Search

Aim: To assess the efficacy of marine reserves in Australia for shy albatross, using long‐term tracking data. Location: Albatross Island, Tasmania, and south Australian waters. Methods: We integrated a tracking dataset consisting of 111 individuals collected over 23 years and generated Brownian bridge kernel density estimations to identify important habitat. We quantified the overlap between the foraging distribution of early incubating adults and post‐fledgling juveniles with management boundaries and marine reserves. We compared the extent of coverage of albatross foraging areas by Marine Protection Areas (MPAs) relative to a randomly designed network of the same size to determine whether the spatial protection measures are likely to be effective. Results: Incubating adults consistently foraged in waters to the northwest of Tasmania while post‐fledglings occupied shelf waters around Tasmania and South Australia. We show that our sample of 99 incubating adults adequately represented the population but that our sample of 12 post‐fledgling birds was insufficient, thereby limiting the confidence in our results for this life stage. The Commonwealth Government has the majority of management responsibility for shy albatross at‐sea, containing 88% and 90% of the area occupied most intensively by adult and post‐fledgling shy albatross, respectively. Randomly designed reserve networks outperformed the current MPA network for both life stages, such that the mean protection by a random reserve system was 30% and 12% higher than the actual protection for adults and juveniles in Commonwealth waters. Main conclusions: Important foraging habitat of shy albatross from Albatross Island is mostly within Commonwealth‐managed waters. The current MPA network, the only spatial protection measure for shy albatross, provides less coverage for this species than a randomly placed network. An increase in the representation of productive shelf waters in MPA networks would benefit the conservation of shy albatross through reducing fisheries interactions and protecting habitat in these regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The Adriatic and Ionian Region is an important area for both strategic maritime development and biodiversity conservation in the European Union (EU). However, given that both EU and non‐EU countries border the sea, multiple legal and regulatory frameworks operate at different scales, which can hinder the coordinated long‐term sustainable development of the region. Transboundary marine spatial planning can help overcome these challenges by building consensus on planning objectives and making the trade‐offs between biodiversity conservation and its influence on economically important sectors more explicit. We address this challenge by developing and testing 4 spatial prioritization strategies with the decision‐support tool Marxan, which meets targets for biodiversity conservation while minimizing impacts to users. We evaluated these strategies in terms of how priority areas shift under different scales of target setting (e.g., regional vs. country level). We also examined the trade‐off between cost‐efficiency and how equally solutions represent countries and maritime industries (n = 14) operating in the region with the protection‐equality metric. We found negligible differences in where priority conservation areas were located when we set targets for biodiversity at the regional versus country scale. Conversely, the prospective impacts on industries, when considered as costs to be minimized, were highly divergent across scenarios and biased the placement of protection toward industries located in isolation or where there were few other industries. We recommend underpinning future marine spatial planning efforts in the region through identification of areas of national significance, transboundary areas requiring cooperation between countries, and areas where impacts on maritime industries require careful consideration of the trade‐off between biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]