Researchers make unexpected discovery after studying world's largest no-fishing zone: 'Just outside the boundaries'
Large-scale marine protected areas are successfully protecting migratory fish species and increasing catch rates.
As Phys.org reported, researchers discovered that by protecting expansive ocean areas, we help fish species thrive.
Research scientists analyzed public data to assess the impacts of protected ocean areas and published their findings in the journal Science. They examined nine large-scale marine protected areas in the Indian and Pacific oceans.
The results revealed that the catch-per-unit effort of tuna purse seine fisheries has increased by 12% to 18% near protected areas. However, the increase declines farther from the boundaries.
Even for migratory species such as tuna, protected areas offer spillover benefits that translate to economic gains for fisheries.
A couple of decades ago, there was only one large-scale marine protected area in the world, Ecuador's Galápagos Marine Reserve. Now, there are over 20. Many of these waters are in places with tuna fisheries, an industry valued at over $40 billion.
"We found that the spillover benefits, measured as the change in catch rates, are strongest just outside the boundaries of these MPAs and get stronger over time," said Juan Carlos Villaseñor-Derbez, a professor and the report's co-author. "The effects were strongest for the MPAs that were heavily fished prior to protection and are now well-enforced."
This research is significant because it highlights the recreational and economic benefits of marine conservation. Tuna fisheries benefit from environmental protection laws, which can help fish populations thrive and potentially increase profits by allowing more fish to be caught.
Such studies can help convince special interest groups that animal conservation matters and is worthy of time and investment. The research complements the United Nations' Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement, an international treaty to conserve the high seas, and international goals to protect 30% of the world's oceans by 2030.
Should the government be paying people to hunt invasive species?
Definitely
Depends on the animal
No way
Just let people do it for free
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
Although fish catch rates benefit fisheries, individuals may wish to preserve fish populations even more by focusing their diets on plant-based options instead of seafood. You can also support marine habitats by learning and sharing about conservation projects saving fish from extinction and innovations helping revive dwindling populations.
Sacha Vignieri wrote in the study's editor's summary, "Such results clearly underline that MPAs are essential for protecting both species and fisheries."
On a Phys.org Facebook post sharing the news, an aquarium educator commented on sport fishermen who often challenge marine protected areas: "I am hoping they now are feeling better about the outcome."
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Letters: Worries about the 'Big bill', standing up for science
I think that we are all worried about what the new administration will do next. I was thinking, wouldn't it be nice if our Republican congressmen and senators would have the courage to be like Rosa Parks. Dorthy Terry, Bloomington Indiana produces over a billion bushels of corn each year, a number that reflects the power of science to increase yields. I am writing to celebrate science on this June 16, the birthday of Barbara McClintock who was a botanist and evolutionary biologist who studied corn genetics. She and her colleagues of the time, the 1940s, worked in corn fields and made crosses in the August sun by patting tassels on silk to ensure pollination and learn how the corn's traits were inherited. As the corn matured, the scientists would score the cobs for the colors of the kernels. Expected ratios of purple or yellow or red would confirm or reject various hypotheses about the laws of inheritance. McClintock made significant discoveries, one of which is still referred to as "jumping genes," which demonstrated that segments of DNA or genes could move from one chromosome to another, potentially inducing mutations that could cause disease and reduce yields. This was science at the interface of basic and applied. McClintock's findings ran against dogma, she was doubted, but she was right. And for this work she was awarded a Nobel Prize. When I was a graduate student in the early 1970s, I took a class at IU from a famous geneticist named Marcus Rhodes. Professor Rhodes was not only brilliant; he was also kind. When he would lecture, he would refer to Barbara McClintock with reverence. We were taught that she was the brilliant one and he admired her greatly. This admiration affected me deeply though I did not realize it at the time because I was a somewhat scattered young scientist who lacked direction but was drawn to biology. I didn't have a plan or a goal, I was just taking classes because that was what one did. But it registered with me that there was a woman out there who my teacher respected so much that he would repeatedly refer to her findings in class. And later when I began to think that I wanted to become a research biologist too, I remembered Marcus Rhodes' respect for Barbara McClintock and kept moving forward. Lesson? Science done outdoors in the field to improve agriculture was advanced by scientists who shared a commitment to measuring things that matter to make our lives better. If we want more Barbara McClintocks, now is the time to stand up for science. Ellen