Marine Reserves paradise won or lost? by Dr Floor Anthoni (2007) www.seafriends.org.nz/indepth/reserves.htm Compared to the land, the sea is a place very much left alone, apart from fishing and a few other impacts. We don't live in the sea, plough its soil, burn its forest, build houses, cities and roads there, nor do we let introduced pests roam free. So if only we stopped fishing, the sea would return to something close to a paradise. This concept of marine conservation by means of total protection, no-take marine reserves, would have worked splendidly if only the situation were ideal. Unfortunately a new threat, that of degradation, has loomed very large. Let's examine the marine reserve concept in depth to learn more about marine protection and why it fails.

• the marine reserve concept: the idea is simple. If we stop fishing, then the fish return, become more numerous and older.
• a pristine environment: the sea is very much a pristine place where we don't live and change its habitat - almost a paradise.
• the spiritual dimension: marine reserves can't work without us believing that we need them.
• protecting marine biodiversity: uncritically, a myth is propagated that only marine reserves can protect biodiversity.
• marine degradation: a new threat is rapidly overtaking that of fishing, affecting all species while rendering reserves ineffective.
• observations: fish counts inside and outside marine reserves give us the full story, and it does not look good.
• the snapper-urchin-kelp myth: a myth propagated by scientists, does not stand up to scrutiny, yet won't die.
• what do marine reserves do well?: marine research, education and recreation. Not marine protection.
• related chapters on this web site: the marine environment and how to understand it, is now well documented by Seafriends.
• books and references: books and articles relating to marine reserves.

For corrections and suggestions, e-mail the author.
[in-depth index] [home]--Rev 20070828,

The marine reserve concept grew steadily from necessary protection for doing marine research, to that of saving the sea, and it went even much further than that, to protecting biodiversity and other fantasies about their possible but unproved benefits. One does not need to be very smart to understand, that if the main threat to the sea comes from fishing, and one stops fishing, there will be a change to a more natural state. Fish can grow older and bigger and they become more numerous as well. So if the sea were fished down to 50% of the original fish stock, then a ban on fishing should result in a 100% increase in numbers, and gradually also in the number of old and big fish. But how does that work?

Fishermen keep fishing the sea and for every fish taken, miraculously a replacement appears. How? Apparently fish move around, and they reproduce as well. When mature snapper spawn, the females produce millions of eggs each. Although most are eaten or just vanish, the numbers of young snappers (called recruits) can be very high. After 4-5 years they too begin to reproduce and enter the catchable size class. Then they can get caught. What then makes fish stay inside marine reserves?

The answer is that they don't, at least most fish don't. We never told them where the marine reserves are, and where their boundaries are. At this point we must become aware that the sea has three main habitats:

• the open sea, which is very large, extending from close to the shore out all the way to the middle of the oceans; from rich waters to poor waters, from the surface to the deepest trench. Pelagic fish prefer to live near the surface because the light makes the plant plankton grow, which feeds the food chain. But because of this, these fish do not know where they are, as sea currents move them from place to place, for many kilometres each day; in and out of marine reserves.
• the 'soft' sandy and muddy sea bottom which extends from the shore all the way out over the continental shelves, down to 200m depth and then rapidly deeper along the continental slope, beyond the limits of light, into the permanently dark deep sea. The fish who live here do not drift on the currents, but because of the monotony (everywhere the same) of this habitat, have no fixed abode, as they fossick around over the bottom. They migrate a few hundred metres a day, in and out of marine reserves.
• the hard rocky shore, of which there is very little, extending from the coast down some 5-20m and from outer islands further. This hard shore offers attachment for seaweeds and other sessile organisms. The fish who live here, are more likely to stay in one place, particularly who have a territory or a sleeping spot on the rock face. Because these animals do not have the urge to move around, they are protected by a marine reserve if they just happen to be inside one. Once they stray outside, they can be caught. But because their numbers are small, they are of little commercial interest (except some shellfish and lobsters whose numbers and value are higher).

