Spillover Effects of a Community-Managed Marine Reserve

The value of no-take marine reserves as fisheries-management tools is controversial, particularly in high-poverty areas where human populations depend heavily on fish as a source of protein. Spillover, the net export of adult fish, is one mechanism by which no-take marine reserves may have a positive influence on adjacent fisheries. Spillover can contribute to poverty alleviation, although its effect is modulated by the number of fishermen and fishing intensity. In this study, we quantify the effects of a community-managed marine reserve in a high poverty area of Northern Mozambique. For this purpose, underwater visual censuses of reef fish were undertaken at three different times: 3 years before (2003), at the time of establishment (2006) and 6 years after the marine reserve establishment (2012). The survey locations were chosen inside, outside and on the border of the marine reserve. Benthic cover composition was quantified at the same sites in 2006 and 2012. After the reserve establishment, fish sizes were also estimated. Regression tree models show that the distance from the border and the time after reserve establishment were the variables with the strongest effect on fish abundance. The extent and direction of the spillover depends on trophic group and fish size. Poisson Generalized Linear Models show that, prior to the reserve establishment, the survey sites did not differ but, after 6 years, the abundance of all fish inside the reserve has increased and caused spillover of herbivorous fish. Spillover was detected 1km beyond the limit of the reserve for small herbivorous fishes. Six years after the establishment of a community-managed reserve, the fish assemblages have changed dramatically inside the reserve, and spillover is benefitting fish assemblages outside the reserve.     

Trajectories and magnitude of change in coral reef fish populations in Philippine marine reserves: a meta-analysis

Marine reserves are widely implemented worldwide to meet both conservation and fisheries management goals. This study examines the efficacy of Philippine marine reserves using meta-analysis by comparing variations in fish density (1) between reserves and adjacent fished reefs (spatial comparison), (2) within reserves before establishment relative to years following the establishment (temporal comparison), and (3) among reserves classified based on size, age, and enforcement capacity. A grand (total) mean of nineteen 22.3 ha coral reef reserves, protected for a mean duration of 8.2 years, were included in the meta-analyses. The overall density of fishes was higher in the reserves compared with the fished reefs and this difference was largely accounted for by exploited fishes. However, the overall density of fishes within the same reserves remained similar from the period before its establishment to several years following its establishment. Only the density of nonexploited fishes increased significantly during years subsequent to the establishment of the reserves. Neither age nor size of reserves correlated with pattern of change in fish density following the establishment of the reserves; however, fish density was consistently higher in larger and older reserves relative to smaller and younger reserves in the spatial comparison. Furthermore, well-enforced reserves had higher density of exploited fishes relative to less-enforced reserves in both spatial and temporal comparisons. In general, the magnitude and trajectory of change in fish density following the establishment of Philippine marine reserves are influenced by (1) functional groups of fishes under consideration, (2) size and age of the reserve, and (3) level of enforcement of the regulatory mechanisms necessary to sustain a marine reserve.     

Using marine reserves to estimate fishing mortality

The proportion of a fish stock that is killed by fishing activity is often calculated as the catch divided by the estimated stock biomass. However, stock biomass is notoriously difficult to estimate reliably, and moreover, the catch may be uncertain or misreported and does not include losses due to discarding. In all too many fisheries, these difficulties have lead to underestimates of total fishing mortality and the commercial demise of the fishery. No‐take marine reserves eliminate fishing mortality from within their boundaries and, for species that exhibit seasonal migratory behaviour, comparison of reserves with fished areas can provide direct estimates of the proportion killed by fishing. For an important exploited species in New Zealand, seasonal changes in density of sub‐legal fish at three marine reserves were similar in both reserve and adjacent non‐reserve areas. However, this result did not hold for legal‐size fish, and the difference in seasonal change between reserved and non‐reserved areas was used to obtain direct estimates of the total localized fishing mortality in the non‐reserve area over 6‐month periods. Estimates of the percentage of legal‐size fish killed by fishing ranged from 70 to 96%. These results demonstrate an unanticipated practical benefit from marine reserves that goes beyond their ecological role.     

