Simple rules can guide whether land- or ocean-based conservation will best benefit marine ecosystems.

Coastal marine ecosystems can be managed by actions undertaken both on the land and in the ocean. Quantifying and comparing the costs and benefits of actions in both realms is therefore necessary for efficient management. Here, we quantify the link between terrestrial sediment runoff and a downstrea...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Megan I Saunders, Michael Bode, Scott Atkinson, Carissa J Klein, Anna Metaxas, Jutta Beher, Maria Beger, Morena Mills, Sylvaine Giakoumi, Vivitskaia Tulloch, Hugh P Possingham
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2017-09-01
Series:PLoS Biology
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5587113?pdf=render
_version_ 1830341811158122496
author Megan I Saunders
Michael Bode
Scott Atkinson
Carissa J Klein
Anna Metaxas
Jutta Beher
Maria Beger
Morena Mills
Sylvaine Giakoumi
Vivitskaia Tulloch
Hugh P Possingham
author_facet Megan I Saunders
Michael Bode
Scott Atkinson
Carissa J Klein
Anna Metaxas
Jutta Beher
Maria Beger
Morena Mills
Sylvaine Giakoumi
Vivitskaia Tulloch
Hugh P Possingham
author_sort Megan I Saunders
collection DOAJ
description Coastal marine ecosystems can be managed by actions undertaken both on the land and in the ocean. Quantifying and comparing the costs and benefits of actions in both realms is therefore necessary for efficient management. Here, we quantify the link between terrestrial sediment runoff and a downstream coastal marine ecosystem and contrast the cost-effectiveness of marine- and land-based conservation actions. We use a dynamic land- and sea-scape model to determine whether limited funds should be directed to 1 of 4 alternative conservation actions-protection on land, protection in the ocean, restoration on land, or restoration in the ocean-to maximise the extent of light-dependent marine benthic habitats across decadal timescales. We apply the model to a case study for a seagrass meadow in Australia. We find that marine restoration is the most cost-effective action over decadal timescales in this system, based on a conservative estimate of the rate at which seagrass can expand into a new habitat. The optimal decision will vary in different social-ecological contexts, but some basic information can guide optimal investments to counteract land- and ocean-based stressors: (1) marine restoration should be prioritised if the rates of marine ecosystem decline and expansion are similar and low; (2) marine protection should take precedence if the rate of marine ecosystem decline is high or if the adjacent catchment is relatively intact and has a low rate of vegetation decline; (3) land-based actions are optimal when the ratio of marine ecosystem expansion to decline is greater than 1:1.4, with terrestrial restoration typically the most cost-effective action; and (4) land protection should be prioritised if the catchment is relatively intact but the rate of vegetation decline is high. These rules of thumb illustrate how cost-effective conservation outcomes for connected land-ocean systems can proceed without complex modelling.
first_indexed 2024-12-19T21:40:18Z
format Article
id doaj.art-d04cbd2afc784b3cad8f431922da8e00
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1544-9173
1545-7885
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-19T21:40:18Z
publishDate 2017-09-01
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
record_format Article
series PLoS Biology
spelling doaj.art-d04cbd2afc784b3cad8f431922da8e002022-12-21T20:04:41ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS Biology1544-91731545-78852017-09-01159e200188610.1371/journal.pbio.2001886Simple rules can guide whether land- or ocean-based conservation will best benefit marine ecosystems.Megan I SaundersMichael BodeScott AtkinsonCarissa J KleinAnna MetaxasJutta BeherMaria BegerMorena MillsSylvaine GiakoumiVivitskaia TullochHugh P PossinghamCoastal marine ecosystems can be managed by actions undertaken both on the land and in the ocean. Quantifying and comparing the costs and benefits of actions in both realms is therefore necessary for efficient management. Here, we quantify the link between terrestrial sediment runoff and a downstream coastal marine ecosystem and contrast the cost-effectiveness of marine- and land-based conservation actions. We use a dynamic land- and sea-scape model to determine whether limited funds should be directed to 1 of 4 alternative conservation actions-protection on land, protection in the ocean, restoration on land, or restoration in the ocean-to maximise the extent of light-dependent marine benthic habitats across decadal timescales. We apply the model to a case study for a seagrass meadow in Australia. We find that marine restoration is the most cost-effective action over decadal timescales in this system, based on a conservative estimate of the rate at which seagrass can expand into a new habitat. The optimal decision will vary in different social-ecological contexts, but some basic information can guide optimal investments to counteract land- and ocean-based stressors: (1) marine restoration should be prioritised if the rates of marine ecosystem decline and expansion are similar and low; (2) marine protection should take precedence if the rate of marine ecosystem decline is high or if the adjacent catchment is relatively intact and has a low rate of vegetation decline; (3) land-based actions are optimal when the ratio of marine ecosystem expansion to decline is greater than 1:1.4, with terrestrial restoration typically the most cost-effective action; and (4) land protection should be prioritised if the catchment is relatively intact but the rate of vegetation decline is high. These rules of thumb illustrate how cost-effective conservation outcomes for connected land-ocean systems can proceed without complex modelling.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5587113?pdf=render
spellingShingle Megan I Saunders
Michael Bode
Scott Atkinson
Carissa J Klein
Anna Metaxas
Jutta Beher
Maria Beger
Morena Mills
Sylvaine Giakoumi
Vivitskaia Tulloch
Hugh P Possingham
Simple rules can guide whether land- or ocean-based conservation will best benefit marine ecosystems.
PLoS Biology
title Simple rules can guide whether land- or ocean-based conservation will best benefit marine ecosystems.
title_full Simple rules can guide whether land- or ocean-based conservation will best benefit marine ecosystems.
title_fullStr Simple rules can guide whether land- or ocean-based conservation will best benefit marine ecosystems.
title_full_unstemmed Simple rules can guide whether land- or ocean-based conservation will best benefit marine ecosystems.
title_short Simple rules can guide whether land- or ocean-based conservation will best benefit marine ecosystems.
title_sort simple rules can guide whether land or ocean based conservation will best benefit marine ecosystems
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5587113?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT meganisaunders simplerulescanguidewhetherlandoroceanbasedconservationwillbestbenefitmarineecosystems
AT michaelbode simplerulescanguidewhetherlandoroceanbasedconservationwillbestbenefitmarineecosystems
AT scottatkinson simplerulescanguidewhetherlandoroceanbasedconservationwillbestbenefitmarineecosystems
AT carissajklein simplerulescanguidewhetherlandoroceanbasedconservationwillbestbenefitmarineecosystems
AT annametaxas simplerulescanguidewhetherlandoroceanbasedconservationwillbestbenefitmarineecosystems
AT juttabeher simplerulescanguidewhetherlandoroceanbasedconservationwillbestbenefitmarineecosystems
AT mariabeger simplerulescanguidewhetherlandoroceanbasedconservationwillbestbenefitmarineecosystems
AT morenamills simplerulescanguidewhetherlandoroceanbasedconservationwillbestbenefitmarineecosystems
AT sylvainegiakoumi simplerulescanguidewhetherlandoroceanbasedconservationwillbestbenefitmarineecosystems
AT vivitskaiatulloch simplerulescanguidewhetherlandoroceanbasedconservationwillbestbenefitmarineecosystems
AT hughppossingham simplerulescanguidewhetherlandoroceanbasedconservationwillbestbenefitmarineecosystems