Different responses to area closures and effort controls for sedentary and migratory harvested species in a multispecies coral reef linefishery

dc.contributor.authorLittle, Lorne
dc.contributor.authorPunt, Andre E
dc.contributor.authorMapstone, Bruce
dc.contributor.authorBegg, Gavin A
dc.contributor.authorGoldman, Barry
dc.contributor.authorEllis, Nick
dc.date.accessioned2015-12-10T22:20:22Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.date.updated2016-02-24T10:55:43Z
dc.description.abstractWe used a simulation model to examine the effect of area closures and fishing effort on the two main target species of the Great Barrier Reef Coral Reef Finfish Fishery: common coral trout (Plectropomus leopardus) and red throat emperor (Lethrinus miniatus). Area closures had greater effect on the more sedentary coral trout, in the areas outside the closures and accessible to the fishery, and little effect on red throat emperor, which was assumed to move among reefs. The effects of effort levels were greater than area closures on the harvest of both species and were seen not only in the areas accessible to the fishery, but also in the biomass of red throat emperor in the areas closed to the fishery. The catch and biomass resulting from a given effort level did not appear to have an equivalent effect attributable to any area closure. Although the effects of effort levels and area closures are confounded in reality by the coincidental implementation of area closures and restructuring of the fishery, the simulation model separated these factors to show that the closures under the 2004 rezoning should have had minimal effect on total-stock biomass and that a greater effect would result from changes in fishing effort.
dc.identifier.issn1054-3139
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/51889
dc.publisherOxford University Press
dc.sourceICES Journal of Marine Science
dc.subjectKeywords: biomass; coral reef; finfish; fishery management; harvesting; marine park; salmonid fishery; Australasia; Australia; Coral Sea; Great Barrier Reef; Pacific Ocean; Queensland; Anthozoa; Lethrinus laticaudis; Lethrinus miniatus; Plectropomus leopardus; Salm Effort control; Fisheries management; Input control; Management strategy evaluation; Marine protected areas; Marine reserves
dc.titleDifferent responses to area closures and effort controls for sedentary and migratory harvested species in a multispecies coral reef linefishery
dc.typeJournal article
local.bibliographicCitation.issue9 (online on June 19, 2009)
local.bibliographicCitation.lastpage1941
local.bibliographicCitation.startpage1931
local.contributor.affiliationLittle, Lorne, College of Asia and the Pacific, ANU
local.contributor.affiliationPunt, Andre E, University of Washington
local.contributor.affiliationMapstone, Bruce, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research
local.contributor.affiliationBegg, Gavin A, The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences
local.contributor.affiliationGoldman, Barry, James Cook University
local.contributor.affiliationEllis, Nick, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research
local.contributor.authoremailrepository.admin@anu.edu.au
local.contributor.authoruidLittle, Lorne, u4461378
local.description.embargo2037-12-31
local.description.notesImported from ARIES
local.identifier.absfor180117 - International Trade Law
local.identifier.ariespublicationu4326120xPUB234
local.identifier.citationvolume66
local.identifier.doi10.1093/icesjms/fsp164
local.identifier.scopusID2-s2.0-70149093293
local.identifier.uidSubmittedByu4326120
local.type.statusPublished Version

Downloads

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
01_Little_Different_responses_to_area_2009.pdf
Size:
305.41 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format