Implications of fish home range size and relocation for marine reserve function

Reserves are being used increasingly to conserve fish communities and populations under threat from overfishing, but little consideration has been given to how fish behavior might affect reserve function. This review examines the implications of how fish use space, in particular the occurrence and size of home ranges and the frequency and direction of home range relocations. Examples are drawn primarily from the literature on coral reef fishes, but the principles apply to other habitats. Reserves can protect fish species only if individuals restrict their movements to a localized home range during at least part of the life cycle. Home range sizes increase with body size. In small reserves, a significant proportion of fish whose home ranges are centered within the reserve can be exposed to fishing mortality because their home ranges include non-reserve areas. Relocation of home ranges following initial settlement increases exposure to the fishery, especially if habitat selection is frequency-dependent. Distance, barriers, and costs of movement counter such redistribution. These considerations lead to predictions that population density and mean fish size (1) will form gradients across reserve boundaries with maxima in the center of the reserve and minima outside the reserve away from the boundary; (2) will increase rapidly in newly established reserves, only later providing spillover to adjacent fisheries as density-dependent emigration begins to take effect; and (3) will be higher in reserves that are larger and have higher area:edge ratios, more habitat types, natural barriers between reserve and non-reserve areas, and higher habitat quality inside than outside the reserve. (4) Species with low mobility and weak density-dependence of space use will show the greatest increase in reserves and the strongest benefit for population reproductive capacity, but those with intermediate levels of these traits will provide the greatest spillover benefit to nearby fisheries.     

Matching marine reserve design to reserve objectives

Recent interest in using marine reserves for marine resource management and conservation has largely been driven by the hope that reserves might counteract declines in fish populations and protect the biodiversity of the seas. However, the creation of reserves has led to dissension from some interested groups, such as fishermen, who fear that reserves will do more harm than good. These perceived differences in the effect of marine reserves on various stakeholder interests has led to a contentious debate over their merit. We argue here that recent findings in marine ecology suggest that this debate is largely unnecessary, and that a single general design of a network of reserves of moderate size and variable spacing can meet the needs and goals of most stakeholders interested in marine resources. Given the high fecundity of most marine organisms and recent evidence for limited distance of larval dispersal, it is likely that reserves can both maintain their own biodiversity and service nearby non-reserve areas. In particular, spillover of larger organisms and dispersal of larvae to areas outside reserves can lead to reserves sustaining or even increasing local fisheries. Ultimately, the success of any reserve network requires attention to the uncertainty and variability in dispersal patterns of marine organisms, clear statements of goals by all stakeholder groups and proper evaluation of reserve performance.     

Effects of marine reserves versus nursery habitat availability on structure of reef fish communities

No-take marine fishery reserves sustain commercial stocks by acting as buffers against overexploitation and enhancing fishery catches in adjacent areas through spillover. Likewise, nursery habitats such as mangroves enhance populations of some species in adjacent habitats. However, there is lack of understanding of the magnitude of stock enhancement and the effects on community structure when both protection from fishing and access to nurseries concurrently act as drivers of fish population dynamics. In this study we test the separate as well as interactive effects of marine reserves and nursery habitat proximity on structure and abundance of coral reef fish communities. Reserves had no effect on fish community composition, while proximity to nursery habitat only had a significant effect on community structure of species that use mangroves or seagrass beds as nurseries. In terms of reef fish biomass, proximity to nursery habitat by far outweighed (biomass 249% higher than that in areas with no nursery access) the effects of protection from fishing in reserves (biomass 21% lower than non-reserve areas) for small nursery fish (≤ 25 cm total length). For large-bodied individuals of nursery species (>25 cm total length), an additive effect was present for these two factors, although fish benefited more from fishing protection (203% higher biomass) than from proximity to nurseries (139% higher). The magnitude of elevated biomass for small fish on coral reefs due to proximity to nurseries was such that nursery habitats seem able to overrule the usually positive effects on fish biomass by reef reserves. As a result, conservation of nursery habitats gains importance and more consideration should be given to the ecological processes that occur along nursery-reef boundaries that connect neighboring ecosystems.     

Marine reserves indirectly affect fine‐scale habitat associations,but not overall densities,of small benthic fishes

