Marine reserves and optimal dynamic harvesting when fishing damages habitat

Abstract

Marine fisheries are a significant source of protein for many human populations. In some locations, however, destructive fishing practices have negatively impacted the quality of fish habitat and reduced the habitat’s ability to sustain fish stocks. Improving the management of stocks that can be potentially damaged by harvesting requires improved understanding of the spatiotemporal dynamics of the stocks, their habitats, and the behavior of the harvesters. We develop a mathematical model for both a fish stock as well as its habitat quality. Both are modeled using nonlinear, parabolic partial differential equations, and density dependence in the growth rate of the fish stock depends upon habitat quality. The objective is to find the dynamic distribution of harvest effort that maximizes the discounted net present value of the coupled fishery-habitat system. The value derives both from extraction (and sale) of the stock and the provisioning of ecosystem services by the habitat. Optimal harvesting strategies are found numerically. The results suggest that no-take marine reserves can be an important part of the optimal strategy and that their spatiotemporal configuration depends both on the vulnerability of habitat to fishing damage and on the timescale of habitat recovery when fishing ceases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Notes

  1. 1.

    We do not refer to the unfished areas at the habitat boundaries, or, when they occur, unfished areas at the end of the time horizon as “reserves.” In these areas, the marginal rent (PNuW0 − 2W1h) is negative and no regulation would be required to prevent fishing.

References

  1. Agardy T (2018) Justified ambivalence about mpa effectiveness. ICES J Mar Sci 75(3):1183–1185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baskett M L, Barnett L (2015) The ecological and evolutionary consequences of marine reserves. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 46:49–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chuenpagdee R, Morgan L, Maxwell S, Norse E, Pauly D (2003) Shifting gears: assessing collateral impacts of fishing methods in us waters. Front Ecol Environ 1(10):517–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Clark C (1990) Mathematical bioeconomics: the optimal management of renewable resources, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  5. Costello C, Polasky S (2008) Optimal harvesting of stochastic spatial resources. J Environ Econ Manag 56(1):1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Costello M (2014) Long live marine reserves: a review of experiences and benefits. Biol Conserv 176:289–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dayton P, Thrush S, Agardy M, Hofman R (1995) Environmental effects of marine fishing. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 5(3):205–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. De Silva K, Phan T, Lenhart S (2017) Advection control in parabolic pde systems for competitive populations. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B 22(3):1049–1072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ding W, Lenhart S (2009) Optimal harvesting of a spatially explicit fishery model. Nat Resour Model 22 (2):173–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Evans L (2010) Partial differential equations, 2nd edn. American Mathematical Society, Providence

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fogarty M J (2005) Impacts of fishing activities on benthic habitat and carrying capacity: Approaches to assessing and managing risk. Am Fish Soc Symp 41:769–784

    Google Scholar 

  12. Foley N, Armstrong C W, Kahui V, Mikkelsen E, Reithe S (2012) A review of bioeconomic modelling of habitat-fisheries interaction. Int J Ecol 2012(Article ID 861635):11

    Google Scholar 

  13. Grabowski J, Bachman M, Demarest C, Eayrs S, Harris B, Malkoski V, Packer D, Stevenson D (2014) Assessing the vulnerability of marine benthos to fishing gear impacts. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture 22(2):142–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hackbusch W (1978) A numerical method for solving parabolic equations with opposite orientations. Computing 20(3):229– 240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hastings A, Gaines S, Costello C (2017) Marine reserves solve bycatch problem. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114:8927–2934

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Herrera G, Lenhart S (2010) Spatial Ecology, Chapman & Hall, CRC, chap Spatial optimal control of renewable resource stocks, pp 343–357. Mathematical and Computational Biology Series

  17. Hilborn R (2017) Traditional fisheries management is the best way to manage weak stocks. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114:E10610

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Joshi H, Herrera G, Lenhart S, Neubert M (2009) Optimal dynamic harvest of a mobile renewable resource. Nat Resour Model 22(2):322–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kaiser M, Collie J, Hall S, Jennings S, Poiner I (2002) Modification of marine habitats by trawling activities: prognosis and solutions. Fish Fish 3(2):114–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kellner J, Tetreault I, Gaines S, Nisbet R (2007) Fishing the line near marine reserves in single and multispecies fisheries. Ecol Appl 17(4):1039–1054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kelly JrM, Xing Y, Lenhart S (2015) Optimal fish harvesting for a population modeled by a nonlinear parabolic partial differential equation. Nat Resour Model 29(1):36–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Langebrake J, Riotte-Lambert L, Osenberg C W, De Leenheer P (2012) Differential movement and movement bias models for marine protected areas. J Math Biol 64(4):667–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lenhart S, Workman J (2007) Optimal control applied to biological models. Chapman & Hall, CRC Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  24. Moeller H, Neubert M (2013) Habitat damage, marine reserves, and the value of spatial management. Ecol Appl 23(5):959–971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Moeller H, Neubert M (2015) Economically optimal marine reserves without spatial heterogeneity in a simple two-patch model. Natural Resource Modeling 28(3):244–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Neubert M (2003) Marine reserves and optimal harvesting. Ecol Lett 6(9):843–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Neubert M, Herrera G (2008) Triple benefits from spatial resource management. Theor Ecol 1(1):5–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Pendleton L, Ahmadia G, Browman H, Thurstan R, Kaplan D M, Bartolino V (2018) Debating the effectiveness of marine protected areas. ICES J Mar Sci 75(3):1156–1159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sala E, Giakoumi S (2017) No-take marine reserves are the most effective protected areas in the ocean. ICES J Mar Sci 75(3):1166–1168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sanchirico J N, Malvadkar U, Hastings A, Wilen J (2006) When are no-take zones an economically optimal fishery management strategy? Ecol Appl 16(5):1643–1659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Shephard S, Brophy D, Reid D G (2010) Can bottom trawling indirectly diminish carrying capacity in a marine ecosystem? Mar Biol 157(11):2375–2381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Simon J (1987) Compact sets in the space l p(0, t; b). Annali di Matematica pura ed applicata CXLVI(IV):65–96

  33. Viana D, Halpern B, Gaines S (2017) Accounting for tourism benefits in marine reserve design. PLOS ONE 12(12):e0190187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Victorero L, Watling L, Palomares M, Nouvian C (2018) Out of sight, but within reach: a global history of bottom-trawled deep-sea fisheries from > 400 m depth. Front Mar Sci 5:98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Watling L, Norse E (1998) Disturbance of the seabed by mobile fishing gear: a comparison to forest clearcutting. Conserv Biol 12(6):1180–1197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. White C, Kendall B, Gaines S, Siegel D, Costello C (2008) Marine reserve effects on fishery profit. Ecol Lett 11(4):370–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Emily Moberg and Holly Moeller for useful discussions. We have benefited from the breadth of spatial ecology research by Alan Hastings and we are glad to contribute to this special issue.

Funding

This manuscript is based upon the work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DEB-1558904 (to MGN) and also supported by the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis, an Institute supported by the National Science Foundation through NSF Award #DBI-1300426, with additional support from The University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael G. Neubert.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

(PDF 214 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kelly, M.R., Neubert, M.G. & Lenhart, S. Marine reserves and optimal dynamic harvesting when fishing damages habitat. Theor Ecol 12, 131–144 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-018-0399-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Fisheries bioeconomics
  • Marine protected areas
  • Optimal control
  • Destructive fishing
  • Ecosystem-based management