Abstract
The establishment of multiple zones offering different protection levels within a Marine Protected Area (MPA) can minimize social conflicts while maintaining associated biodiversity benefits such as fish population replenishment. Parrotfishes are among one of the most ecologically important reef fishes; yet extremely overexploited worldwide. In this context, well-designed priority management areas allowing no fishing activity (no-take zones) could help recover fish species, such as parrotfishes, through a MPA zoning process. Here, we tested this hypothesis by identifying the spatial configuration of zones that maximize the recovery of endangered parrotfish species (Scarus trispinosus; Scarus zelindae; Sparisoma amplum; Sparisoma axillare; Sparisoma frondosum) at the largest MPA in Brazil protecting nearshore coral reefs (MPA Costa dos Corais). We used parrotfish distribution data to produce species distribution models (SDMs) and combined them with conservation planning tools to delineate priority zones following a systematic approach. Then, we contrasted priority zones against non-systematic, newly designed no-take zones based on managers’ and stakeholders’ perspectives. After mapping the predicted abundance of each species within both zones based upon field surveys, we found that priority zones were more effective than non-systematic ones for the protection of two out of the five species: Scarus trispinosus and Sparisoma amplum. Thus, we considered that designing systematic zones was particularly relevant for increased protection of the two parrotfish species facing the largest decline. The prioritization analyses also showed that priority areas for parrotfish conservation following a systematic approach were mostly located surrounding and within no-take zones delineated by local stakeholders. The spatial overlap between systematic and non-systematic zones was of 38%. Hence, our study reinforces the importance of considering scientific information and methods (e.g., spatial distribution data and prioritization analyses) as a complementary strategy along with local stakeholders’ knowledge, for delineating and refining management zones within MPAs.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Coral reefs are one of the most ecologically relevant ecosystems on Earth. Yet, they are being subjected to multiple natural and anthropogenic impacts1,2,3. To mitigate the effects of human impacts such as overfishing, pollution, and global warming on coral reefs, the establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs) has been advocated as one of the most effective and widespread management strategies to date4,5,6. However, to increase species richness and biomass within their boundaries and benefit surrounding area through spillover and larval export, MPAs must be properly designed, implemented, and regulated7,8,9.
One of the critical steps in the MPA implementation process is the design of management zones10,11, which afford varying levels of restriction of human use within their boundaries. The establishment of multiple zones within an MPA can improve their overall effectiveness by minimizing social conflict between activities12, accommodate a myriad of conservation objectives in the planning process5, and optimize associated biodiversity and fishery benefits11,13,14. The science of conservation planning emphasizes the use of decision support tools to help identify the optimal spatial arrangement of zones15, which requires an understanding of the spatial distribution of habitats and species. Ideally, there will be also a large understanding of social and cultural context, and the integration of stakeholder’s perception into the zoning design process14,16. A robust design of management zones encompasses detailed information on biodiversity distribution and spatial representation of local uses, such as fishing and tourism, to identify areas where management actions are required while allowing human activities (i.e., multiple-use areas), and areas that are fully protected from all extractive and human uses (i.e., no-take areas) 17,18,19. Yet, such spatially explicit information on biodiversity and human uses is lacking for most of MPAs, especially in low and middle-income countries that are often facing a shortage of resources to support management activities.
Reef fishes are important biodiversity components that benefit from MPA success and are often considered model species for conservation and ecological studies20,21,22. Parrotfishes represent one of the most threatened fish groups worldwide with several overexploitation and local extinction recorded examples23,24,25.This group largely contributes to the dynamics of coral reefs, providing suitable settlement substrata for corals and mediating competition between corals and macroalgae26. Therefore, the lack of parrotfish grazing capacity could compromise MPAs efficiency and biodiversity recovery27,28. For instance, Mumby and Harborne27 suggested that marine reserves enhance the recovery of corals on Caribbean reefs and that parrotfishes play a large role in the recovery process of corals within MPAs. Nevertheless, little is known about parrotfish spatial distribution and about how the MPA zoning process could contribute to the recovery of parrotfish populations in the Southwestern Atlantic Ocean (SWA).
Management zones can be defined by managers’ and stakeholders’ perceptions within a participatory approach and without using decision-support tools (i.e., non-systematic design), or alternatively by a sequence of methodological steps that includes the usage of decision-support tools and the formulation of quantitative targets. In the latter approach, one of the most used systematic planning tools (i.e., Marxan) attempts to maintain or increase species population size by representing portions of their distribution within specific management zones5,15. Consequently, this approach can be derived from species distribution models (SDMs) in situations where distribution information is incomplete. SDMs are used to predict the distribution range of species based upon occurrence records and relevant environmental data29. Systematic and non-systematic approaches might thus be compared against each other using empirical data on the potential conservation benefits for relevant species, providing assistance in the MPA planning process. Direct measurements of species abundance could be used to evaluate the conservation benefits provided by management zones identified by systematic and non-systematic approaches in terms of helping promote biodiversity recovery over the implementation process of MPAs.
