S. Kirkman, B. Mann, K. Sink, R. Adams, Tamsyn-Claire Livingstone, J. Mann-Lang, M. Pfaff, T. Samaai, MG van der Bank, L. Williams, GM Branch
{"title":"Evaluating the evidence for ecological effectiveness of South Africa’s marine protected areas","authors":"S. Kirkman, B. Mann, K. Sink, R. Adams, Tamsyn-Claire Livingstone, J. Mann-Lang, M. Pfaff, T. Samaai, MG van der Bank, L. Williams, GM Branch","doi":"10.2989/1814232X.2021.1962975","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We reviewed 140 papers to assess the ecological effectiveness of South Africa’s marine protected areas (MPAs). Evidence was assessed for coverage and representivity, protection of important biodiversity areas, other recognised elements of effectiveness, connectivity, and ecological effects—from the scale of individual MPAs to the MPA network scale. We conducted complementary novel analyses to supplement the review and to objectively determine where and how the MPA network can be improved. Evidence shows that South Africa’s MPAs now provide some protection to all ecoregions and 87% of ecosystem types but to less than 50% of assessed species groups. MPAs are generally well-sited, but gaps were revealed on the west coast and in estuaries, the deep sea, and two ecologically and biologically significant areas. Enforcement emerged as a key concern, and many MPAs could be improved through expansion or by increasing no-take areas. The majority of relevant papers recorded beneficial ecological effects, detectable as increases in parameters such as the abundance, biomass, sizes or reproductive output of species. Few papers examined whether ecological benefits translate into adjacent fisheries benefits, but all those that did recorded positive effects. Full protection was more effective than partial protection, with effectiveness most clearly demonstrated for vulnerable target taxa. Further research and monitoring to achieve evaluations of effectiveness are recommended, with greater focus on neglected MPAs and species. Understanding the ecological connectivity between MPAs, an important dimension for climate-change adaptation and hence for the persistence and resilience of South Africa’s marine biodiversity, is identified as a key area for future research and inclusion in MPA planning.","PeriodicalId":7719,"journal":{"name":"African Journal of Marine Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"24","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Journal of Marine Science","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2989/1814232X.2021.1962975","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MARINE & FRESHWATER BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24
Abstract
We reviewed 140 papers to assess the ecological effectiveness of South Africa’s marine protected areas (MPAs). Evidence was assessed for coverage and representivity, protection of important biodiversity areas, other recognised elements of effectiveness, connectivity, and ecological effects—from the scale of individual MPAs to the MPA network scale. We conducted complementary novel analyses to supplement the review and to objectively determine where and how the MPA network can be improved. Evidence shows that South Africa’s MPAs now provide some protection to all ecoregions and 87% of ecosystem types but to less than 50% of assessed species groups. MPAs are generally well-sited, but gaps were revealed on the west coast and in estuaries, the deep sea, and two ecologically and biologically significant areas. Enforcement emerged as a key concern, and many MPAs could be improved through expansion or by increasing no-take areas. The majority of relevant papers recorded beneficial ecological effects, detectable as increases in parameters such as the abundance, biomass, sizes or reproductive output of species. Few papers examined whether ecological benefits translate into adjacent fisheries benefits, but all those that did recorded positive effects. Full protection was more effective than partial protection, with effectiveness most clearly demonstrated for vulnerable target taxa. Further research and monitoring to achieve evaluations of effectiveness are recommended, with greater focus on neglected MPAs and species. Understanding the ecological connectivity between MPAs, an important dimension for climate-change adaptation and hence for the persistence and resilience of South Africa’s marine biodiversity, is identified as a key area for future research and inclusion in MPA planning.
期刊介绍:
The African (formerly South African) Journal of Marine Science provides an international forum for the publication of original scientific contributions or critical reviews, involving oceanic, shelf or estuarine waters, inclusive of oceanography, studies of organisms and their habitats, and aquaculture. Papers on the conservation and management of living resources, relevant social science and governance, or new techniques, are all welcomed, as are those that integrate different disciplines. Priority will be given to rigorous, question-driven research, rather than descriptive research. Contributions from African waters, including the Southern Ocean, are particularly encouraged, although not to the exclusion of those from elsewhere that have relevance to the African context. Submissions may take the form of a paper or a short communication. The journal aims to achieve a balanced representation of subject areas but also publishes proceedings of symposia in dedicated issues, as well as guest-edited suites on thematic topics in regular issues.