Telemetry reveals existing marine protected areas are worse than random for protecting the foraging habitat of threatened shy albatross (Thalassarche cauta)

Aim To assess the efficacy of marine reserves in Australia for shy albatross, using long‐term tracking data. Location Albatross Island, Tasmania, and south Australian waters. Methods We integrated a tracking dataset consisting of 111 individuals collected over 23 years and generated Brownian bridge...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Diversity & distributions 2018-12, Vol.24 (12), p.1744-1755
Hauptverfasser: Mason, Claire, Alderman, Rachael, McGowan, Jennifer, Possingham, Hugh P., Hobday, Alistair J., Sumner, Michael, Shaw, Justine
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1755
container_issue 12
container_start_page 1744
container_title Diversity & distributions
container_volume 24
creator Mason, Claire
Alderman, Rachael
McGowan, Jennifer
Possingham, Hugh P.
Hobday, Alistair J.
Sumner, Michael
Shaw, Justine
description Aim To assess the efficacy of marine reserves in Australia for shy albatross, using long‐term tracking data. Location Albatross Island, Tasmania, and south Australian waters. Methods We integrated a tracking dataset consisting of 111 individuals collected over 23 years and generated Brownian bridge kernel density estimations to identify important habitat. We quantified the overlap between the foraging distribution of early incubating adults and post‐fledgling juveniles with management boundaries and marine reserves. We compared the extent of coverage of albatross foraging areas by Marine Protection Areas (MPAs) relative to a randomly designed network of the same size to determine whether the spatial protection measures are likely to be effective. Results Incubating adults consistently foraged in waters to the northwest of Tasmania while post‐fledglings occupied shelf waters around Tasmania and South Australia. We show that our sample of 99 incubating adults adequately represented the population but that our sample of 12 post‐fledgling birds was insufficient, thereby limiting the confidence in our results for this life stage. The Commonwealth Government has the majority of management responsibility for shy albatross at‐sea, containing 88% and 90% of the area occupied most intensively by adult and post‐fledgling shy albatross, respectively. Randomly designed reserve networks outperformed the current MPA network for both life stages, such that the mean protection by a random reserve system was 30% and 12% higher than the actual protection for adults and juveniles in Commonwealth waters. Main conclusions Important foraging habitat of shy albatross from Albatross Island is mostly within Commonwealth‐managed waters. The current MPA network, the only spatial protection measure for shy albatross, provides less coverage for this species than a randomly placed network. An increase in the representation of productive shelf waters in MPA networks would benefit the conservation of shy albatross through reducing fisheries interactions and protecting habitat in these regions.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/ddi.12830
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_24P</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2134185066</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>26585189</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>26585189</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3540-b16a8aba7dda4aea6471e15d0de22296698ddfd14fe513b2404117ff1f4748c73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMtOwzAQRSMEEs8FH4BkiQ0s0npsx0mXiLeExKaso0k8JqnSBGwX6L_wsTgU2OGFPR6dez2-SXIMfAJxTY1pJyAKybeSPVC5SJVWYjvWUut0loHeTfa9X3DOpczEXvI5p46WFNyaOXoj7Dyjj9aHtn9mS3RtT-zFDYHqQIahI_Tjzt4H54mFBnvmsDfDktnB_ZKjNjQ0tvB5vDRYtQEDG2zsR49AfXTzzZphV2Fwg_fsbN5gh96jq6O0xlXA88Nkx8aJ6OjnPEiebq7nl3fpw-Pt_eXFQ1rLTPG0Ao0FVpgbgwoJtcqBIDPckBBipvWsMMYaUJYykJVQXAHk1oJVuSrqXB4kpxvf-IHXFflQLoaV6-OTpQCpoMi41pE631D1OLAjW764Nma0LoGXY_hlDL_8Dj-y0w373na0_h8sr67ufxUnG8XCh8H9KYTOigyKmfwCwyqS6Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2134185066</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Telemetry reveals existing marine protected areas are worse than random for protecting the foraging habitat of threatened shy albatross (Thalassarche cauta)</title><source>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</source><creator>Mason, Claire ; Alderman, Rachael ; McGowan, Jennifer ; Possingham, Hugh P. ; Hobday, Alistair J. ; Sumner, Michael ; Shaw, Justine</creator><contributor>Schoeman, David</contributor><creatorcontrib>Mason, Claire ; Alderman, Rachael ; McGowan, Jennifer ; Possingham, Hugh P. ; Hobday, Alistair J. ; Sumner, Michael ; Shaw, Justine ; Schoeman, David</creatorcontrib><description>Aim To assess the efficacy