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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Diversity & distributions 2018-12, Vol.24 (12), p.1744-1755 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
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 & 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 & distributions, 2018-12, Vol.24 (12), p.1744-1755</ispartof><rights>2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & 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 & 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 & Sons Ltd</general><general>John Wiley & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 |