Selecting Marine Reserves Using Habitats and Species Assemblages as Surrogates for Biological Diversity

Abstract

We compare the value of using habitat categories and species assemblages as surrogates for marine biological diversity in the context of choosing a set of representative areas for a marine reserve network. Habitat categories were based on interpretation of aerial photographs and maps, and on local knowledge. Species assemblages were created from comprehensive survey data on 977 taxa (mainly species), derived from an intensive three‐year study of a temperate marine embayment, and classified into plant, fish, and invertebrate assemblages. Reserves were selected using a heuristic iterative algorithm to simulate a marine reserve network based on 10–80% representation of each surrogate. The effectiveness of each surrogate was evaluated by comparing the number of taxa that would be coincidentally included in each simulated reserve for the bay. Areas selected to represent 10% or 20% of the surrogates were best chosen using fish or invertebrate assemblages, because by spatial coincidence, they included 60–80% of all available taxa. However, areas selected to represent ≥40% of the surrogates were generally best derived from habitat categories, because they included ≥93% of all available taxa. Plant assemblages were generally poor surrogates for overall species richness. These findings suggest that habitat‐level surrogates may be a highly cost‐effective method for initial identification of high‐priority areas to manage marine diversity of coastal ecosystems.

Quantifying Shark Distribution Patterns and Species-Habitat Associations: Implications of Marine Park Zoning

“…The use of fish habitats and species assemblages as surrogates for biological diversity is becoming increasingly popular in spatial planning [33], [34]. Baited remote underwater video stations (BRUVS) have been previously used to document fish species richness along geographic gradients [33], [35], quantify elasmobranch abundances and distribution patterns [5], [36], understand biases of sampling gears [37], [38], and compare fish densities inside and outside marine reserves [32], [39].…”

Depth and Medium-Scale Spatial Processes Influence Fish Assemblage Structure of Unconsolidated Habitats in a Subtropical Marine Park

“…To adequately represent the entire range of biota present, conservation planning for sub-tidal marine ecosystems should be based on comprehensive understanding of species, habitats, ecosystems and associated ecological processes [1]–[2]. However, in most cases, these data are not available, and hence much of the decision-making for planning and management of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) relies on incomplete species inventories and distributions [1], [3]–[5].…”

Minimum data requirements for designing a set of marine protected areas, using commonly available abiotic and biotic datasets

“…It is tempting to use features such as basic bathymetry and exposure because they use are often the most readily available type of information (Ward et al 1999;Airamé et al 2003). Satellite imagery and remote sensing may also provide additional abiotic datasets that are relatively easily accessible.…”

“…Huu-ay-aht (%) Ward et al (1999) considered biological datasets as better surrogates than habitat categories at low target levels. Ward et al, who used much more complete biological datasets, also found that habitat categories are better surrogates at high representation levels.…”

“…Terrestrial studies have shown that the amount and types of datasets available to use for protected area prioritization does influence the results (Ward et al 1999;Rondinini et al 2006;Grantham et al 2008). In particular, biodiversity datasets that only occur in a limited geographic range tend to carry considerable weight in selection methods because there is little spatial flexibility in representing such features in the reserve system.…”