of marine reserves in Australia for shy albatross, using long‐term tracking data. Location Albatross Island, Tasmania, and south Australian waters. Methods We integrated a tracking dataset consisting of 111 individuals collected over 23 years and generated Brownian bridge kernel density estimations to identify important habitat. We quantified the overlap between the foraging distribution of early incubating adults and post‐fledgling juveniles with management boundaries and marine reserves. We compared the extent of coverage of albatross foraging areas by Marine Protection Areas (MPAs) relative to a randomly designed network of the same size to determine whether the spatial protection measures are likely to be effective. Results Incubating adults consistently foraged in waters to the northwest of Tasmania while post‐fledglings occupied shelf waters around Tasmania and South Australia. We show that our sample of 99 incubating adults adequately represented the population but that our sample of 12 post‐fledgling birds was insufficient, thereby limiting the confidence in our results for this life stage. The Commonwealth Government has the majority of management responsibility for shy albatross at‐sea, containing 88% and 90% of the area occupied most intensively by adult and post‐fledgling shy albatross, respectively. Randomly designed reserve networks outperformed the current MPA network for both life stages, such that the mean protection by a random reserve system was 30% and 12% higher than the actual protection for adults and juveniles in Commonwealth waters. Main conclusions Important foraging habitat of shy albatross from Albatross Island is mostly within Commonwealth‐managed waters. The current MPA network, the only spatial protection measure for shy albatross, provides less coverage for this species than a randomly placed network. An increase in the representation of productive shelf waters in MPA networks would benefit the conservation of shy albatross through reducing fisheries interactions and protecting habitat in these regions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1366-9516</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1472-4642</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/ddi.12830</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</publisher><subject>Adults ; animal telemetry ; BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH ; Brownian bridge ; Brownian motion ; conservation ; Developmental stages ; Fisheries ; Foraging habitats ; Habitats ; Juveniles ; Marine protected areas ; Nature reserves ; Protected areas ; seabirds ; Spatial distribution ; Stochastic processes ; Telemetry ; threatened species ; Tracking</subject><ispartof>Diversity &amp; distributions, 2018-12, Vol.24 (12), p.1744-1755</ispartof><rights>2018 John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2018 John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3540-b16a8aba7dda4aea6471e15d0de22296698ddfd14fe513b2404117ff1f4748c73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3540-b16a8aba7dda4aea6471e15d0de22296698ddfd14fe513b2404117ff1f4748c73</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-8063-5812</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26585189$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/26585189$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,1417,11562,27924,27925,45574,45575,46052,46476,58017,58250</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111%2Fddi.12830$$EView_record_in_Wiley-Blackwell$$FView_record_in_$$GWiley-Blackwell</linktorsrc></links><search><contributor>Schoeman, David</contributor><creatorcontrib>Mason, Claire</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alderman, Rachael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McGowan, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Possingham, Hugh P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hobday, Alistair J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sumner, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaw, Justine</creatorcontrib><title>Telemetry reveals existing marine protected areas are worse than random for protecting the foraging habitat of threatened shy albatross (Thalassarche cauta)</title><title>Diversity &amp; distributions</title><description>Aim To assess the efficacy of marine reserves in Australia for shy albatross, using long‐term tracking data. Location Albatross Island, Tasmania, and south Australian waters. Methods We integrated a tracking dataset consisting of 111 individuals collected over 23 years and generated Brownian bridge kernel density estimations to identify important habitat. We quantified the overlap between the foraging distribution of early incubating adults and post‐fledgling juveniles with management boundaries and marine