Many large, fishery‐targeted predatory species have attained very high relative densities as a direct result of protection by no‐take marine reserves. Indirect effects, via interactions with targeted species, may also occur for species that are not themselves targeted by fishing. In some temperate rocky reef ecosystems, indirect effects have caused profound changes in community structure, notably the restoration of predator–urchin–macroalgae trophic cascades. Yet, indirect effects on small benthic reef fishes remain poorly understood, perhaps because of behavioral associations with complex, refuge‐providing habitats. Few, if any, studies have evaluated any potential effects of marine reserves on habitat associations in small benthic fishes. We surveyed densities of small benthic fishes, including some endemic species of triplefin (Tripterygiidae), along with fine‐scale habitat features in kelp forests on rocky reefs in and around multiple marine reserves in northern New Zealand over 3 years. Bayesian generalized linear mixed models were used to evaluate evidence for (1) main effects of marine reserve protection, (2) associations with habitat gradients, including complexity, and (3) differences in habitat associations inside versus outside reserves. No evidence of overall main effects of marine reserves on species richness or densities of fishes was found. Both richness and densities showed strong associations with gradients in habitat features, particularly habitat complexity. In addition, some species exhibited reserve‐by‐habitat interactions, having different associations with habitat gradients inside versus outside marine reserves. Two species (Ruanoho whero and Forsterygion flavonigrum) showed stronger positive associations with habitat complexity inside reserves. These results are consistent with the presence of a behavioral risk effect, whereby prey fishes are more strongly attracted to habitats that provide refuge from predation in areas where predators are more abundant. This work highlights the importance of habitat structure and the potential for fishing to affect behavioral interactions and the interspecific dynamic attributes of community structure beyond simple predator–prey consumption and archetypal trophic cascades.     

Movements of Fishes Within and Among Fringing Coral Reefs in Barbados

Movement of coral reef fishes across marine reserve boundaries subsequent to their initial settlement from the plankton will affect the ability of no-take reserves to conserve stocks and to benefit adjacent fisheries. However, the mobility of most exploited reef species is poorly known. We tagged 1443 individuals of 35 reef fish species captured in Antillean fish traps in the Barbados Marine Reserve and adjacent non-reserve over a two-month period. Trapping and visual surveys were used to monitor the movements of these fish during the trapping period and the subsequent two months. Estimates of distances moved were corrected for the spatial distribution of sampling effort and for the number of recaptures of individual fish. Recapture rates for individual species ranged from 0–100% (median=38%). Species mobility estimated by recapture and resighting were highly correlated. Most species were strongly site attached, with the majority of recaptures and resightings occurring at the site of tagging. However, only one of 59 tagged jacks (Caranx latus, C. ruber) was ever resighted, suggesting emigration from the study area. All species were occasionally recorded away from the sites where they had been tagged (20–500m), and several species, including surgeonfish, Acanthurus bahianus, A. coeruleus, filefish, Cantherhines pullus, butterflyfish, Chaetodon striatus, angelfish Holocanthus tricolor and parrotfish, Sparisoma viride, ranged widely within reefs. In contrast, few movements were observed between reefs separated by more than 20m of sand and rubble, and no emigration from the Reserve was recorded. Most reef fishes vulnerable to Antillean traps appear sufficiently site-attached to benefit from reserves. However, many species move over a wide enough area to take them out of small reserves on continuous reef. Use of natural home range boundaries could minimize exposure of fishes in reserves to mortality from adjacent fisheries.     

Marine reserves: size and age do matter

Marine reserves are widely used throughout the world to prevent overfishing and conserve biodiversity, but uncertainties remain about their optimal design. The effects of marine reserves are heterogeneous. Despite theoretical findings, empirical studies have previously found no effect of size on the effectiveness of marine reserves in protecting commercial fish stocks. Using 58 datasets from 19 European marine reserves, we show that reserve size and age do matter: Increasing the size of the no-take zone increases the density of commercial fishes within the reserve compared with outside; whereas the size of the buffer zone has the opposite effect. Moreover, positive effects of marine reserve on commercial fish species and species richness are linked to the time elapsed since the establishment of the protection scheme. The reserve size-dependency of the response to protection has strong implications for the spatial management of coastal areas because marine reserves are used for spatial zoning.     

Fish with Chips: Tracking Reef Fish Movements to Evaluate Size and Connectivity of Caribbean Marine Protected Areas

