Movement patterns of mature spiny lobsters,Jasus edwardsii, from a marine reserve

Abstract

The maintenance of long-term associations with particular reef sites is likely to have contributed to the rebuilding of the spiny lobster population (Jasus edwardsii (Hutton) (Decapoda: Palinuridae)) in the Leigh Marine Reserve, in northeast New Zealand. Between 1983 and 1985, 429 lobsters were tagged underwater with western rock lobster tags and antennae tags. Underwater tagging and commercial traps were used to tag a further 737 lobsters with T-bar tags and antennae tags between 1994 and 1996. Twenty-one percent of lobsters resighted (n = 323) between 1983 and 1985 maintained their association with a 15 ha reef inside the reserve for 1-8 years. Site association tended to increase with female size, whereas site association in males was relatively constant until 130 mm carapace length, and then markedly increased. Legalsized lobster abundance fluctuated seasonally, suggesting that a proportion of the population undertook larger-scale movements beyond the reef. This was confirmed during a second tagging programme conducted between 1994 and 1996. About 30% of resighted lobsters (n = 212) moved 0.25-6 km from their tagging site and 20% crossed the boundary, either moving into or out of the reserve. These results indicate that although the Leigh Marine Reserve reduces spatial access to fishing grounds, a proportion of the lobster population moves out of the protected area and becomes susceptible to capture in the adjacent fishery.

Spillover from marine reserves and the replenishment of fished stocks

“…Our estimates of spillover distance are consistent with studies of large-scale partial-protection marine protected areas that find even greater spillover distances (Murawski et al 2005), with studies of adult movement patterns showing similar or greater distances of movement across reserve boundaries (for example (Samoilys 1997;Kelly & MacDiarmid 2003;Topping et al 2005), and with estimates from spillover studies that did not meet our inclusion criteria (Abesamis & Russ 2005;Goni et al 2008;Harmelin-Vivien et al 2008;Williams et al 2009). However, in all of these cases, spillover acts at relatively small scales such that single reserves cannot sustain entire fished stocks (through spillover alone; they may be able to provide this service through larval export).…”

Home range dynamics of the American lobster,Homarus americanus

“…The available data for several decapod species indicate that there is a relatively poor correlation between locomotor activity, home range size, and animal size. Some studies found no relationship (Watson et al 1999;Gherardi et al 2000;Comeau and Savoie 2001;Stone and O'Clair 2002;Cooke 2004;Golet et al 2006), while others found smaller animals moved farther (Kelly and MacDiarmid 2003;Linnane et al 2005). In this study, due to the size of the transmitter, the smallest lobster we could track was 62 mm CL, and due to availability in our study area, the largest was 93 mm CL.…”

“…These studies have consistently shown that: (1) most lobsters, within the time frame that they were tracked, remained in the vicinity of the area where they were initially tagged, or traveled 55 km; and (2) in any given habitat or area there appear to be lobsters that are either residents or transients (spiny lobsters: Panulirus argus [Herrnkind and McLean 1971;Herrnking 1980]; Jasus edwardsii [Kelly 2001;Kelly and MacDiarmid 2003;Linnane et al 2005]; Panulirus cygnus [MacArthur et al 2008]; clawed lobsters: Homarus gammarus [Smith et al 1998]; Homarus americanus [Dow 1974;Watson et al 1999;Bowlby et al 2007]; reviewed by Cooper and Uzmann 1980, Krouse 1980, Haakonsen and Anoruo 1994, Lawton and Lavalli 1995, Childress and Jury 2006. Additional studies have used the distance a displaced lobster will travel to reach its shelter or a baited trap as a technique for estimating a lobster's home range.…”

Decadal trends in marine reserves reveal differential rates of change in direct and indirect effects

“…The reason for the decline in numbers was probably increased fishing around the boundary of the reserve that targeted seasonal offshore movements of this species (25,26).…”