The Scientist November 2019

fact that populations’ interconnectedness is

likely to evolve for most species and ecosys-

tems in the coming years as anthropogenic

pressures on the oceans intensify. With cli-

mate change, for example, altered weather

patterns could drastically reduce the effec-

tiveness of existing M PA networks by dis-

rupting dispersal between areas, recent

computational studies have found. “There

are a number of things that are going to

change,” explains Ramesh. “Ocean circu-

lation is going to change, but also the fish

themselves are going to be responding to

warmer waters and moving into habitats

that they find most suitable.... This whole

[connectivity] network is going to be shift-

ing over time as the Earth warms.” g

References

1. A.O. Armstrong et al., “Photographic identification
   and citizen science combine to reveal long distance
   movements of individual reef manta rays Mobula
   alfredi along Australia’s east coast,” Mar Biodivers
   Rec, 12:14, 2019.


2. I. Gomes et al., “Wandering mussels: using natural
   tags to identify connectivity patterns among Marine
   Protected Areas,” Mar Ecol Prog Ser, 552:159–76, 2016.


3. D. Moll et al., “Elemental inventory in fish otoliths
   reflects natal origin of Atlantic herring (Clupea
   harengus) from Baltic Sea juvenile areas,” Front Mar
   Sci, 6:191, 2019.


4. J.R. Rooker et al., “Population connectivity of pelagic
   megafauna in the Cuba-Mexico-United States
   triangle,” Sci Rep, 9:1663, 2019.


5. D.S. Baetscher et al., “Dispersal of a nearshore
   marine fish connects marine reserves and adjacent
   fished areas along an open coast,” Mol Ecol,
   28:1611–23, 2019.


6. G.R. Almany et al., “Larval fish dispersal in a coral-
   reef seascape,” Nat Ecol Evol, 1:0148, 2017.


7. A. Metaxas et al., “Hydrodynamic connectivity of
   habitats of deep-water corals in Corsair Canyon,
   Northwest Atlantic: A case for cross-boundary
   conservation,” Front Mar Sci, 6:159, 2019.


8. N. Ramesh et al., “The small world of global marine
   fisheries: The cross-boundary consequences of larval
   dispersal,” Science, 364:1192–96, 2019.


9. R. Nolasco et al., “Independent estimates of marine
   population connectivity are more concordant when
   accounting for uncertainties in larval origins,” Sci
   Rep, 8:2641, 2018.


10. A.C. Balbar, A. Metaxas, “The current application
    of ecological connectivity in the design of marine
    protected areas,” Glob Ecol Conserv, 17:e00569, 2019.


11. J. Smith, A. Metaxas, “A decision tree that can
    address connectivity in the design of Marine
    anProtected Area Networks (MPAn),” Mar Policy,
    88:269–78, 2018.

PROTECTED AREA

California has one of the largest marine management programs in the world, with

119 marine protected areas (MPAs) and five state marine recreational management

areas covering a total of 852 square miles. Marine connectivity is an important fac-

tor to consider during M PA network design, as the movement of organisms outside

protected areas can render them vulnerable. In particular, connectivity influences

how conservation planners decide the minimum area of an MPA, to make sure that

most adults in local populations will be contained within it, and the spacing between

different MPAs, as populations in different regions of coastline may depend on one

another for long-term survival.

State Marine Reserve

(No take area)

State Marine Conservation Area

(No take area)

State Marine Conservation Area

(Limited take area)

State Marine Park

(Limited take area)

State Marine Recreational

Management Area

(No take or limited take area)

Crescent

City

San Francisco

San Diego

Los Angeles

Point Conception

Pigeon Point

Point Arena

California/Oregon border

US/Mexico border

THE SCIENTIST

STAFF