Fixed protected areas along the coast protect a large number of species, but alas, these do not need protection because they are not being threatened by fishing. But there are some exceptions. Shellfish such as scallop and abalone (paua) do not move around much, and they are eagerly fished. So these species enjoy the protection from marine reserves. The question remains: are they threatened? Obviously, where a fishery thrives, there is no overwhelming threat, because limited predation is natural. Paua are often protected by wild coasts where diving is impossible for most of the year. So do they need more protection than that?

f006512: crayfish live mainly on the rocky shore, protected inside cracks and small caves. Divers like the challenge of catching these 'bugs' and they can be very good at this, resulting in low numbers of crayfish remaining. This can clearly spoil marine research and the enjoyment of those who enjoy the natural environment.

f026711: paua (abalone) sit like low hanging fruit on the rock, and are so easy to catch. The animals shown here are between 5 and 10 years old, and there are no small ones in sight. Taking the three shown here, may leave this spot devoid of paua for many years.

• there are many lands but only one sea: the land is enormously divided by seas, rivers, mountain ranges and deserts. It has urged evolution to high biodiversity. For this very reason, the threat from habitat change and introduced species is insurmountable.  Likewise it is relatively easy to protect an island, isolated by surrounding waters, which 'imprisons' its inhabitants. On the other hand, there exists only one ocean, as all salt waters are interconnected. Declaring a certain area as protected, does not keep the threatened species inside nor predators and disease outside.
• the sea is still relatively pristine: we do not live in the sea, do not farm and plough the sea bottom, do not deforest it, build cities and roads there, while rats goats, stoats, cats, possums and other pests have no effect there either. So the sea is still very much more pristine than the land and for that reason does not need protection as much as the land does. It already is in a much better state than our parks on land.
• our national parks are not like the sea: our land reserves are the left-over bits that nobody wanted. They are too steep, too far away, too wet, too dry, too cold, too hot to be of use. They are our bad-lands, but the sea is accessible and productive everywhere.
• our land reserves are still threatened: apart from some islands where pests like rats have been removed, our land reserves are still threatened by rats, cats, stoats, goats, deer, pigs and possums. Add to that the pest from wasps and other insects, and our wildlife is still threatened. Constant culling, hunting and trapping of introduced species is necessary inside our land reserves. This is not the case with the sea.

• there is a law for all: marine reserves cannot work if some people are excluded but not others. One law for all. This causes some concern for scientists, because in the course of their studies, they often have to kill living organisms, which is against the law, even though marine reserves are for the express purpose of marine studies.
• we must have been told: a protected area must have been announced widely, far in advance of becoming fact. It must be included on marine charts. There must be many signs on boating ramps, access ways to the marine reserve and so on.
• we must understand the concept: people must understand why an area is fully or partially protected, and what we are allowed to do or not to do. Only then can we lend our support.
• we must believe: before we change our ways to meet the restrictions imposed on us, we must believe that they are fair and just and that they will work. We must believe in the projected benefits for either ourselves or for our children. This is a very important part of the spiritual dimension of marine reserves, particularly when doubt exists as to a reserve's effectiveness. Today there exists much doubt about a marine reserve's effectiveness, whether it is the best solution for our children, considering their sacrifice of freedom, and whether those who sacrifice today are fairly recompensed. It would be fair to say that marine reserves and those advocating for more (like the Department of Conservation and green organisations) have failed in this respect.
• we must act: finally we must change our behaviour for a reserve to become effective, because a single person can undo what many have worked hard for. It takes a single fisherman to catch all the big tame snappers from a beloved spot. A single spearfisher can destroy the trust between fish and visitors.

f020931: spearfishing is a challenging and strenuous sport, practised by freedivers. It takes skill, strength and tenacity to stalk and spear fish, but done inside a protected area, it can cause much harm by scaring the fish. Responsible spearfishermen hunt for pelagic fish like trevally and kingfish, that are only fleeting visitors to marine reserves.

f016219: a speared blue moki has escaped the kill because the spear tore loose. Amazingly, such damaged fish can often survive huge wounds as shown here. However, the chance of dying from infection remains high. This blue moki will most certainly remember the incident and pass its fear behaviour on to other fish.

f022615: a diver quietly takes her time to befriend a group of resting goatfish. Eventually she will be allowed to touch one. Because most people do not exercise such caution, the fish inside marine reserves are not as trusting as one may expect. This photo was taken near Leigh, outside a marine reserve.

f050136: a snorkeldiver has taken time (2 days) to establish a trusting relationship with a large male Sandagers wrasse, eventually caressing and hand-holding it. Imagine for a moment how much mutual trust this requires. Again, this was possible only outside a marine reserve, at the Cavalli Islands.

• the sea is a weird place: it cannot be stressed enough that the sea is seldom working 'as expected', and people's main mistake is that they assume that the natural laws for the land also apply to the sea; that our logic is therefore right. But the reality is that the sea is weirder than we can possibly imagine, and its physics, chemistry, physiology, biology and ecology full of 'unsuspected' surprises. In other words, if you haven't tested and measured your idea, it is probably wrong. Remember this as an exciting mystery of the sea. This problem is made worse by the fact that most advocates for marine reserves do not dive; even most marine scientists do not dive frequently. Thus hands-on knowledge is scarce and everyone relies on everyone else for knowledge and information, not unlike a 'gossip grape-vine'.
• the sea is still pristine: the sea is still very much more pristine than the land, as explained before. Species are not threatened by exploitation as much as we fear. Exploitation in the fish-eat-fish world is daily fare. Unexploited populations do not exist. Exploitation does not threaten biodiversity by as much as we fear. No scientific experiment has ever shown that it does!
• the sea is very connected: unlike the land which is highly compartmentalised, the sea is a continuous extent in all directions. If a community is threatened somewhere, its species are found thriving somewhere else. Eggs are spread by ocean currents everywhere.
• habitats are not mutually exclusive: there exists great confusion about what a habitat is. As explained above, there are only three basic marine habitats: the open sea, the flat bottom and the rocky substrate. Within these main categories there are graduations going from the tropics to the poles, and combinations like boulder 'beaches'. What we observe is a great number of communities that we mistake for unique habitats, but the species found in one, are also found in another. So the idea of having to protect each and every 'habitat' (community) is false. Likewise the idea that this is the only way of protecting biodiversity, is false.
• nature adapts: it is thought that when species change due to exploitation, for instance maturing earlier and staying small, in order to be able to slip through nets, that this amounts to a loss in biodiversity. It is not. It is simply how nature adapts with their in-built genetics. Nature adapts to mankind, as much as mankind in its early history adapted to nature.
• degradation: the main threat to the sea now comes from degradation caused by runoff from the land. It affects all species from plankton and seaweeds to whales and dolphins. It causes fisheries to collapse, however 'well managed' they are. Closed areas in the sea (marine reserves) do nothing for this new threat as the quantity and quality of life is diminishing everywhere. Degradation is the main threat to biodiversity. See further below.

Our seas as those everywhere in the world have been degrading for many years, even though here in New Zealand it has become very obvious only in the past two decades. 'Sick seas' is a very serious condition that affects all species, yet scientists have not made any attempt at studying it here.
 

f048705: a rich wall with many colourful species and a red pigfish. The fans are gorgonians and the colourful patches on the rock face are carpet sponges. The colourful bushes are bryozoans. Degradation at the Poor Knights islands is just commencing.

f035907: a very degraded habitat in what was once a clear harbour, Port Fitzroy, on Great Barrier Island. In the photo are two species of sponge, both introduced species, and one species of seaweed, the flexible weed. This sad picture represents the sick seas syndrome. This is what we have done to the sea.

The diagram shown here shows that degradation is usually accompanied by the water becoming dirtier or murkier as divers say, "the underwater visibility becomes less". With it, the quantity and quality of life diminishes. On left in clear water, one finds seaweeds to a depth of 20-30m, below which the quality of the light is insufficient for seaweeds. With less competition for space, the filterfeeding sponges now populate the vacant rock. In New Zealand, divers can meet an astounding variety of sponges, a good sign of health. But as the environment degrades and the water turns from blue to green and from green to brown, less and less light penetrates, and the lower seaweed boundary moves up. Although planktonic food becomes richer (so we think), the sponges who depend on it, disappear. It makes degradation difficult to understand - more food, less life. What is going on?

