Designing Marine Reserve Networks

Why Small, Isolated Protected Areas Are Not Enough

by Callum M. Roberts, Benjamin Halpern, Stephen R. Palumbi, and Robert R. Warner
Summer 2001 Vol 2 no. 3

For a fish, the north coast of Jamaica is a lonely place. Fishing intensities are so high that
most fish are caught long before they reach maturity. Coral reefs there are festooned with
traps, hooks, and nets, while spearfishers hunt all day to depths of more than fifteen
meters. Diving these reefs, one is struck by the absence of fish bigger than 15 cm and by
the abundance of tiny fish, mostly species of little commercial interest. What is truly
amazing about Jamaica is that there are any fish at all!

With few local sources of the larger, commercially important fish remaining, Jamaican
fisheries are partly supplied by fish arriving from other parts of the Caribbean where
breeding stocks are in better shapeperhaps as far afield as the Turks and Caicos and
Bahamas (1) (M. Watson, pers. comm.). Jamaicas over-hunted reefs are a sink to these
sources.

In the past, intensive nearshore fisheries often were supplied by populations reproducing
in natural refugesplaces that were too deep, too remote, too dangerous, or too rough
to fish. The behemoth lobsters that once commanded the deep sea floor off Cape Cod are
an example. But as the reach of fishing expands, much of the seas are going the way of
Jamaica and there are fewer sources to rely on. Without refuges, the future for fishing is
bleak.

There is a solution to this problem. We can create source populations to supply fisheries
by establishing new refugesplaces that are fully protected from all fishing. While the
land and sea are different in many ways, reserves are remarkably similarprotect an area
from fishing or hunting and you get more and bigger animals in a short time. Recently,
such marine reserves have been in the conservation spotlight. The findings of a new
research synthesis were released at the 2001 meeting of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (http://www.seaweb.org/AAAS/release1.html). Also the
National Academy of Science in the USA has just published a report on marine protected
areas (2). Both groups argue that the use of fully protected reserves should be greatly
expanded. Moreover, they envision reserves established throughout the oceans in
networks linked by the invisible threads of larval transport.

Our present approach to creating reserves falls far short of this vision. Currently, only a
few fully protected reserves exist, mostly small (< 10 km2) and highly isolated (often
hundreds of kilometers apart). Together they cover less than one ten-thousandth of the
sea (3). As such, the challenge we face is how to design marine reserve networks that will
interact effectively and meet our goals of sustained and productive marine communities.
Here we describe what such networks might look like and how to go about building them.

Tapping Into Dispersal Patterns
ROBERTS ET AL, 2001. Designing Marine Reserve Networks: Why Small Isolated Protected Areas are Not Enough 1

Good reserve networks are eminently practical. What science tells us about how to design
them is completely compatible with what is feasible. We need reserves in a range of sizes
(but not necessarily very large), spread over broad regions, and spaced at variable
distances from one another. The key is dispersal.

Populations of some species may be entirely self-supporting, even in small reserves.
Although we commonly think of marine species as having long distance dispersal, a large
fraction of species appears to disperse only short distances (meters to a few kilometers).
These include species as diverse as tunicates, sponges, seaweeds, corals, gastropods and
amphipods, and even a few species of fish.

Yet reserves that are small enough to be practical will not encompass the full spectrum of
dispersal distances of marine organismsespecially for the many nomadic species whose
larvae spend weeks or months in the plankton. Measurements of advancing fronts of
invading species, such as the green crab (Carcinus maenas) on the Pacific coast of North
America, suggest that dispersal distances of 30-100 km are common. These distances,
although substantially less than those that could be traveled through passive dispersal,
imply that larvae produced in a reserve will generally settle outside its borders. Small
reserves will be unable to support self-sustaining populations of all of the species within
them.

If long-distance dispersers are to persist, reserves must be colonized by offspring
produced elsewhere. Because most existing reserves are small and isolated, that
elsewhere must be places that are fished. Recruitment from fishing grounds accounts
for the rapid increases in the numbers of widely dispersing species seen in small reserves
(Box 1). However, as fishing intensifies, some vulnerable species will be unable to persist
at all outside marine reserves. That elsewhere, then, must lie within other marine
reserves. For example, giant clams (Tridacna gigas) have become extinct throughout
large areas of the Pacific. Reintroduction programs are focusing first on building
populations within reserves. Many other species are heading toward extinction. For
example, the once widespread common skate (Dipturus batis) is now confined to a few
de facto refuges in European waters that are too rough to fish. The lack of reproductive
stocks in unprotected areas explains the lack of recovery of species of large grouper
(Serranidae) in many Caribbean reserves. We must establish reserves in networks that
are sufficiently dense to exchange offspring of vulnerable species. Otherwise, we will
lose them.

