Progress,opportunities and challenges for marine conservation in the Pacific Islands

1. The people of the Pacific have long relied on the ocean for sustenance, commerce and cultural identity, which resulted in a sophisticated understanding of the marine environment and its conservation.
2. The global declines in ocean health require new and innovative approaches to conserving marine ecosystems. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) have been shown to be a highly effective means of conserving biodiversity and managing fisheries, while also restoring and preserving overall ecosystem function.
3. Traditional ecological knowledge held by many island peoples in the Pacific is critical to the development, design and implementation of contemporary MPAs.
4. Chile's offshore islands are among the few oceanic archipelagos along the west coast of South America. These islands have cultural and ecological connections to the broader insular Pacific, yet our scientific understanding of them is extremely limited.
5. Chile has created several large-scale MPAs around their offshore archipelagos. By protecting these unique ecosystems, Chile has established itself as a global leader in marine conservation.
6. Effective management and a better understanding of social–ecological interactions are currently the biggest challenges facing MPAs in the Pacific Islands.

     

A generic framework to assess the representation and protection of benthic ecosystems in European marine protected areas

1. There is concern across the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) region that a consideration of vulnerable components and the wider support mechanisms underpinning benthic marine ecosystems may be lacking from the process of marine protected area (MPA) designation, management and monitoring.
2. In this study, MPAs across six European ecoregions were assessed from a benthic ecology perspective. The study included 102 MPAs, designated by 10 countries, and focused on three aspects regarding the role of the benthos in: (i) the designation of MPAs; (ii) the management measures used in MPAs; and (iii) the monitoring and assessment of MPAs.
3. Qualitative entries to a questionnaire based on an existing framework (EU project ‘Monitoring Evaluation of Spatially Managed Areas’, (MESMA) were collected by 19 benthic experts of the ICES Benthic Ecology Working Group. A pedigree matrix was used to apply a numerical scale (score) to these entries.
4. The results showed clear differences in scores between ecoregions and between criteria. The designation‐phase criteria generally achieved higher scores than the implementation‐phase criteria. Poor designation‐phase scores were generally reiterated in the implementation‐phase scores, such as scores for assessment and monitoring.
5. Over 70% of the MPA case studies were found to consider the benthos to some extent during selection and designation; however, this was not followed up with appropriate management measures and good practice during the implementation phase.
6. Poor spatial and temporal coverage of monitoring and ineffective indicators is unlikely to pick up changes caused by management measures in the MPA. There is concern that without adequate monitoring and adaptive management frameworks, the MPAs will be compromised. Also, there could be an increased likelihood that, with regard to the benthos, they will fail to meet their conservation objectives.
7. This assessment was successful in highlighting issues related to the representation and protection of the benthos in MPAs and where changes need to be made, such as expanding the characterization and monitoring of benthic species or habitats of interest. These issues could be attributable to an ongoing process and/or an indication that some MPAs only have ‘paper protection’.

     

Integrating ecosystem services into conservation strategies for freshwater and marine habitats: a review

相似文献   

The biodiversity value of marine protected areas for multi‐species fishery management in the Gulf of Maine

相似文献   

Integrating fine‐scale seafloor mapping and spatial pattern metrics into marine conservation prioritization

1. Marine protected area (MPA) planning often relies on scientific principles that help ensure that an area selected for conservation will effectively protect biodiversity. Capturing ecological processes in MPA network planning has received increased attention in recent years. High‐resolution seafloor maps, which show patterns in seafloor bio‐physical characteristics, can support our understanding of ecological processes.
2. In part, owing to a global lack of high‐resolution seafloor maps, studies that aim to integrate seascape spatial pattern and conservation prioritization often focus on shallow biogenic habitats with less attention paid to deeper benthic seascapes (benthoscapes) mapped using acoustic techniques. Acoustic seafloor mapping strategies yield the spatial information required to extend conservation prioritization research into these environments, making incorporating seafloor ecological processes into conservation prioritization increasingly achievable.
3. Here, a new method is proposed and tested that combines benthoscape mapping, landscape ecology metrics and a conservation decision support tool to prioritize areas with structural and potential connectivity value in MPA placement. Using a case study in eastern Canada, benthoscape composition and configuration were quantified using spatial pattern metrics and integrated into Marxan.
4. Results illustrate how large patches of seafloor habitat in close proximity to neighbouring patches can be preferentially selected when benthoscape configuration is considered. The flexibility of the method for including relevant spatial pattern metrics or species‐specific movement data is discussed to illustrate how benthic habitat maps can improve existing conservation planning methods and complement existing and future work to support marine biodiversity conservation.

     

Frameworks for marine conservation — non‐hierarchical approaches and distinctive habitats

• 1. Conservation efforts have traditionally been directed to ‘flagship’ species (whales, seals, migratory birds, etc.) that capture public attention. Often these flagship species occupy distinctive habitats. Distinctive habitats appear to be distinguished because of anomalous physical structures and unique oceanographic processes occurring within them, whereas representative habitats are not notable in this way. Distinctive habitats are found in areas of various physical anomalies described primarily by temperature, chlorophyll and topography.
• 2. Several different kinds of distinctive habitats can be defined by their anomalous physical structures and oceanographic and biological processes. Species diversity may be either higher or lower in distinctive than in representative habitats. Distinctive habitats predominantly belong to a class of environments called ‘ergoclines’, and are typically associated with elevated resources at some ‘trophic level’.
• 3. These elevated resources may be either the product of true production (i.e. they are generated (in situ), or they are the product of physical accumulation due to circulation mechanisms. These processes lie at the heart of the ecology of distinctive habitats, and are fundamental to maintenance of ecosystem health, ecological integrity, distributions, abundances and recruitment of species, patterns of animal migrations, and potential or actual fisheries yields.
• 4. Conservation strategies need to examine the relationships between distinctive and representative habitats and species diversity. A strategy, leading from studies on flagship or other focal species, could have several advantages. It should rejuvenate the inherent appeal and significance of ‘species’ approaches to marine conservation, provide a rationale for human interest and a new foundation for examination of marine ecological interactions. It would also require a novel synthesis of relationships between ‘species’ and ‘spaces’ approaches to marine conservation by asking how we can take the best advantage of both approaches, rather than seeing them as in conflict.

Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Marine protected areas in southern China: Upgrading conservation effectiveness in the ‘eco‐civilization’ era

1. ensuring that marine systems are not overwhelmed within the new national jurisdiction, and maintaining and enhancing marine capacity;
2. increased resourcing, supported by comprehensive and systematic economic valuations of ecosystem goods and services and natural capital;
3. upgraded enforcement of existing environmental laws and regulations, combined with further refinement and development, especially around cumulative impact management;
4. a particular focus on major reduction in water pollution in all forms;
5. integration of marine management between Hong Kong SAR and surrounding Guangdong Province; and
6. enhanced community engagement, participation and education.
7. Finally, much greater, collaborative engagement by the international community with Chinese marine management and conservation would bring major, and very mutual, benefits.

     

Size and age are important factors for marine sanctuaries: evidence from a decade of systematic sampling in a subtropical marine park

相似文献   

Effectiveness of shore‐based remote camera monitoring for quantifying recreational fisher compliance in marine conservation areas

相似文献   

Use of focal species in marine conservation and management: a review and critique

1. Focal species (i.e. indicators, keystones, umbrellas, and flagships) have been advocated for the management and conservation of natural environments. 2. The assumption has been that the presence or abundance of a focal species is a means to understanding the composition and/or state of the more complex community. 3. We review the characteristics of focal species, and evaluate their appropriateness and utility judged against conservation objectives. 4. It appears that indicator species (of both composition and condition) may be of greatest general utility, and that several types of focal species may exhibit useful indicator properties. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Encouraging youth engagement in marine protected areas: A survey of best practices in Canada

相似文献   

Extinction risk and conservation of marine bony shorefishes of the Greater Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico

相似文献   

Assessing the incidental value of a marine reserve to a lemon shark Negaprion brevirostris nursery

相似文献   

Looking beyond the horizon: An early warning system to keep marine mammal information relevant for conservation

相似文献   

Benefits of marine protected areas for tropical coastal sharks

相似文献   

Strengthening the synergies among global biodiversity targets to reconcile conservation and socio‐economic demands

1. Most of the world's nations adopted the 20 Aichi global biodiversity targets to be met by 2020, including the protection of at least 10% of their coastal and marine areas (Target 11) and the avoidance of extinction of threatened species (Target 12). However, reconciling these biodiversity targets with socio‐economic demands remains a great dilemma for implementing conservation policies.
2. In this paper, Aichi Targets 11 and 12 were simultaneously addressed using Brazil's exclusive economic zone as an example. Priority areas for expanding the current system of marine protected areas within the country's eight marine ecoregions were identified with data on threatened vertebrates under different scenarios. Additionally, the potential effects of major socio‐economic activities (small? and large‐scale fishing, seabed mining, and oil and gas exploration) on the representation of conservation features in proposed marine protected areas were explored.
3. Areas selected for expanding marine protected areas solely based on biodiversity data were different (spatial overlap from 62% to 93%) from areas prioritized when socio‐economic features were incorporated into the analysis. The addition of socio‐economic data in the prioritization process substantially decreased opportunity costs and potential conservation conflicts, at the cost of reducing significantly (up to 31%) the coverage of conservation features. Large? and small‐scale fisheries act in most of the exclusive economic zone and are the major constraints for protecting high‐priority areas.
4. Nevertheless, there is some spatial mismatch between areas of special relevance for conservation and socio‐economic activities, suggesting an opportunity for reconciling the achievement of biodiversity targets and development goals within the intricate Brazilian seascape by 2020 and beyond.

     

Salty stories,fresh spaces: Lessons for aquatic protected areas from marine and freshwater experiences

相似文献   

Identifying key habitats for the conservation of Chilean dolphins in the fjords of southern Chile

相似文献   

National frameworks for marine conservation — a hierarchical geophysical approach

1. Development of environmental protected areas has been driven ‘more by opportunity than design, scenery rather than science’ (Hackman A. 1993. Preface. A protected areas gap analysis methodology: planning for the conservation of biodiversity. World Wildlife Fund Canada Discussion Paper; i–ii). If marine environments are to be protected from the adverse effects of human activities, then identification of types of marine habitats and delineation of their boundaries in a consistent classification is required. Without such a classification system, the extent and significance of representative or distinctive habitats cannot be recognized. Such recognition is a fundamental prerequisite to the determination of location and size of marine areas to be protected. 2. A hierarchical classification has been developed based on enduring/recurrent geophysical (oceanographic and physiographic) features of the marine environment, which identifies habitat types that reflect changes in biological composition. Important oceanographic features include temperature, stratification and exposure; physiographic features include bottom relief and substrate type. 3. Classifications based only on biological data are generally prohibited at larger scales, due to lack of information. Therefore, we are generally obliged to classify habitat types as surrogates for community types. The data necessary for this classification are available from mapped sources and from remote sensing. It is believed they can be used to identify representative and distinctive marine habitats supporting different communities, and will provide an ecological framework for marine conservation planning at the national level. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.