Coral reefs and associated fish populations have experienced rapid decline in the Caribbean region and marine protected areas (MPAs) have been widely implemented to address this decline. The performance of no-take MPAs (i.e., marine reserves) for protecting and rebuilding fish populations is influenced by the movement of animals within and across their boundaries. Very little is known about Caribbean reef fish movements creating a critical knowledge gap that can impede effective MPA design, performance and evaluation. Using miniature implanted acoustic transmitters and a fixed acoustic receiver array, we address three key questions: How far can reef fish move? Does connectivity exist between adjacent MPAs? Does existing MPA size match the spatial scale of reef fish movements? We show that many reef fishes are capable of traveling far greater distances and in shorter duration than was previously known. Across the Puerto Rican Shelf, more than half of our 163 tagged fish (18 species of 10 families) moved distances greater than 1 km with three fish moving more than 10 km in a single day and a quarter spending time outside of MPAs. We provide direct evidence of ecological connectivity across a network of MPAs, including estimated movements of more than 40 km connecting a nearshore MPA with a shelf-edge spawning aggregation. Most tagged fish showed high fidelity to MPAs, but also spent time outside MPAs, potentially contributing to spillover. Three-quarters of our fish were capable of traveling distances that would take them beyond the protection offered by at least 40–64% of the existing eastern Caribbean MPAs. We recommend that key species movement patterns be used to inform and evaluate MPA functionality and design, particularly size and shape. A re-scaling of our perception of Caribbean reef fish mobility and habitat use is imperative, with important implications for ecology and management effectiveness.     

Human exploitation shapes productivity–biomass relationships on coral reefs

Coral reef fisheries support the livelihoods of millions of people in tropical countries, despite large‐scale depletion of fish biomass. While human adaptability can help to explain the resistance of fisheries to biomass depletion, compensatory ecological mechanisms may also be involved. If this is the case, high productivity should coexist with low biomass under relatively high exploitation. Here we integrate large spatial scale empirical data analysis and a theory‐driven modelling approach to unveil the effects of human exploitation on reef fish productivity–biomass relationships. We show that differences in how productivity and biomass respond to overexploitation can decouple their relationship. As size‐selective exploitation depletes fish biomass, it triggers increased production per unit biomass, averting immediate productivity collapse in both the modelling and the empirical systems. This ‘buffering productivity’ exposes the danger of assuming resource production–biomass equivalence, but may help to explain why some biomass‐depleted fish assemblages still provide ecosystem goods under continued global fishing exploitation.     

Rapid Effects of Marine Reserves via Larval Dispersal

Marine reserves have been advocated worldwide as conservation and fishery management tools. It is argued that they can protect ecosystems and also benefit fisheries via density-dependent spillover of adults and enhanced larval dispersal into fishing areas. However, while evidence has shown that marine reserves can meet conservation targets, their effects on fisheries are less understood. In particular, the basic question of if and over what temporal and spatial scales reserves can benefit fished populations via larval dispersal remains unanswered. We tested predictions of a larval transport model for a marine reserve network in the Gulf of California, Mexico, via field oceanography and repeated density counts of recently settled juvenile commercial mollusks before and after reserve establishment. We show that local retention of larvae within a reserve network can take place with enhanced, but spatially-explicit, recruitment to local fisheries. Enhancement occurred rapidly (2 yrs), with up to a three-fold increase in density of juveniles found in fished areas at the downstream edge of the reserve network, but other fishing areas within the network were unaffected. These findings were consistent with our model predictions. Our findings underscore the potential benefits of protecting larval sources and show that enhancement in recruitment can be manifested rapidly. However, benefits can be markedly variable within a local seascape. Hence, effects of marine reserve networks, positive or negative, may be overlooked when only focusing on overall responses and not considering finer spatially-explicit responses within a reserve network and its adjacent fishing grounds. Our results therefore call for future research on marine reserves that addresses this variability in order to help frame appropriate scenarios for the spatial management scales of interest.     

Ocean zoning within a sparing versus sharing framework

The land-sparing versus land-sharing debate centers around how different intensities of habitat use can be coordinated to satisfy competing demands for biodiversity persistence and food production in agricultural landscapes. We apply the broad concepts from this debate to the sea and propose it as a framework to inform marine zoning based on three possible management strategies, establishing: no-take marine reserves, regulated fishing zones, and unregulated open-access areas. We develop a general model that maximizes standing fish biomass, given a fixed management budget while maintaining a minimum harvest level. We find that when management budgets are small, sea-sparing is the optimal management strategy because for all parameters tested, reserves are more cost-effective at increasing standing biomass than traditional fisheries management. For larger budgets, the optimal strategy switches to sea-sharing because, at a certain point, further investing to grow the no-take marine reserves reduces catch below the minimum harvest constraint. Our intention is to illustrate how general rules of thumb derived from plausible, single-purpose models can help guide marine protected area policy under our novel sparing and sharing framework. This work is the beginning of a basic theory for optimal zoning allocations and should be considered complementary to the more specific spatial planning literature for marine reserve as nations expand their marine protected area estates.     