Dispersal is critical to the success of reserves, both as conservation and fishery
enhancement tools, but it is not necessary to know the dispersal behavior of every marine
species to design effective reserve networks. There is a common misconception that,
because exchange of offspring or propagules is necessary to sustain populations of some
species in reserves, we must understand their dispersal patterns in order to put reserves in
the right places. According to this view, invisible dispersal corridors pattern the ocean
like highways, and reserves, like towns, should lie on these routes. Most people assume
that ocean currents constitute these invisible corridors, moving eggs and larvae from
ROBERTS ET AL, 2001. Designing Marine Reserve Networks: Why Small Isolated Protected Areas are Not Enough 2
place to place (4). There is little doubt that many species do make use of currents as
vectors of dispersal, but most species probably do not ride them passively (5). Instead
they behave in ways that interact with prevailing currents to enhance their probability of
future survival.

Physical processes and behavior are combined in as many different ways as there are
species, producing an exquisite variety of dispersal patterns. It is as if every species has
its own road atlas, and variation in current patterns over time means that every year these
atlases have to be revised and reprinted. To build reserve networks on a foundation of
knowledge of the dispersal of any single species would be foolhardy.

We barely have this information for any species in any single location. Even if we did, it
would be disastrous to design an entire network around such specific knowledge. The
resulting plan would be ideal only for that species and others like it, failing the majority.
A network of reserves must accommodate the dispersal characteristics of a huge range of
species, not just a few. It must do so year after year against a background of variable
ocean conditions. It must continue to perform even if those currents change as the climate
warms.

How then do we create effective reserve networks? Not by detailed study of the minutiae
of dispersal or by constructing multispecies models that would challenge todays fastest
supercom-puters. The answer is much simpler: bet hedging.

What we know about the range of dispersal distances indicates that we should place
reserves within 10 to 50 km of one another if we want them to exchange offspring
effectively. Because we know that ocean conditions change from year to year, we must
place reserves on what we believe to be highways of ocean dispersal, such as the Gulf
Stream current, but also on the byways, backroads, and cul-de-sacs.

We must cover the map, even the places that seem little-visited right now. As we add
reserves to a network, the number of pathways among them grows faster than the number
of reserves (6)(Figure 1). Some of these routes will be heavily used, others less so, but
the existence of many potential connections creates breadth (all species gain some
benefit) and resilience (their long-term needs can be met).

An Ecological-Economic Win-Win

What gives marine conservation planners an advantage over their terrestrial counterparts
is that marine reserves can supply industry without compromising conservation
objectives. The same mechanisms that transport offspring from reserve to reserve allow
them to replenish exploited stocks in adjacent fishing grounds. In addition, as population
densities build up in reserves, they can also begin to export juveniles and adults to fishing
grounds as spillover. Fishing spots close to the Mombasa Marine National Park in Kenya,
for example, have become so lucrative that fishers have agreed that only the most senior
among them can fish there!

ROBERTS ET AL, 2001. Designing Marine Reserve Networks: Why Small Isolated Protected Areas are Not Enough 3
These export functions make marine reserves an attractive option and offer the possibility
of an ecological-economic win-win. The economic value of reserves to fisheries, coupled
with the fact that areas of the sea do not have to be purchased in the way that land does
(although there are still costs), means that we have much greater opportunity for
conservation.

For a reserve to benefit fisheries, it must support population build-up to levels higher than
those in the surrounding fishing grounds. The greater the difference, the stronger the
benefit. Marine reserves, like those on land, suffer from edge effects that diminish their
effectiveness simply by emptying their contents at too high a rate. Spillover of juveniles
and adults is edge-dependent. The more edge a reserve has, the faster it will export
relative to its area. In addition, more dispersive species will spill over more quickly.
Spillover is good for fisheries, exporting products to fishing grounds, and agile fishers
tend to concentrate fishing effort close to reserve boundaries (7). Because this places
species whose home ranges straddle reserve and fishing grounds at risk of capture, the
more mobile species face higher risk of capture and thus need larger reserves.

Large reserves can protect a wider spectrum of species than can small reserves and will
be less prone to erosion of benefits from the edges. Moreover, small reserves are hard to
enforce. The smallest reserve we know of, which covered just 2.6 hectares of reef off the
Caribbean island of St. Lucia (before it was incorporated into a larger protected area), lost
a third of its fish biomass to illegal fishing in just a few months (3).

