ArticleEcological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America2025
Measuring biological effectiveness across a very large, coherent network of coastal marine protected areas.
Article in Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
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
Abstract
We evaluated the performance of California's coastal marine protected area (MPA) network, the largest scientifically designed network of its kind, using SCUBA survey data from a large-scale, long-term kelp forest monitoring program. To comprehensively evaluate MPA performance, we employed multiple metrics across various scales of taxonomic and spatial aggregation and four key results emerged. First, population responses to MPAs varied greatly across the large network, whether evaluated as combined taxa or individual focal species or at single MPA or regional scales. Second, while responses varied widely, effect size analysis revealed differences in magnitude of MPA performance over time, with targeted species increasing or declining less within MPAs compared to non-targeted species in all regions except the North Coast. Third, average response ratios further supported these findings by providing a cumulative perspective on MPA performance. Specifically, 80% of MPAs showed positive response ratios for targeted species, with 12 of these cases being significant, indicating generally higher biomass inside MPAs. Finally, using our most conservative performance framework of divergence between MPA and non-MPA (Ref) sites and between targeted and non-targeted species, only the South Coast and Northern Channel Islands regions exhibited a significantly positive trend in biomass ratios (MPA/Ref) over time for targeted species. While biomass ratios increased significantly over time within MPAs for targeted species, divergence between targeted and non-targeted species' trends was largely absent, except in the Northern Channel Islands where a marginally non-significant effect was noted. Taken together, these results demonstrate that MPA performance is variable across regions and taxa, and different aspects of performance were revealed depending on the metric used. This underscores the need for comprehensive evaluation approaches when assessing the effectiveness of large, networked 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.