The diagram shows the main food chain in the sea as if it were a wedding cake. At the bottom is the phytoplankton which creates plant life from sunlight and nutrients. Directly above it the tier of zooplankton that 'grazes' the plant plankton. Above that the fish larvae that feed on the zoo plankton, and above that the bait fish and finally the table fish that fishermen love to catch. Of course all these species swim in random order through the thin soup of plankton. In order to feed each tier above, the tier below must be bigger, by about 6-10 times. Multiply this out five times, and it becomes clear that over a tonne (1000kg) of phytoplankton is needed to grow one kilogram of table fish. What we discovered is that scientists all the world over, have not taken serious the planktonic decomposers who recirculate the dead bodies from the plankton. So plankton is not just a thin soup, it is also thin sewage where infections can spread like wildfire. Each sea organism thus lives in a precarious balance (the plankton balance) between the good life (thick soup) and a long life (thin sewage), which are in conflict with one another.

The species most protected by marine reserves are those which are heavily fished commercially, but that do not migrate large distances. Examples of those are shellfish beds like scallops, and crayfish. The diagram shows how the crayfish population at the Goat Island marine reserve increased rapidly to a maximum level in only five years, but suddenly collapsed in 1998. We observed that the collapse happened suddenly after heavy rains and mud storms in winter, that we think, were related to the widening of Goat Island Road. There were major earth works that were not stabilised and poorlly supervised. The crayfish just walked out, and they were caught outside the marine reserve. The fishermen said that the reserve was finally working "because fish finally spilled out", as promised by marine reserves advocates. Notice that the disappearance of five out of six crayfish was not noticed by two scientific groups working with crayfish at the time, even after we warned those scientists, first in December 1998, and later in March 1999 after we completed our own census. The collapse was noticed only during the official lobster-census of 2000. Note also that since 1992, the Goat Island marine reserve has suffered other severe symptoms of degradation, such as the complete kelpbed death of 92/93 and the urchin kill afterwards. But both are never mentioned in scientific publications as also the public is left in the dark.

One of our mistakes  is to assume that our seas have the same problems as tropical seas but there is no comparison. So we must rely entirely on measurements done here inside and outside our own marine reserves. These results are conflicting as well as disappointing. Let's look at the snapper situation around the Poor Knights Islands, dealt with in more detail in myths7. In December 1998 the Poor Knights were closed to all forms of fishing, whereas previously one was allowed to fish with unweighted lines in the semi-protected parts of the reserve. Immediately the numbers of snappers began to increase (green curves), but this also happened outside the Poor Knights, at Mokohinau Islands (blue curve) and Cape Brett (purple), neither of which were marine reserves. As it happened, 1998 was an excellent recruitment year for snapper everywhere. Surely the Poor Knights had more snapper, but the relative increase was similar to the unprotected areas. Can we say from this graph how much was due to protection? Probably not. Of course, in time, the snappers outside the reserve will be caught, so we'll wait and see. The situation becomes more confusing with the second diagram where divers counted snapper visually, as they did for all other species. As you can see, there is a huge difference between the two methods. Why would scientists use a different method and fail to publish the visual census, which we obtained using the Official Information Act? We have always been suspicious of the BUV (Baited Underwater Video), as documented in Frequently Asked Questions.

Of all the fish species, snapper (Pagrus auratus) are least understood, possibly because they do not just migrate randomly and because as scavengers, benefit from the deaths of others. Although most migrate, some set up shop on the reef where they claim a large private space in open water. When they migrate seasonally, they appear to have an aim, that of finding warm water for spawning. Note how their numbers fluctuate wildly from summer (january) to winter (july).
The nature of oasis reserves keeps snappers within, for much the same reasons that oases in the desert (spots where water surfaces) encourages plants and animals to stay. In the sea an oasis is a rocky outcrop surrounded by sand or a sandy spot surrounded by rock. In the first the rock-loving species are 'imprisoned', in the latter the sand-loving ones. It is important to recognise that oases are rare and therefore not normal. Yet scientists do not take care in distinguishing such. For instance, Goat Island marine reserve is unique because of its island, and its location at the end of a 25km long beach (Pakiri Beach), providing the first refuge of shelter and the first rocky habitat. It furthermore has currents exiting and entering the Hauraki Gulf. So it is a perfect stop-over for migrating fish like snapper. What is certain, is that Goat Island is in no way representative of the normal situation. Yet wild claims are made by scientists who should know better.
 

