No abstract

Many marine populations and ecosystems have experienced strong historical depletions, yet reports of recoveries are increasing. Here, we review the growing research on marine recoveries to reveal how common recovery is, its magnitude, timescale and major drivers. Overall, 10-50% of depleted populations and ecosystems show some recovery, but rarely to former levels of abundance. In addition, recovery can take many decades for long-lived species and complex ecosystems. Major drivers of recovery include the reduction of human impacts, especially exploitation, habitat loss and pollution, combined with favorable life-history and environmental conditions. Awareness, legal protection and enforcement of management plans are also crucial. Learning from historical recovery successes and failures is essential for implementing realistic conservation goals and promising management strategies.A new focus on recovery An increasing number of studies have reported strong declines in marine animal populations and the degradation of ocean ecosystems over past decades and centuries around the world [1][2][3][4][5][6][7], leading to a widespread perception of empty oceans and polluted waters. Yet, throughout history, humans have responded to declining resource abundance and ecosystem degradation by implementing management and conservation measures. Some of these have been successful and resulted in recovery, whereas others have failed [3,8,9].Therefore, an important question to science and management is: how common is recovery among depleted populations and degraded ecosystems in the ocean? Today, many marine mammal, bird, reptile and fish populations are at low abundance, and several species are endangered or extinct on regional or global scales [5,[10][11][12]. However, despite long periods of intense human impacts, most marine species persist and some populations do show signs of recovery [3,8,9]. Similarly, many coastal habitats, including wetlands, seagrass beds, mangrove and kelp forests, and oyster and coral reefs, have been severely reduced or degraded [2][3][4]6], yet partial recovery has been achieved in some regions in response to protection and pollution controls [3,13]. Restoration attempts at an ecosystem level have often been followed by the return and recovery of former species assemblages and ecosystem functions [13][14][15][16][17], but some ecosystems have remained in an altered state [18]. Such successes could serve as important guides for efforts to prevent further biodiversity loss and enhance future recoveries.Despite a growing number of case studies on the recovery of specific populations or ecosystems, an overview of the general patterns and drivers of marine recoveries over historical timescales is lacking. A recent review on the recovery of damaged ecosystems found that many terrestrial and marine ecosystems can recover on timescales of a few years to a few decades after major perturbations [19]. However, most case studies in the review, especially among marine and brackish examples, included small, short-...

BackgroundIn recent decades, large pelagic and coastal shark populations have declined dramatically with increased fishing; however, the status of sharks in other systems such as coral reefs remains largely unassessed despite a long history of exploitation. Here we explore the contemporary distribution and sighting frequency of sharks on reefs in the greater-Caribbean and assess the possible role of human pressures on observed patterns.Methodology/Principal FindingsWe analyzed 76,340 underwater surveys carried out by trained volunteer divers between 1993 and 2008. Surveys were grouped within one km2 cells, which allowed us to determine the contemporary geographical distribution and sighting frequency of sharks. Sighting frequency was calculated as the ratio of surveys with sharks to the total number of surveys in each cell. We compared sighting frequency to the number of people in the cell vicinity and used population viability analyses to assess the effects of exploitation on population trends. Sharks, with the exception of nurse sharks occurred mainly in areas with very low human population or strong fishing regulations and marine conservation. Population viability analysis suggests that exploitation alone could explain the large-scale absence; however, this pattern is likely to be exacerbated by additional anthropogenic stressors, such as pollution and habitat degradation, that also correlate with human population.Conclusions/SignificanceHuman pressures in coastal zones have lead to the broad-scale absence of sharks on reefs in the greater-Caribbean. Preventing further loss of sharks requires urgent management measures to curb fishing mortality and to mitigate other anthropogenic stressors to protect sites where sharks still exist. The fact that sharks still occur in some densely populated areas where strong fishing regulations are in place indicates the possibility of success and encourages the implementation of conservation measures.

BackgroundIncreasingly, underwater visual censuses (UVC) are used to assess fish populations. Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of protected areas for increasing fish abundance or provided insight into the natural abundance and structure of reef fish communities in remote areas. Recently, high apex predator densities (>100,000 individuals·km−2) and biomasses (>4 tonnes·ha−1) have been reported for some remote islands suggesting the occurrence of inverted trophic biomass pyramids. However, few studies have critically evaluated the methods used for sampling conspicuous and highly mobile fish such as sharks. Ideally, UVC are done instantaneously, however, researchers often count animals that enter the survey area after the survey has started, thus performing non-instantaneous UVC.Methodology/Principal FindingsWe developed a simulation model to evaluate counts obtained by divers deploying non-instantaneous belt-transect and stationary-point-count techniques. We assessed how fish speed and survey procedure (visibility, diver speed, survey time and dimensions) affect observed fish counts. Results indicate that the bias caused by fish speed alone is huge, while survey procedures had varying effects. Because the fastest fishes tend to be the largest, the bias would have significant implications on their biomass contribution. Therefore, caution is needed when describing abundance, biomass, and community structure based on non-instantaneous UVC, especially for highly mobile species such as sharks.Conclusions/SignificanceBased on our results, we urge that published literature state explicitly whether instantaneous counts were made and that survey procedures be accounted for when non-instantaneous counts are used. Using published density and biomass values of communities that include sharks we explore the effect of this bias and suggest that further investigation may be needed to determine pristine shark abundances and the existence of inverted biomass pyramids. Because such studies are used to make important management and conservation decisions, incorrect estimates of animal abundance and biomass have serious and significant implications.

No abstract