Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Recovery potential of the world's coral reef fishes

Nature volume 520, pages 341–344 (2015)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Continuing degradation of coral reef ecosystems has generated substantial interest in how management can support reef resilience1,2. Fishing is the primary source of diminished reef function globally3,4,5, leading to widespread calls for additional marine reserves to recover fish biomass and restore key ecosystem functions6. Yet there are no established baselines for determining when these conservation objectives have been met or whether alternative management strategies provide similar ecosystem benefits. Here we establish empirical conservation benchmarks and fish biomass recovery timelines against which coral reefs can be assessed and managed by studying the recovery potential of more than 800 coral reefs along an exploitation gradient. We show that resident reef fish biomass in the absence of fishing (B0) averages ∼1,000 kg ha−1, and that the vast majority (83%) of fished reefs are missing more than half their expected biomass, with severe consequences for key ecosystem functions such as predation. Given protection from fishing, reef fish biomass has the potential to recover within 35 years on average and less than 60 years when heavily depleted. Notably, alternative fisheries restrictions are largely (64%) successful at maintaining biomass above 50% of B0, sustaining key functions such as herbivory. Our results demonstrate that crucial ecosystem functions can be maintained through a range of fisheries restrictions, allowing coral reef managers to develop recovery plans that meet conservation and livelihood objectives in areas where marine reserves are not socially or politically feasible solutions.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Global reef fish biomass among management categories.
Figure 2: Coral reef fish responses across the spectrum of potential recovery.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hughes, T. P. et al. Rising to the challenge of sustaining coral reef resilience. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 633–642 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Graham, N. A. J. et al. Managing resilience to reverse phase shifts in coral reefs. Front. Ecol. Environ 11, 541–548 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dulvy, N. K., Freckleton, R. P. & Polunin, N. V. C. Coral reef cascades and the indirect effects of predator removal by exploitation. Ecol. Lett. 7, 410–416 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. McClanahan, T. R. et al. Critical thresholds and tangible targets for ecosystem-based management of coral reefs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 17230–17233 (2011)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bellwood, D. R. et al. Human activity selectively impacts the ecosystem roles of parrotfishes on coral reefs. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 279, 1621–1629 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Edgar, G. J. et al. Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key features. Nature 506, 216–220 (2014)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Newton, K. et al. Current and future sustainability of island coral reef fisheries. Curr. Biol. 17, 655–658 (2007)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Worm, B. et al. Rebuilding global fisheries. Science 325, 578–585 (2009)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lambert, G. I. et al. Quantifying recovery rates and resilience of seabed habitats impacted by bottom fishing. J. Appl. Ecol. 51, 1326–1336 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Worm, B. & Branch, T. A. The future of fish. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 594–599 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Babcock, R. C. et al. Decadal trends in marine reserves reveal differential rates of change in direct and indirect effects. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 18256–18261 (2010)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. McClanahan, T. R., Graham, N. A. J., Calnan, J. & MacNeil, M. A. Towards pristine biomass: reef fish recovery in coral reef marine protected areas in Kenya. Ecol. Appl. 17, 1055–1067 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Russ, G. R. & Alcala, A. C. Decadal-scale rebuilding of predator biomass in Philippine marine reserves. Oecologia 163, 1103–1106 (2010)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  14. Molloy, P. P., McLean, I. B. & Côté, M. Effects of marine reserve age on fish populations: a global meta-analysis. J. Anim. Ecol. 46, 743–751 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rasher, D. B. et al. Consumer diversity interacts with prey defenses to drive ecosystem function. Ecology 94, 1347–1358 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mumby, P. J. et al. Empirical relationships among resilience indicators on Micronesian reefs. Coral Reefs 32, 213–226 (2013)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hamner, W. H. et al. Export-import dynamics of zooplankton on a coral reef in Palau. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 334, 83–92 (2007)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  18. Jennings, S. et al. Effects of fishing effort and catch rate upon the structure and biomass of Fijian reef fish communities. J. Appl. Ecol. 33, 400–412 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dulvy, N. K. et al. Size structural change in lightly exploited coral reef fish communities: evidence for weak indirect effects. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 61, 466–475 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Robbins, W. D., Hisano, M., Connolly, S. R. & Choat, J. H. Ongoing collapse of coral-reef shark populations. Curr. Biol. 16, 2314–2319 (2006)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Cinner, J. E. et al. Co-management of coral reef social-ecological systems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 5219–5222 (2012)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. McClanahan, T. R., Abunge, C. A. & Cinner, J. E. Heterogeneity in fishers’ and managers' preferences towards management restrictions and benefits in Kenya. Environ. Conserv. 39, 357–369 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bellwood, D. R., Hughes, T. P., Folke, C. & Nyström, M. Confronting the coral reef crisis. Nature 429, 827–833 (2004)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science 318, 1737–1742 (2007)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Samoilys, M. A. & Carlos, G. Determining methods of underwater visual census for estimating the abundance of coral reef fishes. Environ. Biol. Fishes 57, 289–304 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Watson, R. A. & Quinn, T. J. Performance of transect and point count underwater visual census methods. Ecol. Modell. 104, 103–112 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. MacNeil, M. A. & Connolly, S. R. in Ecology of Fishes on Coral Reefs: The Functioning of and Ecosystem in a Changing World Ch. 12 (ed. Mora, C.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Patil, A., Huard, D. & Fonnesbeck, C. J. PyMC: Bayesian stochastic modelling in Python. J. Stat. Softw. 35, 1–81 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gelman, A. & Rubin, D. B. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Stat. Sci. 7, 457–472 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Chassot, E. et al. Global marine primary production constrains fisheries catches. Ecol. Lett. 13, 495–505 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Graham, N. A. J. et al. Climate warming, marine protected areas and the ocean-scale integrity of coral reef ecosystems. PLoS ONE 3, e3039 (2008)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  32. Newman, M. J. H., Paredes, G. A., Sala, E. & Jackson, J. B. C. Structure of Caribbean coral reef communities across a large gradient of fish biomass. Ecol. Lett. 9, 1216–1227 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Cinner, J. E., Graham, N. A. J., Huchery, C. & MacNeil, M. A. Global effects of local human population density and distance to markets on the condition of coral reef fisheries. Conserv. Biol. 27, 453–458 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Westberry, T., Bherenfeld, M. J., Siegel, D. A. & Boss, E. Carbon-based primary productivity modeling with vertically resolved photoacclimation. Global Biogeochem. Cy. 22, GB2024 (2008)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  35. Behrenfeld, M. J. & Falkowski, P. G. Photosynthetic rates derived from satellite-based chlorophyll concentration. Limnol. Oceanogr. 42, 1–20 (1997)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Brooks, S. P., Catchpole, E. A. & Morgan, B. J. T. Bayesian animal survival estimation. Stat. Sci. 15, 357–376 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  37. Cheung, W. W. L. et al. Large-scale redistribution of maximum fisheries potential in the global ocean under climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 16, 24–35 (2010)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  38. Sarmiento, J. L. et al. Response of ocean ecosystems to climate warming. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 18, GB3003 (2004)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  39. Bruno, J. F. & Selig, E. R. Regional decline of coral cover in the indo-pacific: timing, extent, and subregional comparisons. PLoS ONE 3, e711 (2007)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  40. Walters, C. J. & Martell, S. J. D. Fisheries Ecology and Management (Princeton Univ. Press, 2004)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank M. Emslie, A. Cheal, J. Wetherall, C. Hutchery and K. Anthony for comments on early drafts of the manuscript. The Australian Institute of Marine Science, the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation supported this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Australian Institute of Marine Science, PMB 3 Townsville MC, Townsville, Queensland 4810, Australia ,

