Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-6grmk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T11:07:07.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Assessment of the effectiveness of South Africa's marine protected areas at representing ichthyofaunal communities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2012

SOFÍA SOLANO-FERNÁNDEZ
Affiliation:
Percy FitzPatrick Institute, DST/NRF Centre of Excellence, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa
COLIN G. ATTWOOD*
Affiliation:
Marine Research Institute, Private Bag X3, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa
RUSSELL CHALMERS
Affiliation:
Department of Ichthyology and Fisheries Science, Rhodes University, PO Box 94, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa
BARRY M. CLARK
Affiliation:
Anchor Environmental, Suite 8, Steenberg House, Steenberg Office Park, Steenberg Road, Tokai 7945, South Africa
PAUL D. COWLEY
Affiliation:
South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity, Private Bag 1015, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa
TRACEY FAIRWEATHER
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Private Bag X2, Roggebaai 8012, South Africa
SEAN T. FENNESSY
Affiliation:
Oceanographic Research Institute, PO Box 10712, Marine Parade, Durban 4056, South Africa
ALBRECHT GÖTZ
Affiliation:
Elwandle Node, South African Environmental Observation Network, Private Bag 1015, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa
TREVOR D. HARRISON
Affiliation:
Water Management Unit, Northern Ireland Environment Agency, 17 Antrim Road, Lisburn BT28 3AL, UK
SVEN E. KERWATH
Affiliation:
Marine Research Institute, Private Bag X3, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Private Bag X2, Roggebaai 8012, South Africa
STEPHEN J. LAMBERTH
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Private Bag X2, Roggebaai 8012, South Africa
BRUCE Q. MANN
Affiliation:
Oceanographic Research Institute, PO Box 10712, Marine Parade, Durban 4056, South Africa
MALCOLM J. SMALE
Affiliation:
Port Elizabeth Museum at Bayworld, PO Box 13147, Humewood 6103, South Africa Department of Zoology, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, PO Box 77000, Port Elizabeth 6013, South Africa, and
LIEZE SWART
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Affairs, Private Bag X2, Roggebaai 8012, South Africa
*
*Correspondence: Dr Colin G. Attwood e-mail: Colin.Attwood@uct.ac.za
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

National and international policies have encouraged the establishment of a representative network of marine protected areas (MPAs) in South Africa, with the aim of protecting marine biodiversity. The extent to which these marine and estuarine protected areas (EPAs) represent marine fish species and communities was assessed by comparing their species compositions with those of exploited areas, as sampled using four fishing techniques. Seven hundred fish species were sampled, representing one-third of South Africa's marine fishes. MPAs in coastal habitats scored c. 40% on the Bray-Curtis measure of similarity for species representativeness, but this score declined markedly for offshore ‘trawlable’ fishing grounds. The combined effects of sampling error, temporal variation and the effects of fishing on relative abundance suggest that 80% similarity would be the maximum achieveable. Forty-nine per cent of all fish species that were recorded were found in the 14 MPAs sampled. Redundancy in the MPA network was low, with fish species most commonly being represented in only one MPA or absent. There was greater redundancy in the 33 EPAs, with 40% of species being found in two or more EPAs, but many of these estuaries were adjacent to each other and embedded in large MPAs. Deep water fish communities (>80 m deep) and communities located on the west and south-east coasts of South Africa were most poorly represented by MPAs. Routine fishery surveys provide a robust and repeatable opportunity to assess species representativeness in MPAs, and the method used could form the basis of an operational definition of ‘representative’. In contrast to an assessment based on presence-absence data, this analysis of quantitative data presents a more pessimistic assessment of protection.

Information

Type
THEMATIC SECTION: Temperate Marine Protected Areas
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2012
Figure 0

Table 1 A description of marine protected areas in South Africa, listed from west to east.

Figure 1

Figure 1 The distribution of samples used in this study. Boat-angling site numbers refer to samples listed in Table S1 (Appendix 1, see supplementary material at Journals.cambridge.org/ENC). Bold numbers indicate MPAs. Shore-angling site numbers refer to samples listed in Table S2 (Appendix 1, see supplementary material at Journals.cambridge.org/ENC). Numbers plotted inside the coastline indicate estuaries sampled by shore-angling. The numbers of estuaries that were seine-netted in ten coastal delineations are indicated in bottom-right.

Figure 2

Table 2 The number of sites that were analysed by each method and the total number of species recorded by each method. The numbers of species common to each pair of methods are listed below the diagonal.

Figure 3

Figure 2 Trends in the Shannon-Weiner diversity index for sites sampled by trawl (top left), boat-angling (top right), shore-angling (bottom left) and estuarine seine-netting. All sites are arranged from west to east.

Figure 4

Figure 3 A multi-dimensional scaling plot showing Bray-Curtis similarities in fish species composition in trawl samples among sites. Solid and dashed ellipses indicate groupings at the 19% and 50% levels.

Figure 5

Figure 4 A multi-dimensional scaling plot showing Bray-Curtis similarities in species composition in boat-angling samples among sites. Ellipses indicate the highest level of similarity (41%) for which each group has at least one MPA.

Figure 6

Figure 5 A multi-dimensional scaling plot showing Bray-Curtis similarities in species composition in shore-angling samples among sites. Solid ellipses indicate the highest level of similarity (33%) for which each group has at least one MPA, and dashed ellipses indicate maximum representativeness (39%) for open-sea sites only.

Figure 7

Figure 6 A multi-dimensional scaling plot showing Bray-Curtis similarities in species composition in seine-net surveys among the vast majority of South Africa's estuaries. Solid ellipses indicate the highest level of similarity (32%) for which each group has at least one MPA.

Figure 8

Table 3 Percentage of marine fish species found only in the given number of MPAs given as a summary of redundancy in the protected area network.

Figure 9

Figure 7 Effects of sample size on diversity and similarity measures. The two measures of diversity are expressed as a percentage of the value for the ‘true’ community. The Bray-Curtis similarity between samples of various sizes and the ‘true’ community, and the similarity among ten samples of the same size, are also plotted as percentages.

Supplementary material: File

Attwood supplementary material

Appendix

Download Attwood supplementary material(File)
File 143.4 KB