如果科学调查被排除在海洋保护区之外,对种群指数的影响

IF 3.1 2区 农林科学 Q1 FISHERIES
Sean C Anderson, Philina A English, Katie S P Gale, Dana R Haggarty, Carolyn K Robb, Emily M Rubidge, Patrick L Thompson
{"title":"如果科学调查被排除在海洋保护区之外,对种群指数的影响","authors":"Sean C Anderson, Philina A English, Katie S P Gale, Dana R Haggarty, Carolyn K Robb, Emily M Rubidge, Patrick L Thompson","doi":"10.1093/icesjms/fsae009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Marine protected areas (MPAs) are increasingly common worldwide, typically restricting fishing activities. However, MPAs may also limit scientific surveys that impact benthic habitat. We combine a historical data degradation approach and simulation to investigate the effects on population indices of excluding surveys from MPAs. Our approach quantifies losses in precision, inter-annual accuracy, trend accuracy, and power to detect trends, as well as correlates of these effects. We apply this approach to a proposed MPA network off western Canada, examining 43 groundfish species observed by four surveys. Survey exclusion particularly impacted less precise indices, species well-represented in MPAs, and those whose density shifted in or out of MPAs. Redistributing survey effort outside MPAs consistently improved precision but not accuracy or trend detection—sometimes making estimates more precise about the ‘wrong’ index. While these changes may not qualitatively alter stock assessment for many species, in some cases, ∼30 percentage point reductions in power to detect simulated 50% population declines suggest meaningful impacts are possible. If survey restrictions continue expanding, index integrity could further degrade, eventually compromising the management of exploited populations. Regulating surveys within MPA boundaries therefore requires careful consideration to balance MPA objectives with the need for reliable monitoring.","PeriodicalId":51072,"journal":{"name":"ICES Journal of Marine Science","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impacts on population indices if scientific surveys are excluded from marine protected areas\",\"authors\":\"Sean C Anderson, Philina A English, Katie S P Gale, Dana R Haggarty, Carolyn K Robb, Emily M Rubidge, Patrick L Thompson\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/icesjms/fsae009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Marine protected areas (MPAs) are increasingly common worldwide, typically restricting fishing activities. However, MPAs may also limit scientific surveys that impact benthic habitat. We combine a historical data degradation approach and simulation to investigate the effects on population indices of excluding surveys from MPAs. Our approach quantifies losses in precision, inter-annual accuracy, trend accuracy, and power to detect trends, as well as correlates of these effects. We apply this approach to a proposed MPA network off western Canada, examining 43 groundfish species observed by four surveys. Survey exclusion particularly impacted less precise indices, species well-represented in MPAs, and those whose density shifted in or out of MPAs. Redistributing survey effort outside MPAs consistently improved precision but not accuracy or trend detection—sometimes making estimates more precise about the ‘wrong’ index. While these changes may not qualitatively alter stock assessment for many species, in some cases, ∼30 percentage point reductions in power to detect simulated 50% population declines suggest meaningful impacts are possible. If survey restrictions continue expanding, index integrity could further degrade, eventually compromising the management of exploited populations. Regulating surveys within MPA boundaries therefore requires careful consideration to balance MPA objectives with the need for reliable monitoring.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51072,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ICES Journal of Marine Science\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ICES Journal of Marine Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsae009\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"FISHERIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ICES Journal of Marine Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsae009","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FISHERIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

海洋保护区(MPA)在全球范围内越来越常见,通常限制捕鱼活动。然而,海洋保护区也可能限制影响底栖生物栖息地的科学调查。我们将历史数据退化方法与模拟相结合,研究将调查排除在海洋保护区之外对种群指数的影响。我们的方法量化了精度、年际精度、趋势精度和趋势检测能力的损失,以及这些影响的相关因素。我们将这种方法应用于加拿大西部沿海的一个拟议 MPA 网络,研究了四次调查观测到的 43 种底层鱼类。调查排除尤其影响了不太精确的指数、在 MPA 中代表性较高的物种以及密度在 MPA 内或外发生变化的物种。在海洋保护区外重新分配调查工作始终能提高精确度,但不能提高准确度或趋势检测--有时会使 "错误 "指数的估算更加精确。虽然这些变化可能不会对许多物种的种群评估产生质的改变,但在某些情况下,对模拟的 50%种群下降的检测能力降低了 30 个百分点,这表明可能会产生有意义的影响。如果调查限制继续扩大,指数完整性可能会进一步下降,最终影响对已开发种群的管理。因此,在MPA范围内规范调查需要谨慎考虑,以平衡MPA目标与可靠监测的需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impacts on population indices if scientific surveys are excluded from marine protected areas
Marine protected areas (MPAs) are increasingly common worldwide, typically restricting fishing activities. However, MPAs may also limit scientific surveys that impact benthic habitat. We combine a historical data degradation approach and simulation to investigate the effects on population indices of excluding surveys from MPAs. Our approach quantifies losses in precision, inter-annual accuracy, trend accuracy, and power to detect trends, as well as correlates of these effects. We apply this approach to a proposed MPA network off western Canada, examining 43 groundfish species observed by four surveys. Survey exclusion particularly impacted less precise indices, species well-represented in MPAs, and those whose density shifted in or out of MPAs. Redistributing survey effort outside MPAs consistently improved precision but not accuracy or trend detection—sometimes making estimates more precise about the ‘wrong’ index. While these changes may not qualitatively alter stock assessment for many species, in some cases, ∼30 percentage point reductions in power to detect simulated 50% population declines suggest meaningful impacts are possible. If survey restrictions continue expanding, index integrity could further degrade, eventually compromising the management of exploited populations. Regulating surveys within MPA boundaries therefore requires careful consideration to balance MPA objectives with the need for reliable monitoring.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ICES Journal of Marine Science
ICES Journal of Marine Science 农林科学-海洋学
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
12.10%
发文量
207
审稿时长
6-16 weeks
期刊介绍: The ICES Journal of Marine Science publishes original articles, opinion essays (“Food for Thought”), visions for the future (“Quo Vadimus”), and critical reviews that contribute to our scientific understanding of marine systems and the impact of human activities on them. The Journal also serves as a foundation for scientific advice across the broad spectrum of management and conservation issues related to the marine environment. Oceanography (e.g. productivity-determining processes), marine habitats, living resources, and related topics constitute the key elements of papers considered for publication. This includes economic, social, and public administration studies to the extent that they are directly related to management of the seas and are of general interest to marine scientists. Integrated studies that bridge gaps between traditional disciplines are particularly welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信