Here, we aimed to identify priority areas for conservation that would help recover threatened parrotfish species (Scarus trispinosus; Scarus zelindae; Sparisoma amplum; Sparisoma axillare; Sparisoma frondosum) at the largest coastal, multi-use MPA in Brazil (MPA Costa dos Corais), which allows biodiversity extractive uses such as fishing and tourism. To this end, we used a large field survey of parrotfish distribution and abundance with 94 sampling sites spatially distributed across the MPA and combined this information with modelling tools, such as SDMs and conservation planning software (i.e., Marxan) to identify priority areas for these species following a systematic approach. By doing so, we wanted to contrast the benefits of adopting this approach over the non-systematic design of zones in terms of their potential protection level provided against the decline of the parrotfish species due to overfishing. We evaluated these benefits by comparing the spatial overlap and the potential increase in the abundance of the parrotfish species offered by management zones defined by a systematic or a non-systematic approach. The non-systematic MPA zones were identified by managers and local stakeholders during the recent reviewing process of the MPA management plan (2017–2020). Ultimately, we aimed to provide insights into how effective the non-systematic zoning is in protecting these species and the required refinements. We posit that including empirical estimates of fish abundance into the MPA planning process will allow us to understand the benefits of each zone, and this inclusion could improve the overall MPA performance worldwide.
Results
Parrotfish density data
For each parrotfish analyzed species, our field data presented higher density of Scarus trispinosus on the coast of Maragogi/Japaratinga and Paripueira/Maceió (Fig. 1A). For, Scarus zelindae a high density was observed at São José da Coroa Grande, South of Maragogi and Paripueira (Fig. 1B). A high density of Sparisoma amplum was recorded at the south of São José da Coroa Grande and Maragogi and at the coast of Barra de Santo Antônio (Fig. 1C) and a high density of Sparisoma axillare was observed at the north of São José da Coroa Grande, coast of Porto de Pedras/São Miguel dos Milagres and Barra de Santo Antônio (Fig. 1D). Finally, Sparisoma frondosum had a high density at the south of São José da Coroa Grande, Maragogi/Japaratinga and Porto de Pedras (Fig. 3E).
Parrotfish species distribution modelling (SDM)
Parrotfish species distribution modelling (SDM) demonstrated high probability of occurrence for Scarus trispinosus on the coast of Maragogi/Japaratinga, Passo de Camaragibe and Paripueira (Fig. 2A). For Scarus zelindae probability of occurrence was observed at Sao José da Coroa Grande and North of Maragogi, São Miguel dos Milagres/Porto de Pedras and Paripueira (Fig. 2B). A high probability of Sparisoma amplum occurrence was recorded at south of Japaratinga, Porto de Pedras/São Miguel dos Milagres and at the coast of Barra de Santo Antônio (Fig. 2C) and for Sparisoma axillare was observed at the south of Maragogi, Japaratinga, and south of Paripueira (Fig. 2D). Finally, Sparisoma frondosum had a high probability of occurrence at the south of Tamandaré/São José da Coroa Grande, Porto de Pedras/São Miguel dos Milagres and Maceió (Fig. 2E).
Conservation prioritization
The selection frequency output from Marxan indicates the importance of an area for achieving the conservation targets of all species. We found that mostly shallow areas closer to the coast were frequently selected across all runs (Fig. 3). The most frequently selected planning units were concentrated around a few, spatially restricted areas. That is an indication that there is no high flexibility achieving our conservation targets. Areas with high selection frequency were located within the estuary of the river Santo Antônio, near the estuary of the river Camaragibe, and on patchy areas between the central and northern parts of the MPA around the municipalities of Japaratinga and Maragogi.
Evaluation of zoning effectiveness
Marxan’s best solution provides an indication of an individual solution that best achieved the conservation targets for parrotfishes at the MPA Costa dos Corais (i.e., “priority areas”). The priority areas were located mostly surrounding and within the existing no-take zones identified by stakeholders. The spatial overlap between priority zones and no-take ones was of 38%. Priority zones for parrotfish’s conservation summed up an area of about 504 km2 within the extent of the MPA Costa dos Corais (Fig. 4).
Based upon the predicted abundance of each species within zones, we found that priority zones were more effective than existing no-take zones identified by stakeholders for the protection of three species: Scarus trispinosus, Sparisoma amplum and Sparisoma frondosum (Fig. 5). Thus, the largest advantage of designing priority zones was to provide improved protection for these parrotfish species when compared to designed zones without a systematic approach.
Discussion
Our study used spatial distribution and abundance data on parrotfish species to develop a prioritization approach for the largest Brazilian coastal MPA. Parrotfish fishing is an extremely important local community livelihood in this MPA25,30. Therefore, our study provides important baseline data for the long-term monitoring of these key species and supporting information for the refinement of management zones aiming to maintain parrotfish populations in the future and support local and national managers' conservation strategies. Based on Marxan conservation prioritization analyses, we identified that the priority areas for parrotfish conservation within the MPA were located mostly surrounding and within the no-take zones previously identified by stakeholders in a non-systematic approach31 and additional areas that were missed by the latter. The spatial overlap between priority zones and no-take zones was of 38% and the results showed that a both non-systematic and systematic approach are complementary strategies to design management zones entailing the risk of determining priority areas that are inappropriate for the recovery of species facing the largest declines in their abundance. Our findings support the value of stakeholder (fishers, local managers and researchers) knowledge and input into the more traditional “non-systematic” decision-making process. Additionally, our study highlighted the relevance of using distribution and abundance data of fish assemblages to refine no-take zones for the recovery of fish species and the optimal zoning strategies for coral reefs.
