Marine Policy 51 (2015) 13–20
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Marine Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol
Mismatch between biological, exploitation, and governance scales and
ineffective management of sea urchin (Paracentrotus lividus) fisheries
in Galicia
Rosana Ouréns a,n, Inés Naya a, Juan Freire b
a
b
Recursos Marinos y Pesquerías, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de A Coruña, Rúa da Fraga 10, 15008 A Coruña, Spain
Teamlabs, Impact Hub Madrid, C. Gobernador 26, 28014 Madrid, Spain
ar t ic l e i nf o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 12 April 2014
Received in revised form
15 July 2014
Accepted 16 July 2014
The spatial structure of fishery resources influences stock dynamics and finally the fishery. Therefore,
this aspect should be included as a key topic in the assessment and management of fisheries. The fishery
of the sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus in Galicia has been used as case study to demonstrate how the
mismatch between biological, fishery and management scales causes failures in the governance, giving
rise to over-exploitation. P. lividus is spatially distributed in nested biological units: patches, microstocks, local populations and metapopulations. Fishing operations are local exploiting micro-stocks;
however management units in Galician comprise usually more than one local population. This pattern
allows the depletion of several micro-stocks without any short-term signals in the exploitation rates
over the complete managed territory. Management units should be redefined according to the
boundaries of the local populations. In addition, the implementation of reserve networks or a rotation
system could allow to effectively managing the resource at a fine-scale. Any of both regulations could
also compensate the inverse density dependence that regulates recruitment and fecundity in this
species.
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Metapopulation
Density dependence
Management
Sea urchin
Spatial structure
1. Introduction
Nowadays it is widely recognised that the fisheries are complex
systems integrated by human (i.e. social, economic, and political
components) and ecological subsystems in a two-way feedback
relationship [1–3]. Social and ecological processes interact at
different spatial and temporal scales, and it is essential to match
both subsystems to improve stewardship of natural resources and
ecosystem services for human well-being and sustainability [4,5].
This perspective is often referred to as the problem of fit [6–9].
A major challenge concerning the problem of fit lies in addressing the governance dimension of ecosystem management [6,9].
Management units are often defined according to historical and
political boundaries (for example: community, municipal, regional
or national levels), which make little ecological sense [4]. For this
reason spatial mismatches between scales of governance and
ecosystems are common. Thus, ICES [10] summarised that population and management spatial structures were uncoupled for approx.
33% of the 150 stocks reviewed by the Advisory Committee on
n
Corresponding author. Present address: Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford
University, 120 Ocean View Blvd., Pacific Grove, CA 93950, USA.
E-mail address: rosanaoc@gmail.com (R. Ouréns).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.07.015
0308-597X/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Fishery Management in 1999. For example, the Total Allowed Catch
(TAC) for many species is assigned for broad areas that include
several local populations [11]. In these cases, the TAC could be
appropriate for the overall area but not for each of the subunits,
allowing a progressive decline of the reproductive stock [12,13]. The
opposite situation occurs in some highly migratory species that
range over large ocean areas and whose management problems
cannot be solved at the regional or national levels. Here international actions are often required to manage properly these
resources [14].
This misfit between scales threatens to undermine the sustainability of the social–ecological system because it can give rise to
the reduction of incentives for sustainable management, or to a
loss of species, functions, and other system components that are
determining in the social–ecological resilience [15,16].
Mismatch between subsystems is evident in echinoid fisheries
[17–19]. Echinoids show a strong and persistent spatial structure
that has a key role in the population dynamics as well as in the
spatial dynamics of the fishing activity. In consequence, the
management of the spatial distribution of fishing effort in echinoids is of similar relevance or more important than to manage
when and how much to fish [20,21]. To incorporate the “where”
in the management, it is needed spatial information to identify
possible connections between populations, preferred habitats, and
14
R. Ouréns et al. / Marine Policy 51 (2015) 13–20
areas that require protection, such as nursery and reproductive
areas [20,22–24]. However, the conventional assessment models
ignore the spatial component and therefore the dimension of the
ecological units is often unknown, promoting the problem of fit.
Echinoids and other species with a heterogeneous spatial
distribution require to be managed at multiple nested scales,
including generally a fine-scale [18,19,25,26]. In this regard, areabased management is often suggested as a good management tool
for these resources because it allows to manage the fishery at a
small scale according to the ecological scales [27,28]. However the
outcomes are not conclusive, and whereas in Nova Scotia (Canada),
Galicia (Spain) and Baja California (Mexico) this system failed to
achieve sustainable resource use [17,29], Chile appears to have had
more success [30].
The fishery of the echinoid Paracentrotus lividus in Galicia (NW
Spain) is presented here. The aim of this work is to demonstrate
that the uncoupling between its spatial population structure and
the fishing operational and management units causes failures in the
governance, and therefore the social–ecological system does not
work properly. The article begins with some needed background
information about the echinoid fisheries and management systems
worldwide as well as about biological process affecting the spatial
distribution of sea urchins. Then, the mismatch between ecological
and social subsystems in Galicia is explained, and alternative
management models for sustainability are proposed.
2. Sea urchin fisheries worldwide and their management
systems
Japan is by far the main consumer country of sea urchins [29].
