PMID- 25358301
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20150310
LR  - 20240109
IS  - 0065-2881 (Print)
IS  - 0065-2881 (Linking)
VI  - 69
DP  - 2014
TI  - Marine protected area networks in California, USA.
PG  - 205-51
LID - B978-0-12-800214-8.00006-2 [pii]
LID - 10.1016/B978-0-12-800214-8.00006-2 [doi]
AB  - California responded to concerns about overfishing in the 1990s by implementing a 
      network of marine protected areas (MPAs) through two science-based 
      decision-making processes. The first process focused on the Channel Islands, and 
      the second addressed California's entire coastline, pursuant to the state's 
      Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA). We review the interaction between science and 
      policy in both processes, and lessons learned. For the Channel Islands, 
      scientists controversially recommended setting aside 30-50% of coastline to 
      protect marine ecosystems. For the MLPA, MPAs were intended to be ecologically 
      connected in a network, so design guidelines included minimum size and maximum 
      spacing of MPAs (based roughly on fish movement rates), an approach that also 
      implicitly specified a minimum fraction of the coastline to be protected. As MPA 
      science developed during the California processes, spatial population models were 
      constructed to quantify how MPAs were affected by adult fish movement and larval 
      dispersal, i.e., how population persistence within MPA networks depended on 
      fishing outside the MPAs, and how fishery yields could either increase or 
      decrease with MPA implementation, depending on fishery management. These newer 
      quantitative methods added to, but did not supplant, the initial rule-of-thumb 
      guidelines. In the future, similar spatial population models will allow more 
      comprehensive evaluation of the integrated effects of MPAs and conventional 
      fisheries management. By 2011, California had implemented 132 MPAs covering more 
      than 15% of its coastline, and now stands on the threshold of the most 
      challenging step in this effort: monitoring and adaptive management to ensure 
      ecosystem sustainability.
FAU - Botsford, Louis W
AU  - Botsford LW
AD  - Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, University of California, 
      Davis, California, USA. Electronic address: lwbotsford@ucdavis.edu.
FAU - White, J Wilson
AU  - White JW
AD  - Department of Biology and Marine Biology, University of North Carolina 
      Wilmington, Wilmington, North Carolina, USA.
FAU - Carr, Mark H
AU  - Carr MH
AD  - Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of California, Santa Cruz, 
      California, USA.
FAU - Caselle, Jennifer E
AU  - Caselle JE
AD  - Marine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, California, 
      USA.
LA  - eng
PT  - Journal Article
PL  - United States
TA  - Adv Mar Biol
JT  - Advances in marine biology
JID - 0370431
SB  - IM
MH  - Animals
MH  - California
MH  - *Conservation of Natural Resources/legislation & jurisprudence
MH  - *Fisheries
MH  - Fishes
MH  - Government Regulation
MH  - Pacific Ocean
MH  - State Government
OTO - NOTNLM
OT  - California
OT  - Channel Islands
OT  - MPA
OT  - Planning
OT  - Population models
OT  - Process
OT  - Science
EDAT- 2014/11/02 06:00
MHDA- 2015/03/11 06:00
CRDT- 2014/11/01 06:00
PHST- 2014/11/01 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2014/11/02 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2015/03/11 06:00 [medline]
AID - B978-0-12-800214-8.00006-2 [pii]
AID - 10.1016/B978-0-12-800214-8.00006-2 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Adv Mar Biol. 2014;69:205-51. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-800214-8.00006-2.