Cited by 163Coral and Marine Ecosystems StudiesCoastal and Marine ManagementConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management

Planning for persistence in marine reserves: a question of catastrophic importance

Open access
Game, Edward T., Watts, Matthew E., Wooldridge, Scott, Possingham, Hugh P.·2008·Ecological Applications

Abstract

Large-scale catastrophic events, although rare, lie generally beyond the control of local management and can prevent marine reserves from achieving biodiversity outcomes. We formulate a new conservation planning problem that aims to minimize the probability of missing conservation targets as a result of catastrophic events. To illustrate this approach we formulate and solve the problem of minimizing the impact of large-scale coral bleaching events on a reserve system for the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. We show that by considering the threat of catastrophic events as part of the reserve design problem it is possible to substantially improve the likely persistence of conservation features within reserve networks for a negligible increase in cost. In the case of the Great Barrier Reef, a 2% increase in overall reserve cost was enough to improve the long-run performance of our reserve network by >60%. Our results also demonstrate that simply aiming to protect the reefs at lowest risk of catastrophic bleaching does not necessarily lead to the best conservation outcomes, and enormous gains in overall persistence can be made by removing the requirement to represent all bioregions in the reserve network. We provide an explicit and well-defined method that allows the probability of catastrophic disturbances to be included in the site selection problem without creating additional conservation targets or imposing arbitrary presence/absence thresholds on existing data. This research has implications for reserve design in a changing climate.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1890/07-1027.1

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Protecting high diversity coral reef areas with a high probability of catastrophic disturbances in the near future, including MHWs, may be less favourable in comparison with protecting an area with less biodiversity but a low probability for disturbance.

    “protecting high diversity coral reef areas with a high probability of catastrophic disturbances in the near future, including MHWs, may be less favourable in comparison with protecting an area with less biodiversity but a low probability for disturbance (Game et al. 2008).”

    From A hierarchical approach to defining marine heatwaves (2016) · cites this paper as Game et al. 2008

    The Discussion (page not available) says that, all else equal, protecting reefs at lower risk of catastrophic bleaching is preferable, and that improving persistence can require trade-offs with biodiversity coverage. It does not establish the specific comparison between a high-diversity, high-risk reef and a less-diverse, low-risk reef. The study models bleaching risk through 2100 but does not explicitly assess marine heatwaves as a broader category of disturbance. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Game, E. T., Watts, M. E., Wooldridge, S., & Possingham, H. P.
Affiliations
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • Australian Institute of Marine Science (AU)
Corresponding author
Game, Edward T.
Venue
Ecological Applications
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-04
Volume
18
Issue
3
Pages
670-680
ISSN
1051-0761 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2160214953
Cited by
163
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 19
FWCI
14.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ecological Applications (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EPubDev Repository (submittedVersion)
  • RUNE (Research UNE) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
  • Department of the Environment, Australian Government
  • Department of Environment and Water
  • Australian Research Council
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Coral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Coastal and Marine Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Keywords
marine reserve design, catastrophic disturbance, coral bleaching, Great Barrier Reef, site selection, climate change adaptation, reserve cost
MeSH terms
Animals, Australia, Conservation of Natural Resources, Disasters, Marine Biology, Models, Biological, Oceans and Seas, Organizational Objectives, Planning Techniques, Ecosystem

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review