Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The importance of migratory connectivity for global ocean policy

The importance of migratory connectivity for global ocean policy The importance of migratory connectivity for global ocean policy royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspb 1,2,†, 3,† 1 1 Daniel C. Dunn , Autumn-Lynn Harrison , Corrie Curtice , Sarah DeLand , 1 1 1 1 1 Ben Donnelly , Ei Fujioka , Eleanor Heywood , Connie Y. Kot , Sarah Poulin , 1 4 1 5 Meredith Whitten , Susanne Åkesson , Amalia Alberini , Ward Appeltans , Evidence 6 7 8,9,35 10 synthesis José Manuel Arcos , Helen Bailey , Lisa T. Ballance , Barbara Block , 1,10 11 12 13 Hannah Blondin , Andre M. Boustany , Jorge Brenner , Paulo Catry , Cite this article: Dunn DC, Harrison A-L et al. 14 1 15 16 2019 The importance of migratory connectivity Daniel Cejudo , Jesse Cleary , Peter Corkeron , Daniel P. Costa , for global ocean policy. Proc. R. Soc. B 286: 17 1 18 Michael Coyne , Guillermo Ortuño Crespo , Tammy E. Davies , 18 19 10,20 21 Maria P. Dias , Fanny Douvere , Francesco Ferretti , Angela Formia , http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.1472 22 16 23 David Freestone , Ari S. Friedlaender , Heidrun Frisch-Nwakanma , 24 25 23 Christopher Barrio Froján , Kristina M. Gjerde , Lyle Glowka , 26 27 28 Received: 21 June 2019 Brendan J. Godley , Jacob Gonzalez-Solis , José Pedro Granadeiro , Accepted: 3 September 2019 24 29 26 30 Vikki Gunn , Yuriko Hashimoto , Lucy M. Hawkes , Graeme C. Hays , 18 31 24 32 Carolina Hazin , Jorge Jimenez , David E. Johnson , Paolo Luschi , 33 1 16 Sara M. Maxwell , Catherine McClellan , Michelle Modest , 34 1 Subject Areas: Giuseppe Notarbartolo di Sciara , Alejandro Herrero Palacio , ecology 35 23 36 26 Daniel M. Palacios , Andrea Pauly , Matt Rayner , Alan F. Rees , 21 7 37 38 Erick Ross Salazar , David Secor , Ana M. M. Sequeira , Mark Spalding , Keywords: 39 15 1,40 14 areas beyond national jurisdiction, Fernando Spina , Sofie Van Parijs , Bryan Wallace , Nuria Varo-Cruz , migratory species, marine spatial planning, 23 41 29 42 Melanie Virtue , Henri Weimerskirch , Laurie Wilson , Bill Woodward area-based management and Patrick N. Halpin Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Author for correspondence: University of Queensland, Level 5, Goddard Building (#8), St Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia Daniel C. Dunn Migratory Bird Center, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological Park, Washington, DC, USA e-mail: daniel.dunn@uq.edu.au 4 Department of Biology, Center for Animal Movement Research, Lund University, Lund, Sweden Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO, IOC Project Office for IODE, Oostende, Belgium SEO/BirdLife, Marine Programme, Barcelona, Spain Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Solomons, MD, USA Southwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries, La Jolla, CA, USA Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA, USA Hopkins Marine Station of Stanford University, Pacific Grove, CA, USA Monterrey Bay Aquarium, Monterey, CA, USA The Nature Conservancy, Houston, TX, USA MARE-Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, ISPA Instituto Universitário, Lisboa, Portugal Biology Department of the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas, Spain Protected Species Branch, NOAA Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA, USA Dept of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA seaturtle.org BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK These authors contributed equally to this UNESCO World Heritage Convention, Paris, France study. Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation, College of Natural Resources and Environment, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA Electronic supplementary material is available Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, NY, USA; Bata, Equatorial Guinea and Libreville, Gabon online at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare. c.4658792. © 2019 The Authors. Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited. royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspb Proc. R. Soc. B 286: 20191472 Sargasso Sea Commission, Washington, DC, USA 1. Introduction Secretariat of the Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals, Bonn, Germany and Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Innovations inanimal tracking technologyare changingtheway GOBI Secretariat, Seascape Consultants Ltd, Romsey, UK we think about how the world’s oceans are connected [1] and IUCN Global Marine and Polar Programme and World Commission on Protected about the migratory connectivity of populations and species Areas, Cambridge, MA, USA [2]. Recent research has revealed basin-scale oceanic migrations Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Cornwall Campus, of sea turtles, marine mammals, seabirds and fishes [3], as well Penryn, UK 27 as circumpolar [4] and pole-to-pole [5] migrations by seabirds. University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain The accumulation of information about marine migratory CESAM, Faculdade de Ciencias da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal species has been swift and massive [1]. Since 1990, over 40 000 Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Pacific Wildlife scientific papers have been published about migratory marine Research Centre, British Columbia, Canada Centre for Integrative Ecology, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia species (electronic supplementary material, appendix S1 for Marviva, San José, Costa Rica the literature search