Back

Tradeoffs in planning marine protected areas for kelp forest resilience: protecting climate refugia is not always the best solution

Hopf, J. K.; Giraldo-Ospina, A.; Caselle, J.; Kroeker, K.; Carr, M.; Hastings, A.; White, J. W.

2026-04-04 ecology
10.64898/2026.04.01.715997 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are increasingly promoted as climate mitigation tools, yet guidance on their placement to maximize resilience against climate stressors like marine heatwaves remains limited. Here, we develop MPA placement guidelines that explicitly consider a mechanistic pathway through which MPAs could enhance kelp forest resilience to heatwaves: protecting fishery-targeted urchin predators to prevent kelp overgrazing. Using a spatially explicit, tri-trophic model of California kelp forests, we evaluate alternative MPA configurations across a hypothetical coastline where half the habitat experiences an increased probability of experiencing heatwaves. We found that effective MPA placement depends on whether MPAs are being newly established or reconfigured within an existing network, and that among-patch connectivity and spillover played vital roles in the relative effectiveness of different MPA configurations. Changes in resilience occurred primarily at the patch scale, with trade-offs between increased within-MPA resilience and decreased resilience in some fished areas, resulting in minimal coastwide population effects. For example, for new MPAs, large single MPAs within heatwave-prone areas maximized within-MPA resilience gains, while multiple small MPAs in heatwave refugia best supported whole-coast resilience. When reconfiguring established networks, expanding existing MPAs in refugia areas was most effective. We also demonstrate the importance of considering MPA recovery timescales: for example, relocating old MPAs to heatwave refugia yielded minimal short-term benefits due to the loss of rebuilt, previously fished, predator biomass. Our findings demonstrate that climate-adaptive marine planning should explicitly consider the spatiotemporal implications of trophic cascades, connectivity, and transient population dynamics to support ecosystem resilience.

Matching journals

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

1
Global Change Biology
69 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.2%
2
Environmental Research Letters
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.2%
3
Ecological Applications
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.9%
4
Conservation Letters
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.0%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 32%
4.7%
6
Communications Earth & Environment
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.7%
50% of probability mass above
7
Biological Conservation
43 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.9%
8
Journal of Applied Ecology
35 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.9%
9
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 23%
3.0%
10
Science of The Total Environment
179 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.8%
11
Conservation Biology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.7%
12
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 44%
2.7%
13
Conservation Science and Practice
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
14
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 37%
2.0%
15
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
16
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
17
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 60%
1.7%
18
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
19
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
20
GeoHealth
10 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
21
Frontiers in Marine Science
55 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.9%
22
Molecular Ecology
304 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
23
Ecological Modelling
24 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
24
Ecography
50 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
25
Journal of Biogeography
37 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
26
Marine Ecology Progress Series
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.7%
27
Forest Ecology and Management
25 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
28
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 28%
0.6%