ArticleNature2014
Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key features.
Article in Nature, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 231 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
231 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Conservation benefits of a large marine protected area network that spans multiple ecosystems.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Pooled it
- The ambiguous role of partially protected marine protected areas in Australia: Results from a systematic literature review.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- A meta-analysis reveals edge effects within marine protected areas.Nature ecology & evolution · 2021Pooled it
- Ecological effects of full and partial protection in the crowded Mediterranean Sea: a regional meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2017Pooled it
- Prioritizing reducing impacts on species to minimize residual reserves.Science advances · 2026Article
- Global conservation additionality hindered by persisting fishing pressure in marine protected areas.Science advances · 2026Article
- Optimising Connectivity in Deep-Sea MPA Networks forEcology and evolution · 2026Article
- Assessing and strengthening community-based coastal governance.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Article
- Using Community Science and eDNA to Inform a State-Designed Marine Protected Area Monitoring Program: A Case Study from Malibu, California.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Bridging the Gap Between Legal Designation and Management Outcomes: Evidence from a Newly Established Marine Protected Area in Thailand.Environmental management · 2026Article
- Global Potential Refugia and Conservation Gaps for Threatened Marine Rays Under Future Climate Change.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Guiding stakeholder negotiations in data-poor coastal planning with open-access spatial data.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Article
- Marine Heatwaves Overwhelm the Buffering Benefits of Marine Protected Areas: Two Decades of Collapse in a Mediterranean Gorgonian.Global change biology · 2026Article
- Reproductive Biology and Life-History Plasticity of the Yellowfin SnapperEcology and evolution · 2026Article
- Environmental and Protection Effects of Shark-Companion Associations Across Three Ocean Basins.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- A Coast-to-Coast Assessment of Cumulative Impacts and Protection Potential in Canadian Marine Conservation Networks.Environmental management · 2026Article
- Marine protected areas marginally offset anthropogenic declines in tropical reef fish contributions to nature and people.Nature ecology & evolution · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- The Geography of Mediterranean Benthic Communities Under Climate Change.Global change biology · 2026Article
171 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In line with global targets agreed under the Convention on Biological Diversity, the number of marine protected areas (MPAs) is increasing rapidly, yet socio-economic benefits generated by MPAs remain difficult to predict and under debate. MPAs often fail to reach their full potential as a consequence of factors such as illegal harvesting, regulations that legally allow detrimental harvesting, or emigration of animals outside boundaries because of continuous habitat or inadequate size of reserve. Here we show that the conservation benefits of 87 MPAs investigated worldwide increase exponentially with the accumulation of five key features: no take, well enforced, old (>10 years), large (>100 km(2)), and isolated by deep water or sand. Using effective MPAs with four or five key features as an unfished standard, comparisons of underwater survey data from effective MPAs with predictions based on survey data from fished coasts indicate that total fish biomass has declined about two-thirds from historical baselines as a result of fishing. Effective MPAs also had twice as many large (>250 mm total length) fish species per transect, five times more large fish biomass, and fourteen times more shark biomass than fished areas. Most (59%) of the MPAs studied had only one or two key features and were not ecologically distinguishable from fished sites. Our results show that global conservation targets based on area alone will not optimize protection of marine biodiversity. More emphasis is needed on better MPA design, durable management and compliance to ensure that MPAs achieve their desired conservation value.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24499817What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.