string). Common findings from this litera- University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy ture highlight that many species range farther than previously School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, University of Washington, Bothell known (e.g. [6]), and occur predictably at specific times in Campus, Bothell, WA, USA specific places, in association with specific habitats or along pre- Tethys Research Institute and IUCN Task Force on Marine Mammal Protected Areas, dictable migratory corridors [7,8]. Milano, Italy Migratory species are increasingly exposed to the effects of a Marine Mammal Institute and Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State globalizing world [9], as illustrated by the spreading footprint of University, Newport, OR, USA cumulative human impacts inthe oceans[10].The migrationpat- Auckland War Memorial Museum, Auckland, New Zealand terns and movements of manyspecies span both national waters UWA Oceans Institute and School of Biological Sciences, Indian Ocean Marine (i.e. within Exclusive Economic Zones; EEZs) and areas beyond Research Centre, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia national jurisdiction (ABNJ). A significant portion of many Ocean Foundation, Washington, DC, USA species’ life histories are spent in the 64% of the world’s oceans ISPRA—Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale, Ozzano that lie outside national jurisdiction [11], an environment with dell’Emilia, Italy growing human encroachment and fragmented and incomplete Ecolibrium, Inc, Boulder, CO, USA governance structures [12–14]. In this context, migratory species Centre d’Etudes Biologiques de Chizé, CNRS, Villiers en Bois, France management is a complex process, often including soft law U.S. Animal Telemetry Network, NOAA/IOOS, Silver Spring, MD, USA (international statements, declarations and commitments that DCD, 0000-0001-8932-0681; A-LH, 0000-0002-6213-1765; are not legally binding but that do carry moral significance, CC, 0000-0003-1459-4420; SÅ, 0000-0001-9039-2180; PC, 0000-0003-1553-1253; such as United Nations resolutions including the Sustainable BJG, 0000-0003-3845-0034; GCH, 0000-0002-3314-8189; Development Goals), hard law (international legally binding DMP, 0000-0001-7069-7913; LW, 0000-0002-1972-1196 agreements such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the Convention on the Inter- national Trade of Endangered Species), and multi-national The distributions of migratory species in the ocean span consensus-based management organizations (such as the Inter- local, national and international jurisdictions. Across these national Maritime Organization for shipping and regional ecologically interconnected regions, migratory marine fisheries management organizations for fisheries). Limitations species interact with anthropogenic stressors throughout to effective management include geographical and taxonomic their lives. Migratory connectivity, the geographical gaps in governance, lack of cross-sectoral conservation tools linking of individuals and populations throughout their and limited implementation of ecosystem-based approaches migratory cycles, influences how spatial and temporal to management [13], as well as conservation strategies that dynamics of stressors affect migratory animals and scale focus on individual stages of a species migratory cycle with up to influence population abundance, distribution and little consideration of population connectivity [15,16]. These species persistence. Population declines of many migratory limitations have hindered the development of effective manage- marine species have led to calls for connectivity knowledge, ment strategies for migratory species, many of which are especially insights from animal tracking studies, to be considered at risk and in need of improved management: 95% more systematically and synthetically incorporated into of albatross (21 of 22 species; International Union for Conserva- decision-making. Inclusion of migratory connectivity in tion of Nature (IUCN) [17]), 87% of assessed migratory sharks the design of conservation and management measures is species [18], and 63% of assessed sea turtle subpopulations critical to ensure they are appropriate for the level of risk (10 of 16 subpopulations; IUCN [17]) are listed as Near Threa- associated with various degrees of connectivity. Three tened or Threatened (i.e. Vulnerable, Endangered or Critically mechanisms exist to incorporate migratory connectivity Endangered) by the IUCN due primarily to indirect capture into international marine policy which guides conservation in marine fisheries (bycatch), direct harvest, predation by inva- implementation: site-selection criteria, network design sive species, or loss or degradation of habitat. Similarly, criteria and policy recommendations. Here, we review straddling (those shared between two or more jurisdictions) the concept of migratory connectivity and its use in inter- and highly migratory fish stocks experience twice the rate of national policy, and describe the Migratory Connectivity in overfishing as those within a single national jurisdiction [19]. the Ocean system, a migratory connectivity evidence-base In response to population declines of migratory species, for the ocean. We propose that without such collaboration there has been a general call for knowledge generated from focused on migratory connectivity, efforts to effectively animal movement data to be more effectively incorporated conserve these critical species across jurisdictions will have into management and policy frameworks (e.g. [20]). However, limited effect. while the quantity of data on marine migratory