Intensive fisheries have reduced fish biodiversity and abundance in aquatic ecosystems worldwide1,2,3. ‘No-take’ marine reserves have become a cornerstone of marine ecosystem-based fisheries management4,5,6, and their benefits for adjacent fisheries are maximized when reserve design fosters synergies among nearby reserves7,8. The applicability of this marine reserve network paradigm to riverine biodiversity and inland fisheries remains largely untested. Here we show that reserves created by 23 separate communities in Thailand’s Salween basin have markedly increased fish richness, density, and biomass relative to adjacent areas. Moreover, key correlates of the success of protected areas in marine ecosystems—particularly reserve size and enforcement—predict differences in ecological benefits among riverine reserves. Occupying a central position in the network confers additional gains, underscoring the importance of connectivity within dendritic river systems. The emergence of network-based benefits is remarkable given that these reserves are young (less than 25 years old) and arose without formal coordination. Freshwater ecosystems are under-represented among the world’s protected areas9, and our findings suggest that networks of small, community-based reserves offer a generalizable model for protecting biodiversity and augmenting fisheries as the world’s rivers face unprecedented pressures10,11.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Subscribe to Nature+
Get immediate online access to Nature and 55 other Nature journal
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $3.90 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available in the Environmental Data Initiative repository (https://portal.edirepository.org/nis/mapbrowse?packageid=edi.513.1).
The R code used for the analyses presented here is available from GitHub (https://github.com/aakoning/riv_res_2020).
Worm, B. et al. Rebuilding global fisheries. Science 325, 578–585 (2009).
Costello, C. et al. Global fishery prospects under contrasting management regimes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 5125–5129 (2016).
Allan, J. D. et al. Overfishing of inland waters. Bioscience 55, 1041–1051 (2005).
Lester, S. E. et al. Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: a global synthesis. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 384, 33–46 (2009).
Halpern, B. S., Lester, S. E. & McLeod, K. L. Placing marine protected areas onto the ecosystem-based management seascape. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 18312–18317 (2010).
Carr, M. H. et al. Marine protected areas exemplify the evolution of science and policy. Oceanography (Wash. D.C.) 32, 94–103 (2019).
Gaines, S. D., White, C., Carr, M. H. & Palumbi, S. R. Designing marine reserve networks for both conservation and fisheries management. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 18286–18293 (2010).
Edgar, G. J. et al. Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key features. Nature 506, 216–220 (2014).
Abell, R., Lehner, B., Thieme, M. & Linke, S. Looking beyond the fenceline: assessing protection gaps for the world’s rivers. Conserv. Lett. 10, 384–394 (2017).
Grill, G. et al. Mapping the world’s free-flowing rivers. Nature 569, 215–221 (2019).
Vörösmarty, C. J. et al. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467, 555–561 (2010).
McIntyre, P. B., Reidy Liermann, C. A. & Revenga, C. Linking freshwater fishery management to global food security and biodiversity conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 12880–12885 (2016).
Fluet-Chouinard, E., Funge-Smith, S. & McIntyre, P. B. Global hidden harvest of freshwater fish revealed by household surveys. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 7623–7628 (2018).
Golden, C. D. et al. Nutrition: Fall in fish catch threatens human health. Nature 534, 317–320 (2016).
Botsford, L. W., Micheli, F. & Hastings, A. Principles for the design of marine reserves. Ecol. Appl. 13, 25–31 (2003).
Gell, F. R. & Roberts, C. M. Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery effects of marine reserves. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18, 448–455 (2003).
Hastings, A. & Botsford, L. W. Comparing designs of marine reserves for fisheries and for biodiversity. Ecol. Appl. 13, 65–70 (2003).
Pendleton, L. H. et al. Debating the effectiveness of marine protected areas. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 75, 1156–1159 (2018).
Chessman, B. C. Do protected areas benefit freshwater species? A broad-scale assessment for fish in Australia’s Murray–Darling Basin. J. Appl. Ecol. 50, 969–976 (2013).
Lawrence, D. J. et al. National parks as protected areas for U.S. freshwater fish diversity. Conserv. Lett. 4, 364–371 (2011).
Abell, R. et al. Concordance of freshwater and terrestrial biodiversity. Conserv. Lett. 4, 127–136 (2011).
Hilborn, R. Policy: Marine biodiversity needs more than protection. Nature 535, 224–226 (2016).
Halpern, B. S. et al. Achieving the triple bottom line in the face of inherent trade-offs among social equity, economic return, and conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 6229–6234 (2013).
Gill, D. A. et al. Capacity shortfalls hinder the performance of marine protected areas globally. Nature 543, 665–669 (2017).
Baird, I. G., Flaherty, M. S. & Baird, I. G. Mekong River fish conservation zones in southern Laos: assessing effectiveness using local ecological knowledge. Environ. Manage. 36, 439–454 (2005).
Loury, E. K. et al. Salty stories, fresh spaces: lessons for aquatic protected areas from marine and freshwater experiences. Aquat. Conserv. 28, 485–500 (2018).
McCann, K. S. et al. Food webs and the sustainability of indiscriminate fisheries. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 73, 656–665 (2016).
Gutiérrez, N. L., Hilborn, R. & Defeo, O. Leadership, social capital and incentives promote successful fisheries. Nature 470, 386–389 (2011).
Kramer, D. L. & Chapman, M. R. Implications of fish home range size and relocation for marine reserve function. Environ. Biol. Fishes 55, 65–79 (1999).
Morrison, S. A. A framework for conservation in a human-dominated world. Conserv. Biol. 29, 960–964 (2015).
Campos-Silva, J. V. & Peres, C. A. Community-based management induces rapid recovery of a high-value tropical freshwater fishery. Sci. Rep. 6, 34745 (2016).
