Commercial fishery no-take zones for African penguins minimize fisheries losses at the expense of conservation gains

Abstract The African penguin population has declined precipitously in recent decades, and if current rates of decline persist, this species could become extinct in the wild by 2035. Resource extraction of small pelagic fish prey by the purse-seine fishery around African penguin breeding colonies has been identified as a demographically meaningful threat to African penguins. Consequently, long-term, effective no-take zones around breeding colonies have been endorsed by an expert panel of scientists constituted by the South African government. Here, we consider the six largest South African penguin colonies that currently hold 76% of the global population. We evaluate the adequacy of different no-take zone options using a trade-off mechanism recommended by the expert panel. For all six colonies except Bird Island, Algoa Bay, which is subject to the least fishing pressure, the current no-take zone delineations are assessed as having little benefit to the African penguin and little to no cost to the purse-seine fishery. Four of the six current no-take zones include ≤50% of the African penguins’ core foraging areas. Alternative no-take zones that approximate a more balanced trade-off offer more impactful alternatives to the current fisheries restrictions. Given the urgent need to implement evidence-based conservation interventions for the endangered African penguin, we recommend the substitution of the current no-take zones with those proposed herein.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
ICES Journal of Marine Science
Published
2024-08-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsae109
Citations
9
Primary Topic
Marine and fisheries research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.54
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Commercial fishery no-take zones for African penguins minimize fisheries losses at the expense of conservation gains

Jacqueline S Glencross, Antje Steinfurth, Lauren J. Waller, Alison A. Kock et al.
9 citations
ICES Journal of Marine Science
Marine and fisheries research
2.54
article

Commercial fishery no-take zones for African penguins minimize fisheries losses at the expense of conservation gains

Jacqueline S Glencross, Antje Steinfurth, Lauren J. Waller, Alison A. Kock, Lorien Pichegru, Tegan Carpenter‐Kling, Lynne Jane Shannon, Nicky Stander, Craig S. Smith, Leshia Upfold, Eleanor A. Weideman, Katrin Ludynia, Peter Barham, Murray Christian, Alistair McInnes, Christina Hagen, C. Lawrence, Richard B. Sherley, Azwianewi Benedict Makhado, Kirsten Day
article en
9 citations

Abstract

Abstract The African penguin population has declined precipitously in recent decades, and if current rates of decline persist, this species could become extinct in the wild by 2035. Resource extraction of small pelagic fish prey by the purse-seine fishery around African penguin breeding colonies has been identified as a demographically meaningful threat to African penguins. Consequently, long-term, effective no-take zones around breeding colonies have been endorsed by an expert panel of scientists constituted by the South African government. Here, we consider the six largest South African penguin colonies that currently hold 76% of the global population. We evaluate the adequacy of different no-take zone options using a trade-off mechanism recommended by the expert panel. For all six colonies except Bird Island, Algoa Bay, which is subject to the least fishing pressure, the current no-take zone delineations are assessed as having little benefit to the African penguin and little to no cost to the purse-seine fishery. Four of the six current no-take zones include ≤50% of the African penguins’ core foraging areas. Alternative no-take zones that approximate a more balanced trade-off offer more impactful alternatives to the current fisheries restrictions. Given the urgent need to implement evidence-based conservation interventions for the endangered African penguin, we recommend the substitution of the current no-take zones with those proposed herein.

ICES Journal of Marine ScienceVol. 81(8)
Andrews University (US), African Wildlife Foundation (US), Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (ZA), WWF Colombia (CO), South African National Parks (ZA), Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (GB), University of Cape Town (ZA), University of St Andrews (GB), University of Exeter (GB), BirdLife Australia (AU), BirdLife International (KE), University of Bristol (GB), Scientific Services (ZA), Department of Forestry (MW), Shanghai Ocean University (CN), Endangered Wildlife Trust (ZA), South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity (ZA), University of the Western Cape (ZA), Nelson Mandela University (ZA)
Life below water
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Marine and fisheries research
2.54
DOIOpen Access PDFOpenAlex
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.