species has royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspb Proc. R. Soc. B 286: 20191472 increased dramatically in recent decades [21], efforts to syn- angustirostris, southern elephant seals, Mirounga leonina and thesize and integrate information on animal movement and many shearwater species, electronic supplementary material, connectivity into global management and policy fora are nas- appendix S2). To underpin an evidence-base on migratory con- cent with examples largely originating from individual efforts nectivity, we developed a list of migratory megavertebrate [22–24]. Current mechanisms to enable discovery and access species from multiple sources including Lascelles et al. [32] to data (e.g. data or metadata repositories) are insufficient by (n = 829), Fowler [18] (n = 94), fish species managed by Regional themselves to support global intergovernmental efforts to con- Fisheries Management Organizations (n = 40), seabirds of the serve and manage migratory species because capacity and U.S. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (n = 171) and BirdLife Inter- resources for policy-makers and managers to synthesize raw national (n = 280). After removing duplicates, the initial set of dataare extremely limited [25].Inthispaper, we review concepts species to be included in our synthesis includes 439 fish, 346 of migratory connectivity as they relate to the conservation and seabird, 99 marine mammal and seven sea turtle species. The sustainable use of biodiversity in the oceans, with a focus on list was reviewed by taxa experts and updates to some scientific ABNJ. We provide the current status of effortsto include connec- names were made based on these recommendations. tivity in management and governance approaches, and we In this paper, we focus on synthesizing knowledge about review the information currently available to policy-makers migratory fishes, marine mammals, seabirds, sharks and sea tur- and managers. Finally, we describe an approach that is support- tles (electronic supplementary material, appendix S2), because ing governance and management of transboundary species by these are the taxonomic groups included in the broadest policy aggregating, synthesizing and disseminating new knowledge definition represented by the CMS definition. However, we on migratory connectivity in the ocean. acknowledge that other marine taxa are migratory species by biological definitions and their omission from policy definitions may be detrimental to their management. Bridging the gap between science and policy definitions of migratory species is a 2. Definitions of migratory species differ in first step in translating migratory connectivity knowledge into science and policy policy and we hope to support increasing knowledge about Scientifically, migratory movement is commonly defined as such species through the synthesis approach outlined below. collective, cyclical movement between separated or well- defined locations or habitats, and tends to be expressed at 3. Understanding connectivity is crucial for population or species levels [26]. These levels respectively represent the collective outcomes of individual behaviours the conservation and sustainable use of [7], and the persistent, directed movements of an individual migratory species [27]. Existing scientific definitions include: (i) mass directional movements of large numbers of a species from one location to Migratory species depend upon critical habitats for breeding another [28], (ii) broad-scale movements of populations [29], and foraging, as well as pathways connecting these habitats. (iii) movements of individuals or populations from one well- Over the course of their lives, many migratory marine species defined habitat to another, usually on temporally predictable exhibit at least one of the three forms of connectivity described and periodic basis [30,31], and (iv) collective movement of indi- by Webster et al. [2]: (i) migratory connectivity, the seasonal viduals that occurs chiefly through motivated behaviours, movements of individuals between breeding and post-breed- resulting in changed ecological status [7]. ing foraging sites; (ii) landscape/seascape connectivity, the While scientific definitions usually include some measure regional movement of individuals among habitat patches; of separation, they are commonly not restricted by the need and (iii) natal dispersal, the spread of individuals from birth to cross geopolitical boundaries as is often the case with sites to breeding sites. During their migrations, individuals established policy definitions. For example, the Convention and populations encounter a variety of stressors, from preda- on Migratory Species (CMS, Article I, 1.a) defines migratory tion and adverse weather to human impacts including species as ‘the entire population or any geographically separ- habitat destruction, direct and incidental fishing mortality, ate part of the population of any species or lower taxon of ship strikes, noise, hazardous substances and other pollutants wild animals, a significant proportion of whose members [10,34]. Migratory connectivity, the geographical linking of cyclically and predictably cross one or more national jurisdic- individuals and populations throughout their migratory tional boundaries’. This definition shares two commonalities cycles [35] (see case study in box 1), is a major factor affecting with scientific definitions by referring to collective and cycli- how stressors impact individuals at each crucial life-history cal movements, however, it specifically requires the crossing stage, and how these effects may scale up to effects on popu- of national boundaries. There are