Ceccherelli G et al. (2022), Sea urchin harvest inside marine protected area...

ECB-ART-50437

PeerJ 2022 Oct 06;10:e12971. doi: 10.7717/peerj.12971.

Show Gene links Show Anatomy links

Sea urchin harvest inside marine protected areas: an opportunity to investigate the effects of exploitation where trophic upgrading is achieved.

Ceccherelli G , Addis P , Atzori F , Cadoni N , Casu M , Coppa S , De Luca M , de Lucia GA , Farina S , Fois N , Frau F , Gazale V , Grech D , Guala I , Mariani M , Marras MS , Navone A , Pansini A , Panzalis P , Pinna F , Ruiu A , Scarpa F , Piazzi L .

???displayArticle.abstract???
BACKGROUND: Marine protected areas (MPAs) usually have both positive effects of protection for the fisheries' target species and indirect negative effects for sea urchins. Moreover, often in MPAs sea urchin human harvest is restricted, but allowed. This study is aimed at estimating the effect of human harvest of the sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus within MPAs, where fish exploitation is restricted and its density is already controlled by a higher natural predation risk. The prediction we formulated was that the lowest densities of commercial sea urchins would be found where human harvest is allowed and where the harvest is restricted, compared to where the harvest is forbidden. METHODS: At this aim, a collaborative database gained across five MPAs in Sardinia (Western Mediterranean, Italy) and areas outside was gathered collecting sea urchin abundance and size data in a total of 106 sites at different degrees of sea urchin exploitation: no, restricted and unrestricted harvest sites (NH, RH and UH, respectively). Furthermore, as estimates made in past monitoring efforts (since 2005) were available for 75 of the sampled sites, for each of the different levels of exploitation, the rate of variation in the total sea urchin density was also estimated. RESULTS: Results have highlighted that the lowest sea urchin total and commercial density was found in RH sites, likely for the cumulative effects of human harvest and natural predation. The overall rate of change in sea urchin density over time indicates that only NH conditions promoted the increase of sea urchin abundance and that current local management of the MPAs has driven towards an important regression of populations, by allowing the harvest. Overall, results suggest that complex mechanisms, including synergistic effects between natural biotic interactions and human pressures, may occur on sea urchin populations and the assessment of MPA effects on P. lividus populations would be crucial to guide management decisions on regulating harvest permits. Overall, the need to ban sea urchin harvest in the MPAs to avoid extreme reductions is encouraged, as inside the MPAs sea urchin populations are likely under natural predation pressures for the trophic upgrading.

???displayArticle.pubmedLink??? 35282273
???displayArticle.pmcLink??? PMC8908888
???displayArticle.link??? PeerJ

???attribute.lit??? ???displayArticles.show???

References [+] :

Asnaghi, Cascading effects of ocean acidification in a rocky subtidal community. 2013, Pubmed, Echinobase

