Can small MPAs protect local populations of a coastal flatfish, Solea senegalensis?

The benefits of protection of a small (4.3 km(2)) marine protected area (MPA) for Senegalese sole, Solea senegalensis, were investigated through experimental fishing trials and long-term (up to 293days) passive acoustic telemetry. A total of 106 trammel net sets were carried out between 2007 and 2011. Significant differences in abundance and biomass of sole between bottom types/depths (sandy bottoms between 12 and 20m deep vs muddy bottoms between 35 and 45m deep) were found, but no significant differences were attributable to the implementation of the no-take area. Passive acoustic telemetry revealed that most Senegalese sole spent a large part of their time between first and last detections (average residency index=69%) inside a relatively small area (average 95%=1.2km(2)), during which they preferred sandy bottoms, the most common habitat inside the MPA. Results also demonstrated that Senegalese sole do regular excursions beyond reserve boundaries, eventually emigrating from the MPA. The results suggest that small coastal MPAs providing adequate habitat may protect individuals of this species while allowing for moderate levels of adult spillover to neighbouring areas.

Toward adaptive management of coastal MPAs: The influence of different conservation targets and costs on the design of no-take areas

There is still much discussion on the most appropriate location, size and shape of marine protected areas (MPAs). These three factors were analyzed for a small coastal MPA, the Luiz Saldanha Marine Park (LSMP), for which a very limited amount of local ecological information was available when implemented in 1998. Marxan was used to provide a number of near-optimal solutions considering different levels of protection for the various conservation features and different costs. These solutions were compared with the existing no-take area of the LSMP. Information on 11 habitat types and distribution models for 3 of the most important species for the local artisanal fisheries was considered. The human activities with the highest economic and ecological impact in the study area (commercial and recreational fishing and scuba diving) were used as costs. The results show that the existing no-take area is actually located in the best area. However, the no-take area offers limited protection to vagile fish and covers a very small proportion of some of the available habitats. An increase in the conservation targets led to an increase in the number of no-take areas. The comparative framework used in this study can be applied elsewhere, providing relevant information to local stakeholders and managers in order to proceed with adaptive management. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.