reserves. We compared the extent of coverage of albatross foraging areas by Marine Protection Areas (MPAs) relative to a randomly designed network of the same size to determine whether the spatial protection measures are likely to be effective. Results Incubating adults consistently foraged in waters to the northwest of Tasmania while post‐fledglings occupied shelf waters around Tasmania and South Australia. We show that our sample of 99 incubating adults adequately represented the population but that our sample of 12 post‐fledgling birds was insufficient, thereby limiting the confidence in our results for this life stage. The Commonwealth Government has the majority of management responsibility for shy albatross at‐sea, containing 88% and 90% of the area occupied most intensively by adult and post‐fledgling shy albatross, respectively. Randomly designed reserve networks outperformed the current MPA network for both life stages, such that the mean protection by a random reserve system was 30% and 12% higher than the actual protection for adults and juveniles in Commonwealth waters. Main conclusions Important foraging habitat of shy albatross from Albatross Island is mostly within Commonwealth‐managed waters. The current MPA network, the only spatial protection measure for shy albatross, provides less coverage for this species than a randomly placed network. An increase in the representation of productive shelf waters in MPA networks would benefit the conservation of shy albatross through reducing fisheries interactions and protecting habitat in these regions.</description><subject>Adults</subject><subject>animal telemetry</subject><subject>BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH</subject><subject>Brownian bridge</subject><subject>Brownian motion</subject><subject>conservation</subject><subject>Developmental stages</subject><subject>Fisheries</subject><subject>Foraging habitats</subject><subject>Habitats</subject><subject>Juveniles</subject><subject>Marine protected areas</subject><subject>Nature reserves</subject><subject>Protected areas</subject><subject>seabirds</subject><subject>Spatial distribution</subject><subject>Stochastic processes</subject><subject>Telemetry</subject><subject>threatened species</subject><subject>Tracking</subject><issn>1366-9516</issn><issn>1472-4642</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kMtOwzAQRSMEEs8FH4BkiQ0s0npsx0mXiLeExKaso0k8JqnSBGwX6L_wsTgU2OGFPR6dez2-SXIMfAJxTY1pJyAKybeSPVC5SJVWYjvWUut0loHeTfa9X3DOpczEXvI5p46WFNyaOXoj7Dyjj9aHtn9mS3RtT-zFDYHqQIahI_Tjzt4H54mFBnvmsDfDktnB_ZKjNjQ0tvB5vDRYtQEDG2zsR49AfXTzzZphV2Fwg_fsbN5gh96jq6O0xlXA88Nkx8aJ6OjnPEiebq7nl3fpw-Pt_eXFQ1rLTPG0Ao0FVpgbgwoJtcqBIDPckBBipvWsMMYaUJYykJVQXAHk1oJVuSrqXB4kpxvf-IHXFflQLoaV6-OTpQCpoMi41pE631D1OLAjW764Nma0LoGXY_hlDL_8Dj-y0w373na0_h8sr67ufxUnG8XCh8H9KYTOigyKmfwCwyqS6Q</recordid><startdate>20181201</startdate><enddate>20181201</enddate><creator>Mason, Claire</creator><creator>Alderman, Rachael</creator><creator>McGowan, Jennifer</creator><creator>Possingham, Hugh P.</creator><creator>Hobday, Alistair J.</creator><creator>Sumner, Michael</creator><creator>Shaw, Justine</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</general><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>M7N</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8063-5812</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20181201</creationdate><title>Telemetry reveals existing marine protected areas are worse than random for protecting the foraging habitat of threatened shy albatross (Thalassarche cauta)</title><author>Mason, Claire ; Alderman, Rachael ; McGowan, Jennifer ; Possingham, Hugh P. ; Hobday, Alistair J. ; Sumner, Michael ; Shaw, Justine</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3540-b16a8aba7dda4aea6471e15d0de22296698ddfd14fe513b2404117ff1f4748c73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Adults</topic><topic>animal telemetry</topic><topic>BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH</topic><topic>Brownian bridge</topic><topic>Brownian motion</topic><topic>conservation</topic><topic>Developmental stages</topic><topic>Fisheries</topic><topic>Foraging habitats</topic><topic>Habitats</topic><topic>Juveniles</topic><topic>Marine protected areas</topic><topic>Nature reserves</topic><topic>Protected areas</topic><topic>seabirds</topic><topic>Spatial distribution</topic><topic>Stochastic processes</topic><topic>Telemetry</topic><topic>threatened species</topic><topic>Tracking</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mason, Claire</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alderman, Rachael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McGowan, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Possingham, Hugh P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hobday, Alistair J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sumner, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaw, Justine</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><jtitle>Diversity &amp; distributions</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mason, Claire</au><au>Alderman, Rachael</au><au>McGowan, Jennifer</au><au>Possingham, Hugh P.