Non‐reef habitats in a tropical seascape affect density and biomass of fishes on coral reefs

Nonreef habitats such as mangroves, seagrass, and macroalgal beds are important for foraging, spawning, and as nursery habitat for some coral reef fishes. The spatial configuration of nonreef habitats adjacent to coral reefs can therefore have a substantial influence on the distribution and composition of reef fish. We investigate how different habitats in a tropical seascape in the Philippines influence the presence, density, and biomass of coral reef fishes to understand the relative importance of different habitats across various spatial scales. A detailed seascape map generated from satellite imagery was combined with field surveys of fish and benthic habitat on coral reefs. We then compared the relative importance of local reef (within coral reef) and adjacent habitat (habitats in the surrounding seascape) variables for coral reef fishes. Overall, adjacent habitat variables were as important as local reef variables in explaining reef fish density and biomass, despite being fewer in number in final models. For adult and juvenile wrasses (Labridae), and juveniles of some parrotfish taxa (Chlorurus), adjacent habitat was more important in explaining fish density and biomass. Notably, wrasses were positively influenced by the amount of sand and macroalgae in the adjacent seascape. Adjacent habitat metrics with the highest relative importance were sand (positive), macroalgae (positive), and mangrove habitats (negative), and fish responses to these metrics were consistent across fish groups evaluated. The 500‐m spatial scale was selected most often in models for seascape variables. Local coral reef variables with the greatest importance were percent cover of live coral (positive), sand (negative), and macroalgae (mixed). Incorporating spatial metrics that describe the surrounding seascape will capture more holistic patterns of fish–habitat relationships on reefs. This is important in regions where protection of reef fish habitat is an integral part of fisheries management but where protection of nonreef habitats is often overlooked.     

Effects of marine reserve characteristics on the protection of fish populations: a meta-analysis

Meta-analyses of published data for 19 marine reserves reveal that marine protected areas enhance species richness consistently, but their effect on fish abundance is more variable. Overall, there was a slight (11%) but significant increase in fish species number inside marine reserves, with all reserves sharing a common effect. There was a substantial but non-significant increase in overall fish abundance inside marine reserves compared to adjacent, non-reserve areas. When only species that are the target of fisheries were considered, fish abundance was significantly higher (by 28%) within reserve boundaries. Marine reserves vary significantly in the extent and direction of their response. This variability in relative abundance was not attributable to differences in survey methodology among studies, nor correlated with reserve characteristics such as reserve area, years since protection, latitude nor species diversity. The effectiveness of marine reserves in enhancing fish abundance may be largely related to the intensity of exploitation outside reserve boundaries and to the composition of the fish community within boundaries. It is recommended that studies of marine reserve effectiveness should routinely report fishing intensity, effectiveness of enforcement and habitat characteristics.     

Designing a global assessment of climate change on inland fishes and fisheries: knowns and needs

To date, there are few comprehensive assessments of how climate change affects inland finfish, fisheries, and aquaculture at a global scale, but one is necessary to identify research needs and commonalities across regions and to help guide decision making and funding priorities. Broadly, the consequences of climate change on inland fishes will impact global food security, the livelihoods of people who depend on inland capture and recreational fisheries. However, understanding how climate change will affect inland fishes and fisheries has lagged behind marine assessments. Building from a North American inland fisheries assessment, we convened an expert panel from seven countries to provide a first-step to a framework for determining how to approach an assessment of how climate change may affect inland fishes, capture fisheries, and aquaculture globally. Starting with the small group helped frame the key questions (e.g., who is the audience? What is the best approach and spatial scale?). Data gaps identified by the group include: the tolerances of inland fisheries to changes in temperature, stream flows, salinity, and other environmental factors linked to climate change, and the adaptive capacity of fishes and fisheries to adjust to these changes. These questions are difficult to address, but long-term and large-scale datasets are becoming more readily available as a means to test hypotheses related to climate change. We hope this perspective will help researchers and decision makers identify research priorities and provide a framework to help sustain inland fish populations and fisheries for the diversity of users around the globe.     