Conservation priorities derived from systematic and nonsystematic approaches can be complementary in terms of contributing to restoring depleted species such as parrotfishes as observed herein. For three species (Scarus trispinosus, Sparisoma amplum and Sparisoma frondosum) there was a large overlap between priorities derived from Marxan and developed based on local stakeholders. However, data-driven systematic approaches to conservation planning are necessary to pinpoint key areas that help recover species undergoing rapid decline, considered to be at high risk of local extinction9,32. Though the need to consider species abundance in the design of management zones has long been recognized33,34, only a few MPAs in Brazil have been consistently monitored with this type of biological data35, particularly for coral reef ecosystems. We found that this type of data was fundamental to provide guidance at identifying zones that are adequate to protect species in most need of conservation.
It was found that sitting the no-take zones implemented by stakeholders for sociopolitical reasons had some influence on the efficiency of the outputs in the study area. While 38% of the priority zones are currently fully protected, these zones are likely to generate community buy-in and strong support for conservation in the future. They can also set the stage for other parts of the MPAs to be fully protected in the future within an adaptive planning framework36. Given the importance of social acceptance in MPA success37, and the slow process of perceiving ecological and social benefits of protection38, the systematic approach based on ecological data presented here can be combined within a mixed approach as communities become more engaged in conservation and tourism activities over time. Furthermore, the location and extent of priority zones is likely to be heavily dependent on the choices of model parameters and criteria and data inputs, some of which could be somewhat biased.
Gathering ecological data requires setting up and running adequate monitoring programs which ensure that sampling strategy of target biodiversity components capture changes in biodiversity condition due to management actions35. Thus, long-term monitoring programs are required to monitor the effectiveness of zones and to distinguish the status and changes of coral reef assemblages due to disturbances and management strategies39,40. Although we assembled monitoring data for a few species that could help us gain an understanding of the ecological benefits of adopting systematic and non-systematic approaches, the similarity of ecological characteristics between species means that it would have been wise to consider ecological data of other fish and benthic species in the future. Owing to the widespread shortfalls in funding worldwide41,42, conservation managers must decide where the investment is needed, whether in the establishment of new conservation zones or the enforcement of the existing ones. In this sense, we suggest that although monitoring data is desirable in conservation planning, spatial adjustments regarding the configuration of zones would provide progressively improvements of parrotfish species conservation.
The is as urgent call to understand the status of Brazilian reef fish populations and design appropriate management and conservation strategies9,43,44. Many species of herbivorous (Scarinae family) are currently overexploited and threatened with extinction worldwide23,25,44. Using traditional stock assessment models, Frédou45 also found that the most common Lutjanidae (5 species) in northeastern of Brazil were fully or overexploited in fished areas. The absence of large carnivores increases the vulnerability of herbivorous fish to overfishing in coastal communities46. Recent studies demonstrated the reduction of herbivorous fish populations, mainly Scaridae, due to overfishing26,47,48,49,50,51. For instance, based on declines measured at various locations, the global population of Scarus trispinosus, a species analyzed in the present study,is estimated to have decreased by at least 50% in the last 20 to 30 years (three generations in duration) 25,52,53. Conversely, urgent action including priority conservation modelling for MPA zoning such as presented herein and fisheries management plan are necessary to protect parrotfishes.
A new management strategy in force since June 2019 in Brazil, has been introduced to deter the overfishing of parrotfish species54. This innovative strategy, “inverted management”, allows the capture of endangered species inside management areas, such as partially-protected marine areas (MPAs), while it remains banned elsewhere. However, the adequate implementation of this strategy depends on the adoption of a series of challenging management measures such as co-management, surveillance, high level fishery statistics data and long-term monitoring. Currently, MPA Costa dos Corais is working on the fishing regulation for three parrotfish species, Scarus trispinosus; Sparisoma amplum, Sparisoma frondosum. The management plan will include size catch restrictions, quota per fish, and catch ban on specific periods (e.g., reproduction seasons). For instance, for the endangered and endemic parrotfish S. trispinosus as suggested by Pereira25 catch would be only allowed during the day and for individuals larger than 40 cm and weighting over 3 kg. A season ban would be also recommended during February–March and August–September (spawning peaks). Lastly, fish may be landed eviscerated but never in fillets which makes identification of the species difficult during monitoring.
