AMBIO

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 162–174 | Cite as

Using Vessel Monitoring System Data to Improve Systematic Conservation Planning of a Multiple-Use Marine Protected Area, the Kosterhavet National Park (Sweden)

  • Genoveva Gonzalez-Mirelis
  • Mats Lindegarth
  • Mattias Sköld
Report

Abstract

When spatial fishing data is fed into systematic conservation planning processes the cost to a fishery could be ensured to be minimal in the zoning of marine protected areas. We used vessel monitoring system (VMS) data to map the distribution of prawn trawling and calculate fishing intensity for 1-ha grid cells, in the Kosterhavet National Park (Sweden). We then used the software Marxan to generate cost-efficient reserve networks that represented every biotope in the Park. We asked what were the potential gains and losses in terms of fishing effort and species conservation of different planning scenarios. Given a conservation target of 10 % representation of each biotope, the fishery need not lose more than 20 % of its fishing grounds to give way to cost-efficient conservation of benthic diversity. No additional reserved area was needed to achieve conservation targets while minimizing fishing costs. We discuss the benefits of using VMS data for conservation planning.

Keywords

VMS data Systematic conservation planning Marxan Marine protected area 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research received funding from the Seventh Framework Programme of the EU (FP/2007-2013) under grant agreement no. 217246 made with the joint Baltic Sea research and development programme BONUS, from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency from contract 08/391 PREHAB and FORMAS from contract 217-2006-357.