The decline in its production resulted to the development of new
fisheries worldwide in the 1980s, seeking to supply the high
demand from the Japanese market [31]. Thus, it begins a dramatic
rise of the global catches, reaching a historic high in 1995 with
108,969 t. Since then production falls progressively, and in 2012
the world catches did not exceed 63,359 t [32]. This decline is
caused by the collapse of some fisheries (e.g. USA, Japan, France,
Ireland), but also by the establishment of a management system in
other ones, which tries to adjust fishing effort and catches to longterm sustainable levels [33].
Andrew et al. [29] and Williams [33] wrote an extensive review
of status and management of sea urchin fisheries worldwide.
Some of the most popular regulatory measures are: limited access
to the fishery, the use of TACs, the use of minimum legal sizes,
closed seasons, gear restrictions and closed areas.
Within area-management measures, territorial use rights
(TURFs) have been used worldwide in the management of fisheries
for echinoid and other benthic species [17,30,34–36]. The success
of this system is related to the fact that allows managing resources
at the proper spatial scale with specific regulations in each
territory. Moreover, TURFs are associated in many cases to a comanagement system where fisher organisations and communities
have responsibilities in the management of resources. In this way
co-management is expected to produce a higher degree of compliance with management measures, the inclusion of social objectives to regulations, a more active participation of fishers and a
greater social cohesion and community development [37,38].
In spite of these potential advantages, TURFs for the sea urchin
fishery in Galicia did not prevented temporal closures that affected
several local fisheries as a consequence of overfishing [39]. These
facts could be a consequence of the use of an inadequate spatial
scale for management. The reason for this situation is that the
spatial components of the population structure and of the fishing
dynamics are not taken into account.
3. Biological characteristics affecting the spatial distribution
of echinoids
The spatial structure of echinoid populations in general, and of
P. lividus specifically, is determined by the oceanographic processes affecting larval dispersal, the habitat selection for settlement, the early mortality of recruits and by the movement and
migratory patterns of benthic post-metamorphic phases.
Whereas larval dispersal for echinoids operates in scales of
100 s or 1000 s km [40], other processes, such as settlement
habitat selection or movement patterns of post-metamorphic
phases, might occur in scales of 10 s m. The interaction among
processes occurring in this huge range of scales produces a
complex spatial structure known as metapopulation [41,42]. From
the different definitions proposed for metapopulation [43,44], this
term is used here to identify a system of local populations with
their own internal dynamics but connected between them by the
larval flux. This flux is not so low as to consider insignificant the
demographic connectivity among populations; but it is not so high
to dilute the internal dynamics of local populations [44–46]. This
double scale (local and regional) that characterises ecological and
biological processes is a key factor in the genetic structure and
evolution of populations [44,46].
Density-dependent mechanisms, recurrent in many biological
processes affecting echinoids, influence the spatial distribution
and size of populations as well. Thus, the aggregative behaviour of
these organisms increases survival rates because represents a
defence mechanism against predators and waves [47–49]. Similarly, several studies have documented that fertility rates decrease
in areas of low population density [50–52], and, in some echinoid
species, the same pattern is evident also for recruitment rates [53–
55]. This latter depensatory or Allee effect [56] determines to a
large extent the distribution of recruits because they are concentrated in the patches where adults aggregate. In the case of
P. lividus [55] and S. franciscanus [57] these patches with high
concentration of recruits are located in the very shallow areas.
According to these biological characteristics, echinoid metapopulations comprise spatial units at different scales. Morgan and
Shepherd [58] described previously these units, but they will be
detailed here again because it is essential to understand their
management implications.
Echinoids constitute small-scale patches or aggregations where
individuals are very close and the physical contact among them is
common [48]. The extent of the patches is of about 10 s m2, at least
in the case of P. lividus [59,60], and they are separated by bottom
areas showing similar habitats and where sea urchins are present
isolated and at low densities. The size and location of patches
changes in a dynamical way [61] because sea urchins move daily
(P. lividus is able to move up to 2 m in 24 h according to Hereu
et al. [62]).
Patch distribution is not homogeneous in space because they
concentrate in zones of high environmental quality. This heterogeneous distribution gives rise to a spatial structure more static at
scales of 1000 s m2 that will be named here as micro-stock (Fig. 1),
because these units are the smallest sea urchin concentrations that
are targeted by the fishing force [63].
A local population (1–10 s km2) comprises several nearby
micro-stocks. The limits of the local populations are to some
extent arbitrary but they are defined by habitat continuity, being
isolated from other local populations by zones without an adequate habitat for sea urchin colonisation. Individuals inside a local
population interact and reproduce among them due to individual
movements. However these interactions do not occur among
individuals pertaining to nearby populations, and local populations are connected among them only by larval dispersal [58].
In the case of P. lividus, Calderón et al. [64] showed genetic
R. Ouréns et al. / Marine Policy 51 (2015) 13–20
15
Fig. 1. Diagram of the spatial units involved in the fishery of sea urchin P. lividus. Biological units (ellipses) in increasing size are: patches, micro-stocks, local populations and
the metapopulation. Fishing activity units (boxes with dashed line) in increasing size are: micro-socks, fishing grounds and fishing area. Management scales (brackets) in
increasing size are: territorial and regional. In this case is depicted as a local population could be divided between two adjacent territories fished and managed
independently.
differences between Atlantic and Mediterranean populations, but
not among populations located in the same basin. This fact
indicates the existence of at least two metapopulations, each one
expanding 1000 s km2.
The spatial scales involved in the fishing activities and management are detailed below.
