Michel Kaiser and Andrew PullinBangor University, UK

Are temperate Marine Protected Areas Effective Tools for Sustainable Fisheries Management ?

Systematic Review 23Centre for Evidence-Based Conservationwww.cebc.bangor.ac.uk

The CEBC Goal: making environmental management more effective

Focus on supporting decision-makers in policy and practice

What works and what doesn’t in the context of interventions?

What are the likely impacts of new policy developments?

What are the knowledge gaps/research priorities?

THECOCHRANECOLLABORATIONThe reliable source of evidence in healthcare

We are an international not-for-profit organisation, providing up-to-date information about the effects of health care.

About us

learn moreWe produce the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, part of The Cochrane Library, the definitive resource for evidence-based health care.

The Cochrane Librarycontains regularly updated evidence-based healthcare databases. Browse free summariesTop ten reviewsPress releasesAccess full Library

Top resources:Review summariesCochrane reviewsCochrane Library accessNewsAuthors' HandbookEvents Training resourcesTraining Review Manager software

resources Cochrane ManualAdministration Archie (IMS)Consumers Highlights:

Newsroom & Our growthNewcomers' Guide Evidence Aid - Resources for healthcare emergenciesCochrane Reviews on ISI!

Cochrane Colloquium!Dublin, Ireland, 23-26 Oct. 2006 Previous Cochrane Colloquia

Collaboration for Environmental Evidencesystematic reviews for conservation & environmental management

Welcome to the Collaboration for Environmental EvidenceCEE Home

■ About CEE

■ News and events

■ Contact us

Resources - Get involved

■ Introduction to systematic review

■ Information for users

■ Information for authors

Library Latest news...Two new posts advertised at CEBCCEE website goes live May 2007!30th Draft protocol added to the site - in-stream wood placement and salmonidsDraft systematic review 13 available for consultation - salmonid stocking in lakes

■ Library of Systematic Reviews

■ Finalised Protocols

■ Drafts for comment

Recently Added

Draft Protocol 32:effectiveness of plant introductions

Draft Protocol 31:Thinning of SpruceStands and Survival of Spruce Seedlings

www.environmentalevidence.orgCEBCThis page is maintained by the © 2007

Cochrane Review Groups

Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections GroupCochrane Airways GroupCochrane Anaesthesia GroupCochrane Back GroupCochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma GroupCochrane Breast Cancer GroupCochrane Colorectal Cancer GroupCochrane Consumers and Communication GroupCochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders GroupCochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement GroupCochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis GroupCochrane Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems GroupCochrane Drugs and Alcohol GroupCochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders GroupCochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care GroupCochrane Epilepsy GroupCochrane Eyes and Vision GroupCochrane Fertility Regulation GroupCochrane Gynaecological Cancer GroupCochrane HIV/AIDS Group

Upcoming CEE review groups

Invasive species controlSpecies re-introductionsImpacts of aquacultureBiodiversity and ecosystem servicesEnvironment and public healthManagement of small populationsMarine biodiversity conservation

Methodological development: Stages of a systematic review

Formulating a question (stakeholder engagement)Generating a protocol (peer reviewed)Systematic searchingData selectionData quality assessment (critical appraisal)Data extractionSynthesis of data (meta-analysis)Implications

Guidelines now published as Pullin & Stewart 2006. Conserv. Biol.

Roberts, P.D., Stewart, G.B. & Pullin, A.S. (2006) Are review articles a reliable source of evidence to support conservation and environmental management? A comparison with medicine. Biological Conservation 132, 409-423.

SR 22

SR1

SR2, SR11

SR3SR5a

SR5b

SR4, SR6

SR7

SR8a

SR15

SR17

SR20

EcologicalCochraneCEBC

DCA ordination of the three different classes of review.

SR 23 - Review Team

Are Marine Protected Areas Effective Tools for Sustainable Fisheries Management ? I – temperate zone areas

Stewart, G.B., Côté, I.M., Kaiser, M.J., Halpern, B., Lester, S., Bayliss, H.R., Mengersson, K., & Pullin, A.S.

Draft available online in a week or so

Inclusion Criteria

Relevant subject(s): All temperate marine taxa (with subgroups of conservation and/or commercial concern).Types of intervention: Implementation of fishing restrictions within MPA defined as geographically defined areas subject to fishing prohibition (no take).Types of outcome: Changes in abundance (density, biomass or species richness measures).

