Ecological criteria for evaluating candidate sites for marine reserves

Several schemes have been developed to help select the locations of marine reserves. All of them combine social, economic, and biological criteria, and few offer any guidance as to how to prioritize among the criteria identified. This can imply that the relative weights given to different criteria are unimportant. Where two sites are of equal value ecologically; then socioeconomic criteria should dominate the choice of which should be protected. However, in many cases, socioeconomic criteria are given equal or greater weight than ecological considerations in the choice of sites. This can lead to selection of reserves with little biological value that fail to meet many of the desired objectives. To avoid such a possibility, we develop a series of criteria that allow preliminary evaluation of candidate sites according to their relative biological values in advance of the application of socioeconomic criteria. We include criteria that,. while not strictly biological, have a strong influence on the species present or ecological processes. Out scheme enables sites to be assessed according to their biodiversity, the processes which underpin that diversity, and the processes that support fisheries and provide a spectrum of other services important to people. Criteria that capture biodiversity values include biogeographic representation, habitat representation and heterogeneity, and presence of species or populations of special interest (e.g., threatened species). Criteria that capture sustainability of biodiversity and fishery values include the size of reserves necessary to protect viable habitats, presence of exploitable species, vulnerable life stages, connectivity among reserves, links among ecosystems, and provision of ecosystem services to people. Criteria measuring human and natural threats enable candidate sites to be eliminated from consideration if risks are too great, but also help prioritize among sites where threats can be mitigated by protection. While our criteria can be applied to the design of reserve networks, they also enable choice of single reserves to be made in the context of the attributes of existing protected areas. The overall goal of our scheme is to promote the development of reserve networks that will maintain biodiversity and ecosystem functioning at large scales. The values of eco-system goods and services for people ultimately depend on meeting this objective.

Stock discrimination and movements of narrow-barred Spanish mackerel across northern Australia as indicated by parasites

The parasite fauna of Spanish mackerel Scomberomorus commerson from 10 sites across northern Australia and one site in Indonesia, was examined to evaluate the degree of movement and subsequent stock structure of the fish. Kupang fish (Indonesia) had very few Terranova spp.. Grillotia branchi, Otobothrium cysticum or Pterobothrium sp. compared to Australian fish, indicating that no Australian fish enter the Kupang fishery. Univariate and discriminant function analysis of four 'temporary' parasite species, the copepod Pseudocyenoides armatus and the monogeneans Gotocotyla bivaginalis, Pricea multae and Pseudothoracocotyla ovalis, demonstrated little similarity between areas of northern Australia, indicating minimal short-term exchange between neighbouring groups of S. commerson. Analyses of five 'permanent' parasite species, the larval helminths G. branchi, O. cysticum, Pterobothrium sp., Callitetrarhynchus gracilis and Paranybelinia balli, also revealed large differences between areas thus indicating long-term separation. There are at least six parasitological stocks across northern Australia: Fog Bay/Bathurst Island, Cape Wessel. Groote/Sir Edward Pellew. Mornington Island, Weipa. and the Torres Strait. The occurrence of a few irregular fish in the samples suggested that LIP to 5% of fish moved between stocks during their lifetime. The similarity of within-school variability to that between schools showed that the fish do not form long-term school associations. (C) 2003 The Fisheries Society of the British Isles.