4. Sea urchin fishery in Galicia
Fishing strategies are adapted to the spatial structure of
P. lividus, and consequently they show different operative scales.
Fishers operate daily at very local scales, concentrating the fishing
effort in micro-stocks where stock density is high [63].
The series of micro-stocks that are in short distance allowing a
boat to exploit several of them in the same day is denominated
fishing ground (Fig. 1). In this way the definition of ground is made
by the fishers taking into account the distance among microstocks and the oceanographic conditions that allow the access to
the zone. Following this criterion, a local population could include
more than one ground. Indeed, this could be the case of a Galician
locality, Lira, where fishers differentiate two grounds (north and
south of Punta Remedios, Fig. 3) because the differences in the
wind regimes allow exploiting one of these in alternative days.
However habitat is similar in both grounds and micro-stocks (and
patches) are dispersed along the whole area. These characteristics
indicate that both grounds may be part of the same local
population.
Finally, the different grounds exploited by a fleet along the
fishing season constitute a fishing area, and its expanse depends of
the maximum distance that a boat can move from the home port.
According to information provided by fishers, the fishing areas for
sea urchins in Galicia are restricted by the TURFs defined by the FA
(10 s km2), because the distance that boats used to move before the
start of this regulation was larger than the distance allowed today.
Nowadays Galicia is the main fishery for P. lividus, landing
annually about 700 t [31]. Harvesting occurs mainly in subtidal
areas by scuba diving, although the exploitation has been
expanded to the intertidal in some Galician locations. The fleet is
composed of 174 small boats ( o5 m long) that operate near the
coastline and whose crew includes one skipper and 1 or 2 divers.
Commercial fishing for sea urchin in Galicia started in the 1960s,
but the regulation started only in 1986 [39]. The regulatory system
has since become more sophisticated along the time and now it
includes a closed season (from May to September), a daily quota per
boat and fisher (100 kg per fisher until a maximum of 300 kg per
boat), a daily timetable (from 9 to 15 h), a minimum commercial size
(55 mm test diameter) and a depth limit for harvesting (o12 m).
However, the main change in the fishing management was introduced in 1992 when the Fishing Authority of the regional government of Galicia (now denominated FA) assigned territorial rights to
local fisher organisations (“Cofradías”) supervised by the regional
government. In addition, the access to the fishery was restricted to a
given number of boats using a licence system [65].
Nowadays there are 15 subtidal and 5 intertidal territories for
the exploitation of sea urchin. Whereas the subtidal territories
accomplish the whole coast, the intertidal ones are located only in
the north and south extremes of the Galician coast (Fig. 2).
Assuming a maximum harvesting depth of 20 m (according to
their own commentaries and observations, divers frequently
operate deeper than the 12-m legal limit), most of subtidal
territories occupy a surface of approx. 30 km2, with a range from
11 to 130 km2.
4.1. Spatial structure of harvesting activities of P. lividus
4.2. Management scales for the P. lividus fishery in Galicia
There are two management scales for the sea urchin fishery in
Galicia. The regional one accomplishes the complete Galicia; the
16
R. Ouréns et al. / Marine Policy 51 (2015) 13–20
Fig. 2. Territories for the sea urchin fishery in Galicia in 2012. Grey rectangles represent territories defined in subtidal plans and coloured coastlines represent the 5 intertidal
territories. Note that the intertidal territory 1 in the North of Galicia is discontinuous.
Fig. 3. Spatial structure of the fishery of sea urchin, P. lividus, in Lira (Galicia). Dots
represent the micro-stocks identified by Fernández-Boán et al. [63] and shadow
areas are 5 fishing grounds as delimited by the fishers.
territorial one is defined by the fishing zones delimited by the FA
for this fishery.
Regulations applied at the regional scale were presented at the
beginning of this section, and they are devoted to control effort or
catch: restrictions in the daily timetable and in the harvesting
depth, daily quotas and minimum landing size.
At territorial scale, there is a co-management between the FA
and the fishers' associations. The fishers can propose additional
regulations for their territories through the development of annual
exploitation plans, which must include an assessment of the
previous fishing season, a harvesting and marketing plan for the
next season and a financial plan (see Molares and Freire [66] and
Macho et al. [65] for details). Finally the FA has to assess the plan
proposal and it has the authority to include modifications.
Because there are not scientific assessments of the local stocks,
exploitation plans use both basic landing data and the fisher
knowledge obtained through their personal experience and their
involvement in the fishery. In this way, plans use a trial-and-error
approach and are adapted yearly using information about the
results obtained in previous seasons and the successes and failures
obtained by other Cofradías. This procedure could be defined as an
informal and imperfect adaptive management system where the
socioeconomic objectives play a key role with the same or higher
priority respect to biological objectives (that actually could not be
quantified due to the lack of assessments).
Although TURFs constitute an opportunity to manage the
resource at the local scale, Cofradías often do not propose additional regulations for their territories. This lack of proposals might
be related with the fact that most of the territories are exploited
jointly by various Cofradías (an average of 3.1 organisations per
territory). In these cases the diversity in the interests of the
different collectives causes differences and conflicts in their vision
about how to manage the fishery and the specific regulations that
should be implemented locally [39]. Consequently, complimentary
regulations are proposed only in extreme situations when the
productivity of the stocks have decreased dramatically, and in
these cases fishers tend to propose regulations more restrictive
over the catches or effort than those ones imposed by the FA.
