ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2021
Assessing the population-level conservation effects of marine protected areas.
Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline 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
- Measuring biological effectiveness across a very large, coherent network of coastal marine protected areas.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2025Article
- Article
- Fishing activity before closure, during closure, and after reopening of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Assessing the population-level conservation effects of marine protected areas.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Marine protected areas (MPAs) cover 3-7% of the world's ocean, and international organizations call for 30% coverage by 2030. Although numerous studies show that MPAs produce conservation benefits inside their borders, many MPAs are also justified on the grounds that they confer conservation benefits to the connected populations that span beyond their borders. A network of MPAs covering roughly 20% of the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary was established in 2003, with a goal of providing regional conservation and fishery benefits. We used a spatially explicit bioeconomic simulation model and a Bayesian difference-in-difference regression to examine the conditions under which MPAs can provide population-level conservation benefits inside and outside their borders and to assess evidence of those benefits in the Channel Islands. As of 2017, we estimated that biomass densities of targeted fin-fish had a median value 81% higher (90% credible interval: 23-148) inside the Channel Island MPAs than outside. However, we found no clear effect of these MPAs on mean total biomass densities at the population level: estimated median effect was -7% (90% credible interval: -31 to 23) from 2015 to 2017. Our simulation model showed that effect sizes of MPAs of <30% were likely to be difficult to detect (even when they were present); smaller effect sizes (which are likely to be common) were even harder to detect. Clearly, communicating expectations and uncertainties around MPAs is critical to ensuring that MPAs are effective. We provide a novel assessment of the population-level effects of a large MPA network across many different species of targeted fin-fish, and our results offer guidance for communities charged with monitoring and adapting MPAs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.