Three initial OSPAR tests of ecological coherence: heuristics in a data-limited situation

Ardron, J. A. 2008. Three initial OSPAR tests of ecological coherence: heuristics in a data-limited situation. - ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 1527-1533.As marine protected area (MPA) networks become established worldwide, it will be necessary to track the progress made in meeting the networks’ underlying ecological goals. The 12 coastal European nations of the OSPAR Convention have agreed to establish an “ecologically coherent” network of MPAs within the waters of the Northeast Atlantic by 2010. However, the meaning of ecological coherence has not been explicitly defined, and it has not been explained how it can be assessed. OSPAR’s work on this topic over the past 4 years is summarized here. As the 2010 deadline approaches, the urgency to assess ecological coherence increases. Proper scientific assessment is hampered by the current lack of detailed ecological data, and policy-makers are concerned that collecting data for indicators will tax already limited resources. Unconventional approaches that can make do with what little information is available are being developed, and three initial spatial tests are presented here. A personal perspective of lessons learnt is provided.

[1]  Mark H. Carr,et al.  PROPAGULE DISPERSAL DISTANCE AND THE SIZE AND SPACING OF MARINE RESERVES , 2003 .

[2]  C. Sbert,et al.  Summary Record , 1999 .

[3]  Ulrich Hoffrage,et al.  How causal knowledge simplifies decision-making , 2006, Minds and Machines.

[4]  P. Todd,et al.  Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart , 1999 .

[5]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Environments That Make Us Smart Rationality , 2007 .

[6]  Jeff. Ardron,et al.  The challenge of assessing whether the OSPAR network of marine protected areas is ecologically coherent , 2008, Hydrobiologia.

[7]  Mark P. Johnson,et al.  Characterizing the marine Natura 2000 network for the Atlantic region , 2008 .

[8]  Hugh P Possingham,et al.  Sensitivity of Marine‐Reserve Design to the Spatial Resolution of Socioeconomic Data , 2006, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[9]  Hugh P Possingham,et al.  Accounting for uncertainty in marine reserve design. , 2006, Ecology letters.

[10]  John L. Largier,et al.  AVOIDING CURRENT OVERSIGHTS IN MARINE RESERVE DESIGN , 2003 .

[11]  R. Jongman,et al.  National and regional approaches for ecological networks in Europe , 2001 .

[12]  D. Reed,et al.  Conceptual Issues Relevant to Marine Harvest Refuges: Examples from Temperate Reef Fishes , 1993 .

[13]  Peter M. Todd,et al.  How much information do we need? , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[14]  S. Palumbi.  POPULATION GENETICS, DEMOGRAPHIC CONNECTIVITY, AND THE DESIGN OF MARINE RESERVES , 2003 .

[15]  B. Ballantine.  DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR SYSTEMS OF ÔNO-TAKEÕ MARINE RESERVES , 2000 .

[16]  Wj Ballantine.  Design Brief for New Seawater System at the Marine Research Laboratory (University of Auckland), Leigh, New Zealand , 1971 .

[17]  J. Good.  The potential role of ecological corridors for habitat conservation in Ireland : a review , 1998 .

[18]  C. Roberts,et al.  Fully-protected marine reserves: A guide , 2000 .

[19]  C. Roberts,et al.  Fishing and the impact of marine reserves in a variable environment , 2004 .