Back

On the spillover effect and optimal size of marine reserves

Takashina, N.

2019-11-25 ecology
10.1101/853879 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Marine reserves are an essential component of modern fishery management. Marine reserves, which represent a management tradeoff between harvesting and conservation, are fundamental to maintenance of fisheries. Finding optimal reserve sizes that improve fishing yields is not only of theoretical interest, but also of practical importance to facilitate decision making. Also, since the migratory behavior of some species influences the spillover effect of a marine reserve, this is a key consideration when assessing performance of marine reserves. The relationship between optimal reserve size and migration rate/mode has not been well studied, but it is fundamental to management success. Here, I investigate optimal reserve size and its management outcome with different levels of spillover via a simple two-patch mathematical model. In this model, one patch is open to fishing, and the other is closed. The two-patch model is aggregated by single-population dynamics when the migration rate is sufficiently larger than the growth rate of a target species. At this limit, I show that an optimal reserve size exists when pre-reserve fishing occurs at fishing mortality larger than fMSY, the fishing mortality at the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Also, the fishing yield at an optimal reserve size becomes as large as MSY at the limit. Numerical simulations at various migration rates between the two patches suggest that the maximum harvest under management with a marine reserve is achieved at this limit. This contrasts with the conservation benefit which is maximized at an intermediate migration rate. Numerical simulations show that the above-mentioned condition derived from the aggregated model is necessary when the migration rate is not sufficiently large, and that a moderate migration rate is further necessary for an optimal reserve size to exist. However, high fishing mortality reduces this requirement.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.View Full Text

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 10%
18.6%
2
Journal of Theoretical Biology
162 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
12.0%
3
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
92 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.8%
4
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 10%
6.8%
5
Population Ecology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.6%
6
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.3%
50% of probability mass above
7
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 9%
4.1%
8
Ecological Modelling
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
9
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
69 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.4%
10
Theoretical Ecology
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.2%
11
Mathematical Biosciences
49 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.2%
12
Ecology and Evolution
267 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
13
Journal of Mathematical Biology
40 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
14
New Journal of Physics
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
15
Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
16
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
235 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
17
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals
32 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.1%
18
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 57%
1.1%
19
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.0%
20
Infectious Disease Modelling
54 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
21
Cells
249 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
22
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
393 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
23
Sustainability
10 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%
24
Physical Review E
112 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
25
BMC Ecology and Evolution
51 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%