Ketterson, Bloomington The Trump administration's 'Big Beautiful Bill' has a provision that would remove the enforcement power of some decisions of the judiciary branch of our government, which is supposed to be equal to the executive and congressional branches. The judiciary branch, for instance, has been fighting their many unconstitutional acts, already hampered by Trump's corruption of the federal marshals who are supposed to enforce judicial decisions. Prominent among those decisions have been many aimed at preserving federal government watchdog mechanisms intended to stop governmental corruption, like inspectors general. Why legalize depriving the judiciary of enforcement power? Because among the many decisions the administration wants to continue to ignore are those that penalize its own 'fraud, waste and abuse.' The main source of 'fraud, waste and abuse' now in the government is our president, who is legitimizing it at every level of government. So passing this bill will both legally cement his dictatorship and deprive many of essential lifesaving governmental services, all to profit billionaires. For shame! Claire Robertson, Bloomington This article originally appeared on The Herald-Times: Letters to the Editor: Trump admin worries, stand up for science
Wall Street Journal
a day ago
- Wall Street Journal
Israel's Weizmann Institute Buildings Damaged in Iran Attack
Several buildings in Israel's Weizmann Institute of Science, one of the country's top research centers, were damaged in an Iranian strike but there were no casualties, its management told its community members. As a result of missile strikes early this morning in the city of Rehovot, where the institute is located, there were localized impacts to structures on campus, it said. The institute is a world-renowned research center known for cutting-edge work in chemistry, physics and biomedical science. One graduate student whose home is located near the institute said she heard some very loud booms and then an impact that violently shook her bomb shelter.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
'What a waste:' US scientists decry Trump's 47% cuts to NASA science budget
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Since January, when President Donald Trump took office for the second time, the White House has been asking U.S. government organizations to implement some pretty radical changes. Things have been tense, to say the least. Thousands of federal workers have been laid off with little explanation, programs that improve diversity in the workplace have been eliminated, research grants have been cancelled in large sweeps, and international college students find themselves at risk of losing their legal status. One government organization that could be hit the hardest is NASA. The agency has faced a particularly extensive amount of pressure from the Trump administration: surveillance, goal restructuring, website purging and more. Other federal science organizations haven't been spared, either — places like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) have been targeted as well. The ground of U.S. science seems to be quaking for political reasons rather than scientific ones, leaving scientists disheartened by their government and anxious about what's next. "I don't think it is an overstatement to say that morale among U.S.-based scientists is at an all-time low," Sarah Horst, an associate professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at The Johns Hopkins University in Maryland, told "People are afraid for their jobs, their students, the projects they've often spent decades working on, and they are afraid for the future of the United States." And things only got worse on May 30, when the Trump administration's fiscal year 2026 budget request for NASA came out. It proposes cutting the agency's science funding by 47%, and the agency's workforce by about one-third — from 17,391 to 11,853. This budget has to be officially passed by Congress to take effect, but if it indeed does, the effects could be brutal. "That would represent the smallest NASA workforce since mid-1960, before the first American had launched into space," Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society, a nonprofit exploration and advocacy organization, told "If this budget is made real, I am most concerned about people," John O'Meara, chief scientist at the Keck Observatory, told "Missions deliver data and are essential, but the data is meaningless without the people there to interpret it, test theories and share discoveries with the world." Perhaps the most striking aspect of the White House's 2026 NASA budget proposal is the sheer amount of missions it would cancel altogether: 41 projects, as the Planetary Society said in a statement denouncing the report. "This is the extinction-level event we were warning people about," Dreier said. Some specifics: The sharply reduced budget would cancel the Mars Sample Return (MSR) program, which was meant to bring samples of the Red Planet's surface to Earth — samples that NASA's Perseverance rover has been dutifully collecting over the last few years, and which scientists have long stressed must be analyzed in a lab to reach their full potential. MSR has experienced its own share of complications since its genesis, to be fair, including a huge price tag and what some believe is an overcomplicated mechanism of sample retrieval. However, cancelling the project outright instead of coming up with a solution would waste much of Perseverance's work on the Red Planet. The OSIRIS-APEX mission (you may remember it by its previous moniker, OSIRIS-REx) would