5. Uncoupling of scales
The comparison of the biological, fishery operations and management scales shows a clear uncoupling with relevant consequences
for the fishery health (Fig. 4). Management scales are too wide
precluding the adoption of regulations that allow managing effectively micro-stocks, which are the units that determine the fishery
dynamics. In this way, over-exploitation of several micro-stocks
would be possible before any signal of resource depletion was
detected at the territorial scale.
R. Ouréns et al. / Marine Policy 51 (2015) 13–20
17
Fig. 4. Diagram showing the mismatch between the units that compose the spatial structure of sea urchin, P. lividus, populations, fishing operations and management in
Galicia.
On the other hand, fishing territories have been defined by the
FA using several criteria, such as the historical spatial pattern of
fleet activity or the different eco-geographic regions characterised
by specific oceanographic conditions. Nevertheless the spatial
structure of sea urchin populations has not been taken into
account, because most probably the importance of this fact in
fishery management has been overlooked. This mismatch opened
the possibility for local populations being divided between two
fishing territories and consequently being exploited according to
the different management plans running in each area. For
instance, management plans for intertidal areas are in most cases
independent from those for subtidal areas, although both stocks
might be part of the same local population.
Fig. 2 shows clearly another example of uncoupling of scales in
sea urchin intertidal populations in northern Galicia. In this area
the coastal sector 1, exploited jointly by 4 associations (San Cibrao,
Burela, Ribadeo and San Cosme de Barreiros), is interrupted by
the sector 2, exploited and managed in an independent way
by another Cofradía (Celeiro). In all these cases in which different
territories share the same local population, regulations introduced
in a given territory are not going to produce the expected results
because of the interference of fishing in adjacent territories.
6. How to adapt sea urchin management in Galicia to the
relevant scales?
All the facts discussed above should be a reason to review
the spatial structure of the regulations of the sea urchin fishery in
Galicia, in order to match management and biological scales.
Firstly, fishing territories should be redefined to include complete
local populations. In addition, the demarcation of individual
territories for each Cofradía, or the generation of coordination
processes between Cofradías sharing the same territory, could
favour the introduction of effective regulations at territorial level.
Nowadays management strategy is based in controlling how
much and when to fish. Complimentary regulations at the territory
scale should manage the distribution of effort in space and in this
way assure the sustainability of the harvest of the smaller scale
biological units. In this regard, micro-stocks should be a management scale because are both the minimal scale targeted by the
fishing force and the smallest biological scale that is stable (patches
are dynamical and therefore they are not practical for monitoring).
Complimentarily, regulations should take into account Allee
effects experienced by echinoid populations (Section 3), because
they promote recruitment overfishing at low densities [67]. There
are two types of spatial regulations that could be useful to manage
the P. lividus fishery in Galicia: rotations and marine reserves.
6.1. Rotations
Rotations are based in the delimitation of fishing subareas
where harvest alternates. In this way each subarea shows consecutive periods of high and low stock density [68]. The basis of
this strategy is that during temporal closures juveniles will attain
the minimum commercial size entering the harvestable biomass
and recovering the stock for the next fishing season.
Due to the depensatory mechanisms that operate in P. lividus,
population density in each micro-stock after a fishing season
should remain at a level allowing effective reproduction and
recruitment [68]. A challenge for future research is the assessment
of this threshold density that could be a key indicator of the
maximum level of harvesting that could be applied to a microstock of P. lividus. In this regard, Botsford et al. [68] estimated that
densities higher than 0.7 ind m 2 allowed fertilisation success for
S. franciscanus, using information from the experiments carried
out by Levitan et al. [51].
Other relevant design aspect for rotations is the definition of
the sizes of the subareas. If the spatial scale is too large fishers
could overexploit several micro-stocks and continue to harvest
others without any short-term signal of the decrease of the
profitability of the subarea (Fig. 5). This is the reason because
micro-stocks should be the units for rotations to allow controlling
effectively density after a harvest pulse.
Several studies of echinoids have simulated fishery yield using
different rotation calendars [68–70]. Many of these studies took
into account the possibility of density-dependent recruitment, but
in any case the rotation scale was analysed despite its potential
influence in the efficiency of the rotational system. For instance,
5 fishing areas to be exploited for 6 months every 3 years were
established in the fishery of S. franciscanus in Washington. The size
of each area was in the order of magnitude of 100 s km2 (see Fig. 1
of Lai and Bradbury [70]), and probably they comprised several
micro-stocks and in some cases various local populations. Minimum and maximum landing sizes and a catch quota were imposed
and the number of boats participating in the fishery was restricted.
This management strategy was active from 1977 until 1995 but
18
R. Ouréns et al. / Marine Policy 51 (2015) 13–20
Fig. 5. Scenarios for the temporal dynamics of a local sea urchin population
composed of 6 micro-stocks (circles) and managed using two alternative rotation
systems. Boxes 1A and 1B represent the virgin population (black circles), whereas
boxes 2 and 3 represent the population status after the first and second fishing
seasons respectively. Relative stock density is represented by the colour of circles
(virgin: black; fished: grey; over-exploited: white). Arrows indicate the spatial units
exploited in each season. In the scenario A the rotation scale corresponds with the
fishing ground, and consequently the harvesting rate of micro-stocks is not
homogeneous: two of them reduced only slightly their size whereas the third is
overexploited and it is unable to recover due to the inverse denso-dependency. In
scenario B the rotation scale corresponds with the micro-stocks. The same stocks
are exploited in 2B and 2A, but in B the exploitation is made in an alternative and
regular way (i.e. 2 months every micro-stock). In this case all the micro-stocks
decrease in size but they are able to recover for the second fishing season.
catch decreased dramatically during this period [70], perhaps as a
consequence of inadequate rotations.
