Bottom-up effects of a no-take zone on endangered penguin demographics

Biology Letters

Volumn 11, Issue 7, 2015, Pages

  Sherley, Richard B ^a,b   Winker, Henning ^b,d   Altwegg, Res ^c   Van Der Lingen, Carl D ^b,e   Votier, Stephen C ^a   Crawford, Robert J M ^b,f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

^b Department of Biological Sciences ^*  (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN   (South Africa)

^d SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY INSTITUTE   (South Africa)

^e Branch Fisheries   (South Africa)

^f V and A Waterfront   (South Africa)

Author keywords

Breeding success; Fisheries seabird interactions; Fishing closures; Marine conservation; Marine protected areas

Indexed keywords

BIOMASS; BOTTOM-UP APPROACH; COMMERCIAL SPECIES; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY; ENDANGERED SPECIES; EXPLOITATION; FISHING; MARINE PARK; MORTALITY; POPULATION DECLINE; POPULATION MODELING; POPULATION STRUCTURE; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION; PREDICTION; PREY AVAILABILITY; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; SEABIRD; SURVIVAL;

ROBBEN ISLAND; SOUTH AFRICA; WESTERN CAPE;

SPHENISCIDAE; SPHENISCUS DEMERSUS;

ANIMAL; ECOSYSTEM; ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FISH; FISHERY; MORTALITY; NEWBORN; PENGUIN; PHYSIOLOGY; POPULATION DYNAMICS; PREDATION; PROCEDURES; SOUTH AFRICA;

ANIMALS; ANIMALS, NEWBORN; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ECOSYSTEM; ENDANGERED SPECIES; FISHERIES; FISHES; MORTALITY; POPULATION DYNAMICS; PREDATORY BEHAVIOR; SOUTH AFRICA; SPHENISCIDAE;

EID: 84937010702     PISSN: 17449561     EISSN: 1744957X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2015.0237     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. McCauley DJ, Pinsky ML, Palumbi SR, Estes JA, Joyce FH, Warner RR. 2015 Marine defaunation: animal loss in the global ocean. Science 347, 1255641. (doi:10.1126/science.1255641)
2. Lascelles B et al. 2014 Migratory marine species: their status, threats and conservation management needs. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 24, 111-127. (doi:10.1002/aqc.2512)
3. Hays GC, Mortimer JA, Ierodiaconou D, Esteban N. 2014 Use of long-distance migration patterns of an endangered species to inform conservation planning for the world's largest marine protected area. Conserv. Biol. 28, 1636-1644. (doi:10.1111/cobi.12325)
4. Daunt F, Wanless S, Greenstreet SPR, Jensen H, Hamer KC, Harris MP. 2008 The impact of the sandeel fishery closure on seabird food consumption, distribution, and productivity in the northwestern North Sea. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 381, 362-381. (doi:10.1139/F07-164)
5. Frederiksen M, Jensen H, Daunt F, Mavor RA, Wanless S. 2008 Differential effects of a local industrial sand lance fishery on seabird breeding performance. Ecol. Appl. 18, 701-710. (doi:10. 1890/07-0797.1)
6. Pichegru L, Ryan PG, Van Eeden R, Reid T, Grémillet D, Wanless R. 2012 Industrial fishing, no-take zones and endangered penguins. Biol. Conserv. 156, 117-125. (doi:10.1016/j.biocon. 2011.12.013)
7. Pichegru L, Grémillet D, Crawford RJM, Ryan PG. 2010 Marine no-take zone rapidly benefits endangered penguin. Biol. Lett. 6, 498-501. (doi:10.1098/rsbl.2009.0913)
8. Sherley RB, Underhill LG, Barham BJ, Barham PJ, Coetzee JC, Crawford RJM, Dyer BM, Leshoro TM, Upfold L. 2013 Influence of local and regional prey availability on breeding performance of African penguins Spheniscus demersus. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 473, 291-301. (doi:10.3354/meps10070)
9. Crawford RJM, Makhado AB, Waller LJ, Whittington PA. 2014 Winners and losers - response to recent environmental change by South African seabirds that compete with purse-seine fisheries for food. Ostrich 85, 111-117. (doi:10.2989/00306525.2014. 955141)
10. Bertrand S, Joo R, Arbulu Smet C, Tremblay Y, Barbraud C, Weimerskirch H. 2012 Local depletion by a fishery can affect seabird foraging. J. Appl. Ecol. 49, 1168-1177. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012. 02190.x)
11. Essington TE, Moriarty PE, Froehlich HE, Hodgson EE, Koehn LE, Oken KL, Siple MC, Stawitz CC. 2015 Fishing amplifies forage fish population collapses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, 6648-6652. (doi:10. 1073/pnas.1422020112)
12. Cherry M. 2014 African penguins put researchers in a flap. Nature 514, 283. (doi:10.1038/514283a)
13. Therneau TM, Grambsch PM, Pankratz VS. 2003 Penalized survival models and frailty. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 12, 156-175. (doi:10.1198/1061860031365)
14. Sherley RB, Barham PJ, Barham BJ, Crawford RJM, Dyer BM, Leshoro TM, Makhado AB, Upfold L, Underhill LG. 2014 Growth and decline of a penguin colony and the influence on nesting density and reproductive success. Popul. Ecol. 56, 119-128. (doi:10.1007/s10144-013-0394-1)
15. Plummer M. 2008 Penalized loss functions for Bayesian model comparison. Biostatistics 9, 523-539. (doi:10.1093/biostatistics/kxm049)
16. Whittington PA, Klages NTW, Crawford RJM, Wolfaardt AC, Kemper J. 2005 Age at first breeding of the African penguin. Ostrich 76, 14-20. (doi:10. 2989/00306520509485468)
17. Sherley RB, Abadi F, Ludynia K, Barham BJ, Clark AE, Altwegg R. 2014 Age-specific survival and movement among major African penguin Spheniscus demersus colonies. Ibis 156, 716-728. (doi:10.1111/ibi.12189)
18. Shannon LJ, Crawford RJM. 1999 Management of the African penguin Spheniscus demersus-insights from modelling. Mar. Ornithol. 27, 119-128.
19. Boersma PD, Parrish JK. 1999 Limiting abuse: marine protected areas, a limited solution. Ecol. Econ. 31, 287-304. (doi:10.1016/S0921-8009 (99) 00085-3)
20. Robinson WML, Butterworth DS, Plaganyi EE. 2015 Quantifying the projected impact of the South African sardine fishery on the Robben Island penguin colony. ICES J. Mar. Sci. (In press.) (doi:10. 1093/icesjms/fsv035)
21. Cury PM et al. 2011 Global seabird response to forage fish depletion-one-third for the birds. Science 334, 1703-1706. (doi:10.1126/science.1212928)