also be cut off. This mission successfully sent a spacecraft on a multi-billion-mile expedition to an asteroid named Bennu, then had it grab a few pieces of the asteroid before traveling all the way back to Earth and safely dropping the samples to the ground. This same probe is now on round two, headed to examine the infamous asteroid Apophis — but if the FY26 NASA budget is confirmed, it won't complete its trip. "I'm personally mostly concerned for in-flight missions that already have a significant investment in both taxpayer dollars and peoples' lives/careers (including my own)," Kevin McGill, an employee at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), the agency's lead center for robotic planetary exploration, told "Luckily, my work on [the Curiosity Mars rover] and Mars2020 [Perseverance] are mostly safe, but a lot of other stuff isn't." The budget also suggests ceasing operations for the Jupiter-orbiting Juno spacecraft, which has been circling our solar system's gas giant since 2016 while regularly delivering rich information about the world and its moons. Juno is responsible for all those swirly blue images of Jupiter the astronomy community holds high; it took five years for this spacecraft to get to where it is, and many more for it to be built in the first place. "The operating missions cancellations alone represent over $12 billion of invested taxpayer value — and once they're gone, they're gone. It would take years and many millions more to replace them," Dreier said. NASA would also need to pull out of its collaboration with the European Space Agency (ESA) on the Rosalind Franklin rover — for the second time, no less — which is a robotic life-hunting explorer set to launch toward Mars in 2028. NASA had to pull out in 2012 because of budget cuts as well but re-entered the rover program after ESA cut ties with its other partner, the Russian space agency Roscosmos, once Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. "This makes the U.S. an untrustworthy partner and our allies hesitate the next time we ask them for help," Dreier said. Two operational Mars orbiters — Mars Odyssey and MAVEN — would be cancelled as well, as would the New Horizons spacecraft currently studying the outer reaches of the solar system and the DaVinci and VERITAS missions, which would explore Venus. The Lunar Gateway, which NASA envisioned as a sort of International Space Station around the moon, would also be cancelled. "What was surprising was the level of cuts within parts of each of the agencies. An example is astrophysics, where the cut was nearly 2/3 of the astrophysics budget," O'Meara said. According to the Planetary Society's analysis of the budget, that huge astrophysics reduction could mean eight spacecraft dedicated to studying extreme events in the universe (think, the Chandra X-ray Observatory) would be terminated. This analysis also suggests 10 missions constructed to study the region around Earth and the sun would be cancelled, as well as about a dozen Earth-specific missions that help scientists forecast natural disasters such as hurricanes and track global warming. The latter is especially concerning, given the speed with which Earth is heating up due to human activities that lead to greenhouse gas emissions — activities the Trump administration favors, such as burning coal for cheap power. Per the budget proposal, the White House also wants NASA to eliminate its "green aviation" spending, dedicated to making airplanes better for the environment, and instead work on "protecting the development of technologies with air traffic control and defense applications." It is also worth considering that other Trump-mandated moves have heavily impacted climate initiatives as well: more than 800 NOAA workers were laid off, for example, and NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which houses climate change records dating back to the 1800s, was closed down — leading members of NASA's largest union to speak out in solidarity with their coworkers. Hundreds of scientists working on the National Climate Assessment, a huge report that details the dangers of climate change for policymakers to lean on, were also dismissed. (That represented all of the authors of this report). "This budget request, and its implications, has been highly disruptive to the entire field," O'Meara said. "We are forced to focus on 'what-if' planning that changes in scope rapidly. That takes the time away from what we do best: doing science and sharing it with the world." Furthermore, the White House's FY26 NASA budget proposal centers around a shift toward human missions to the Red Planet; this was a rare area that saw a budget boost in the President's request. For example, one slide in the budget summary says NASA should invest "more than $1 billion in new technology investments to enable a crewed mission to Mars." Another says the agency should allocate "$200M for Commercial Mars Payload Services (CMPS) to start launching robotic precursor missions to the Martian surface, and $80M to start deploying communications relay capabilities for Mars." "It just bothers me that they are changing almost the entirety of NASA's mission to this pipe dream of a human mission to Mars in any reasonable time frame and cost," McGill said. reached out to NASA for comment on the possible impact of these budget cuts, and was directed to acting administrator Janet Petro's statement in the proposal's Technical Supplement. This statement is supportive of the budget request overall, mentioning items such as a renewed push for human spaceflight to the moon and Mars. "The