References

  1. Alemany, D., O.O. Iribarne, and E.M. Acha. 2012. Effects of a large-scale and offshore marine protected area on the demersal fish assemblage in the Southwest Atlantic. ICES Journal of Marine Science. First published online: October 26, 2012.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, I., H. Possingham, and M. Watts. 2009. Marxan and relatives: Software for spatial conservation prioritisation. In: Spatial conservation prioritisation: Quantitative methods and computational tools, ed. A. Moilanen, K. Wilson, and H. Possingham, 304 pp. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ban, N.C., and A.C.J. Vincent. 2009. Beyond marine reserves: Exploring the approach of selecting areas where fishing is permitted, rather than prohibited. PLoS ONE 4: e6258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertrand, S., A. Bertrand, R. Guevara-Carrasco, and F. Gerlotto. 2007. Scale-invariant movements of fishermen: The same foraging strategy as natural predators. Ecological Applications 17: 331–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruckmeier, K., Anders Ellegård, and L. Píriz. 2005. Fishermen’s interests and cooperation: preconditions for joint management of Swedish coastal fisheries. AMBIO 34: 101–110.Google Scholar
  6. Deng, R., C.M. Dichrnont, D. Milton, M. Haywood, D. Vance, N. Hall, and D. Die. 2005. Can vessel monitoring system data also be used to study trawling intensity and population depletion? The example of Australia’s northern prawn fishery. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62: 611–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eastwood, P.D., C.M. Mills, J.N. Aldridge, C.A. Houghton, and S.I. Rogers. 2007. Human activities in UK offshore waters: An assessment of direct, physical pressure on the seabed. ICES Journal of Marine Science 64: 453–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gaines, S.D., C. White, M.H. Carr, and S.R. Palumbi. 2010. Designing marine reserve networks for both conservation and fisheries management. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107: 18283–18293.Google Scholar
  9. Game, E.T., and H.S. Grantham. 2008. Marxan user manual: For Marxan version 1.8.10. University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia and Pacific Marine Analysis and Research Association, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, from http://www.uq.edu.au/marxan/docs/Marxan_User_Manual_2008.pdf.
  10. Gerritsen, H., and C. Lordan. 2011. Integrating vessel monitoring system (VMS) data with daily catch data from logbooks to explore the spatial distribution of catch and effort at high resolution. ICES Journal of Marine Science 68: 245–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gonzalez-Mirelis, G., and M. Lindegarth. 2012. Predicting the distribution of out-of-reach biotopes by conditional inference: A case-study from a Swedish Fjord. Ecological Applications 22(8): 2248–2264.Google Scholar
  12. Grantham, H.S., R.L. Pressey, J.A. Wells, and A.J. Beattie. 2010. Effectiveness of biodiversity surrogates for conservation planning: Different measures of effectiveness generate a kaleidoscope of variation. PLoS ONE 5: e11430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Great Barrier Reef National Park Authority. 2004. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park zoning plan 2003, Great Barrier Reef National Park Authority, from http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2005B02402.
  14. Halpern, B.S. 2003. The impact of marine reserves: Do reserves work and does reserve size matter? Ecological Applications 13: 117–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hambrey, J. 2007. A review of relevant experience of coastal and marine National Parks. Case study 3: Kosterhavet’s proposed Marine Park, Sweden, Hambrey Consulting.Google Scholar
  16. Hiddink, J.G., T. Hutton, S. Jennings, and M.J. Kaiser. 2006. Predicting the effects of area closures and fishing effort restrictions on the production, biomass, and species richness of benthic invertebrate communities. ICES Journal of Marine Science 63: 822–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Isaksen, B., J.W. Valdemarsen, R.B. Larsen, and L. Karlsen. 1992. Reduction of fish by-catch in shrimp trawl using a rigid separator grid in the aft belly. Fisheries Research 13: 335–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jennings, S., and J. Lee. 2012. Defining fishing grounds with vessel monitoring system data. ICES Journal of Marine Science 69: 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klein, C.J., C. Steinback, A.J. Scholz, and H.P. Possingham. 2008. Effectiveness of marine reserve networks in representing biodiversity and minimizing impact to fishermen: A comparison of two approaches used in California. Conservation Letters 1: 44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leslie, H., M. Ruckelshaus, I.R. Ball, S. Andelman, and H.P. Possingham. 2003. Using siting algorithms in the design of marine reserve networks. Ecological Applications 13: S185–S198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ley, J.A., I.A. Halliday, A.J. Tobin, R.N. Garrett, and A.N. Gribble. 2002. Ecosystem effects of fishing closures in mangrove estuaries of tropical Australia. Marine Ecology Progress Series 245: 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Margules, C.R., and R.L. Pressey. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405: 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. OSPAR. 2006. Descriptions of habitats on the initial OSPAR list of threatened and/or declining species and habitats. OSPAR Commission, London (Reference Number: 2004-07).Google Scholar
  24. Possingham, H., I. Ball, and S. Andelman. 2000. Mathematical methods for identifying representative reserve networks. In Quantitative methods for conservation biology, ed. S. Ferson, and M.A. Burgman. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Píriz, L. 2004. Hauling home the co-management of coastal fisheries: a study on institutional barriers to fishermen’s involvement in the management of coastal fisheries on the West coast of Sweden. PhD Thesis. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
  26. Rice, E.L., and R.W. Kelting. 1955. The species–area curve. Ecology 36: 7–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sarkar, S., J. Justus, T. Fuller, C. Kelley, J. Garson, and M. Mayfield. 2005. Effectiveness of environmental surrogates for the selection of conservation area networks. Conservation Biology 19: 815–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Scott, J., F. Davis, R. McGhie, R. Wright, C. Groves, and J. Estes. 2001. Nature reserves: do they capture the full range of America’s biological diversity? Ecological Applications 11: 999–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2004. Programme of Work on Protected Areas (CBD Programmes of Work). Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.Google Scholar
  30. Smith, R.J., P.D. Eastwood, Y. Ota, and S.I. Rogers. 2009. Developing best practice for using Marxan to locate marine protected areas in European waters. ICES Journal of Marine Science 66: 188–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Genoveva Gonzalez-Mirelis
    • 1
  • Mats Lindegarth
    • 2
  • Mattias Sköld
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Marine ResearchBergenNorway
  2. 2.Department of Biological and Environmental ScienceUniversity of GothenburgStrömstadSweden
  3. 3.Department of Marine Resources, Institute of Marine ResearchSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesLysekilSweden

Personalised recommendations