6.2. Marine reserves
The use of marine protected areas as tools for fisheries management has gained popularity in the last decades [71–74]. Besides
protecting habitats and biodiversity, reserves could increase fishery
yield and improve the stock sustainability in the long term due to
two different mechanisms: (1) biomass spillover to adjacent, no
protected, areas due to migrations or individual movements, and
(2) increase the adult density and the production of eggs
and larvae, which are transported by currents to the fishing areas
[74–76]. The latter mechanism is of special relevance in echinoids
and other species showing inverse denso-dependency in reproduction, due to the high densities that adults could attain in protected
areas [77]. Moreover, reserves are a tool commonly suggested and
used in species with metapopulation structure [46,78–80] because
the protection of only one or a few local populations could increase
the larval production for the complete metapopulation [46,81].
An alternative design for reserves devoted to protect species
with metapopulation structure would consist of the protection of a
small area inside each local population (Fig. 6). This option not
only would increase fertilisation rates inside the reserve, but also
would favour the biomass spillover to the fishing areas. This
process would be not possible protecting a complete local population because adjacent populations are only connected by larval
dispersal. In this sense, Quinn et al. [78] demonstrated using
Fig. 6. Two potential designs for marine reserves devoted to the management of a
resource with metapopulation structure. It is assumed that previously to the
establishment of the network all local populations contribute similarly to the
larval pool. Black ellipses represent micro-stocks in each local population and the
shadowed areas are the protected zones. In the scenario A one whole local
population is protected. The arrow width is proportional to the larval production,
indicating that the protected population becomes key for the contribution of larvae
to the metapopulation. In the scenario B a network of reserves is established and all
local populations continue to provide similar larval productions. Discontinuous
arrows represent migration of sea urchins towards fishing areas.
simulation modelling that a reserve network could allow to attain
sustainable harvesting rates preventing the collapse of S. franciscanus stocks. These authors suggested the establishment of several
small-sized reserves separated by a distance shorter than the
larval dispersal range.
Because the recruitment of P. lividus occurs in shallow waters
( 5 m) and shows inverse density dependence [55], establishing
multiple reserves in shallow habitats (intertidal and subtidal
o5 m deep) could be an adequate regulation to promote larval
production and recruitment survival for this species. Moreover, the
migratory pattern of P. lividus heading to deeper areas [55,82]
would secure the spillover of biomass towards the fishery areas.
Marine reserves could be established protecting all microstocks located at o5 m, or protecting only a part of this shallow
habitat in each local population. To assess both scenarios it is
needed to know the proportion of habitat that should be protected
to sustain the stocks, and that depends on the life history of the
species (reproductive and growth rates, and larval dispersal
distances and patterns) and on the harvesting rates. The study of
Morgan and Botsford [83], which suggested a reserve system for S.
franciscanus occupying approx. 35% of the area of the metapopulation, could be used as a preliminary estimation. This estimate was
obtained using simulation models assuming uncertainty in fishery
mortality rates and in the spatial patterns of larval dispersal.
7. Conclusion
The present work shows that the conventional assessment
and management methods, which ignore the spatial issues, are
R. Ouréns et al. / Marine Policy 51 (2015) 13–20
not suitable for benthic resources with a complex spatial structure,
because they do not allow to understand the spatial distribution of
resources and to manage where to fish. Indeed, a common cause
for failure in fisheries is the mismatch between the spatial scale of
exploited populations and the scale of their assessment and
management. Sea urchin fishery in Galicia is an example of this
situation. Here, the operational and management units are
uncoupled with the spatial population structure, promoting an
ineffective governance system (based on TURFs) and the need for
temporal closures of some local fisheries. The reason for this
mismatch is that the biological structure of the resource has not
been taken into account in the delimitation of the fishing territories, making possible the division of a population between two
adjacent territories fished and managed independently.
Because the spatial structure of populations have been overlooked
in fishery management, this mismatch is also likely to occur in other
benthic resources managed through TURFs in Galicia, such as goose
barnacles, or razor clams. Future research should test this hypothesis
and the dialogue between scientists, government and fishers should
be promoted to solve the problem of fit.
In addition, the metapopulation structure of sea urchins requires
to be managed at multiple nested scales. The management in Galicia
includes regional and territorial scales (being present at these scales
social institutions responsible for management: Galician government
and fishers' local associations), but a finer scale is also needed. Spatial
regulatory measures should be established in each fishing territory,
so that the fishing effort could be controlled at a micro-stock level
(minimum biological level that determines the fishery dynamics),
and the depensatory mechanisms affecting the recruitment and
reproduction of P. lividus could be offset.
Acknowledgements
This paper is based in the information and knowledge developed in the research projects, Métodos de evaluación directa y
dinámica poblacional en recursos sedentarios marinos: el caso de la
pesquería del erizo Paracentrotus lividus en Galicia (CTM200507645/MAR) and De la dinámica de metapoblaciones marinas a la
gestión de ecosistemas: marcadores moleculares, teledetección y
modelos de simulación (CTM2006-09043/MAR). Both grants were
funded by the Spanish Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia and the
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).