Rather than observing and monitoring snapper, it would be better to monitor the other species, as shown on this diagram. Surprisingly, all the fish that are permanent inhabitants of the Poor Knights, have declined spectacularly. Not shown is how they were already in stark decline before 1998. On the vertical scale, the diagram counts the number of fish in an area about the size of a tennis court (125m2). Horizontally the year. Notice how the red pigfish (Bodianus unimaculatus, orange line) declined by 50% and the butterfish, a plant eater (Odax pullus, brown line) by 90%. For all these fish, their fate looks grim, except for the coastal sweep (Scorpis lineolatus, light blue line, scale x 10) which rose from insignificance to prominence. Note that this was not mentioned in the report to DoC, and we had to tease it out of the data! So what does all this mean? That marine reserves cause fish to disappear? These curves look like a fisheries collapse inside a marine reserve where no fishing occurs. What is going on?

This is what degradation looks like, the new threat. Marine reserves no longer work in the presence of degradation. They cannot protect biodiversity because they lose both quality and quantity of life. Fisheries regulations can no longer work either. So why do we want more failed reserves, and networks of failed reserves? Why do we want to rob our children of their freedoms, for nothing in return? It doesn't make sense. Furthermore, we gratulate ourselves for having done something, while closing our eyes to the real causes of decline.
 

Marine reserves are like feel-good plasters on a dying patient, not fixing the main problem - Floor Anthoni

f004414: the Goat Island marine reserve during a fine day before Christmas. The sea is blue and divers are taking their last open water tests. It takes little imagination that this protected area could become a kind of paradise.

f013205: Goat Island marine reserve during a rainy week in winter. Copious amounts of mud have turned the water brown as the land is poisoning the sea. Dense plankton blooms that thrive on the nutrients, cause death of many organisms, but WHY?.

the snapper-urchin-kelp myth A good example of people (and scientists) having lost the plot, is the myth of the snapper-urchin-kelp trophic cascade (food dominoes falling). It goes like this: in protected areas, after a while big snappers grow big enough to crush the sea urchins (Evechinus chloroticus) that sit like low-hanging fruit on the rocks, and they are assisted in this by the also bigger crayfish. These sea urchins are voracious grazers that scrape the rock face with their five teeth, and thereby remove seaweed 'seedlings' and even mature plants. Therefore when there are fewer urchins, the seaweeds have a chance to come back and recolonise the urchin barren zone. Marine reserves are therefore characterised by bigger fish and more and bigger crayfish, few if any urchins, and lots of kelp. Furthermore, the big fish produce more spawn that then leaves reserves to re-establish life outside. It sounds like a compelling story, but is entirely false. Even so, it has been spread far and wide, and is quoted in every respectable science article about marine reserves. There are environmental groups based on this, like Experiencing Marine Reserves and educational web sites, while many university students come to Leigh (often from overseas) to count sea urchins inside and outside the reserve. How could this go so wrong and stay wrong for so long?

