Limits...
Marine reserve effects on fishery profit.

White C, Kendall BE, Gaines S, Siegel DA, Costello C - Ecol. Lett. (2008)

Bottom Line: We incorporated this effect into a bioeconomic model to evaluate the economic performance of reserve-based management.Our results indicate that reserves can still benefit fisheries, even those targeting species that are expensive to harvest.Furthermore, reserve area and harvest intensity can be traded off with little impact on profits, allowing for management flexibility while still providing higher profit than attainable under conventional management.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA.

ABSTRACT
Some studies suggest that fishery yields can be higher with reserves than under conventional management. However, the economic performance of fisheries depends on economic profit, not fish yield. The predictions of higher yields with reserves rely on intensive fishing pressures between reserves; the exorbitant costs of harvesting low-density populations erode profits. We incorporated this effect into a bioeconomic model to evaluate the economic performance of reserve-based management. Our results indicate that reserves can still benefit fisheries, even those targeting species that are expensive to harvest. However, in contrast to studies focused on yield, only a moderate proportion of the coast in reserves (with moderate harvest pressures outside reserves) is required to maximize profit. Furthermore, reserve area and harvest intensity can be traded off with little impact on profits, allowing for management flexibility while still providing higher profit than attainable under conventional management.

Show MeSH
Maximum yields (θ = 0) and profits (θ > 0) under optimal reserve-based management relative to those under optimal conventional management, evaluated across fisheries targeting species represented by different stock effect scenarios. M = 0.05 (solid lines), 0.1 (dashed), 0.2 (dotted) and 0.3 (dash-dot), P = 1 (blue), 2 (red) and 3 (black).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2268951&req=5

fig03: Maximum yields (θ = 0) and profits (θ > 0) under optimal reserve-based management relative to those under optimal conventional management, evaluated across fisheries targeting species represented by different stock effect scenarios. M = 0.05 (solid lines), 0.1 (dashed), 0.2 (dotted) and 0.3 (dash-dot), P = 1 (blue), 2 (red) and 3 (black).

Mentions: The stock effect (θ > 0) reduced fishery profits under all management strategies, whether conventional or with reserves (Fig. 2b–e). Nevertheless, maximum fishery profits under optimal reserve-based management were at least approximately equal, and typically substantially greater than, those attainable under optimal conventional management, regardless of adult natural mortality (M) or per capita production (P) values (Fig. 3). We re-simulated all fish population and fishery management conditions under an effort-based regulatory policy, and found the relative increase in profits with reserves at least to equal those recovered by the escapement-based policy.


Marine reserve effects on fishery profit.

White C, Kendall BE, Gaines S, Siegel DA, Costello C - Ecol. Lett. (2008)

Maximum yields (θ = 0) and profits (θ > 0) under optimal reserve-based management relative to those under optimal conventional management, evaluated across fisheries targeting species represented by different stock effect scenarios. M = 0.05 (solid lines), 0.1 (dashed), 0.2 (dotted) and 0.3 (dash-dot), P = 1 (blue), 2 (red) and 3 (black).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2268951&req=5

fig03: Maximum yields (θ = 0) and profits (θ > 0) under optimal reserve-based management relative to those under optimal conventional management, evaluated across fisheries targeting species represented by different stock effect scenarios. M = 0.05 (solid lines), 0.1 (dashed), 0.2 (dotted) and 0.3 (dash-dot), P = 1 (blue), 2 (red) and 3 (black).
Mentions: The stock effect (θ > 0) reduced fishery profits under all management strategies, whether conventional or with reserves (Fig. 2b–e). Nevertheless, maximum fishery profits under optimal reserve-based management were at least approximately equal, and typically substantially greater than, those attainable under optimal conventional management, regardless of adult natural mortality (M) or per capita production (P) values (Fig. 3). We re-simulated all fish population and fishery management conditions under an effort-based regulatory policy, and found the relative increase in profits with reserves at least to equal those recovered by the escapement-based policy.

Bottom Line: We incorporated this effect into a bioeconomic model to evaluate the economic performance of reserve-based management.Our results indicate that reserves can still benefit fisheries, even those targeting species that are expensive to harvest.Furthermore, reserve area and harvest intensity can be traded off with little impact on profits, allowing for management flexibility while still providing higher profit than attainable under conventional management.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA.

ABSTRACT
Some studies suggest that fishery yields can be higher with reserves than under conventional management. However, the economic performance of fisheries depends on economic profit, not fish yield. The predictions of higher yields with reserves rely on intensive fishing pressures between reserves; the exorbitant costs of harvesting low-density populations erode profits. We incorporated this effect into a bioeconomic model to evaluate the economic performance of reserve-based management. Our results indicate that reserves can still benefit fisheries, even those targeting species that are expensive to harvest. However, in contrast to studies focused on yield, only a moderate proportion of the coast in reserves (with moderate harvest pressures outside reserves) is required to maximize profit. Furthermore, reserve area and harvest intensity can be traded off with little impact on profits, allowing for management flexibility while still providing higher profit than attainable under conventional management.

Show MeSH