Published October 5, 2016 | Version v1
Journal article

Space invaders; biological invasions in marine conservation planning

Others:
Faculté de Sciences, EA 4228 ECOMERS ; Université Nice Sophia Antipolis (1965 - 2019) (UNS) ; COMUE Université Côte d'Azur (2015-2019) (COMUE UCA)-COMUE Université Côte d'Azur (2015-2019) (COMUE UCA)
ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions (ARC CEED) ; The University of Western Australia (UWA)-Australian National University (ANU)-University of Queensland [Brisbane]-Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University (RMIT University)-School of BioSciences [Melbourne] ; Faculty of Science [Melbourne] ; University of Melbourne-University of Melbourne-Faculty of Science [Melbourne] ; University of Melbourne-University of Melbourne
MARine Biodiversity Exploitation and Conservation (UMR MARBEC) ; Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD)-Institut Français de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER)-Université de Montpellier (UM)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)
Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn (SZN)
Centre de recherches insulaires et observatoire de l'environnement (CRIOBE) ; Université de Perpignan Via Domitia (UPVD)-École pratique des hautes études (EPHE) ; Université Paris sciences et lettres (PSL)-Université Paris sciences et lettres (PSL)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)
Laboratoire d'Excellence CORAIL (LabEX CORAIL) ; Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD)-Université des Antilles et de la Guyane (UAG)-École des hautes études en sciences sociales (EHESS)-École pratique des hautes études (EPHE) ; Université Paris sciences et lettres (PSL)-Université Paris sciences et lettres (PSL)-Institut Français de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER)-Université de La Réunion (UR)-Université de la Polynésie Française (UPF)-Université de la Nouvelle-Calédonie (UNC)-Institut d'écologie et environnement-Université des Antilles (UA)
Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Biologiche e Ambientali (DiSTeBA) ; Università del Salento [Lecce]
Dipartimento di Scienze della Vita e dell'Ambiente ; Università Politecnica delle Marche [Ancona] (UNIVPM)
Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD)
LMI ICEMASA ; University of Cape Town
National Marine Park of Zakynthos
Institute of Marine Sciences / Institut de Ciències del Mar [Barcelona] (ICM) ; Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas [Madrid] (CSIC)
Centro Interdisciplinar de Investigação Marinha e Ambiental (Universidade do Porto) (CIMAR/CIIMAR )
CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research (CSIRO-MAR) ; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation [Canberra] (CSIRO)
Hopkins Marine Station [Stanford] ; Stanford University
Department of Marine Sciences [Aegean] ; University of the Aegean

Description

AimBiological invasions are major contributors to global change and native biodiversity decline. However, they are overlooked in marine conservation plans. Here, we examine for the first time the extent to which marine conservation planning research has addressed (or ignored) biological invasions. Furthermore, we explore the change of spatial priorities in conservation plans when different approaches are used to incorporate the presence and impacts of invasive species.LocationGlobal analysis with a focus on the Mediterranean Sea region.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature review consisting of three steps: (1) article selection using a search engine, (2) abstract screening and (3) review of pertinent articles, which were identified in the second step. The information extracted included the scale and geographical location of each case study as well as the approach followed regarding invasive species. We also applied the software Marxan to produce and compare conservation plans for the Mediterranean Sea that either protect, or avoid areas impacted by invasives, or ignore the issue. One case study focused on the protection of critical habitats, and the other on endemic fish species.ResultsWe found that of 119 papers on marine spatial plans in specific biogeographic regions, only three (2.5%) explicitly took into account invasive species. When comparing the different conservation plans for each case study, we found that the majority of selected sites for protection (ca. 80%) changed in the critical habitat case study, while this proportion was lower but substantial (27%) in the endemic fish species case study.Main conclusionsBiological invasions are being widely disregarded when planning for conservation in the marine environment across local to global scales. More explicit consideration of biological invasions can significantly alter spatial conservation priorities. Future conservation plans should explicitly account for biological invasions to optimize the selection of marine protected areas.

Abstract

International audience

Additional details

Created:
February 28, 2023
Modified:
November 30, 2023