Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35435294›Full record

ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2023

Conceptual frameworks and key questions for assessing the contribution of marine protected areas to shark and ray conservation.

Andrew Chin, Fergus John Molloy, Darren Cameron, Jon C Day, Jessica Cramp, Karin Leeann Gerhardt, Michelle R Heupel, Mark Read, Colin A Simpfendorfer

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Conservation successes and challenges for wide-ranging sharks and rays.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Andrew ChinCentre for Sustainable Tropical Fisheries and Aquaculture, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1813-4042
Fergus John MolloyCentre for Sustainable Tropical Fisheries and Aquaculture, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3485-3581
Darren CameronGreat Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
Jon C DayAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
Jessica CrampCentre for Sustainable Tropical Fisheries and Aquaculture, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
Karin Leeann GerhardtCentre for Sustainable Tropical Fisheries and Aquaculture, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
Michelle R HeupelIntegrated Marine Observing System (IMOS), University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
Mark ReadGreat Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
Colin A SimpfendorferCentre for Sustainable Tropical Fisheries and Aquaculture, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are key tools in addressing the global decline of sharks and rays, and marine parks and shark sanctuaries of various configurations have been established to conserve shark populations. However, assessments of their efficacy are compromised by inconsistent terminology, lack of standardized approaches to assess how MPAs contribute to shark and ray conservation, and ambiguity about how to integrate movement data in assessment processes. We devised a conceptual framework to standardize key terms (e.g., protection, contribution, potential impact, risk, threat) and used the concept of portfolio risk to identify key attributes of sharks and rays (assets), the threats they face (portfolio risk), and the specific role of MPAs in risk mitigation (insurance). Movement data can be integrated into the process by informing risk exposure and mitigation through MPAs. The framework is operationalized by posing 8 key questions that prompt practitioners to consider the assessment scope, MPA type and purpose, range of existing and potential threats, species biology and ecology, and management and operational contexts. Ultimately, MPA contributions to shark and ray conservation differ according to a complex set of human and natural factors and interactions that should be carefully considered in MPA design, implementation, and evaluation.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesSharksAnimalsEcologyEcosystemFisheriesAMPáreas protegidasecosystem managementevaluación de riesgofisheriesgestión de ecosistemasmarinemarinoMPApesqueríasprotected areasrisk assessment保护区海洋保护区渔业生态系统管理风险评估

Identifiers

PMID35435294
PMCPMC10107163

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.