The map shows the outer Hauraki Gulf and where transects were done. It revealed the extent of kelpbed death of 92/93(white) but also that there was one earlier in 91/92 (grey), just missing Goat Island and Tawharanui. We have exposed the non-science (nonsense) of the urchin trophic cascades extensively and conclusively in a long document (/issues/cons/science.htm) which makes for interesting and educational reading, particularly because we did our own observations and measurements in that period (/enviro/habitat/survey93.htm) but here is its essence: the kelp invasion of the urchin barrens was found only in two reserves: Goat Island and neighbouring Tawharanui (marked in red on the map). Trying to find it elsewhere led to failed experiments. scientists kept mum about the extensive kelpbed death of 1993, even though it was studied by them and reported upon. Our own research discovered the full extent of the kelpbed deaths and that kelp invasion of the urchin barrens happened only where previously the kelpbed suffered major damage (see map white and grey areas). Scientists only needed to look at Kawau Island and Great Barrier Island (marked yellow) to discover that these places too, had lost their urchin barrens but these are not protected.  scientists kept mum about extensive urchin deaths, first reported by us and later also studied by them. Urchins die from grazing a poisonous dinoflagellate slime (ostreopsis), a product of degradation. an extensive study to find habitat changes in an extensive range of marine reserves from north to south New Zealand, found no effect from protection (less than detectable), but an overwhelming effect from degradation (water murkiness and dust deposition). today (2007) the urchin barrens from the very north to East Cape on the North Island have been overrun by kelp. An unaffected area has become very rare. All this independent of marine protection.

f023514: a young snapper absconds with a small sea urchin offered to it but sea urchins are not snappers' preferred food.

f045234: mature urchins losing out against nutricious sea lettuce (Ulva lactuca), invading their patch. There are not enough urchins to keep their patch clean.

f049501: seaweeds are invading urchin barrens everywhere. Here at the Cavalli Islands (not a reserve), it is done by featherweed (Carpophyllum plumosum).

f034409: a sea urchin has folded its spines and is already dead and smelly inside while its spines and tubefeet are still moving. Its mistake was to graze the greenish poisonous dinoflagellate slime (ostreopsis), as shown by a clean pink swath.

• marine studies: marine reserves protect scientific experiments and they also provide a more natural environment for marine studies. But this does not mean that studies outside marine reserves should not be done.
• marine education: for the same reasons as above, marine reserves attract educational groups who come to study the sea. The rocky shore with its many easy to catch creatures, is protected.
• recreation: for those who come to enjoy the marine environment, a marine reserve protects large fish as long as they remain inside. Underwater photographers benefit from the way fish have become accustomed to divers, and how much easier it is to take successful photographs.

f219420: snorkelling in the summer is safe and enjoyable for all.

f022122: because people fed the fish, they became very friendly.

0511156: a large group of some 40 children does a guided snorkel dive with Seafriends. They are all dressed in full protective suits for warmth, safety and enjoyment.

f029212: a snorkeldiver approaches a long-tailed stingray in the Poor Knights marine reserve where shallow sandy patches are rare.

• Frequently Asked Questions about marine reserves and marine conservation. This is your quick no-nonsense education about marine conservation and marine reserves issues, fallacies and myths. Don't waste time, and begin here.
• Conservation index: leads you to all the important chapters about resource management, biodiversity, principles of conservation, marine conservation, and more.
• Habitats: learn what it means to live in the sea and how strange this environment is. The introduction to habitats is a must-read.
• The intertidal rocky shore: an extensive chapter about the principles of the rocky shore habitat, complete with identifying photographs of over 300 species commonly found on the rocky shore. An excellent resource for teachers.
• Goat Island marine reserve: all you need to know about New Zealand's first marine reserve, complete with identifying photographs, locations of dive sites and much more.
• Poor Knights marine reserve: an extensive section about the Poor Knights marine reserve, its history, ecology and many identifying photos. (large)
• Marine reserves of New Zealand: a summary of existing marine reserves of New Zealand with links to more information of each.
• Marine research exposed: a scientific rebuttal of the snapper-urchin-kelp myth and other questionable science. For those who wish to know how easily science can become corrupted and how myths and fallacies originate.
• The war for marine reserves: New Zealand's government is waging a war against its own people for marine reserves that cannot deliver, while stealing the freedoms of our children. An historical document of the many stupid decisions made today. Only reading is believing.
• Myths and fallacies in the marine reserves debate: an historical document of the fallacies in our thinking, in many volumes. Worthwhile reading to understand how propaganda is used to promote untested ideas. Documenting a period in New Zealand's history that we cannot be proud of.
• Commercial fish species: a list of commercial fish species in New Zealand and an indication of their catch volumes.
• Degradation and decay: what it looks like, what causes it, how it works and how it can be measured.