</au><au>Hobday, Alistair J.</au><au>Sumner, Michael</au><au>Shaw, Justine</au><au>Schoeman, David</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Telemetry reveals existing marine protected areas are worse than random for protecting the foraging habitat of threatened shy albatross (Thalassarche cauta)</atitle><jtitle>Diversity &amp; distributions</jtitle><date>2018-12-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>1744</spage><epage>1755</epage><pages>1744-1755</pages><issn>1366-9516</issn><eissn>1472-4642</eissn><abstract>Aim To assess the efficacy of marine reserves in Australia for shy albatross, using long‐term tracking data. Location Albatross Island, Tasmania, and south Australian waters. Methods We integrated a tracking dataset consisting of 111 individuals collected over 23 years and generated Brownian bridge kernel density estimations to identify important habitat. We quantified the overlap between the foraging distribution of early incubating adults and post‐fledgling juveniles with management boundaries and marine reserves. We compared the extent of coverage of albatross foraging areas by Marine Protection Areas (MPAs) relative to a randomly designed network of the same size to determine whether the spatial protection measures are likely to be effective. Results Incubating adults consistently foraged in waters to the northwest of Tasmania while post‐fledglings occupied shelf waters around Tasmania and South Australia. We show that our sample of 99 incubating adults adequately represented the population but that our sample of 12 post‐fledgling birds was insufficient, thereby limiting the confidence in our results for this life stage. The Commonwealth Government has the majority of management responsibility for shy albatross at‐sea, containing 88% and 90% of the area occupied most intensively by adult and post‐fledgling shy albatross, respectively. Randomly designed reserve networks outperformed the current MPA network for both life stages, such that the mean protection by a random reserve system was 30% and 12% higher than the actual protection for adults and juveniles in Commonwealth waters. Main conclusions Important foraging habitat of shy albatross from Albatross Island is mostly within Commonwealth‐managed waters. The current MPA network, the only spatial protection measure for shy albatross, provides less coverage for this species than a randomly placed network. An increase in the representation of productive shelf waters in MPA networks would benefit the conservation of shy albatross through reducing fisheries interactions and protecting habitat in these regions.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/ddi.12830</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8063-5812</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier ISSN: 1366-9516
ispartof Diversity & distributions, 2018-12, Vol.24 (12), p.1744-1755
issn 1366-9516
1472-4642
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2134185066
source Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)
subjects Adults
animal telemetry
BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH
Brownian bridge
Brownian motion
conservation
Developmental stages
Fisheries
Foraging habitats
Habitats
Juveniles
Marine protected areas
Nature reserves
Protected areas
seabirds
Spatial distribution
Stochastic processes
Telemetry
threatened species
Tracking
title Telemetry reveals existing marine protected areas are worse than random for protecting the foraging habitat of threatened shy albatross (Thalassarche cauta)
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T19%3A35%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_24P&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Telemetry%20reveals%20existing%20marine%20protected%20areas%20are%20worse%20than%20random%20for%20protecting%20the%20foraging%20habitat%20of%20threatened%20shy%20albatross%20(Thalassarche%20cauta)&rft.jtitle=Diversity%20&%20distributions&rft.au=Mason,%20Claire&rft.date=2018-12-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=1744&rft.epage=1755&rft.pages=1744-1755&rft.issn=1366-9516&rft.eissn=1472-4642&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/ddi.12830&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_24P%3E26585189%3C/jstor_24P%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2134185066&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=26585189&rfr_iscdi=true