Fishery benefits from behavioural modification of fishes in periodically harvested fisheries closures
-
Published source details
Januchowski-Hartley F.A., Cinner J.E. & Graham N.A.J. (2014) Fishery benefits from behavioural modification of fishes in periodically harvested fisheries closures. Aquatic Ecology, 24, 777-790.
Published source details Januchowski-Hartley F.A., Cinner J.E. & Graham N.A.J. (2014) Fishery benefits from behavioural modification of fishes in periodically harvested fisheries closures. Aquatic Ecology, 24, 777-790.
Actions
This study is summarised as evidence for the following.
| Action | Category | |
|---|---|---|
|
Allow periodic fishing only Action Link |
 |
|
|
Cease or prohibit all types of fishing in a marine protected area Action Link |
|
-
Allow periodic fishing only
A replicated, paired, site comparison study in 2012 of six coral reef sites in a marine protected area in the Coral Sea, Vanuatu (Januchowski-Hartley et al. 2014) found that closed areas fished only periodically for a short number of days had greater biomass and fish catch rates compared to areas open to fishing and similar fish biomass to permanent no-take reserves closed to fishing for at least six years. The total fish biomass was similar between periodically fished areas (559–567 kg/ha) and no-take reserves (646–835 kg/ha) and both were greater than fished areas (331–378 kg/ha). The biomass and abundance (data not reported) of only one of three individual fish groups (two fishery target and one non-target) differed between areas and was higher in no-take reserves than the other two areas (see original paper for individual data). In addition, commercial catch rates were higher in periodically harvested closures (4 kg/fisher/hr) than regularly fished areas (2 kg/fisher/hr). Data was collected in November–December 2012 in two regions of the Nguna-Pele Marine Protected Area Network. Fish were surveyed by diver underwater census at two locations, each with three adjacent management zones (8 to 16 ha): a periodically fished area open for 1–3 days every 6 months (implemented since 18 months to 6 years); a no-take reserve (no fishing since 2005); and an area open permanently to fishing. At each of the six sites, divers recorded fish species and length along eight, 50 × 5 m transects, before and after harvesting in the periodically fished areas. Catch data was collected from surveys of fishers.
(Summarised by: Khatija Alliji)
-
Cease or prohibit all types of fishing in a marine protected area
A replicated, paired, site comparison study in 2012 of six coral reef sites in a marine protected area in the Coral Sea, Vanuatu (Januchowski-Hartley et al. 2014) found that permanent no-take reserves where fishing was prohibited for at least six years had greater total fish biomass compared to areas open to fishing, and similar fish biomass to closed areas fished only periodically for short periods. The total fish biomass was similar in no-take reserves (646–835 kg/ha) and periodically fished areas (559–567 kg/ha) but was greater than fished areas (331–378 kg/ha). The biomass and abundance (data not reported) of only one of three individual fish groups differed between areas and was higher in no-take reserves than the other two areas (see original paper for individual data). Data was collected in November–December 2012 in two regions of the Nguna-Pele Marine Protected Area Network. Each region had three adjacent management zones (8 to 16 ha) that were each surveyed: a no-take reserve (since 2005), a periodically fished area open for 1–3 days every 6 months (implemented since 18 months to 6 years) and an area open to fishing. At each zone before and after a three-day harvesting period of the periodically fished zone, divers recorded fish species and length along eight, 50 by 5 m transects, and biomass calculated from length-weight relationships.
(Summarised by: Khatija Alliji)