Review Statistics - Scope

Search identified 3531 articles 34 studies on temperate MPAs provided data with a valid comparatorReporting on 30 independent MPAsyear of establishment (1963 – 1998) size (0.01 – 300km2) Depth (3 – 230m) number of taxa (1-202)

Review Statistics - Quality

31/34 studies were pseudo-replicatedOriginal data extracted from each study and disaggregated as far as possible.Data synthesised using random effects meta-analysis based on standardised mean difference (Hedges d) and log response ratios

Density: pooled at reserve level 1/

SE(

Effe

ct s

ize)

SMD-.840361 34.0313

.123693

8.15411

Extreme outlier-but very low weight

1/S

E (

Eff

ect

size

)

Standardized mean difference (SMD)

Large study (lots of sampling effort) hence highprecision of estimate

Small studies hence greaterVariability around estimate

90% density-R maybe overestimate but 40% density-S is robust- at least a 40% difference in density is therefore conservative at reserve level

Biomass – pooled at reserve level

1/S

E(Ef

fect

siz

e)

SMD-3.23249 3.16155

.106555

8.09404

Small negative studies represented by only one outlier

Standardized mean difference (SMD)

?

1/S

E (

Eff

ect

size

)

>100% difference in biomass therefore probably an overestimate but a biologically significant difference exists

To summarise

Within MPAs the following increases are observed:Density by at least 40%Biomass (>100%) but associated with some uncertaintySpecies richness of between 27 -68%

Fish Density – overall increase 57%

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

artificial reef rock sand & rock

Hed

ges

D

*

No significant differences in species level effects for:

Life-mode (benthopelagic, pelagic etc.)

Utility (subsistence, commercial)

Mobility (migratory/non-migratory)

Life-history (resilience/size)

But

Strong habitat effect

Artificial Reef Rock Sand & Rock

Species - reserve level interactions

Standardised Mean diff.-5.59596 0 5.59596

Study

Banyuls Banyuls-Cerbere Big Creek Marine Ecological Reserve Carry-le-Rouet Hopkins Isla La Graciosa e islotes del norte de lanzarote (Chinijo) Leigh Medes Island Miramare mpa Platform Gail Point Lobos Punta la Restinga-Mar de las Calmas (El Hierro) Scandola Tawharanui Marine Park Te Whanganui a Hei (Hahei) Torre Guaceto Marine Reserve Tsitsikamma

Overall (95% CI)

Fish have a density effect size of 0.3

Invertebrates and algae have small non-significant effects when species within a reserve are pooled

Taxonomic variationPooling fish species within genera results in an increased effect size equating to an 86% difference in density

Standardised Mean diff .-8.23307 0 8.23307

Study Apogon Arnoglos s us Atherina Aux is

Benthosem a blennius Boops Cal l iony m us Cepola

Ceratosc opelus c hrom is Chry s oblephus c or is

c tenolabrus Dic entr arc hus Dip lodus Epinephelus G a idrops arus G obius

G ym nam modytes Hex agr am m nus Labrus Lampany ctus

M ic rom es istius M ugi l M u llus M uraena Notolabrus

Notos copelus oblada O phiodon Pagel lus Pagrus

Parapercis Petrus Phy c is Pom atom us

Sarda Sardinel la s ar pa s ciaena Sc omber Sc orpaena

Sc orpaenichthy s Sebastes Sem icoss y phus Serio la

s er ranus Sparisom a Sparus Sphy raena s pic ara

s pondy l ios oma s ym phodus Tha las s om a Trachurus Trip tery g ion

O veral l (95% CI)

Ray photo: Bill Sanderson

Power analysis – setting objectives30 mpas are just enough to show big effects. To examine small effects (<0.2) such as the difference between mpas and controls for pelagic or bentho-pelagic fish >400 MPAs needed.

020

040

060

080

010

00N

umbe

r of M

PAs

.2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9Effect size

no of mpas (0.05,0.7) no of mpas (0.01, 0.8)

Critical knowledge gaps (among many)

Soft sediment systems (no studies on sand alone or on mud)No information on spillover effects (one study explicitly examined change in effect with distance)Distinguishing confounding habitat effects from MPA effects difficult because of lack of BACI data

Confounding habitat effects

Devon, England

MPA

MPA

Area of comparison

MPAs – a large-scale experiment

0 300 Kilometers

Status of sites selected for the networkSpecial Area of Conservation (SAC)Area of Search (AOS) for future SACAdditional site

Draft Regional Sea boundariesPlanning region limitsLand

LEGEND

Multiple replicate sites

Representative

Resilience

We should approach management in an experimentalmanner

i.e. adaptive