Castello, L., Viana, J. P., Watkins, G., Pinedo-Vasquez, M. & Luzadis, V. A. Lessons from integrating fishers of arapaima in small-scale fisheries management at the Mamirauá Reserve, Amazon. Environ. Manage. 43, 197–209 (2009).
Pinho, P. F., Orlove, B. & Lubell, M. Overcoming barriers to collective action in community-based fisheries management in the Amazon. Hum. Organ. 71, 99–109 (2012).
Thompson, P. M., Sultana, P. & Islam, N. Lessons from community based management of floodplain fisheries in Bangladesh. J. Environ. Manage. 69, 307–321 (2003).
Alexander, S. M., Epstein, G., Bodin, Ö., Armitage, D. & Campbell, D. Participation in planning and social networks increase social monitoring in community-based conservation. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12562 (2018).
Ostrom, E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325, 419–422 (2009).
Halpern, B. S., Lester, S. E. & Kellner, J. B. Spillover from marine reserves and the replenishment of fished stocks. Environ. Conserv. 36, 268–276 (2009).
Campbell Grant, E. H., Lowe, W. H. & Fagan, W. F. Living in the branches: population dynamics and ecological processes in dendritic networks. Ecol. Lett. 10, 165–175 (2007).
Palumbi, S. R. Population genetics, demographic connectivity, and the design of marine reserves. Ecol. Appl. 13, 146–158 (2003).
Tilman, D., May, R. M., Lehman, C. L. & Nowak, M. A. Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature 371, 65–66 (1994).
McIntyre, P. B. et al. in Conservation of Freshwater Fishes (eds Closs, G. P. et al.) 324–360 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015).
Dudgeon, D. et al. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 81, 163–182 (2006).
Roberts, C. M. et al. Marine reserves can mitigate and promote adaptation to climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 6167–6175 (2017).
Koning, A. A., Moore, J., Suttidate, N., Hannigan, R. & McIntyre, P. B. Aquatic ecosystem impacts of land sharing versus sparing: nutrient loading to Southeast Asian rivers. Ecosystems (N. Y.) 20, 393–405 (2017).
Froese, R. & Pauly, D. (eds) FishBase http://www.fishbase.org (2019).
Lamberti, G. A. & Hauer, F. R. Methods in Stream Ecology (Academic, 2017).
Jari Oksanen, F. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5-6 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan (2019).
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing https://www.R-project.org/ (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019).
Google Earth (November, 2015). Mae Ngao, Thailand. https://www.google.co.uk/earth/ (2020).
Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). ArcGIS Release 10.3 (2015).
Yamazaki, D. et al. A high-accuracy map of global terrain elevations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 5844–5853 (2017).
Robin, X. et al. pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics 12, 77 (2011).
Jordán, F., Liu, W. C. & Andrew, J. D. Topological keystone species: measures of positional importance in food webs. Oikos 112, 535–546 (2006).
Bates, D., Maechler, M. & Ben Bolker, S. W. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).
Claudet, J. et al. Marine reserves: size and age do matter. Ecol. Lett. 11, 481–489 (2008).
Claudet, J. et al. Marine reserves: fish life history and ecological traits matter. Ecol. Appl. 20, 830–839 (2010).
Johnson, J. B. & Omland, K. S. Model selection in ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 101–108 (2004).
Barton, K. MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. R package version 1.43.6 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn (2019).
We thank the communities of the Mae Ngao River basin for their participation in and support of this research, and the International Sustainable Development Studies Institute (Chiang Mai) for logistical support. Earlier drafts of the manuscript were improved by the McIntyre laboratory groups at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Cornell University, and by comments from I. Baird, B. Peckarsky, K. Winemiller, E. Stanley, T. Ives, R. Abell and M. Thieme. Funding was provided by National Science Foundation grants DGE-0718123, DGE-1144752, and DEB-15011836 to A.A.K. and DGE-1144752 to K.M.P., a Harvey Fellowship and a Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability Postdoctoral Fellowship to A.A.K., and a David and Lucille Packard Fellowship to P.B.M. Additional funding provided by USAID’s ‘Wonders of the Mekong’ Cooperative Agreement No: AID-OAA-A-16-00057.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information Nature thanks Edward Allison and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data figures and tables
Extended Data Fig. 1 Frequency distribution of species-level maximum observed body length for the fish fauna of the study area of the Salween River basin.
The natural break at 20 cm (blue dashed line) was used to classify each species as relatively large (≥20 cm) versus smaller (<20 cm).
Extended Data Fig. 2 Average total fish biomass measures in paired reserve (red points) and non-reserve (blue points) of varying ages.
Dotted lines correspond to nonlinear least squares estimates for reserves and non-reserves showing gains in both reserves and adjacent fished areas over time.
Extended Data Fig. 3 Partial residual plots for all best averaged models of richness (Rr), density (Dr), and biomass (Br) responses to no-take reserves.
Symbology indicates alternative groupings of fish species by body size and trophic group at each site (n = 23). The box and whisker plot shows the minimum and maximum values (excluding outliers) as ends of hashed lines, upper and lower quartiles as the upper and lower bounds of the box, the median as the bold line, and outliers (values exceeding 1.5 times the interquartile range) as points for reserves having no explicit penalty (No; n = 4) and those with an explicit penalty (Yes; n = 19). Full model results are found in Extended Data Tables 1–3.
About this article
Cite this article
Koning, A.A., Perales, K.M., Fluet-Chouinard, E. et al. A network of grassroots reserves protects tropical river fish diversity. Nature 588, 631–635 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2944-y
This article is cited by
Chinese Geographical Science (2022)