model, many parameter estimates are equivalent for the Msambweni S. sutor aggregation-basedfishery in Kenya and it is likely that similar NTR effects will occur.The conservation benefits (i.e. recovery of <strong>spawning</strong> stock biomass and normalization of sex ratio)of <strong>spawning</strong> aggregation-based NTRs are stronger if populations are overfished and if all <strong>spawning</strong>sites are protected. The benefits were also stronger for the slow growing E. fuscoguttatus. Sinceit is likely that some fished grouper <strong>spawning</strong> sites remain unknown, temporal restrictions onpossession or sale corresponding with <strong>spawning</strong> periods may therefore constitute a more effectivemeasure to conserving grouper <strong>spawning</strong> stocks, as used for Plectropomus leopardus in Australia(Samoilys 2012). However, the telemetry results from Seychelles show that any restrictionsassociated with lunar <strong>spawning</strong> period would need to take into consideration the longer residencytime at <strong>spawning</strong> sites by males. Thus, temporal restrictions should include a buffer period ratherthan be based only on the timing of actual <strong>spawning</strong>.While NTRs have some benefits for fish populations, we show that they did not provide a benefitto fishers in terms of increases in yield-per-recruit (YPR). This effect was more marked for thegrouper population and fishers may expect a loss in yield if <strong>spawning</strong> sites are closed to fishing,which has socio-economic implications that must be weighed against the conservation benefits.As an alternative measure to NTRs and to mitigate losses to fishers, the Kenyan S. sutor fisherymay benefit from gear-based management measures that prohibit the use of certain gears onaggregations, especially nets (gillnets, beach-seines and ring-nets) since these increase efficiencythat can result in rapid depletion (Claro et al. 2009). In spite of these results, NTRs on <strong>spawning</strong>aggregation sites may still benefit fisheries in the longer-term through improved yields. However,this would only occur if the recovery of biomass, and normalization of sex ratio in groupers,eventually provide a recruitment subsidy to fished areas that compensates for the losses caused byclosing the <strong>spawning</strong> sites to fishing (Hart 2006). To mitigate the lost fishing opportunities causedby <strong>spawning</strong> site NTRs, the lag time between catch loss and future benefits may be valued for offsetpayments to fishers during their establishment (Samoilys 2011).Protecting juvenile and non-<strong>spawning</strong> areas using NTRs can also provide conservation benefits,especially when the populations are overfished (Chapter 12). Moreover, this approach canmoderately improve rabbitfish yields and reduce losses in grouper yield compared with NTRs sitedon <strong>spawning</strong> aggregations. This is encouraging since the use of NTRs is widespread in the westernIndian Ocean and many of these areas may incorporate rabbitfish and grouper juvenile and non<strong>spawning</strong>habitats. Epinephelus lanceolatus constitutes an exception to the need for wider fisheriesmanagement, such as effort controls, or the protection of juvenile and non-<strong>spawning</strong> habitats,since it is rarely caught outside <strong>spawning</strong> periods. Urgent conservation action is recommended forthis population in Zanzibar and should focus on protecting the <strong>spawning</strong> site. However, any use ofNTRs for protecting <strong>spawning</strong> sites should include buffer zones. Support for buffer zones comesfrom observed shifts of aggregation core areas following habitat disturbances in Seychelles. In atleast some species, spawners concentrate along common reproductive migratory corridors (Rhodeset al. 2012) and staging areas outside of core aggregation areas (Nemeth 2012). In those instances,buffer zones would provide additional protection to populations of reproductively active fish.Operational fisheries management plans for demersal and reef fisheries are rare in the WIO (Everettet al. 20<strong>10</strong>). Efforts to promote their use (e.g. Van der Elst et al. 2009), increasingly advocated withinthe context of an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF), should specifically address vulnerableaggregative species and life history stages. Selection of management measures to meet the objectivesof plans must, however, be context-specific and recognise that the input (i.e. effort) and output (i.e.catch quotas) controls common to many temperate fisheries (Beddington et al. 2007) have beengenerally unsuccessful in the tropics and are not widely applicable to aggregation-based fisheries(Johannes 2002; Sadovy de Mitcheson et al. 2008). In the tropics, combinations of gear andclosure-based measures have achieved a degree of success in fisheries management (Cinner 2007;126
McClanahan et al. 2007; McClanahan 20<strong>10</strong>). While closures such as NTRs are widely appliedin aggregation-based fisheries, gear-based approaches are rare (Sadovy de Mitcheson et al. 2008;Hamilton et al. 2011) yet may be particularly relevant for more resilient aggregative spawners suchas S. sutor (Robertson et al. 2011). As demonstrated by our NTR model management plans mustaccount for different life history stages, considering both the need for aggregation-specific measuresand wider controls on the non-aggregation component of fishing mortality.There is an ethical dilemma associated with research on fishing sites that are important to fishers,including <strong>spawning</strong> aggregations (Haggan and Neis 2007). Fishers clearly use their knowledgeof <strong>spawning</strong> aggregation sites to maximize their catches and income (Hamilton et al. 2012a).Therefore using fisher knowledge to set conservation policies may result in ethical and validityissues (Maurstad 2002; Daw 2008). These