References
[1] Berkes F, Folke C. Linking social and ecological systems. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press; 1998.
[2] Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter SR, Alberti M, Folke C, Moran E, et al. Complexity of
coupled human and natural systems. Science 2007;313:1513–6.
[3] Berkes F. Restoring unity: the concept of marine social-ecological systems. In:
Ommer RE, Perry RI, Cochrane KL, Cury P, editors. World fisheries: a social–
ecological analysis. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011.
[4] Crowder LB, Osherenko G, Young OR, Airamé S, Norse EA, Baron N, et al.
Resolving mismatches in U.S. Ocean Gov Sci 2006;313:617–8.
[5] Boyd E, Folke C. Adapting institutions: governance, complexity and social–
ecological resilience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2012.
[6] Folke C, Pritchard L, Berkes F, Colding J, Svedin U. The problem of fit between
ecosystems and institutions. Bonn, Germany; 1998.
[7] Folke C, Pritchard L, Berkes F, Colding J, Svedin U. The problem of fit between
ecosystems and institutions: ten years later. Ecol Soc 2007;12:30.
[8] Galaz V, Hahn T, Olsson P, Folke C, Svedin U. The problem of fit between
governance systems and environmental regimes, and broader governance
systems: insights and emerging challenges. In: Young OR, King LA, Schröder H,
editors. Institutions and environmental change: principal findings, applications, and research frontiers. Cambridge, USA: The MIT Press; 2008. p. 147–82.
[9] Ekstrom JA, Young OR. Evaluating functional fit between a set of institutions
and an ecosystem. Ecol Soc 2009;14:16.
[10] ICES. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management, ICES
cooperative research report Parts 1 and 22000; 1999. p. 821.
19
[11] Stephenson RL. Stock structure and management structure: an ongoing
challenge for ICES. In: Proceedings of ICES marine science symposia, vol.
215; 2002. p. 305–14.
[12] Smedbol RK, Stephenson RS. The importance of managing within-species
diversity in cod and herring fisheries of the north-western Atlantic. J Fish Biol
2001;59:109–28.
[13] Frank KT, Brickman D. Allee effects and compensatory population dynamics
within a stock complex. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 2000;57:513–7.
[14] Berkes F. From community-based resource management to complex systems:
the scale issue and marine commons. Ecol Soc 2006;11:45.
[15] Cumming GS, Cumming DHM, Redman CL. Scale mismatches in social–
ecological systems: causes, consequences, and solutions. Ecol Soc 2006;11:14.
[16] Cash DW, Adger W, Berkes F, Garden P, Lebel L, Olsson P, et al. Scale and
cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecol
Soc 2006;11:8.
[17] Miller RJ, Nolan SC. Management methods por sea urchin dive fishery with
individual fishing zones. J Shellfish Res 2008;27:929–38.
[18] Johnson TR, Wilson JA, Cleaver C, Vadas RL. Social–ecological scale mismatches
and the collapse of the sea urchin fishery in Maine, USA. Ecol Soc 2012;17:15.
[19] Wilson JA. Matching social and ecological systems in complex ocean fisheries.
Ecol Soc 2006;11:9.
[20] Booth AJ. Incorporating the spatial component of fisheries data into stock
assessment models. ICES J Mar Sci 2000;57:858–65.
[21] Daw TM. Spatial distribution of effort by artisanal fishers: Exploring economic
factors affecting the lobster fisheries of the Corn Islands, Nicaragua. Fish Res
2008;90:17–25.
[22] Cope JM, Punt AE. Drawing the lines: resolving fishery management units
with simple fisheries data. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 2009;66:1256–73.
[23] Cope JM, Punt AE. Reconciling stock assessment and management scales
under conditions of spatially varying catch histories. Fish Res 2011;107:22–38.
[24] Swartzman G, Huang C, Kaluzny S. Spatial analysis of bering sea groundfish
survey data using Generalized Additive Models. Can J Fish Aquat Sci
1992;49:1366–78.
[25] Gutiérrez NL. Managing invertebrate fisheries: biology, spatial structure and
community-based governance. (PhD dissertation). Washington: University of
Washington; 2011.
[26] Prince J. Rescaling fisheries assessment and management: a generic approach,
access rights, change agents, and toolboxes. Bull Mar Sci 2010;86:197–219.
[27] Orensanz JML, Parma AM, Jerez G, Barahona N, Montecinos M, Elías I. What are
the key elements for the sustainability of “S-Fisheries”?Insights from South
America Bull Mar Sci 2005:527–56.
[28] Hilborn R, Orensanz JML, Parma AM. Institutions, incentives and the future of
fisheries. Philos Trans R Soc B 2005;360:47–57.
[29] Andrew NL, Agatsuma Y, Ballesteros E, Bazhin AG, Creaser EP, Barnes DKA,
et al. Status and management of world sea urchin fisheries. Oceanogr Mar
Biol: Annu Rev 2002;40:343–425.
[30] Moreno CA, Barahona N, Molinet C, Orensanz JML, Parma AM, Zuleta Z. From
crisis to institutional sustainability in the Chilean sea urchin fishery. In:
McClanahan T, Castilla JC, editors. Fisheries management: progress toward
sustainability. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing; 2007. p. 43–67.