It is worth mentioning that several socioeconomic aspects such as touristic pressure, fishing activities, and pollution, including sewage discharge, must be considered during the planning and evaluation of management and monitoring actions of MPAs. According to MPA Costa dos Corais Public Use Plan31, the MPA received around 315,000 visitors in 2019, 85% only in the natural pools of Maragogi. The numbers refer only to visits in areas with visitation control, i.e., the natural pools of Maragogi, Japaratinga and Paripueira and the visits to manatees in Porto de Pedras. Yet, this number is certainly underestimated and, according to the management of the MPA the number of visitors may be in the order of millions per year31 and must be considered during zoning strategies. Additional local factors that should also be considered include: proximity to sugarcane plantations, which increase the risk of pollution55,56; contamination by oil and oil products57; invasive species such as sun coral and lionfish58,59,60. Hence, all this additional socioeconomic and ecological impacts must be properly addressed for effective MPA zoning process and associated species conservation.
Methods
Study area
The present study was performed at MPA Costa dos Corais, the largest coastal multiple-se marine protected area in Brazil, created in 1997 to protect coral reef ecosystems on Brazilian waters. This MPA stretches from 120 km in northeastern Brazil encompassing two states and 12 municipalities (Fig. 6). MPA Costa dos Corais covers a large range of different ecosystems such as shallow reefs, mangroves, seagrass beds, rhodolith/sponge beds and mesophotic reefs from the coast to the break of the continental shelf25,61,62.
The multiple use MPA corresponds to an IUCN category VI protected area, where sustainable use is admitted according to its management plan, published in 201363 and recently revised31. This new version of the management plan was elaborated by managers in partnership with local NGOs, researchers, fishers, and touristic trade, and became official recently31. The zoning plan was considered the best strategy to promote coral reefs conservation locally with some areas indicated as “no-take zones” (where all human activities, except research, are prohibited), touristic areas (where only low impact visiting activities are allowed), and large multiple-use zones (where fishing and tourism activities are allowed).
Parrotfish field data
Underwater observation was carried from 2017 to 2020 in 94 sites distributed along the MPA Costa dos Corais to determine the spatial distribution and abundance of five parrotfish species (Scarus zelindae; Scarus trispinosus; Sparisoma amplum; Sparisoma axillare; Sparisoma frondosum) (Fig. 6). Field data was collected in belt transects of 20 m long by 5 × 5 m wide (2.5 m on the right and 2.5 m on the left), with a minimum of 4 linear transects performed per site64.
Parrotfish species distribution modelling (SDM)
The methodology for creating the maximum entropy models followed the parameters established by Dalapicolla65. Maximum entropy models for habitat prediction use georeferenced occurrences and environmental variables such as mean temperature, mean precipitation, calcite content, salinity, etc66,67. The objective was to predict which areas within the region meet the requirements of the species' ecological niche and, therefore, are part of the species' potential distribution68. The potential distribution describes suitable conditions for species survival and therefore of greater conservation importance69,70,71. Several studies have used maximum entropy (Maxent) methodology to predict global and local habitats72,73,74,75,76,77.
To generate the model, data files were converted to Maxent software formats. Hit points were converted from shapefile to .csv and environmental variables from .tiff to .asc. The environmental variables files (bathymetry, transparency, coral cover and algae cover) (Table S1) were entered with the same cell/pixel size, rows and columns. The geoprocessing steps were developed in Arcgis 10.8 software.
SCUBA diving was used to survey a 20 m × 5 m belt transect (2.5 m on the right and 2.5 m on the left) for coral cover and algae cover on the same analyzed parrotfish sites (Fig. 6). Point Intercept Transect (PIT) was used where data was recorded along the central transect line ((Hill and Wilkinson, 2004; Leão et al., 2016) (see Pereira et al., 2022 for methodological details). Coral cover and algae cover was calculated as a percentage of cover for each belt transect.
In the current model, all environmental variables were continuous, and pixels represented values (e.g., bathymetry). The options CREATE RESPONSE CURVES and DO JACKKNIFE TO MEASURE VARIABLE IMPORTANCE were selected to generated a graph for each variable indicating the behavior of the probability of occurrence of the species with the increase in the value of the variables and the calculation of the importance of each variable for the model. For the species Scarus zelindae and Sparisoma axillare with a few samples above 80, the AUTO FEATURES option was selected. From 15 to 79 occurrences (Sparisoma amplum and Sparisoma frondosum) linear, quadratic and hinge features were selected. Finally, for species below 10 samples (Scarus trispinosus) the linear option was applied.
For each species, 10 models (replicates) were created, which were later analyzed according to statistical parameters in search of the best indexes to choose the final model. Processing returns a .csv table with the parameters of each model. The mean values of the following parameters are analyzed: AUC Test; Minimum training presence logistic threshold; Minimum training presence test omission; Minimum training presence binomial probability; 10 percentile training presence logistic threshold. Then, in the Arcgis software, the models were cut by the threshold values, opting for the 10% threshold value.
The quality of the models was statistically verified from the parameters determined in the bibliography for evaluation (see Supplementary Material), mainly the AUC test. The AUC test is a threshold independent measure of model performance compared to the null hypothesis for prediction (Fielding and Bell 1997). Models with AUC ≤ 0.50 are considered to perform poorly, possibly worse than a random prediction, while higher AUC values, preferably above 0.7, indicate better prediction results. The SDM models for parrotfish species showed AUC values between 0.92 and 0.97.