Nevertheless, some small reserves have performed surprisingly well. Much of what we
have learned about marine reserves has come from small, pilot projects. For example, the
Leigh Marine Reserve in New Zealand covers just over 5 square kilometers. Twenty
years after it was created, densities of a valuable snapper (Pagrus auratus) were nearly
40 times higher in the reserve than in the surrounding fishing grounds, and spiny lobsters
(Jasus edwardsii) had increased by 5-11 percent per year (8,9).

So what is the optimal size for a marine reserve? It turns out there is none. Make reserves
too large and spillover to fisheries will be staunched. Make them too small and nothing
will benefit. What is important is not to make reserves all the same size. We need some
large reserves to provide security for more mobilespecies. In most places, human
concerns constrain the upper size limit of reserves. Population pressure, the location of
ports, shipping lanes, dumping sites, and oil fields, among many other factors, limit our
options for creating large reserves. These constraints will generally keep reserves within
the proper size range (a few kilometers to a few tens of kilometers across) to optimize
spillover to fisheries.

Marine reserves should typically increase in size moving from nearshore to offshore.
Small reserves will be harder to identify in offshore areas, harder for fishers to comply
with, and thus harder to enforce. Offshore species also tend to be more mobile and
require larger areas. Spreading reserves out, rather than creating a few large ones, is
particularly critical to small-scale coastal fishers. They have much more limited access to
fishing grounds than fleets of larger boats that operate far offshore. Reserves displace
ROBERTS ET AL, 2001. Designing Marine Reserve Networks: Why Small Isolated Protected Areas are Not Enough 4
fishers, and if the reserves are too large they will create winners (those fishing near
reserve boundaries) and losers (those who fished near the middle). Networking the area to
be protected spreads benefits.

Migratory species, like those that form the mainstay of most temperate fisheries, can also
be served well by networked reserves. Reserves work best when they can offer permanent
protection to resident adults. This has led some people to dismiss them as a management
tool for animals that migrate long distances. However, most migratory species undergo
migration bottlenecks or use places that are critical to particular life stages. Reserves,
although often seasonal, are already used to protect migratory species at their most
vulnerable. In the U.S. Virgin Islands, spawning aggregation sites for red hind groupers
(Epinephelus guttatus) are now permanently protected. It is too late though for the
Nassau grouper (E. striatus), whose massive Virgin Islands aggregation was wiped out
by fishing in the 1970s.

Fishery managers have long used closures of nursery grounds to protect juvenile fish and
their habitats from by-catch and damage. Closures offer a simple means of increasing
yields by allowing young animals to reach certain sizes before being caught. For
example, horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus) nursery grounds are protected seasonally
in the Delaware Bay. By incorporating into reserve networks sites that constitute
migration bottlenecks or that support critical life stages, we can offer important refuges to
migratory species.

Representation and Replication

We can use the same network designs that benefit fisheries to benefit conservation. On
the basis of two criteria alonerepresentation and replicationwe come close to
achieving ideal networks. Maps of candidate reserve networks designed to include
replicated representatives of all habitats look like archipelagoes, spreading islands of
protection across broad regions.

The simplest way to protect biodiversity is to incorporate into reserves representatives of
all habitats in all biogeographic regions (6). Habitats can act as a surrogate for species in
reserve planning, simplifying the task of deciding what to protect. This approach reduces
the need for detailed, species-level mapping and population estimates.

New computer tools help simplify the task of designing candidate networks, making it
easier to juggle multiple selection criteria and the options they generate. What those tools
reveal is just how wide a range of choice there is. For any given set of goals, for example,
protecting 20 percent of each different habitat type in a region, there are literally
thousands of possible network designs. This means that we can be flexible in locating
reserves and that we can accommodate most peoples concerns. The use of such tools has
been helpful in the process of choosing sites for fully protected zones in the California
Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary.

To safeguard biodiversity over the long term, reserve networks must be disaster-proof.
ROBERTS ET AL, 2001. Designing Marine Reserve Networks: Why Small Isolated Protected Areas are Not Enough 5
Images of oil-drenched animals in the Galapagos Marine Reserve prove that reserve
designation cannot guarantee protection. Catastrophes can strike anywhere, but we can
insure against them by protecting several representatives of every habitat type in different
reserves. We can also build resilience into networks by protecting habitat in proportion to
the prevailing frequency and severity of natural or human disasters (10). Places regularly
subject to severe disturbance need greater relative protection. For example, the Galapagos
lie in the heart of a region affected by El Nios. Strong El Nios occur about once a
decade and have wrought havoc with marine life. As such, the protection bar for the
islands should be raised to give life a chance to spring back more quickly when favorable
conditions return.

Harnessing Opportunity and Necessity

Most protected areas are built upon opportunity or necessity. Rarely are they created as
part of some grand network design. Certainly, it is now possible to design networks from
scratch, but most attempts to do so have been met with vigorous resistance from those
who would be affected.