[31] Ouréns R. Estrategia vital y dinámica poblacional del erizo Paracentrotus
lividus. (PhD dissertation). Coruña: University of A Coruña; 2013.
[32] FAO. Fisheries and aquaculture software. FishStatJ – software for fishery
statistical time series. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, updated
28 November 2013 ed., Rome; 2011–2014.
[33] Williams H. Sea urchin fisheries of the world: a review of their status,
management strategies and biology of the principal species. Tasmania:
Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Government of
Tasmania; 2002.
[34] Prince J, Walters C, Ruiz-Ávila R, Sluczanowski P. Territorial user's rights and
the Australian abalone (Haliotis sp.) fishery. In: Jamieson GS, Campbell A,
editors. Proceedings of the north pacific symposium on invertebrate stock
assessment and management: Canadian special publication of fisheries and
aquatic sciences; 1998. p. 367–75.
[35] Defeo O, Castilla JC. More than one bag for the world fishery crisis and keys for
co-management successes in selected artisanal Latin American shellfisheries.
Rev Fish Biol Fish 2005;15:265–83.
[36] San Martín G, Parma AM, Orensanz JM. The Chilean experience with territorial
use rights in fisheries. In: Grafton RQ, Hilborn R, Squires D, Tait M, Williams M,
editors. Handbook of marine fisheries conservation and management. New
York, USA: Oxford University Press; 2010.
[37] Cinner JE, McClanahan TR, MacNeil MA, NaJ Graham, Daw TM, Mukminin A,
et al. Comanagement of coral reef social–ecological systems. Proc Natl Acad
Sci USA 2012;109:5219–22.
[38] Pomeroy R, Williams M. Fisheries co-management and small-scale fisheries: a
policy brief. Manila, Philippines: Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management; 1994; 15.
[39] Fernández-Boán M, Fernández L, Freire J. History and management strategies
of the sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus fishery in Galicia (NW Spain). Ocean
Coast Manag 2012;69:265–72.
[40] Grantham BA, Eckert GL, Shanks AL. Dispersal potential of marine invertebrates in diverse habitats. Ecol Appl 2003;13:S108–16.
[41] Levins R. Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental
heterogeneity for biological control. Bull Entomol Soc Am 1969;15:237–40.
20
R. Ouréns et al. / Marine Policy 51 (2015) 13–20
[42] Levins R. Extinction. In: Desternhaber M, editor. Some mathematical problems
in biology. Providence, Rhode Island: Americam Mathematical Society; 1970.
p. 77–107.
[43] Harrison S. Local extinction in a metapopulation context: an empirical
evaluation. Biol J Linn Soc 1991;42:73–88.
[44] Hanski I. Metapopulation ecology. New York: Oxford University Press Inc;
1999.
[45] Hastings A, Harrison S. Metapopulation dynamics and genetics. Annu Rev Ecol
Syst 1994;25:167–88.
[46] Kritzer JP, Sale PF. Metapopulation ecology in the sea: from Levins' model to
marine ecology and fisheries science. Fish Fish 2004;5:131–40.
[47] Pearse JS, Arch SW. The aggregation behavior of Diadema (Echinodermata,
Echinoidea). Micronesica 1969;5:165–71.
[48] Freeman SM. Size-dependent distribution, abundance and diurnal rhythmicity
patterns in the short-spined sea urchin Anthocidaris crassispina. Estuar, Coast
Shelf Sci 2003;58:703–13.
[49] Vega Suárez W, Romero Kutzner V. Patrón de distribución espacial de
Paracentrotus lividus. An univ Etol 2011;5:21–30.
[50] Pennington JT. The ecology of fertilization of echinoid eggs: the consequences
of sperm dilution, adult aggregation, and synchronous spawning. Biol Bull
1985;169:417–30.
[51] Levitan DR, Sewell MA, Chia F-S. How distribution and abundance influence
fertilization success in the sea urchin Strongylocentotus franciscanus. Ecology
1992;73:248–54.
[52] Levitan DR, Sewell MA. Fertiization sucess in free-spawning marine invertebrates: review of the evidence and fisheries implications. In: Jamieson GS,
Campbell A, editors. Proceedings of the north pacific symposium on invertebrate stock assessment and management: Canadian special publication of
fisheries and aquatic sciences, vol. 125; 1998. p. 159–64.
[53] Tegner MJ, Dayton PK. Sea urchin recruitment patterns and implications of
commercial fishing. Science 1977;196:324–6.
[54] Sloan NA, Lauridsen CP, Harbo RM. Recruitment characteristics of the
commercially harvested red sea urchin Strongylocentrotus franciscanus in
southern British Columbia. Fish Res, 5; 1987; 55–69.
[55] Ouréns R, Freire J, Vilar JA, Fernández L. Influence of habitat and population
density on recruitment and spatial dynamics of the sea urchin Paracentrotus
lividus: implications for harvest refugia. ICES J Mar Sci 2014;71(5):1064–72.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fst201.
[56] Allee W. Animal aggregations: a study in general sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1931.
[57] Rogers-Bennett L, Bennett WA, Fastenau HC, Dewees C. Spatial variation in sea
red urchin reproduction and morphology: implications for harvest refugia.
Ecol Appl 1995;5:1171–80.
[58] Morgan LE, Shepherd SA. Population and spatial structure of two common:
temperate reef herbivores: abalone and sea urchins. In: Kritzer JP, Sale PF,
editors. Marine metapopulations. Burlington, USA: Elsevier Academic Press;
2006. p. 205–46.
