Sea urchin harvest inside marine protected areas: an opportunity to investigate the effects of exploitation where trophic upgrading is achieved.
Coastal management
Cumulative effects
Exploitation
Harvest
Marine protected areas
Mediterranean Sea
Multiple use areas
Natural predators
Predation
Restrictions
Journal
PeerJ
ISSN: 2167-8359
Titre abrégé: PeerJ
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101603425
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
15
07
2021
accepted:
30
01
2022
entrez:
14
3
2022
pubmed:
15
3
2022
medline:
15
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Marine protected areas (MPAs) usually have both positive effects of protection for the fisheries' target species and indirect negative effects for sea urchins. Moreover, often in MPAs sea urchin human harvest is restricted, but allowed. This study is aimed at estimating the effect of human harvest of the sea urchin At this aim, a collaborative database gained across five MPAs in Sardinia (Western Mediterranean, Italy) and areas outside was gathered collecting sea urchin abundance and size data in a total of 106 sites at different degrees of sea urchin exploitation: no, restricted and unrestricted harvest sites (NH, RH and UH, respectively). Furthermore, as estimates made in past monitoring efforts (since 2005) were available for 75 of the sampled sites, for each of the different levels of exploitation, the rate of variation in the total sea urchin density was also estimated. Results have highlighted that the lowest sea urchin total and commercial density was found in RH sites, likely for the cumulative effects of human harvest and natural predation. The overall rate of change in sea urchin density over time indicates that only NH conditions promoted the increase of sea urchin abundance and that current local management of the MPAs has driven towards an important regression of populations, by allowing the harvest. Overall, results suggest that complex mechanisms, including synergistic effects between natural biotic interactions and human pressures, may occur on sea urchin populations and the assessment of MPA effects on
Sections du résumé
Background
Marine protected areas (MPAs) usually have both positive effects of protection for the fisheries' target species and indirect negative effects for sea urchins. Moreover, often in MPAs sea urchin human harvest is restricted, but allowed. This study is aimed at estimating the effect of human harvest of the sea urchin
Methods
At this aim, a collaborative database gained across five MPAs in Sardinia (Western Mediterranean, Italy) and areas outside was gathered collecting sea urchin abundance and size data in a total of 106 sites at different degrees of sea urchin exploitation: no, restricted and unrestricted harvest sites (NH, RH and UH, respectively). Furthermore, as estimates made in past monitoring efforts (since 2005) were available for 75 of the sampled sites, for each of the different levels of exploitation, the rate of variation in the total sea urchin density was also estimated.
Results
Results have highlighted that the lowest sea urchin total and commercial density was found in RH sites, likely for the cumulative effects of human harvest and natural predation. The overall rate of change in sea urchin density over time indicates that only NH conditions promoted the increase of sea urchin abundance and that current local management of the MPAs has driven towards an important regression of populations, by allowing the harvest. Overall, results suggest that complex mechanisms, including synergistic effects between natural biotic interactions and human pressures, may occur on sea urchin populations and the assessment of MPA effects on
Identifiants
pubmed: 35282273
doi: 10.7717/peerj.12971
pii: 12971
pmc: PMC8908888
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Pagination
e12971Informations de copyright
©2022 Ceccherelli et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare there are no competing interests.
Références
Ecol Lett. 2014 Dec;17(12):1518-25
pubmed: 25224645
Sci Rep. 2015 Aug 28;5:13479
pubmed: 26315893
J Environ Manage. 2021 Feb 15;280:111754
pubmed: 33384184
PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e36901
pubmed: 22606306
PeerJ. 2017 Mar 8;5:e3067
pubmed: 28289567
Mar Environ Res. 2018 Aug;139:182-192
pubmed: 29804786
Proc Biol Sci. 2017 Mar 29;284(1851):
pubmed: 28330920
Sci Rep. 2017 Aug 21;7(1):8940
pubmed: 28827603
Science. 2011 Jul 15;333(6040):301-6
pubmed: 21764740
Mar Environ Res. 2007 Mar;63(2):168-84
pubmed: 17034843
PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e35170
pubmed: 22536355
Mar Pollut Bull. 2017 Oct 15;123(1-2):197-204
pubmed: 28886921
Ecology. 2019 May;100(5):e02649
pubmed: 30958570
Theory Biosci. 2019 Nov;138(2):251-259
pubmed: 30895447
PLoS One. 2013 Apr 16;8(4):e61978
pubmed: 23613994
Mar Environ Res. 2005 May;59(4):333-48
pubmed: 15589985
PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e58799
pubmed: 23573192
PeerJ. 2015 Apr 28;3:e901
pubmed: 25945305
Trends Ecol Evol. 2005 Nov;20(11):579-81
pubmed: 16701438
Mar Environ Res. 2020 Dec;162:105194
pubmed: 33126114
Ecol Appl. 2006 Jun;16(3):963-76
pubmed: 16826995
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Oct 26;107(43):18286-93
pubmed: 20200311
PLoS One. 2014 Apr 16;9(4):e91841
pubmed: 24740479
Sci Adv. 2019 Apr 03;5(4):eaau2879
pubmed: 30949571
Ecology. 2008 Dec;89(12):3423-35
pubmed: 19137948
Mar Pollut Bull. 2015 Mar 15;92(1-2):35-44
pubmed: 25649838
Mar Environ Res. 2019 Mar;145:147-154
pubmed: 30862382
PeerJ. 2020 Oct 8;8:e10093
pubmed: 33083138
Mar Environ Res. 2016 Jun;117:13-20
pubmed: 27043483
Trends Ecol Evol. 1998 Sep 1;13(9):350-5
pubmed: 21238339
Nat Commun. 2016 Jan 19;7:10244
pubmed: 26784963
PLoS One. 2016 Oct 26;11(10):e0164294
pubmed: 27783684
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Oct 26;107(43):18266-71
pubmed: 20181570