title: Relative impacts of adult movement, larval dispersal and harvester movement on the effectiveness of reserve networks.
abstract: Movement of individuals is a critical factor determining the effectiveness of reserve networks. Marine reserves have historically been used for the management of species that are sedentary as adults, and, therefore, larval dispersal has been a major focus of marine-reserve research. The push to use marine reserves for managing pelagic and demersal species poses significant questions regarding their utility for highly-mobile species. Here, a simple conceptual metapopulation model is developed to provide a rigorous comparison of the functioning of reserve networks for populations with different admixtures of larval dispersal and adult movement in a home range. We find that adult movement produces significantly lower persistence than larval dispersal, all other factors being equal. Furthermore, redistribution of harvest effort previously in reserves to remaining fished areas ('fishery squeeze') and fishing along reserve borders ('fishing-the-line') considerably reduce persistence and harvests for populations mobile as adults, while they only marginally changes results for populations with dispersing larvae. Our results also indicate that adult home-range movement and larval dispersal are not simply additive processes, but rather that populations possessing both modes of movement have lower persistence than equivalent populations having the same amount of 'total movement' (sum of larval and adult movement spatial scales) in either larval dispersal or adult movement alone.
authors: Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, UMR EME 212 (IRD/Ifremer/Université Montpellier 2), Centre de Recherche Halieutique Méditerranéenne et Tropicale, Sète, France. arnaud.gruss@ird.fr
authors: Arnaud
authors: A
authors: Grüss
authors: David M
authors: DM
authors: Kaplan
authors: Deborah R
authors: DR
authors: Hart
references: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2005 Jan 29;360(1453):123-32
references: 15713592
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Apr 11;103(15):6067-72
references: 16608913
references: Mar Pollut Bull. 2010 May;60(5):635-7
references: 20493330
references: Trends Ecol Evol. 2009 Jul;24(7):360-9
references: 19324450
references: Ecol Appl. 2006 Jun;16(3):977-86
references: 16826996
references: Ecol Appl. 2009 Mar;19(2):433-48
references: 19323201
references: Ecol Appl. 2010 Sep;20(6):1523-41
references: 20945757
references: Ecol Appl. 2007 Jun;17(4):1039-54
references: 17555217
references: Mar Pollut Bull. 2010 Nov;60(11):1906-15
references: 20965522
references: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2005 Jan 29;360(1453):133-46
references: 15713593
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Oct 26;107(43):18266-71
references: 20181570
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Oct 26;107(43):18251-5
references: 20978212
references: Ecol Appl. 2009 Oct;19(7):1835-47
references: 19831073
references: Ecol Appl. 2006 Aug;16(4):1502-15
references: 16937814
references: Science. 2009 May 29;324(5931):1133
references: 19478159
references: Science. 2008 Oct 31;322(5902):742-4
references: 18832611
references: Ecol Appl. 2006 Dec;16(6):2248-63
references: 17205902
references: Science. 2010 Mar 26;327(5973):1574-5
references: 20339047
references: Science. 2006 Jul 7;313(5783):43-5; author reply 43-5
references: 16825551
references: Biol Lett. 2010 Aug 23;6(4):498-501
references: 20147313