7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      The MPA Guide: A framework to achieve global goals for the ocean

      1 , 2 , 1 , 3 , 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 1 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 1 , 12 , 18 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 9 , 7 , 9 , 7 , 8 , 22 , 23 , 18 , 19 , 10 , 24 , 2 , 13 , 25 , 7 , 2 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 11 , 5 , 22 , 14 , 6 , 26 , 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 20 , 34 , 4 , 35 , 10 , 36 , 21 , 37 , 38 , 24 , 39 , 1 , 2
      Science
      American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references185

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Capacity shortfalls hinder the performance of marine protected areas globally

          Although 71% of marine protected areas are benefiting fish populations, their effects are highly variable, with staff capacity proving to be the most important explanatory variable.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Rebuilding marine life

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key features.

              In line with global targets agreed under the Convention on Biological Diversity, the number of marine protected areas (MPAs) is increasing rapidly, yet socio-economic benefits generated by MPAs remain difficult to predict and under debate. MPAs often fail to reach their full potential as a consequence of factors such as illegal harvesting, regulations that legally allow detrimental harvesting, or emigration of animals outside boundaries because of continuous habitat or inadequate size of reserve. Here we show that the conservation benefits of 87 MPAs investigated worldwide increase exponentially with the accumulation of five key features: no take, well enforced, old (>10 years), large (>100 km(2)), and isolated by deep water or sand. Using effective MPAs with four or five key features as an unfished standard, comparisons of underwater survey data from effective MPAs with predictions based on survey data from fished coasts indicate that total fish biomass has declined about two-thirds from historical baselines as a result of fishing. Effective MPAs also had twice as many large (>250 mm total length) fish species per transect, five times more large fish biomass, and fourteen times more shark biomass than fished areas. Most (59%) of the MPAs studied had only one or two key features and were not ecologically distinguishable from fished sites. Our results show that global conservation targets based on area alone will not optimize protection of marine biodiversity. More emphasis is needed on better MPA design, durable management and compliance to ensure that MPAs achieve their desired conservation value.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Science
                Science
                American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
                0036-8075
                1095-9203
                September 10 2021
                September 10 2021
                : 373
                : 6560
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Integrative Biology, Oregon State University, 3029 Cordley Hall, Corvallis, OR, USA.
                [2 ]Marine Conservation Institute, Seattle, WA 98103, USA.
                [3 ]Department of Environment and Geography, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK.
                [4 ]Center of Marine Sciences, CCMAR, University of Algarve, Campus de Gambelas, Faro, 8005-139, Portugal.
                [5 ]School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA.
                [6 ]Marine Protection Atlas, Marine Conservation Institute, Seattle, WA, 98103-9090, USA.
                [7 ]Pew Bertarelli Ocean Legacy Project, The Pew Charitable Trusts, Washington, DC 20004-2008, USA.
                [8 ]UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK.
                [9 ]IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland.
                [10 ]School of Public Policy, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97330, USA.
                [11 ]National Geographic Society, Washington, DC, USA.
                [12 ]Department of Geography, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-2190, USA.
                [13 ]National Center for Scientific Research, PSL Université Paris, CRIOBE, USR 3278 CNRS-EPHE-UPVD, Maison des Océans, 75005 Paris, France.
                [14 ]Wildlife Conservation Society, 2300 Southern Blvd, Bronx, NY 10460, USA.
                [15 ]Hawaiʿi Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawaii, Kāne'ohe, HI 96744, USA.
                [16 ]Pristine Seas, National Geography Society, Washington, DC 20036, USA.
                [17 ]Duke University Marine Laboratory, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Beaufort, NC 28516, USA.
                [18 ]ARC Centre of Excellence in Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville QLD 4811, Australia.
                [19 ]Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre (MARE), ISPA–Instituto Universitário, 1149-041 Lisbon, Portugal.
                [20 ]Oceano Azul Foundation, Oceanário de Lisboa, Esplanada D. Carlos I,1990-005 Lisbon, Portugal.
                [21 ]Ocean Conservation, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC 20037, USA.
                [22 ]School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC V8W 2Y2, Canada.
                [23 ]Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia.
                [24 ]Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Panama City, Panama; Coiba Scientific Station (Coiba AIP), Panama City, Panama.
                [25 ]The Peopled Seas Initiative, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
                [26 ]National Ocean Program, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Ottawa, ON K2P 0A4, Canada.
                [27 ]Blue Parks Program, Marine Conservation Institute, Seattle, WA 98103, USA.
                [28 ]World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF)–Mediterranean, Rome 00198, Italy.
                [29 ]Department of Integrative Marine Ecology (EMI), Stazione Zoologica A. Dohrn–National Institute of Marine Biology, Ecology and Biotechnology, Villa Comunale, 80121 Naples, Italy.
                [30 ]National Research Council, Institute for the Study of Anthropic Impact and Sustainability in the Marine Environment (CNR-IAS), V16149 Genoa, Italy.
                [31 ]Institute for Coastal and Marine Research (CMR), Nelson Mandela University, Gomeroy Avenue, Summerstrand, Port Elizabeth 6031, South Africa.
                [32 ]Comunidad y Biodiversidad, A.C. Isla del Peruano 215, Col. Lomas de Miramar, Guaymas, Sonora, 85454, Mexico.
                [33 ]Mediterranean Conservation Society, Bornova, Izmir 35100 Turkey.
                [34 ]Sound Seas, Colrain, MA 01340, USA.
                [35 ]MARBEC, Montpellier University, CNRS, IRD, IFREMER, Sète, France.
                [36 ]Nature Seychelles, Centre for Environment and Education, Sanctuary at Roche Caiman, Mahe, Seychelles.
                [37 ]Ocean Unite, Washington, DC 20007, USA.
                [38 ]School of Oceanography, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 230000, China.
                [39 ]Estación Costera de Investigaciones Marinas de Las Cruces and Departmento de Ecología, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
                Article
                10.1126/science.abf0861
                34516798
                1d40d332-f363-4353-a630-876e6670fdd6
                © 2021
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article