Spatial prioritization analyses
We performed a conservation prioritization to reflect the potential benefit of priority areas in the recovery of parrotfish species. We used the software package prioritzr (Marxan function) to identify spatial priorities that meet percentage target for each species, while accounting for the different level of protection required to each species, and minimizing the total cost of the selected areas, with area as a measure of cost. Marxan uses simulated annealing to solve the minimum-set problem78. Because we wanted to compare the spatial configuration of different type of zones, and their potential benefit to recover fish populations, we did not allow non-systematic zones to be necessarily selected by Marxan (i.e., they were not locked in the analysis; that is also because the non-systematic zones had not been formally implemented at the time of the analysis). We used 1 km square cells as our planning units (N = 17,099), which are the minimum area that could be potentially selected for protection. The planning-unit size reflected the scale of the species distribution data.
We defined species-specific targets based on natural rarity (\(NR_{i} )\), vulnerability to threats \(\left( {VL_{i} } \right)\), and past range reduction through habitat loss (\(RP_{i} )\). Natural rarity was perceived as the distribution size of each species within the MPA as defined by the binary results of the SDMs. To estimate vulnerability, we extracted the scores of cumulative threats facing each species under consideration within their distribution area inside the MPA as described in Magris9. The threats considered in the analyses included fishing, land-derived pollution, ocean-based pollution, climate change, and coastal development and their scales were previously normalized to a range 0–1 within the MPA boundaries to allow comparison. We calculated the mean cumulative threat score for all planning units within their present distribution. To estimate the habitat loss, we summed up the number of pixels from the binary distribution modelling results in which the species had null abundance according to the survey field data (i.e., where the species is known to be absent). Each factor individually was normalized to the reference range zero to one (where one represents the species with the smallest distribution, facing the highest level of threat, and associated with the largest potential reduction in population size; and zero represents the species with the largest distribution, facing the lowest level of threat, and found to have the smallest potential reduction in population size), as follows:
where \(SDM_{max}\) is the largest SDM among all species, and \(SDM_{i}\) is the distribution size for the species under consideration.
where \(CT_{max}\) is the highest cumulative impact score among all species, and \(CT_{i}\) is the cumulative impact score for the species under consideration.
where \(RP_{max}\) is the largest reduction in the range among all species and \(RP_{i}\) is the past reduction in the range for the species under consideration.
We calculated the target for each species as the sum of all factors, ensuring that all species had a minimum target of 10% and a maximum of 30% (Table 1). We followed standard practices to calibrate the boundary length modifier (BLM) and set it to 1. We considered “priority zone” those planning units selected by Marxan’s best solution.
Evaluation the conservation effectiveness of MPA zones
After identifying priority zones by the systematic approach, we examined the spatial overlap between this zone, as defined above, and the no-take zones defined by a non-systematic approach.
Lastly, we estimated the potential benefit to fish populations of each species provided by each type of zone. Because we lacked abundance data for the whole zone areas and due to the spatial autocorrelation observed in our sampling sites, kriging could be used as a method to interpolate density data and predict density levels of each species in unsampled areas of the MPA. By doing so, we created an approximation of a predictive map of abundance of each species and for all planning units belonging to each zone. . Prior to interpolation, density data were normalized with the necessary resolution for better visualization. Interpolation procedures were generated using the Kernel Density tool79 in raster format on Arcgis 10.8 for each parrotfish species: Scarus trispinosus; Scarus zelindae; Sparisoma amplum; Sparisoma axillare; Sparisoma frondosum. Ideally, it would be more robust to create formal predictive maps of density through more sophisticated analysis, but gathering more detailed information on environmental predictors of abundance was beyond the scope of this study and should be incorporated into future modeling attempts.
A flowchart was elaborated to help readers understand the different pieces of the presented analysis and how they fit together to accomplish the present study aims (Fig. 7).
Data availability
Raw data from this manuscript has been included in supplementary files section.
References
Hughes, T. P. et al. Climate change, human impacts, and the resilience of coral reefs. Science 301(5635), 929–933 (2003).
Hoegh-Guldberg, O. E. et al. Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science 318(5857), 1737–1742 (2007).
Soares, M. et al. The flourishing and vulnerabilities of zoantharians on Southwestern Atlantic reefs. Mar. Environ. Res. 173(3), 105535 (2021).
Ban, N. C. et al. Designing, implementing and managing marine protected areas: Emerging trends and opportunities for coral reef nations. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 408(1–2), 21–31 (2011).
Magris, R. A., Pressey, R. L., Mills, M., Vila-Nova, D. A. & Floeter, S. Integrated conservation planning for coral reefs: Designing conservation zones for multiple conservation objectives in spatial prioritisation. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 11, 53–68 (2017).
Vercammen, A. et al. Evaluating the impact of accounting for coral cover in large-scale marine conservation prioritizations. Divers. Distrib. 25(10), 1564–1574 (2019).
Giakoumi, S., Grantham, H. S., Kokkoris, G. D. & Possingham, H. P. Designing a network of marine reserves in the Mediterranean Sea with limited socio-economic data. Biol. Conserv. 144(2), 753–763 (2011).
Gill, D. A. et al. Capacity shortfalls hinder the performance of marine protected areas globally. Nature 543(7647), 665–669 (2017).