strong policy rationales lation abundance and distribution, and species persistence for this requirement in the Convention’s text. Primary prin- (for a worked example, see [40]). Understanding how a popu- ciples of the CMS are that States are the protectors of the lation is connected, how connectivity influences demographic migratory species that live within or pass through their juris- rates, and designing conservation and management measures dictions, and international cooperation of States is essential appropriate for the level of risk associated with various degrees for the conservation of migratory species. of connectivity, are all critical to the conservation and While the CMS definition itself is not explicitly limiting to sustainable use of migratory species (box 1, [41]). taxonomic grouping, in practice, all species listed on the CMS The need to maintain migratory connectivity is also critical are vertebrates with the exception of a single terrestrial invert- for sustaining human livelihoods and cultural connections. ebrate, the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus). The CMS Migratory species provide a diverse array of cultural, regu- Conference oftheParties propose and approve appendixlistings, lating and provisioning ecosystem services, including and many species, clearly migratory by scientific definitions, are contributions to aesthetic and recreational experiences, spiri- not included (for example, northern elephant seals, Mirounga tual or religious enrichment, reduction of pest infestations royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspb Proc. R. Soc. B 286: 20191472 Box 1. Use of migratory connectivity knowledge in global ocean policy, a case study from the International Whaling Commission (IWC). To evaluate effects of incidental or directed take of cetaceans with reference to a conservation and management goal, the Scientific Committee of the IWC uses a process called the Revised Management Procedure (RMP) to estimate sustainable catch limits for commercial whaling of baleen whales. The RMP is a management strategy evaluation (simulation modelling) approach [36] that accounts for abundance, catches and population structure—including how many stocks exist and how they mix across space and time—to project population estimates under management scenarios [37]. While the RMP does not explicitly include a ‘connectivity’ parameter, connectivity information is used to inform the discussion on abundance esti- mates and stock structure. The evaluation process considers available evidence on movements of individuals/populations through time/area strata, for example, between breeding and feeding areas and these estimates are carried forward through simulation trials [37]. Connectivity information is therefore critical for defining model parameters, including stock structure, and for assessing differential impacts to populations of evaluated management scenarios. Regular Implementation Reviews are required to assess available evidence for abundance estimates and stock structure [37]. Migratory movements are incorporated through many data types, including photo identity, passive acoustics, genetics and satellite telemetry. A recent example of how this works in practice is the first Implementation Review for western North Pacific Bryde’s whales (Balaenoptera brydei/edeni), initiated in 2017 [38]. Given many data gaps for spatial and genetic structure of cetacean populations, migratory connectivity between breeding and foraging areas is often uncertain or unknown and thus multiple hypotheses of spatial stock structure are typically advanced for formal evaluation. Among multiple hypotheses of stock structure for western North Pacific Bryde’s whales, two hypotheses (named hypotheses 2 and 5 by the committee) were selected as plausible given available evidence and advanced to be used in implementation simulation trials [38]. The two hypotheses clearly illustrate separate possibilities regarding migratory connectivity between breeding and feeding areas. Hypothesis 2 supports strong connectivity between breeding stocks and feeding sub-areas, i.e. individuals found in each feeding sub-area are hypothesized to be members of separate breeding stocks. By contrast, hypothesis 5 allows for mixing of individuals from the two breeding stocks in the eastern portion of sub-area 1. Both hypotheses are then considered in simulation modelling variants. In 2018, final specifications for parameters in simulation models were agreed upon by the Scientific Committee, including abundance estimates for sub-areas, mixing matrices, and future sighting survey plans and whaling options [39]. Finally, to complete the Implementation Review, the Scientific Committee (most typically through inter-sessional workshops, [37]) conducts population projections under alternative RMP variants and survey plans, results of which are intended for 2019 [39]. The processes described above are reliant on data contributions and attendance at meet- ings by individual experts. While this framework has generated important results, a systematic approach to aggregating, storing and disseminating knowledge of the migratory connectivity of cetacean populations (like the one described below) could greatly aid the work of the Scientific Committee. (a)(b) hypothesis 2 180° feeding sub-area 1 sub-area 2 breeding stock 1 stock 2 hypothesis 5 165° E 180° sub-area 1 sub-area 2 feeding stock 1 stock 2 breeding (a) A Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera brydei/edeni) surfaces in waters of the Pacific Ocean. Photo credit: David Day. (b) Among multiple hypotheses of western North Pacific Bryde’s whale stock structure/migratory