    M. Aaron MacNeil

  2. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 3J5, Canada,

    M. Aaron MacNeil

  3. Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia ,

    M. Aaron MacNeil, Nicholas A. J. Graham & Joshua E. Cinner

  4. Department of Parks and Wildlife, Kensington, Perth, Western Australia 6151, Australia,

    Shaun K. Wilson

  5. Oceans Institute, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia ,

    Shaun K. Wilson

  6. Coral Reef Ecosystems Division, NOAA Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, Honolulu, Hawaii 96818, USA,

    Ivor D. Williams

  7. Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions (CEED), University of Queensland, Brisbane, St Lucia, Queensland 4074, Australia ,

    Joseph Maina

  8. Wildlife Conservation Society, Marine Programs, Bronx, New York 10460, USA ,

    Joseph Maina, Stacy Jupiter & Tim R. McClanahan

  9. School of Marine Science and Technology, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK

    Steven Newman & Nicholas V. C. Polunin

  10. Department of Biology, Fisheries Ecology Research Lab, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, USA,

    Alan M. Friedlander

  11. Pristine Seas-National Geographic, Washington DC 20036, USA

    Alan M. Friedlander

Authors
  1. M. Aaron MacNeil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicholas A. J. Graham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joshua E. Cinner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shaun K. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ivor D. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Joseph Maina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Steven Newman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Alan M. Friedlander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Stacy Jupiter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Nicholas V. C. Polunin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Tim R. McClanahan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.A.M. conceived of the study with N.A.J.G., N.V.C.P., T.R.M., S.K.W. and J.E.C.; M.A.M. developed and implemented the analysis; M.A.M. led the manuscript with N.A.J.G., J.E.C. and S.K.W. All other authors contributed data and made substantive contributions to the text.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Aaron MacNeil.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

This is Social Ecological Research Frontiers (SERF) working group contribution number 10.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Figure 1 Nuisance parameter posterior estimates for modelled recovery.

a, Joint Bayesian hierarchical recovery model. Prior (flat black line) and posterior (histograms) nuisance parameter densities (vertical dotted line at zero) for factors influencing total reef fish biomass (kg ha−1), including three parameters for a third order polynomial for hard coral cover (that is, hard coral (1), (2), (3)), an offset for atoll versus non-atoll, and three parameters for a third order polynomial for productivity (that is, productivity (1), (2), (3)). b, Estimated relationship between percentage hard coral cover and total biomass using posterior median values (blue line), with 99 samples from the posterior distribution of the parameters in a (thick grey lines) and marginal data (black dots; n = 832 reefs). c, Plot of observed depth and marginal total biomass given the full model (no depth effect present). d, Estimated relationship between atoll (1) versus non-atoll (0) and total biomass, with marginal data (boxplot and black squares). e, Plot of reserve size and marginal total fish biomass given the full model (no reserve size effect present). f, Estimated relationship between productivity and total biomass, with marginal data.