Magris, R. A. et al. A blueprint for securing Brazil’s marine biodiversity and supporting the achievement of global conservation goals. Divers. Distrib. 27(2), 198–215 (2021).
Day, J. C. Zoning—lessons from the Great Barrier Reef marine park. Ocean Coast. Manag. 45(2–3), 139–156 (2002).
Agardy, T. Ocean Zoning: Making Marine Management More Effective (Earthscan, 2010).
Makino, A., Klein, C. J., Beger, M., Jupiter, S. D. & Possingham, H. P. Incorporating conservation zone effectiveness for protecting biodiversity in marine planning. PLoS ONE 8(11), e78986 (2013).
Villa, F., Tunesi, L. & Agardy, T. Zoning marine protected areas through spatial multiple-criteria analysis: The case of the Asinara Island National Marine Reserve of Italy. Conserv. Biol. 16(2), 515–526 (2002).
Muhl, E. K., Esteves Dias, A. C. & Armitage, D. Experiences with governance in three marine conservation zoning initiatives: Parameters for assessment and pathways forward. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 629 (2020).
Beger, M. et al. Integrating regional conservation priorities for multiple objectives into national policy. Nat. Commun. 6(1), 1–8 (2015).
Ban, N. C. et al. A social–ecological approach to conservation planning: Embedding social considerations. Front. Ecol. Environ. 11(4), 194–202 (2013).
Teh, L. C., Teh, L. S. & Jumin, R. Combining human preference and biodiversity priorities for marine protected area site selection in Sabah, Malaysia. Biol. Conserv. 167, 396–404 (2013).
Sarker, S., Rahman, M. M., Yadav, A. K. & Islam, M. M. Zoning of marine protected areas for biodiversity conservation in Bangladesh through socio-spatial data. Ocean Coast. Manag. 173, 114–122 (2019).
Day, J. C., Kenchington, R. A., Tanzer, J. M. & Cameron, D. S. Marine zoning revisited: How decades of zoning the Great Barrier Reef has evolved as an effective spatial planning approach for marine ecosystem-based management. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 29, 9–32 (2019).
Claudet, J. et al. Assessing the effects of marine protected area (MPA) on a reef fish assemblage in a northwestern Mediterranean marine reserve: Identifying community-based indicators. Biol. Conserv. 130(3), 349–369 (2006).
Emslie, M. J. et al. Expectations and outcomes of reserve network performance following re-zoning of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Curr. Biol. 25(8), 983–992 (2015).
McClure, E. C. et al. Higher fish biomass inside than outside marine protected areas despite typhoon impacts in a complex reefscape. Biol. Cons. 241, 108354 (2020).
Bender, M. G. et al. Local ecological knowledge and scientific data reveal overexploitation by multigear artisanal fisheries in the Southwestern Atlantic. PLoS ONE 9(10), e110332 (2014).
Hamilton, R. J. et al. Hyperstability masks declines in bumphead parrotfish (Bolbometopon muricatum) populations. Coral Reefs 35(3), 751–763 (2016).
Pereira, P. H. C., Ternes, M. L. F., Nunes, J. A. C. & Giglio, V. J. Overexploitation and behavioral changes of the largest South Atlantic parrotfish (Scarus trispinosus): Evidence from fishers’ knowledge. Biol. Conserv. 254, 108940 (2021).
Mumby, P. J. et al. Fishing, trophic cascades, and the process of grazing on coral reefs. Science 311(5757), 98–101 (2006).
Mumby, P. J. & Harborne, A. R. Marine reserves enhance the recovery of corals on Caribbean reefs. PLoS ONE 5(1), e8657 (2010).
Topor, Z. M., Rasher, D. B., Duffy, J. E. & Brandl, S. J. Marine protected areas enhance coral reef functioning by promoting fish biodiversity. Conserv. Lett. 12(4), e12638 (2019).
Liu, C., White, M. & Newell, G. Measuring and comparing the accuracy of species distribution models with presence–absence data. Ecography 34(2), 232–243 (2011).
Miranda, R. J. et al. Integrating long term ecological research (LTER) and marine protected area management: Challenges and solutions. Oecol. Aust. 24(2), 279–300 (2020).
ICMBIO. Plano de Manejo da Área de Proteção Ambiental Costa dos Corais. ICMBio/MMA (2021).
Jones, K. R. et al. Area requirements to safeguard Earth’s marine species. One Earth 2(2), 188–196 (2020).
Figueiredo, M. S. & Grelle, C. E. V. Predicting global abundance of a threatened species from its occurrence: Implications for conservation planning. Divers. Distrib. 15(1), 117–121 (2009).
Pearce, J. & Ferrier, S. The practical value of modelling relative abundance of species for regional conservation planning: A case study. Biol. Conserv. 98(1), 33–43 (2001).
Ferreira, H. M., Magris, R. A., Floeter, S. R. & Ferreira, C. E. Drivers of ecological effectiveness of marine protected areas: A meta-analytic approach from the Southwestern Atlantic Ocean (Brazil). J. Environ. Manag. 301, 113889 (2021).
Mills, M. et al. Real-world progress in overcoming the challenges of adaptive spatial planning in marine protected areas. Biol. Conserv. 181, 54–63 (2015).
Bennett, N. J. et al. Local support for conservation is associated with perceptions of good governance, social impacts, and ecological effectiveness. Conserv. Lett. 12(4), e12640 (2019).
Oldekop, J. A., Holmes, G., Harris, W. E. & Evans, K. L. A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas. Conserv. Biol. 30(1), 133–141 (2016).
Emslie, M. J. et al. Decades of monitoring have informed the stewardship and ecological understanding of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Biol. Conserv. 252, 108854 (2020).
Gerhardinger, L. C., Godoy, E. A., Jones, P. J., Sales, G. & Ferreira, B. P. Marine protected dramas: The flaws of the Brazilian national system of marine protected areas. Environ. Manag. 47(4), 630–643 (2011).
Oliveira, E. A., Martelli, H., Silva, A. C. S. E., Martelli, D. R. B. & Oliveira, M. C. L. Science funding crisis in Brazil and COVID-19: Deleterious impact on scientific output. Anais Acad. Bras. Ciênc. 92, 1–2 (2020).
Floeter, S. R., Halpern, B. S. & Ferreira, C. E. L. Effects of fishing and protection on Brazilian reef fishes. Biol. Conserv. 128(3), 391–402 (2006).
Bender, M. G., Floeter, S. R. & Hanazaki, N. Do traditional fishers recognise reef fish species declines? Shifting environmental baselines in E astern B razil. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 20(1), 58–67 (2013).
Hoey, A. S. & Bonaldo, R. M. (eds) Biology of Parrotfishes (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2018).
Frédou, T. & Ferreira, B. P. Bathymetric trends of Northeastern Brazilian snappers (Pisces, Lutjanidae): Implications for the reef fishery dynamic. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 48(5), 787–800 (2005).
Guerra, A. S. Wolves of the Sea: Managing human-wildlife conflict in an increasingly tense ocean. Mar. Policy 99, 369–373 (2019).
Hawkins, J. P. & Roberts, C. M. Effects of fishing on sex-changing Caribbean parrotfishes. Biol. Cons. 115(2), 213–226 (2004).
Tuya, F. et al. Effect of fishing pressure on the spatio-temporal variability of the parrotfish, Sparisoma cretense (Pisces: Scaridae), across the Canarian Archipelago (eastern Atlantic). Fish. Res. 7(1), 24–33 (2006).
Steneck, R. S., Arnold, S. N. & Mumby, P. J. Experiment mimics fishing on parrotfish: Insights on coral reef recovery and alternative attractors. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 506, 115–127 (2014).
Taylor, B. M., Trip, E. D., & Choat, J. H. Dynamic demography: Investigations of life-history variation in the parrotfishes. In Biology of Parrotfishes 69–98 (CRC Press, 2018).
Moura, R. L. & Francini-Filho, R. B. Reef and Shore Fishes of the Abrolhos Region, Brazil Vol. 38, 40–55 (RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment, Washington, 2005).
Francini-Filho, R. B., Moura, R. L., Ferreira, C. M. & Coni, E. O. Live coral predation by parrotfishes (Perciformes: Scaridae) in the Abrolhos Bank, eastern Brazil, with comments on the classification of species into functional groups. Neotrop. Ichthyol. 6, 191–200 (2008).
Freitas, M. O. et al. Age, growth, reproduction and management of Southwestern Atlantic’s largest and endangered herbivorous reef fish, Scarus trispinosus Valenciennes, 1840. PeerJ 7, e7459 (2019).
Pinheiro, H. T. et al. An inverted management strategy for the fishery of endangered marine species. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 172 (2021).
Correia, M. D. Scleractinian corals (Cnidaria: Anthozoa) from reef ecosystems on the Alagoas coast, Brazil. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U. K. 91, 659–668 (2011).
Santos, D. K. F., Rufino, R. D., Luna, J. M., Santos, V. A. & Sarubbo, L. A. Biosurfactants: Multifunctional biomolecules of the 21st century. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 17(3), 401 (2016).
de Oliveira, S. et al. Oil spill in South Atlantic (Brazil): Environmental and governmental disaster. Mar. Policy 115, 103879 (2020).
Teixeira, L. M. P. & Creed, J. C. A decade on: An updated assessment of the status of marine non-indigenous species in Brazil. Aquat. Invasions 15(1), 30–43 (2020).
Braga, M. D. A. et al. Retirement risks: Invasive coral on old oil platform on the Brazilian equatorial continental shelf. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 165, 112156 (2021).
Luiz, O. J. et al. Multiple lionfish (Pterois spp.) new occurrences along the Brazilian coast confirm the invasion pathway into the Southwestern Atlantic. Biol. Invasions 23, 3013–3019 (2021).
Maida, M., & Ferreira, B. P. Coral reefs of Brazil: An overview. In Proceedings of the 8th International Coral Reef Symposium, Vol. 1, 263–274 (Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute Panamá, 1997).
Pereira, P. H. C., Macedo, C. H., Nunes, J. D. A. C., Marangoni, L. F. D. B. & Bianchini, A. Effects of depth on reef fish communities: Insights of a “deep refuge hypothesis” from Southwestern Atlantic reefs. PLoS ONE 13(9), e0203072 (2018).
ICMBIO. Plano de Manejo da Área de Proteção Ambiental Costa dos Corais (ICMBio/MMA, 2013).
Hill, J. & Wilkinson, C. E. Methods for Ecological Monitoring of Coral Reefs Vol. 117 (Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, 2004).
Dalapicolla, J. Tutorial de modelos de distribuição de espécies: guia prático usando o MaxEnt e o ArcGIS 10. Laboratório de Mastozoologia e Biogeografia. Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo, Vitória. Retrieved, 6 (2016).
Phillips, S. J., Dudík, M., & Schapire, R. E. A maximum entropy approach to species distribution modeling. In Proceedings of the Twenty-First International Conference on Machine learning, Vol. 83 (2004).
Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P. & Schapire, R. E. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Model. 190(3–4), 231–259 (2006).
Anderson, R. P. & Martınez-Meyer, E. Modeling species’ geographic distributions for preliminary conservation assessments: An implementation with the spiny pocket mice (Heteromys) of Ecuador. Biol. Conserv. 116(2), 167–179 (2004).
Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P., Dudík, M., Schapire, R. E. & Blair, M. E. Opening the black box: An open-source release of Maxent. Ecography 40(7), 887–893 (2017).
Rodrigues, E. D. C., Rodrigues, F. A., Rocha, R. L. A. & Corrêa, P. L. P. An adaptive maximum entropy approach for modeling of species distribution. Mem. WTA 108–117 (2010).
Rodrigues, E. S. D. C., Rodrigues, F. A., Ricardo, L. D. A., Corrêa, P. L. & Giannini, T. C. Evaluation of different aspects of maximum entropy for niche-based modeling. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2, 990–1001 (2010).
Hattab, T. et al. The use of a predictive habitat model and a fuzzy logic approach for marine management and planning. PLoS ONE 8(10), e76430 (2013).
Galante, P. J. et al. The challenge of modeling niches and distributions for data-poor species: A comprehensive approach to model complexity. Ecography 41(5), 726–736 (2018).
Silber, G. K. et al. Projecting marine mammal distribution in a changing climate. Front. Mar. Sci. 4, 413 (2017).
Perkins-Taylor, I. E. & Frey, J. K. Predicting the distribution of a rare chipmunk (Neotamias quadrivittatus oscuraensis): Comparing MaxEnt and occupancy models. J. Mammal. 101(4), 1035–1048 (2020).
Lee, C. M., Lee, D. S., Kwon, T. S., Athar, M. & Park, Y. S. Predicting the global distribution of Solenopsis geminata (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) under climate change using the MaxEnt model. Insects 12(3), 229 (2021).
Possingham, H., Ball, I. & Andelman, S. Mathematical methods for identifying representative reserve networks. In Quantitative methods for conservation biology 291–306 (Springer, New York, 2000).
Terrell, G. R. & Scott, D. W. Variable kernel density estimation. Ann. Stat. 20(3), 1236–1265 (1992).
O’Brien, S. H., Webb, A., Brewer, M. J. & Reid, J. B. Use of kernel density estimation and maximum curvature to set Marine Protected Area boundaries: Identifying a Special Protection Area for wintering red-throated divers in the UK. Biol. Conserv. 156, 15–21 (2012).
Fielding, A. H. & Bell, J. F. A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ. Conserv. 24, 38–49 (1997).
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank MPA Costa dos Corais (APACC) management team and Projeto Conservação Recifal staff for support. This study was conducted under full approval of the Sistema Nacional de Informação sobre Biodiversidade (SISBIO) by Brazilian Government, permit #67684-1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
P.H.C.P., G.V.L., L.G.F.C. and E.G. collected field data, P.H.C.P., J.C.A., G.V.L. and R.A.M. analyzed the data and results. P.H.C.P., J.C.A., G.V.L. and R.A.M. wrote the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Pereira, P.H.C., Araujo, J.C., Lima, G.V. et al. Effectiveness of management zones for recovering parrotfish species within the largest coastal marine protected area in Brazil. Sci Rep 12, 12232 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-15990-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-15990-1
- Springer Nature Limited
This article is cited by
-
Spatial distribution, management zoning and depth effects on reef biodiversity and productivity at the largest Brazilian coastal marine protected area
Coral Reefs (2024)
-
The Abrolhos Nominally Herbivorous Coral Reef Fish Acanthurus chirurgus, Kyphosus sp., Scarus trispinosus, and Sparisoma axillare Have Similarities in Feeding But Species-Specific Microbiomes
Microbial Ecology (2024)
-
Comment on the article “Effect of human impact on coral reef herbivorous fish niche” by Leitão et al. (2023)
Marine Biology (2023)
-
Confronting the ‘nocturnal problem’ in coral reefs: sleeping site selection and cocoon formation in parrotfishes
Coral Reefs (2023)
-
Towards process-oriented management of tropical reefs in the anthropocene
Nature Sustainability (2022)