A much better approach is to continue to use the powerful engines of opportunity and
necessity to drive network construction. Several of the United States National Marine
Sanctuaries were created only when oil and gas exploration was imminent. Some habitats
are so fragile or so threatened that they need urgent protection. For example, we are
discovering rich deep-water coral communities just as new fishing technology is opening
their domains to exploitation. Unless we act decisively, habitats will be destroyed faster
than we can describe them.

Likewise, the will to protect fish stocks sometimes only develops after their collapse. We
can use these opportunities as they arise, especially in the early stages of network
development. Network designs can evolve as each new reserve is added, according to
what remains unprotected. It is only later in the process, when networks near completion,
that choice of locations for the final reserves becomes more constrained (Box 2).

The virtual absence of reserves in the sea is unfortunate given the pressing need for better
management. But it also means that we have the opportunity to do a much better job of
conservation in the sea than we have done on land. Furthermore, the fact that few marine
species have become extinct in recent times, at least to our knowledge, gives us the
chance to act before it is too late. Because marine reserves can help sustain industry as
well as conserve biodiversity, it is possible to conceive of them covering large fractions
of the seas. The near absence of property ownership in the sea allows us to put reserves in
the right places to the benefit of many.

Literature Cited

1. Roberts, C.M. 1997. Connectivity and management of Caribbean coral reefs. Science
278:1454-1457.
2. N.R.C. (National Research Council). 2001. Marine Protected Areas: Tools for
ROBERTS ET AL, 2001. Designing Marine Reserve Networks: Why Small Isolated Protected Areas are Not Enough 6
Sustaining Ocean Ecosystems. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
3. Roberts, C.M. and J.P. Hawkins. 2000. Fully protected marine reserves: A guide.
Endangered Seas Campaign, WWF-US, Washington, DC, and University of York, UK.
Available to download in English, and Spanish from:
http://www.panda.org/resources/publications/water/mpreserves/mar_dwnld.htm.
4. Roberts, C.M. 1998. Sources, sinks, and the design of marine reserve networks.
Fisheries 23:16-19.
5. Barber, P.H., S.R. Palumbi, M.V. Erdmann and M. Kasim Moosa. 2000. A marine
Wallaces line? Nature 406:692-693.
6. Ballantine, W.J. 1997. No-take marine reserve networks support fisheries. In D.A.
Hancock, D.C. Smith, A. Grant and J.P. Beumer (eds). Developing and Sustaining World
Fisheries Resources: The State and Management. Second World Fisheries Congress,
Brisbane, Australia. Pp. 702-706.
7. McClanahan, T.R. and B. Kaunda-Arara. 1996. Fishery recovery in a coral reef
marine park and its effects on the adjacent fishery. Conservation Biology 10:1187-1199.
8. Kelly, S., D. Scott, A. B. MacDiarmid and R. C. Babcock. 2000. Spiny lobster, Jasus
edwardsii, recovery in New Zealand marine reserves. Biological Conservation 92: 359-
369.
9. Willis, T.J., R.B. Millar and R.C. Babcock. 2000. Detection of spatial variability in
relative density of fishes: Comparison of visual census, angling, and baited underwater
video. Marine Ecology Progress Series 198:249-260.
10. Allison, G.W., S.D. Gaines, J. Lubchenco and H.P. Possingham. Ensuring
persistence of marine reserves: Catastrophes require adopting an insurance factor.
Ecological Applications. In Press.

Suggested Reading

Findings from the Marine Reserves Working Group at the National Center for Ecological
Analysis and Synthesis will be published in a special issue of Ecological Applications in
late 2001.

Two books cited above describe fully protected marine reserves in detail for managers,
decision makers, and stakeholders: Roberts and Hawkins (2000) and NRC (2001).

Keeping oceans wild: How marine reserves protect our living seas, produced by the
Natural Resources Defense Council, summarizes several experiences with marine
reserves in the USA.
It is available to download from:
http://www.nrdc.org/water/oceans/kow/kowinx.asp

Acknowledgements

This work is a contribution of the Developing the Theory of Marine Reserves Working
Group, supported by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, a center
funded by the National Science Foundation (Grant # DEB9421535), the University of
California at Santa Barbara, the California Resources Agency, and the California
ROBERTS ET AL, 2001. Designing Marine Reserve Networks: Why Small Isolated Protected Areas are Not Enough 7
Environmental Protection Agency. This work was also supported by a fellowship to CR
from The Pew Charitable Trusts and by a grant from the U.S. World Wildlife Fund.

ROBERTS ET AL, 2001. Designing Marine Reserve Networks: Why Small Isolated Protected Areas are Not Enough 8