Marine reserves are often established in areas that support fisheries. Larval export from reserves is argued to help compensate for the loss of fishable habitat; however, previous modeling studies have focused on long-term equilibrium outcomes. We examined the transient consequences of reserve establishment for fished metapopulations, considering both a well-mixed larval pool and a spatially explicit model based on a coral trout (Plectropomus spp.) metapopulation. When fishing pressure was reallocated relative to the area protected, yields decreased initially, then recovered, and ultimately exceeded pre-reserve levels. However, recovery time was on the order of several years to decades. If fishing pressure intensified to maintain pre-reserve yields, reserves were sometimes unable to support the increased mortality and the metapopulation collapsed. This was more likely when reserves were small, or located peripherally within the metapopulation. Overall, reserves can achieve positive conservation and fishery benefits, but fisheries management complementary to reserve implementation is essential.

Marine no-take reserves, where fishing and other extractive activities are prohibited, have well-established conservation benefits [1], yet their impacts on fisheries remains contentious [2-4]. For fishery species, reserves are often implemented alongside more conventional harvest strategies, including catch and size limits [2, 5]. However, catch and fish abundances observed post-intervention are often attributed to reserves, without explicitly estimating the potential contribution of concurrent management interventions [2, 3, 6-9]. Here we test a metapopulation model against observed fishery [10] and population [11] data for an important coral reef fishery (coral trout; Plectropomus spp.) in Australia's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) to evaluate how the combined increase in reserve area [12] and reduction in fishing effort [13, 14] in 2004 influenced changes in fish stocks and the commercial fishery. We found that declines in catch, increases in catch rates, and increases in biomass since 2004 were substantially attributable to the integration of direct effort controls with the rezoning, rather than the rezoning alone. The combined management approach was estimated to have been more productive for fish and fisheries than if the rezoning had occurred alone and comparable to what would have been obtained with effort controls alone. Sensitivity analyses indicate that the direct effort controls prevented initial decreases in catch per unit effort that would have otherwise occurred with the rezoning. Our findings demonstrate that by concurrently restructuring the fishery, the conservation benefits of reserves were enhanced and the fishery cost of rezoning the reserve network was socialized, mitigating negative impacts on individual fishers.

Marine reserve networks are increasingly implemented to conserve biodiversity and enhance the persistence and resilience of exploited species and ecosystems. However, the efficacy of marine reserve networks in frequently disturbed systems, such as coral reefs, has rarely been evaluated. Here we analyze a well‐mixed larval pool model and a spatially explicit model based on a well‐documented coral trout (Plectropomus spp.) metapopulation in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Australia, to determine the effects of marine reserve coverage and placement (in relation to larval connectivity and disturbance heterogeneity) on the temporal stability of fisheries yields and population biomass in environmentally disturbed systems. We show that marine reserves can contribute to stabilizing fishery yield while increasing metapopulation persistence, irrespective of whether reserves enhance or diminish average fishery yields. However, reserve placement and the level of larval connectivity among subpopulations were important factors affecting the stability and sustainability of fisheries and fish metapopulations. Protecting a mix of disturbed and non‐disturbed reefs, rather than focusing on the least‐disturbed habitats, was the most consistently beneficial approach across a range of dispersal and reserve coverage scenarios. Placing reserves only in non‐disturbed areas was the most beneficial for biomass enhancement, but had variable results for fisheries and could potentially destabilize yields in systems with well‐mixed larval or those that are moderately fished. We also found that focusing protection on highly disturbed areas could actually increase variability in yields and biomass, especially when degraded reef reserves were distant and poorly connected to the meta‐population. Our findings have implications for the design and implementation of reserve networks in the presence of stochastic, patchy environmental disturbances.