Evidence of artisanal fishing impacts and depth refuge in assemblages of Fijian reef fish

Protection from fishing generally results in an increase in the abundance and biomass of species targeted by fisheries within marine reserve boundaries. Natural refuges such as depth may also protect such species, yet few studies in the Indo Pacific have investigated the effects of depth concomitant with marine reserves. We studied the effects of artisanal fishing and depth on reef fish assemblages in the Kubulau District of Vanua Levu Island, Fiji, using baited remote underwater stereo-video systems. Video samples were collected from shallow (5–8 m) and deep (25–30 m) sites inside and outside of a large old marine reserve (60.6 km², 13 years old) and a small new marine reserve (4.25 km², 4 years old). Species richness tended to be greater in the shallow waters of the large old reserve when compared to fished areas. In the deeper waters, species richness appeared to be comparable. The difference in shallow waters was driven by species targeted by fisheries, indicative of a depth refuge effect. In contrast, differences in the abundance composition of the fish assemblage existed between protected and fished areas for deep sites, but not shallow. Fish species targeted by local fisheries were 89% more abundant inside the large old reserve than surrounding fished areas, while non-targeted species were comparable. We observed no difference in the species richness or abundance of species targeted by fisheries inside and outside of the small new reserve. This study suggests that artisanal fishing impacts on the abundance and species richness of coral reef fish assemblages and effects of protection are more apparent with large reserves that have been established for a long period of time. Observed effects of protection also vary with depth, highlighting the importance of explicitly incorporating multiple depth strata in studies of marine reserves.     

When Is Spillover from Marine Reserves Likely to Benefit Fisheries?

The net movement of individuals from marine reserves (also known as no-take marine protected areas) to the remaining fishing grounds is known as spillover and is frequently used to promote reserves to fishers on the grounds that it will benefit fisheries. Here we consider how mismanaged a fishery must be before spillover from a reserve is able to provide a net benefit for a fishery. For our model fishery, density of the species being harvested becomes higher in the reserve than in the fished area but the reduction in the density and yield of the fished area was such that the net effect of the closure was negative, except when the fishery was mismanaged. The extent to which effort had to exceed traditional management targets before reserves led to a spillover benefit varied with rates of growth and movement of the model species. In general, for well-managed fisheries, the loss of yield from the use of reserves was less for species with greater movement and slower growth. The spillover benefit became more pronounced with increasing mis-management of the stocks remaining available to the fishery. This model-based result is consistent with the literature of field-based research where a spillover benefit from reserves has only been detected when the fishery is highly depleted, often where traditional fisheries management controls are absent. We conclude that reserves in jurisdictions with well-managed fisheries are unlikely to provide a net spillover benefit.     

Variation in the population demographics of <Emphasis Type="Italic">Scolopsis bilineatus</Emphasis> in response to predators

Predatory fishes play critical roles in the trophodynamics of coral reefs, and the biomass of predatory fish can be a strong determinant of the structure of reef fish assemblages. In this study, we used variations in predator biomass between management zones on the Great Barrier Reef to examine how predators influence the biomass, mortality, condition, and reproductive potential of a common prey species Scolopsis bilineatus (bridled monocle bream; Nemipteridae). Despite no numerical differences in biomass or mortality, we found significant differences in a variety of demographic traits for S. bilineatus between multiple areas of high and low predator biomass. The size-at-age, condition, and reproductive potential of fish were reduced in marine reserves where predator biomass was high. The response of fish to predators was highly sex dependent; females suffered the greatest reductions in condition and reproductive potential. This study supports the notion that predators can play important roles in regulating prey dynamics and emphasises the importance of understanding top-down control by predators when considering fisheries management techniques and conservation strategies.     

Marine Reserves: from Beverton and Holt to the Present

The idea of using marine reserves, where all fishing is banned is not new to fisheries management. It was first formally considered by Beverton and Holt but rejected in favour of approaches such as fleet and gear control. Since that analysis, many fisheries have collapsed worldwide, illustrating the vulnerability of fishery resources and the ineffectiveness of these approaches. Empirical data and modelling suggest that marine reserves would generally increase yields, especially at the high fishing mortality that occurs in most fisheries. However, the most interesting feature of reserves is their ability to provide resilience to overexploitation, thereby reducing the risk of stock collapse. Benefits from reserves come from the increase in biomass and individual size within them, resulting in adult migration and/or larval dispersal that would replenish fishing grounds. The use of marine reserves in managing fisheries necessitates a thorough understanding of critical habitat requirements, fish movement, fish behaviour, the relations between subpopulations and the critical density effect for larval dispersal. When properly designed, and coupled with other management practices, reserves may provide a better insurance against uncertainties in stock assessment, fishing control and management by protecting a part of the population from exploitation. This strategy can be used for both sedentary and migratory species.