issues are especially pertinent to research funded withinpredetermined conservation agenda. Consequently this study developed a conceptual approachto explicitly link the study of <strong>spawning</strong> aggregation-based fisheries to a more analytical evaluationof their management and conservation implications. Although this does not solve the ethical andvalidity concerns per se, it focuses attention on the fishery and its socio-economic drivers (i.e. theindicator-based framework), and promotes quantitative analysis of the fisheries and conservationcosts and benefits (i.e. the NTR effects model). Both of these novel approaches enable a morebalanced use of fisher knowledge and information sharing on the management and conservationimplications of <strong>spawning</strong> aggregation fisheries.Conservation initiatives will continue to provide much needed financial support to the WIO. Suchinitiatives would benefit from explicitly incorporating assessment and management of <strong>spawning</strong>aggregation-based fisheries. Moreover, conservation initiatives would benefit from avoidingthe over-generalisation, lack of quantitative evaluation and ethical and validity issues that havesometimes emerged in other regions. Clearly, the conservation imperative is influenced by thefact that most research to date has focused on the more vulnerable aggregative spawners such asgroupers. However, recognition that some aggregative spawners are relatively resilient to fishingis needed and the socio-economic aspects of the system must be understood. Upon verificationof an aggregation-based fishery and when status information is lacking, it is necessary to considertaxa-specific vulnerability to fishing and the potential costs and benefits of both conservationand fisheries management approaches. The data-poor tools used in the studies described here canprovide rapid information in such contexts.127
- Page 4:
The designation of geographical ent
- Page 9:
Chapter 1: IntroductionJan Robinson
- Page 12 and 13:
limited, subsistence levels of expl
- Page 14:
NTRs for spawning aggregations usin
- Page 17 and 18:
al. 2003). Verification may include
- Page 19 and 20:
a fraction of spawning sites are pr
- Page 21 and 22:
Chapter 3: Targeted fishing of the
- Page 23 and 24:
verifying spawning aggregations, we
- Page 25 and 26:
ecorded from inshore close to the c
- Page 27 and 28:
(a)(b)Fig. 3. Spatial patterns ofca
- Page 30 and 31:
pooled sizes of the three spawning
- Page 32 and 33:
found S. sutor contributed up to 44
- Page 34 and 35:
2011b). However, observations of fi
- Page 36 and 37:
MethodsTo identify seasonal and lun
- Page 38 and 39:
n=199Females GSI (mean ± SE)2.521.
- Page 40 and 41:
The estimate of size at maturity in
- Page 42 and 43:
This study was designed to verify S
- Page 44 and 45:
were selected. Fish selected for ta
- Page 46 and 47:
The number of traps increased on th
- Page 48 and 49:
Of the 9 tagged fish detected by re
- Page 50 and 51:
Fig. 7. Diel patterns ofdetection f
- Page 52 and 53:
Spawning aggregation site fidelity
- Page 54 and 55:
Chapter 6: Shoemaker spinefoot rabb
- Page 56 and 57:
anterior of the anus and below the
- Page 58 and 59:
A high percentage (80.8%) of depart
- Page 60 and 61:
arrivals and departures at these tw
- Page 62 and 63:
are typically applied for reef fish
- Page 64 and 65:
(a)(b)(c)Chapter 3, Figure 3. Spati
- Page 66 and 67:
(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)Chapter 7, Table
- Page 68 and 69:
Chapter 12, Fig. 1 Fraction of fema
- Page 70 and 71:
Plates 8. Selected photographs from
- Page 72 and 73:
MethodsStudy sitesThe study area wa
- Page 74 and 75:
which shelved gently ( ca. 25 o ) t
- Page 76 and 77:
Fig. 4. Lunar periodicity in number
- Page 78 and 79:
Behaviour and appearanceDescription
- Page 80 and 81:
eported aggregations forming betwee
- Page 82 and 83:
The sizes of E. fuscoguttatus aggre
- Page 84 and 85: Materials and methodsStudy area and
- Page 86 and 87: TL. All fish tagged were considered
- Page 88 and 89: Lunar timing of arrivals and depart
- Page 90 and 91: Fig. 8. The presence and absence of
- Page 92 and 93: aggregation fishing. This critical
- Page 94 and 95: Chapter 9: Persistence of grouper (
- Page 96 and 97: ResultsBetween 2003 and 2006, the c
- Page 98 and 99: Fig. 2. Mean (± standard error, SE
- Page 100 and 101: A few species (e.g. Epinephelus gut
- Page 102 and 103: (a)(b)Fig. 1. Map of (a) study site
- Page 104 and 105: Fig. 2. Number of E. lanceolatus ob
- Page 106 and 107: was having any impact on the popula
- Page 108 and 109: A spawning aggregation is said to o
- Page 110 and 111: Chapter 11: Evaluation of an indica
- Page 112 and 113: Table 1 Aggregation fisheries asses
- Page 114 and 115: the lists of Jennings et al. (1999)
- Page 116 and 117: with the more vulnerable labrids an
- Page 118 and 119: The remaining serranid populations
- Page 120 and 121: Spawning aggregation behaviour is c
- Page 122 and 123: tiger grouper, Mycteroperca tigris:
- Page 124 and 125: of protecting the normal residence
- Page 126 and 127: • Since grouper males are afforde
- Page 128 and 129: Fig. 2 Yield-per-recruit normalized
- Page 130 and 131: The approaches identified above are
- Page 132 and 133: during full moon periods. Siganus s
- Page 136 and 137: ReferencesAbunge C (2011) Managing
- Page 138 and 139: Cox DR (1972) Regression models and
- Page 140 and 141: Grüss A, Kaplan DM, Hart DR (2011b
- Page 142 and 143: Kaunda-Arara B, Rose GA (2004a) Eff
- Page 144: Newcomer RT, Taylor DH, Guttman SI
- Page 147 and 148: Sancho G, Petersen CW, Lobel PS (20
- Page 149 and 150: Appendix 1. QuestionnaireMASMA SPAW
- Page 151 and 152: 8. Spawning aggregation knowledgeUs
- Page 153 and 154: Example items KSh Furthest site Clo
- Page 155 and 156: Appendix II. Experimental testing o
- Page 157 and 158: Clove oil concentrationAt a concent
- Page 159 and 160: Appendix III. Application of acoust
- Page 161 and 162: 153