Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Trends Ecol Evol. 2019 May;34(5):459-473. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2019.01.009. Epub 2019 Mar 14.

Translating Marine Animal Tracking Data into Conservation Policy and Management.

Author information

1
Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia. Electronic address: g.hays@deakin.edu.au.
2
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Solomons, MD 20688, USA.
3
NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Environmental Research Division, Monterey, CA 93940, USA.
4
Population Ecology Division, Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Dartmouth, NS B2Y 4A2, Canada.
5
Wildlife Conservation Society, Marine Program, Buenos Aires, 1414 Argentina.
6
University Programs, Dauphin Island Sea Lab, Dauphin Island, AL 36528, USA; Department of Marine Sciences, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL 36688, USA.
7
Department of Biology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
8
Conservation Department, Phillip Island, Nature Parks, Victoria, Australia.
9
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA.
10
CONACYT - Research Center of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Universidad Autonoma del Carmen, Campeche 24180, Mexico; Pronatura Peninsula de Yucatan, Yucatan 97205, Mexico.
11
Mammal Research Institute, Department of Zoology & Entomology, University of Pretoria, Hatfield 0028, South Africa.
12
BirdLife International, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, UK; MARE - Marine and Environmental Sciences Center, ISPA - Instituto Universit√°rio, 1149-041 Lisboa, Portugal.
13
King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Red Sea Research Center (RSRC), Thuwal, 23955-6900, Saudi Arabia.
14
Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
15
Marine Mammal and Turtle Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA.
16
Department of Biosciences, Swansea University, Swansea SA2 8PP, Wales, UK.
17
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA; Institute for Marine Sciences, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 965060, USA.
18
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd (NIWA),Greta Point, Wellington, New Zealand.
19
Marine Turtle Research Group, Centre for Ecology and Conservation, School of Biosciences, University of Exeter, Cornwall Campus, Penryn TR10 9EZ, UK.
20
College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia.
21
Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science, Abess Center for Ecosystem Science & Policy, University of Miami, Miami, FL 33149, USA.
22
Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia.
23
Migratory Bird Center, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, Washington, DC 20008, USA.
24
Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, QLD 4810, Australia.
25
Whale and Dolphin Conservation, Bridport, Dorset, UK; IUCN Joint SSC/WCPA Marine Mammal Protected Areas Task Force, Gland, Switzerland.
26
Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, The Laboratory, Plymouth PL1 2PB, UK.
27
Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
28
School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, University of Washington, Bothell Campus, Bothell, WA 98011, USA.
29
Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia; Ecology and Biodiversity Centre, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7004, Australia; Sydney Institute of Marine Science, Mosman, NSW 2088, Australia.
30
Tethys Research Institute, 20121 Milano, Italy; IUCN Joint SSC/WCPA Marine Mammal Protected Areas Task Force, Gland, Switzerland.
31
Marine Mammal Institute and Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Newport, OR 97365, USA.
32
British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge, CB3 0ET, UK.
33
Cefas Laboratory, Suffolk, NR33 0HT, UK; School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK.
34
School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, E14NS, London, UK.
35
Marine Turtle Ecology and Assessment Program, NOAA-Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA.
36
Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, The Laboratory, Plymouth PL1 2PB, UK; Ocean and Earth Science, National Oceanography Centre Southampton, University of Southampton, Waterfront Campus, Southampton, SO14 3ZH, UK; Centre for Biological Sciences, Building 85, University of Southampton, Highfield Campus, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.
37
National Institute of Polar Research, Tachikawa, Tokyo 190-8518, Japan.
38
IUCN Joint SSC/WCPA Marine Mammal Protected Areas Task Force, Gland, Switzerland.
39
Australian Institute of Marine Science, Indian Ocean Marine Research Centre (M096), University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia.
40
Chicago Zoological Society's Sarasota Dolphin Research Program, c/o Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, FL 34236, USA.
41
Marine Science Program, Department of Biodiversity, Conservation, and Attractions, Kensington, WA 6151, Australia.
42
Marine Turtle Research, Ecology and Conservation Group, Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric, Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4320, USA.
43
IOMRC and The University of Western Australia Oceans Institute, School of Biological Sciences, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia.

Abstract

There have been efforts around the globe to track individuals of many marine species and assess their movements and distribution, with the putative goal of supporting their conservation and management. Determining whether, and how, tracking data have been successfully applied to address real-world conservation issues is, however, difficult. Here, we compile a broad range of case studies from diverse marine taxa to show how tracking data have helped inform conservation policy and management, including reductions in fisheries bycatch and vessel strikes, and the design and administration of marine protected areas and important habitats. Using these examples, we highlight pathways through which the past and future investment in collecting animal tracking data might be better used to achieve tangible conservation benefits.

KEYWORDS:

CITES; EBSA; acoustic tracking; bio-logging; fisheries stock management; geolocator; marine protected areas; satellite tracking

PMID:
30879872
DOI:
10.1016/j.tree.2019.01.009
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center