Divergent responses of pelagic and benthic fish body-size structure to remoteness and protection from humans.

Animal body-size variation influences multiple processes in marine ecosystems, but habitat heterogeneity has prevented a comprehensive assessment of size across pelagic (midwater) and benthic (seabed) systems along anthropic gradients. In this work, we derive fish size indicators from 17,411 stereo baited-video deployments to test for differences between pelagic and benthic responses to remoteness from human pressures and effectiveness of marine protected areas (MPAs). From records of 823,849 individual fish, we report divergent responses between systems, with pelagic size structure more profoundly eroded near human markets than benthic size structure, signifying greater vulnerability of pelagic systems to human pressure. Effective protection of benthic size structure can be achieved through MPAs placed near markets, thereby contributing to benthic habitat restoration and the recovery of associated fishes. By contrast, recovery of the world's largest and most endangered fishes in pelagic systems requires the creation of highly protected areas in remote locations, including on the High Seas, where protection efforts lag.

Fishing pressure impacts the abundance gradient of European lobsters across the borders of a newly established marine protected area.

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are considered viable fisheries management tools due to their potential benefits of adult spillover and recruitment subsidy to nearby fisheries. However, before-after control-impact studies that explore the biological and fishery effects of MPAs to surrounding fisheries are scarce. We present results from a fine-scale spatial gradient study conducted before and after the implementation of a 5 km2 lobster MPA in southern Norway. A significant nonlinear response in lobster abundance, estimated as catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) from experimental fishing, was detected within 2 years of protection. After 4 years, CPUE values inside the MPA had increased by a magnitude of 2.6 compared to before-protection values. CPUE showed a significant nonlinear decline from the centre of the MPA, with a depression immediately outside the border and a plateau in fished areas. Overall fishing pressure almost doubled over the course of the study. The highest increase in fishing pressure (by a magnitude of 3) was recorded within 1 km of the MPA border, providing a plausible cause for the depression in CPUE. Taken together, these results demonstrate the need to regulate fishing pressure in surrounding areas when MPAs are implemented as fishery management tools.