Extended Data Figure 2 Data provider random effect posteriors.

Bayesian hierarchical model posterior estimated effects of data provider identity, including 95% posterior densities (thin lines), 50% posterior densities (thick lines), and posterior median values (black circles). Results show no apparent bias among data providers, with little information present in provider identities.

Extended Data Figure 3 Bayesian P values for goodness of fit.

Discrepancy-based posterior predictive checks for Bayesian hierarchical model goodness of fit. Points represent Freeman–Tukey discrepancy measures between observed and expected values, D(yobs|θ), and simulated and expected values, D(ynew|θ). Plot shows high level of agreement between observed and simulated discrepancies (P = 0.521), indicating the model is not inconsistent with the observed data. Labelled clusters of distinct points reflect various components of the joint model.

Extended Data Figure 4 Posterior expected times to recovery among localities.

Bayesian hierarchical model posterior estimated times to recovery (0.9B0) for fished (green circles) and restricted (amber squares) localities around the world. Black lines are 50% highest posterior densities and symbols are posterior median values.

Extended Data Figure 5 Change in expected reserve age and potential effects under climate change.

a, Change in expected reserve age at recovery (contour lines; in years) given specified values for recovery (as a proportion of B0) and the 95% highest posterior density range for the rate of biomass growth (r0) estimated from a joint Bayesian hierarchical model of recovery. Expected recovery time from the most degraded locality (Ahus, PNG; posterior median: 94 kg ha−1) given r0 (posterior median: 0.054) is 59 years when recovery is defined at 0.9 B0 (blue dot). b, Response surface (contour lines) for potential change in B0 (kg ha−1) given a plausible range of decline in average primary productivity (from current 4.7 kg C ha−1 day−1) and coral cover (from current 26% average hard coral cover). Response surface based on model estimated effects of productivity and hard coral cover on B0 (Extended Data Fig. 1). Current conditions are in the top right (blue dot); a plausible scenario for 2040 given a 4% loss of primary productivity and a 2% annual loss of coral cover would lead to a 6% drop in expected B0, down to 953 kg ha−1 (dot-triangle).

Extended Data Figure 6 Average reef fish functional group across a biomass gradient.

a–i, Generalized additive model (GAM) fits to the relative proportion of excavators/scrapers (a), browsers (b), grazers (c), detritivores (d), planktivores (e), micro-invertivores (f), macro-invertivores (g), pisci-invertivores (h) and piscivores (i) in community log-biomass for 832 reef slope sites from around the world. Grey dots are reef-level observations; blue dots are a 0.1 log-kg interval moving average; GAM fits are represented by mean (solid black line) and 95% confidence intervals (dashed line) across the full data range. Mean model fits between initial reserve biomass and recovered log-biomass (vertical dotted lines) were scaled relative to their values at 0.1B0 to characterize reef fish functional responses in Fig. 2.

Extended Data Figure 7 GAM functional returns with uncertainty.

Average relative reef fish functional returns in log-biomass across the range from collapsed to recovered given the GAM fits in Fig. 2d; lines are GAM fits for log-biomass per functional group relative to their average biomasses at marine reserve age zero (estimated initial log-biomass) in Fig. 1; dashed lines are approximate 95% confidence intervals. Data include 832 individual reefs.

Extended Data Figure 8 Nuisance parameter residual error plots.

a–c, Joint Bayesian hierarchical recovery model nuisance parameter absolute residuals and residual histograms for percentage of hard coral cover (a), having been collected on an atoll (b) and average productivity in kg C ha−1 day−1(c). Dashed red lines indicate weak linear trends in absolute residuals showing no heteroscedasticity was present; blue solid lines show a normal probability distribution fit to the residuals, demonstrating appropriate normal sub-model fit.

Extended Data Table 1 DIC-based model selection for individual nuisance parameter sub-models
Full size table
Extended Data Table 2 DIC-based model selection for combined nuisance parameter sub-models
Full size table

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Data Provider Acknowledgements, a supplementary glossary of terms, PyMC (Python) code for the full Bayesian hierarchical model used to estimate recovery rates and unfished biomass from the global coral reef biomass dataset and Supplementary Table 1. (PDF 223 kb)

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Table 2, a complete reef fish list, including functional group categorization and inclusion criteria (where included=='1') for the recovery analysis. (XLS 190 kb)

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Table 3, posterior summary statistics for full Bayesian hierarchical analysis used to estimate recovery rates and unfished biomass from the global coral reef biomass dataset. (XLS 655 kb)

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Table 4, reef-site (reef) metadata including data provider, locality name, reef name, latitude, longitude, and year of collection. (XLS 126 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

MacNeil, M., Graham, N., Cinner, J. et al. Recovery potential of the world's coral reef fishes. Nature 520, 341–344 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14358

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14358

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing