An adaptable toolkit to assess commercial fishery costs and benefits related to marine protected area network design [version 1; referees: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]
An adaptable toolkit to assess commercial fishery costs and benefits related to marine protected area network design [version 1; referees: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]
复制标题
一个适应性强的工具包，用于评估与海洋保护区网络设计相关的商业渔业成本和效益[版本1；
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
CJ Monaco
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rémi M. Daigle;C. Monaco;A. Elgin;P. Peres‐Neto;M. Andrello;RM Daigle;CJ Monaco
在世界各地，各国政府正在建立海洋保护区（MPA）网络，以履行其对《联合国生物多样性公约》的承诺。海洋保护区通常用于保护生物多样性和管理渔业资源。然而，它们的功效和对渔业产量的影响仍不清楚。我们进行了一个案例研究的经济影响，不同的MPA网络设计策略对大西洋鳕鱼（Gadus morhua）渔业在加拿大。我们开发的用于分析本案例研究的开源R工具箱可以进行定制，以便为其他系统进行类似的分析。我们使用了一个空间明确的个人为基础的人口增长和扩散模型，再加上渔业管理和捕捞组件。我们发现，既保护目标物种的栖息地（特别是产卵场），又在空间上优化以改善种群连通性的MPA网络具有最高的净现值（即，对渔业最有利）。这些较高的利润主要是通过减少捕鱼距离和减少暂停活动的可能性实现的。这些发现增加了越来越多的知识，证明了在MPA规划过程中纳入人口连通性的重要性，以及R工具箱探索替代MPA网络设计的生态和经济后果的能力。本文报告了一种定量工具，可用于分析不同的网络设计对海洋保护区的经济影响。该框架非常灵活，将为讨论不同设计的利弊提供有用的工具包。也就是说，我觉得它很少考虑其他潜在算法的讨论，也很少考虑如何同时考虑多个物种。特别是，作者是否会建议单独建模不同的物种，然后在不同的MPA设计中建立共识？对这个问题进行一些讨论将特别重要。另一个问题是环境的异质性。我认为重要的是，作者至少讨论了在设计不同情景的MPA时应如何考虑环境异质性。在一个给定的区域内或跨区域的大生境异质性肯定会导致不同的设计决策比小异质性。应如何考虑走廊的矩阵和质量。总之，我认为这是一个非常需要的工具，但作者需要提供一些额外的信息，说明他们如何看待它在考虑多物种和环境异质性时的应用。竞争利益：没有披露竞争利益。本人确认已阅读本申报资料，并相信本人具备适当的专业知识水平，可确认其符合可接受的科学标准。
Around the world, governments are establishing Marine Protected Area (MPA) networks to meet their commitments to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. MPAs are often used in an effort to conserve biodiversity and manage fisheries stocks. However, their efficacy and effect on fisheries yields remain unclear. We conducted a case-study on the economic impact of different MPA network design strategies on the Atlantic cod ( Gadus morhua ) fisheries in Canada. The open-source R toolbox that we developed to analyze this case study can be customized to conduct similar analyses for other systems. We used a spatially-explicit individual-based model of population growth and dispersal coupled with a fisheries management and harvesting component. We found that MPA networks that both protect the target species’ habitat (particularly the spawning grounds), and were spatially optimized to improve population connectivity had the highest net present value (i.e., were most profitable for the fishing industry). These higher profits were achieved primarily by reducing the distance travelled for fishing and reducing the probability of a moratorium event. These findings add to a growing body of knowledge demonstrating the importance of incorporating population connectivity in the MPA planning process, as well as the ability of this R toolbox to explore ecological and economic consequences of alternative MPA network designs. This paper reports a quantitative tool that can be used to analyze the economical impact of different network designs for marine protected areas. The framework is quite flexible and will provide a useful toolkit for discussing the pros and cons of different designs. That said, I feel that it considered very little discussion regarding other potential algorithms and also how to consider multiple species at the same time. In particular, would the authors suggest to model different species separately and then build a consensus across different MPA designs? Some discussion on this issue would be particularly important. Another issue is environmental heterogeneity. I think it would be important that the authors at least discuss how environmental heterogeneity should be taken into account in designing MPA across different scenarios. Large habitat heterogeneity within a given area or across areas would certainly lead to different design decisions than small heterogeneity. How does the matrix and quality of corridors should be considered. In sum, I think this is a much needed tool but the authors need to provide some additional information on how they see it being applied considering multiple species and environmental heterogeneity. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.