The effects of marine reserve protection on the trophic relationships of reef fishes on the Great Barrier Reef
-
Published source details
Graham N.A.J., Evans R.D. & Russ G.R. (2003) The effects of marine reserve protection on the trophic relationships of reef fishes on the Great Barrier Reef. Environmental Conservation, 30, 200-208.
Published source details Graham N.A.J., Evans R.D. & Russ G.R. (2003) The effects of marine reserve protection on the trophic relationships of reef fishes on the Great Barrier Reef. Environmental Conservation, 30, 200-208.
Actions
This study is summarised as evidence for the following.
| Action | Category | |
|---|---|---|
|
Cease or prohibit all types of fishing in a marine protected area Action Link |
 |
-
Cease or prohibit all types of fishing in a marine protected area
A replicated, paired, site comparison study in 2001–2002 in two coral reef areas of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Coral Sea, Australia (Graham et al. 2003) found that prohibiting all fishing in no-take zones resulted, after 14 years, in a decline in abundance of six of nine fish species that are prey for the fishery targeted coral trout Plectropomus spp. compared to fished zones, while the biomass of coral trout was higher. Average prey fish densities were lower in the no-take than fished zones for six of nine species (no-take: 8–342 fish/site, fished: 12–507 fish/site) and were similar for three (see paper for individual species data). In addition, overall coral trout biomass was greater in the no-take zones (9,790 g/1,500 m2) than the fished zones (3,420 g/1,500 m2). Fish data were collected in two areas of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park using five, 50 × 6 m, belt transects at each site: the Whitsunday Island group was surveyed in December 2001 at eight sites in no-take zones (no fishing permitted, 14 years of protection) and eight in fished zones; and the Palm Island group was surveyed in April 2002 at eight sites in no-take zones (14.5 years of protection) and eight sites in fished zones. Sites were at least 100 m apart.
(Summarised by: Khatija Alliji)
