laurent, Wantiez Laurent, Caselle Jennifer E., Graham Nicholas A. J., Wilson Shaun, Edgar Graham J., Stuart-Smith Rick D., Oddenyo Remy M., Cinner J. E. (2019). Global baselines and benchmarks for fish biomass: comparing remote reefs and fisheries closures. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 612, 167-192. Publisher's official version : https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12874 , Open Access version : https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00589/70064/