connectivity, two (named hypotheses 2 and 5) were selected as plausible given available evidence and advanced for evaluation in simulation modelling by the IWC’s Scientific Committee (adapted from [38]). Hypothesis 2 demonstrates strong connectivity between breeding and feeding areas while hypothesis 5 allows for mixing of the two breeding stocks in the eastern portion of feeding sub-area 1. royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspb Proc. R. Soc. B 286: 20191472 and disease transmission, and provision of food [42]. A further importance for life-history stages of species’ and ‘Importance regulatory service comes from the disproportionately strong for threatened, endangered or declining species and/or habi- influence that highly migratory species, many of which are tats’) are used to describe important sites for migratory apex predators, play in structuring of ecological communities species [48]. A common justification for describing a site as [43]. As fishing, shipping and pollution increased in ABNJ meeting either criterion is the existence of an Important Bird after the 1950s [12,44], the potential for negative effects on and Biodiversity Area (IBA). IBAs are identified by BirdLife migratory species with socioeconomic or cultural significance International based on the per cent of a population using a has increased. Groups of culturally significant species, like specific site. For marine birds, IBAs usually encompass impor- salmon to the indigenous coastal communities of the Pacific tant foraging habitats and are typically located around northwest coast of North America, and sharks to Micronesian breeding grounds, or in post-breeding areas [52]. However, in cultures in the western South Pacific, have been impacted by specific cases, enough of a population may be geographically activities in ABNJ—far distant from the human communities constrained during migration to result in a portion of a that culturally value them [45]. migratory corridor also being identified as an IBA [53]. The Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) framework, led and coordi- nated by a partnership of 12 conservation organizations uses 4. Connectivity has been included in area-based a similar population threshold approach and thus may also identify portions of a migratory corridor for species in addition management approaches and governance of to seabirds, at least for those species that can easily be counted areas beyond national jurisdiction [54]. The IUCN Marine Mammal Protected Area Task Force has also developed general criteria based on expert opinion to Area-based management of migratory species in ABNJ is at a describe Important Marine Mammal Areas (IMMAs) including critical stage. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Migratory Routes (sub-criterion C (iii); [55]), that are acknowl- is concluding the first iteration of regional workshops to edged at an intergovernmental level (UNEP/CMS Resolution describe Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas 12.13)). (EBSA) [25,46,47] many of which are based on the distribution of migratory species [48]. The CBD’s EBSA process encouraged the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organ- (b) Network design criteria ization (UNESCO) to consider expanding its purview to Connectivity as a concept is often included in criteria for the identify World Heritage Sites in ABNJ [49]. Global fisheries development of networks of marine protected areas, most fre- and deep-sea mining authorities are continuing to develop quently in reference to larval connectivity (natal dispersal), and modify spatial management measures [50,51]. Three but also in reference to migratory and seascape connectivity. Regional Seas Organizations have implemented marine pro- For example, connectivity is not explicitly one of the site- tected areas in ABNJ pursuant to the Convention for the selection criteria for EBSAs, but is one of five criteria in the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal CBD’s scientific guidance for selecting areas to establish a Region of the Mediterranean 1995 (Barcelona Convention); representative network of marine protected areas (CBD the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Decision IX/20 Annex II). As a network criterion, connec- Living Resources 1980 (CCAMLR) and the Convention for tivity has been used operationally to assess the ecological the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Northeast coherence of networks of protected areas (e.g. [56,57]). Atlantic 1992 (OSPAR Convention). At least three other Regional Seas Organizations are seeking to expand their man- date to cover ABNJ. The International Whaling Commission (c) Policy recommendations (IWC) uses information on migratory connectivity to improve Beyond site-selection and network criteria, intergovernmental their understanding of cetacean stock structure for their revised organizations have also addressed the question of connectivity management process (box 1), and Regional Fisheries Manage- through decisions, resolutions and targets. For example, Aichi ment Organizations require similar information to manage fish Biodiversity Target 11 calls for 10% of coastal and marine areas stocks and mitigate bycatch. Finally, ongoing negotiations at to be conserved through, inter alia, ‘well-connected systems of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) over a treaty for the conser- protected areas’. The CMS has gone further in describing con- vation and sustainable use of biodiversity in ABNJ include nectivity and migratory connectivity by adopting resolutions discussions of a global mechanism to develop cross-sectoral on ecological networks (consolidated and updated in 2017; marine protected areas and engage in strategic environmental UNEP/CMS/Resolution 12.7) and the importance of includ- assessments (UNGA Resolution 72/249). ing migratory connectivity in conservation decisions (UNEP/ As the above policies and management regimes unfold, CMS/Resolution 12.26). Resolution 12.7 recommends making understanding of how migratory species fit into these frame- connectivity between important areas explicit. works is critical. Examples of the inclusion of migratory 4. Encourages Parties and other Range States, when identifying connectivity in policy can be divided into three categories: areas of importance to migratory terrestrial, avian and aquatic site-selection criteria, network design criteria and policy species, to take into account and make explicit by description, recommendations. schematic maps or conceptual models the relationship between those areas and other areas which may be ecologically linked to them, in physical terms, for example as connecting corridors, (a) Site-selection criteria or in other ecological terms, for example as breeding areas related to non-breeding areas, stopover sites, feeding and resting places Within area-based planning frameworks, focus is frequently (CMS 2017). placed on areas that are important to specific life-history stages of migratory species. For example, two of the CBD’s While the concept of connectivity is ubiquitous in multilateral EBSA criteria (CBD Decision IX/20 Annex I; ‘Special environmental agreements, the ‘schematic maps or conceptual royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspb Proc. R. Soc. B 286: 20191472 models’ recommended by CMS are still rare. A lack of easily species. AquaMaps provides modelled range and distribution accessible and usable [58] geospatial information prevents the maps of many migratory marine species. The State of the full consideration of migratory connectivity in area-based World’s Sea Turtles (SWOT) has compiled distribution infor- planning processes [25], and limits the ability to conduct mean- mation on the world’s seven sea turtle species from literature ingful environmental impact assessments and strategic and expert opinion. However, the spatial resolution of distri- environmental assessments. Further, these types of maps and bution and range maps in GROMS, BirdLife’s Datazone, models are necessary to achieve United Nations Sustainable the IUCN Redlist, AquaMaps and the SWOT database lack Development Goal 14 as they inform sustainable management the spatial, temporal and ecological resolution necessary to of coastal and marine ecosystems (14.2), underpin fisheries inform the development of specific area-based management models required to end overfishing (14.4), support develop- measures, and they do not contain information on migration ment of area-based management tools (14.5), provide pathways or migratory connectivity. economic benefit to Small Island Developing States that depend on migratory species (14.7), and increase scientific (b) Electronic tracking data knowledge, capacity development and technology transfer The most readily accessible information for directly informing (14.A). Mainstreaming marine biodiversity into the United area-based management (e.g. animal location data provided by Nations Sustainable Development Goals will require inte- acoustic and satellite telemetry and other types of electronic gration of migratory connectivity information and its animal tracking devices) rest in data repositories, e.g. the application to ‘other effective conservation measures’ such as United States’ Animal Telemetry Network, Australia’sInte- sectoral ‘in-situ’ efforts to conserve biodiversity [59]. grated Marine Observing System Animal Tracking Database, Access to baseline information on migratory connectivity BirdLife International’s Seabird Tracking Database, OBIS- in the ocean will become even more important for the devel- SEAMAP, the Ocean Tracking Network, Movebank or the satel- opment of area-based management tools and conservation lite tracking and analysis tool of seaturtle.org (see the electronic planning under future climate change scenarios. Species supplementary material, Appendix S3). However, for most that migrate between breeding and feeding habitats can be decision-making purposes, a substantial amount of work is strongly affected by climate change. For example, climate required to make practical use of tracking data. Considerations change could easily disrupt cross-environment correlations including deployment location, sample size, location error and that make migration routes and timing adaptive to environ- representativeness of life-history stages, sexes, populations and mental cues [60], potentially altering connectivity patterns speciesneedtobeassessedand treatedappropriately prior to and in turn, the effectiveness of protected areas. Johnson use which requires analytical expertise and time [20]. The need et al. [61] considered the interaction of climate change on to process and analyse tracking data prior to including them EBSAs and existing area-based management tools in the within decision-making frameworks has limited their use to North Atlantic Ocean, concluding that altered patterns of date in existing area-based planning and management processes. connectivity related to climate change can be expected to influence the effectiveness of marine protected areas. Devel- oping baselines now and monitoring changes in migratory (c) Derived products focusing on important sites connectivity through time will be critical to plan for future Taxa-specific and/or regional efforts to summarize infor- changes. mation pertaining to migratory