President's Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Request for NASA reflects the Trump-Vance Administration's commitment to strengthening America's leadership in space exploration while exercising fiscal responsibility. With this budget, we aim to shape a Golden Age of innovation and exploration," it reads. This shift toward Mars crewed missions is perhaps predictable, given Trump's affiliation with SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk. (Former affiliation, maybe, given the heated feud currently unfolding on social media between the two.) Musk was a prominent backer of Trump's campaign and worked very closely with him over the past four months. For example, the SpaceX chief ran the Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE), which was responsible for the bulk of government funding cuts in the name of saving "wasted taxpayer money." Independently, Musk has earned a reputation as maybe the most outspoken advocate of settling Mars, even going so far as to say he wishes to "die on Mars." SpaceX, as well as its fans, are extremely focused on achieving that goal. "In isolation, a serious humans to Mars campaign should be exciting — Mars exploration is a worthy goal, and The Planetary Society has advocated for that for years," Dreier said. "But the cost here is too high." Another concern Dreier has is that the White House expects to achieve this major goal while simultaneously reducing NASA's workforce at an unprecedented rate. "This isn't just poor policy," he added. "It's fundamentally wasteful and inefficient, exactly what this administration is saying it does not want." And the layoffs could be even more far-reaching than anticipated. McGill says morale at JPL had already been very low after sweeping layoffs took place last year, but also that the energy was further damaged by the agency's recent return-to-office order. For context, nearly 5,500 JPL employees who have been working remotely since the thick of the COVID-19 pandemic were told they must return to in-person work. The deadlines for that return were Aug. 25 for general employees within California and Oct. 27 for teleworkers living outside the state. "Employees who do not return by their required date will be considered to have resigned," JPL officials said in a workforce-wide email that was obtained by "It's clear that it's a silent layoff of the over 1,000 remote employees who they don't want to pay severance to," a NASA employee at JPL not authorized to speak on behalf of the agency previously told McGill says the order "threatens to decimate the workforce and a lot of critical institutional knowledge." "I love JPL and its mission, but it's been a rough time as of late," he said. According to Dreier, there's good news and bad news concerning whether the budget proposal will go through. The good news is that, as he explains, there seems to be bipartisan dislike for the proposal. "We've heard directly from multiple congressional offices — Republican and Democrat — that this budget is 'dead on arrival,'" he said. Of note, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation released his legislative directives for Senate Republicans' budget reconciliation bill on Friday (June 6). The senator proposes dedicating $10 billion more to NASA's science programs — and, though most of it is indeed in line with the FY26 budget request's Mars endeavors, some of that funding would be used for other things, like NASA Space Launch System (SLS) rocket meant for moon exploration and Lunar Gateway. This united aversion to the budget proposal is unsurprising. The bipartisan U.S. Planetary Science Caucus, for instance, previously released a statement in response to early blueprints of the proposal that suggested the huge cuts we're seeing presented now. "We are extremely alarmed by reports of a preliminary White House budget that proposes cutting NASA Science funding by almost half and terminating dozens of programs already well underway, like the Mars Sample Return mission and the Roman Space Telescope," co-chairs Rep. Judy Chu (D-California) and Rep. Don Bacon (R-Nebraska) wrote. Such agreement across the aisle makes sense when we consider how long it takes for space missions to reach fruition. Collaboration isn't just key — it's unavoidable. "Spaceflight, and human spaceflight in particular, requires hand-off from one administration to another," Dreier said. "The timelines are just too long for any one presidential administration." The bad news, however, is the White House may have a workaround. Related Stories: — 'This is an attack on NASA.' Space agency's largest union speaks out as DOGE cuts shutter science institute located above 'Seinfeld' diner in NYC — Saving Gateway, SLS and Orion? Sen. Ted Cruz proposes $10 billion more for NASA's moon and Mars efforts — 'Their loss diminishes us all': Scientists emphasize how Trump's mass NOAA layoffs endanger the world "Even if Congress ultimately rejects this budget, the slow pace of legislation and gridlock we've seen in recent years make it unlikely that appropriations will be in place by October 1st of this year," Dreier said. "If there's another continuing resolution, the White House budget office will throttle spending to match the lowest of all possible budget scenarios: theirs. So, we face the possibility of these cuts going into effect by default. Given the breadth and depth of these cuts, that could be very hard to recover from." "This budget proposal threatens to tear down that carefully constructed coalition in favor of a narrow vision that lacks the political durability necessary for long-term success," he added. "What a waste."