[59] Bulleri F, Benedetti-Cecchi L, Cinelli F. Grazing by the sea urchins Arbacia lixula
L. and Paracentrotus lividus Lam. in the Northwest Mediterranean. J Exp Mar
Biol Ecol 1999;241:81–95.
[60] Hereu B, Zabala M, Linares C, Sala E. Temporal and spatial variability in
settlement of the sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus in the NW Mediterranean.
Mar Biol 2004;144:1011–8.
[61] Unger B, Lott C. In-situ studies on the aggregation behaviour of the sea urchin
Sphaerechinus granularis Lam. (Echinidermata:Echinoidea). In: David B, Guille
A, Féral J, editors. Echinoderms through time. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1994.
[62] Hereu B. Movement patterns of the sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus in a
marine reserve and an unprotected area in the NW Mediterranean. Mar Ecol
2005;26:54–62.
[63] Fernández-Boán M, Freire J, Parma AM, Fernández L, Orensanz JML. Monitoring the fishing process in the sea urchin diving fishery of Galicia. ICES J Mar Sci
2013:1–47.
[64] Calderón I, Giribet G, Turon X. Two markers and one history: phylogeography
of the edible common sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus in the Lusitanian region.
Mar Biol 2008;154:137–51.
[65] Macho G, Naya I, Freire J, Villasante S, Molares J. The key role of the barefoot
fisheries advisors in the co-managed TURF system of Galicia (NW Spain).
AMBIO 2013;42(8):1057–69.
[66] Molares J, Freire J. Development and perspectives for community-based
management of the goose barnacle (Pollicipes pollicipes) fisheries in Galicia
(NW Spain). Fish Res 2003;65:485–92.
[67] Jamieson GS. Marine invertebrate conservation: evaluation of fisheries overexploitation concerns. Am Zool 1993;33:551–67.
[68] Botsford L, Quinn J, Wing S, Brittnacher J. Rotating spatial harvest of a benthic
invertebrate, the red sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus franciscanus. In: Proceedings of the internatianal symposium on management strategies for exploited
fish populations, Alaska Sea Grant College Program; 1993. p. 409–28.
[69] Pfister CA, Bradbury A. Harvesting red sea urchins: recent effects and future
predictions. Ecol Appl 1996;6:298–310.
[70] Lai HL, Bradbury A. A modified catch-at-size analysis model for ared sea
urchin (Strongylocentrotus franciscanus) population. In: Jamieson GS, Campbell
A, editors. Proceedings of the north pacific symposium on invertebrate stock
assessment and management: Canadian special publication of fisheries and
aquatic science, vol. 125; 1998. p. 85–96.
[71] Dugan JE, Davis GE. Applications of marine refugia to coastal fisheries
management. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 1993;50:2029–42.
[72] Gell FR, Roberts CM. Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery effects of marine
reserves. Trends Ecol Evol 2003;18:448–55.
[73] Batista M, Baeta F, Costa M, Cabral H. MPA as management tools for smallscale fisheries: the case study of Arrábida Marine Protected Area (Portugal).
Ocean Coast Manag 2011;54:137–47.
[74] Vandeperre F, Higgins RM, Sánchez-Meca J, Maynou F, Goñi R, Martín-Sosa P,
et al. Effects of no-take area size and age of marine protected areas on
fisheries yields: a meta-analytical approach. Fish Fish 2011;12:412–26.
[75] Halpern BS. The impact of marine reserves: do reserves work and does reserve
size matter? Ecol Appl 2003;13:S117–37.
[76] Hilborn R, Stokes K, Maguire J-J, Smith T, Botsford LW, Mangel M, et al. When
can marine reserves improve fisheries management? Ocean Coast Manag
2004;47:197–205.
[77] Lundquist C, Botsford L. Estimating larval production of a broadcast spawner:
the influence of density, aggregation, and the fertilization Allee effect. Can J
Fish Aquat Sci 2011;68:30–42.
[78] Quinn JF, Wing SR, Botsford LW. Harvest refugia in marine invertebrate
fisheries: models and applications to the red sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus
franciscanus. Am Zool 1993;33:537–50.
[79] Man A, Law R, Polunin NVC. Role of marine reserves in recruitment to reef
fisheries: a metapopulation model. Biol Conserv 1995;71:197–204.
[80] Botsford LW, Morgan LE, Wilen JE, Lockwood DR. Marine reserves and
management of the Northern California red sea urchin fishery. CalCOFl Rep.;
1999.vol. 40. p. 87–93.
[81] Crowder LB, Lyman SJ, Figueira WF, Priddy J. Source-sink population
dynamics and the problem of siting marine reserves. Bull Mar Sci 2000;66:
799–820.
[82] Lecchini D, Lenfant P, Planes S. Variation in abundance and population
dynamics of the sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus on the catalan coast (Northwestern Mediterranean Sea) in relation to habitat and marine reserve. Vie et
milieu 2002;52:111–8.
[83] Morgan L, Botsford L. Managing with reserves: modeling uncertainty in larval
dispersal for a sea urchin fishery. In: Kruse G, Bez N, Booth A, Dorn M, Hills S,
Lipcius R, et al., editors. Spatial processes and management of marine
populations. Fairbanks, USA: University of Alaska Sea Grant; 2001. p. 667–94.