Asnaghi, Cascading effects of ocean acidification in a rocky subtidal community. 2013, Pubmed , Echinobase
Asnaghi, Decreased pH impairs sea urchin resistance to predatory fish: A combined laboratory-field study to understand the fate of top-down processes in future oceans. 2020, Pubmed , Echinobase
Boada, Immanent conditions determine imminent collapses: nutrient regimes define the resilience of macroalgal communities. 2017, Pubmed , Echinobase
Britten, Predator decline leads to decreased stability in a coastal fish community. 2014, Pubmed
Coppa, Fishery management in a marine protected area with compliance gaps: Socio-economic and biological insights as a first step on the path of sustainability. 2021, Pubmed , Echinobase
Di Minin, Identifying global centers of unsustainable commercial harvesting of species. 2019, Pubmed
Estes, Trophic downgrading of planet Earth. 2011, Pubmed
Farina, The challenge of managing the commercial harvesting of the sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus: advanced approaches are required. 2020, Pubmed , Echinobase
Farina, The Seagrass Effect Turned Upside Down Changes the Prospective of Sea Urchin Survival and Landscape Implications. 2016, Pubmed , Echinobase
Farina, Hydrodynamic patterns favouring sea urchin recruitment in coastal areas: A Mediterranean study case. 2018, Pubmed , Echinobase
Gaines, Designing marine reserve networks for both conservation and fisheries management. 2010, Pubmed
Giakoumi, Ecological effects of full and partial protection in the crowded Mediterranean Sea: a regional meta-analysis. 2017, Pubmed , Echinobase
Guidetti, Marine reserves reestablish lost predatory interactions and cause community changes in rocky reefs. 2006, Pubmed , Echinobase
Guidetti, Large-scale assessment of Mediterranean marine protected areas effects on fish assemblages. 2014, Pubmed
Guidetti, Evaluating the effects of protection on fish predators and sea urchins in shallow artificial rocky habitats: a case study in the northern Adriatic Sea. 2005, Pubmed , Echinobase
Guidetti, Relationships among predatory fish, sea urchins and barrens in Mediterranean rocky reefs across a latitudinal gradient. 2007, Pubmed , Echinobase
Hereu, Multiple processes regulate long-term population dynamics of sea urchins on Mediterranean rocky reefs. 2012, Pubmed , Echinobase
Hereu, Multiple controls of community structure and dynamics in a sublittoral marine environment. 2008, Pubmed , Echinobase
Loh, Indirect effects of overfishing on Caribbean reefs: sponges overgrow reef-building corals. 2015, Pubmed
Loi, Hard time to be parents? Sea urchin fishery shifts potential reproductive contribution of population onto the shoulders of the young adults. 2017, Pubmed , Echinobase
Medrano, No-take marine reserves control the recovery of sea urchin populations after mass mortality events. 2019, Pubmed , Echinobase
Oliva, Determinants of Paracentrotus lividus sea urchin recruitment under oligotrophic conditions: Implications for conservation management. 2016, Pubmed , Echinobase
Panja, Stability and dynamics of a fractional-order three-species predator-prey model. 2019, Pubmed
Pauly, Catch reconstructions reveal that global marine fisheries catches are higher than reported and declining. 2016, Pubmed
Pelc, Detecting larval export from marine reserves. 2010, Pubmed
Pessarrodona, Consumptive and non-consumptive effects of predators vary with the ontogeny of their prey. 2019, Pubmed , Echinobase
Piazzi, Concomitance of oligotrophy and low grazing pressure is essential for the resilience of Mediterranean subtidal forests. 2017, Pubmed , Echinobase
Prado, Habitat and scale shape the demographic fate of the keystone sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus in Mediterranean macrophyte communities. 2012, Pubmed , Echinobase
Sala, A general business model for marine reserves. 2013, Pubmed
Scheffer, Cascading effects of over-fishing marine systems. 2005, Pubmed
Sih, Emergent impacts of multiple predators on prey. 1998, Pubmed
Stuhldreier, Effects of simulated eutrophication and overfishing on algae and invertebrate settlement in a coral reef of Koh Phangan, Gulf of Thailand. 2015, Pubmed
Yeruham, Collapse of the echinoid Paracentrotus lividus populations in the Eastern Mediterranean--result of climate change? 2015, Pubmed , Echinobase

	Figure 1. Maps of Sardinia and the studied MPAs. CI, Capo Caccia-Isola Piana; AS, Isola dell’Asinara; SN, Penisola del Sinis-Isola di Mal di Ventre; TV, Tavolara Punta Coda Cavallo; CC, Capo Carbonara.Zonation of each MPA is showed: A zone in red, B zone in grey and C zone in light grey.
	Figure 2. Paracentrotus lividus. (A) total and (B) commercial density (mean and the confidence interval) at the NH (no harvest), RH (restricted harvest) and UH (unrestricted harvest) sites (replicated sites n = 33, 37, and 36, respectively).
	Figure 3. Paracentrotus lividus. Response (mean ± SE) of total density (black) and commercial density (white) to no harvest (NH) and restricted harvest (RH) conditions.Response was quantified by the natural logarithm of the ratio between the values of each response variable (sea urchin total and commercial density) at NH and RH conditions versus UH conditions.
	Figure 4. Paracentrotus lividus. Temporal variability in total abundance (individuals/m2) at NH, no harvest; RH, restricted harvest and UH, unrestricted harvest conditions from 2005 to 2019.The number of sites from which each mean (and SE) was calculated is indicated at the bottom of the plot.
	Figure 5. Paracentrotus lividus. Rate of variation (mean±SE across 15 years) in total abundance (individuals/m2yr) at NH (no harvest), RH (restricted harvest) and UH (unrestricted harvest) conditions (replicated sites n = 27, 28, and 13, res.