connectivity have been The parties to the CMS recognized this need (i.e. to aggre- published (e.g. [64]), but have rarely been developed into gate and synthesize information on migratory connectivity) open-access knowledge systems for use by marine spatial plan- and in 2017 encouraged ‘support for the enhancement of the ning processes. BirdLife International provides synthesized databases… [and] targeted joint analyses of animal movements telemetry data products to management and policy arenas and other factors using these databases in an integrated way via its identification of marine IBAs. The existence of a freely across the marine and terrestrial realms so as to improve under- accessible database of IBAs has resulted in stronger uptake standing of the biological basis of migratory species and application of this information in the CBD’s regional connectivity’ (UNEP/CMS/Resolution 12.26). Below, we con- EBSA workshops compared to other taxonomic groups that sider in more depth what databases and information are do not have such knowledge summarized and available [25]. currently available. Analogous efforts for marine mammals (IMMAs, [65]), sea tur- tles (SWOT’s Global Sea Turtle Tracking Initiative), sharks (e.g. the Global Shark Movement Project; [66]) and across 5. What information on marine migratory taxa (e.g. the Marine Megafauna Movement Analytical Pro- gram (MMMAP); [21]) share a similar vision. connectivity is available to policy-makers and managers? 6. The Migratory Connectivity in the Ocean (a) Species distribution Products with spatial information on species distribution are system combines efforts to move from data to currently available (electronic supplementary material, Appen- usable knowledge dix S3). The Global Register of Migratory Species (GROMS) summarized the state of knowledge on the distribution of The efforts described above provide critical services as data and migratory species globally [62,63]. GROMS is a relational data- information brokers, but none provide usable geospatial knowl- base containing distribution data for 2880 (terrestrial and edge on migratory connectivity to management and policy marine) vertebrate migratory animals, last updated in 2004. arenas. The many intergovernmental management and policy IUCN and BirdLife International both provide range maps of processes we reviewed above seek to use information about royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspb Proc. R. Soc. B 286: 20191472 limited research to policy track data collection data processing analysis publish paper International Ocean Governance knowledge transfer gap policy recommendations individual management measures contributors national reporting and planning data repositories MiCO bridging the gap with a policy-focused synthesis usable data connectivity literature bridging consortium knowledge contributions synthesis review steering committee � online exploratory mapping interface by species, � electronic tracking synthesis of developers country, contributor or guided story lines � mark-recapture available published contributors � downloadable connectivity products (corridors, � stable isotope information funders nodes, networks) � genetics � exported reports for user-driven queries with � acoustic monitoring data summaries, contributor acknowledgments, and references Figure 1. MiCO bridges a knowledge communications gap between researchers and policy fora. The typical flow of knowledge from data collection to scientific publication limits access to that knowledge and is dependent on participation by each individual researcher in all relevant policy processes. Bridging consortia like MiCO provide mechanisms to increase access to knowledge, ensure that it is provided in a usable format, and allow contributors to track the impact of their work. migratory species, suggesting that an evidence-base of accessi- advisory panels populated with leading researchers from aca- ble, easily interpreted and synthesized knowledge on the topic demia, government agencies and data repositories and (ii) a could have a large policy impact. However, there are obstacles policy advisory panel including staff from CMS (and its to effective knowledge transfer between scientists and policy- family of instruments), CBD, UNESCO, OBIS, IUCN, the makers, including ‘differences between researchers and Sargasso Sea Commission and NGOs. policy-makers in their cultures, time-frames, reward structures, MiCO integrates information across data types by aggregat- and motivations’, and the need for better mechanisms ing and synthesizing available information about migratory ‘to ensure uptake of research that is intended to be policy-rel- connectivity through a comprehensive literature review, aggre- evant’ [67]. In response to this need, a consortium of data gating existing data and synthetic products from contributors, repositories, national observing systems, taxa conservation and creating new synthetic products to serve policy processes. groups, museums, environmental non-governmental organiz- Six types of data can be used to derive products to help ations (NGOs), universities, individuals, intergovernmental describe migratory connectivity: electronic tracking data, organizations and UN bodies, many of which initiated pro- capture–mark–recapture, observations including visual cesses and created tools described in this paper above, have surveys, data on stable isotope ratios, population genetics now developed a global open-access online system providing and passive acoustic monitoring. Each of the methodologies usable knowledge about migratory connectivity in the ocean has unique characteristics, provides information at different (MiCO: www.mico.eco). The MiCO consortium designed the spatial and temporal scales, and may be better suited for system to be a bridge between individuals/organizations gen- species with different traits. To serve as an evidence-base for erating data or products that describe migratory connectivity available scientific information on the migratory connectivity and policy fora or management organizations engaged in of marine species, the systematic literature review reduces marine resource management, conservation, spatial planning biases by: (i) the transparent development of a list of migratory and environmental assessment processes (figure 1). megavertebrate species to be included (described above and in To impact and support global ocean policy efforts, the evi- the electronic supplementary material, Appendix S2); (ii) vet- dence-base that MiCO is creating: (i) provides additional ting this list with species experts (many of the co-authors of value to both data/product contributors, and policy-makers this paper); (iii) creating and testing taxa-specific search strings and managers; (ii) complements the strengths of existing data for sensitivity in results returned; (iv) conducting the searches repositories and research programmes globally; (iii) integrates over a short period to avoid biases in literature availability; and information across data types, primary scientific literature, tra- (v) ensuring an exhaustive search by conducting searches on ditional knowledge and expert opinion; (iv) facilitates the two separate large, multi-disciplinary indexing and citation delivery of those products to management organizations and databases (Web of Science and SCOPUS), as well as a separate policy processes in a transparent manner with explicit acknowl- manual searches on an un-indexed and highly relevant journal edgement of contributors; and, (v) is easily accessible, freely (Animal Biotelemetry). While our search was systematic and available and updated on time-scales relevant to policy and exhaustive for English-language literature, broadening the management requirements. To ensure that the system provides evidence-base to include non-English sources is a future goal. value to both contributors and users, advisory panels were The initial focus of MiCO analyses has been the development developed including: (i) strategic (longer-term goal setting) of products from this literature review and from electronic and technical (frequent input on methods and implementation) tracking data, provided either directly by data holders or royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspb Proc. R. Soc. B 286: 20191472 through literature review, with the intent to add additional and global indicators, would see the system transferred to an data types in the future to underpin network diagrams illus- intergovernmental organization with a budget for structural trating directionality and strength of connectivity among support of the system. The history of OBIS presents a direct use areas. analogue for this life cycle, beginning as a programme of the To facilitate delivery of migratory connectivity knowledge Census of Marine Life and then was transferred to within to policy and management arenas, a prototype system (www. UNESCO-IOC [69]. mico.eco/system) was developed to provide a basis for contri- MiCO seeks to build on its strong foundation and invites butors and policy-makers to offer feedback on methods and engagement from additional stakeholders to inform its contin- usability. The system was launched in April 2019 at the ued development and enhancement to best serve both users second UN Intergovernmental Conference on a new inter- and contributors. Strong forward momentum in global ocean national treaty for the conservation and sustainable use of governance will soon result in major policy changes for the marine biological diversity of ABNJ. The prototype includes ocean with many management implications for migratory a set of 38 standardized area-use models describing general marine species. By integrating and scaling up the information and core-use areas for a given population/species by activity gained through the tens of thousands of scientific papers (e.g. breeding, migrating, non-breeding, ranging, etc.; see about migratory species into knowledge that is relevant and www.mico.eco/methods for detail) for 357 animals from usable in this new era of ocean policy, we hope to make a seven species across 55 EEZs. To provide this knowledge in step-change in evidence-based policy to conserve migratory as transparent a manner as possible, metadata describing data- marine species. sets, animals, activity and (if known) population, sex, age class and data density are graphically presented by month and year Data accessibility. All products from the Migratory Connectivity in the for each area or population/species. System users can view Ocean (MiCO) system are freely available online at mico.eco/system. summaries of area use by species, by a country’s EEZ or relative Authors’ contributions. D.C.D., A.-L.H. and C.C. conceived and led the writing on the manuscript. D.C.D. and C.C. conceived and led the to ABNJ, and review summaries of data contributed per provi- MiCO system and the consortium of partners. S.D., E.H., C.Y.K., der, with associated references created from the data. An S.P., M.W., A.H.P., G.O.C., A.A., H.B. and P.N.H. analysed data, interactive mapper allows detailed geographical exploration, reviewed literature and contributed to writing the manuscript. E.F., examination and overlays of animal use areas filtered by any B.D., C.C. and D.C.D. led development of the MiCO system with con- combination of available metadata. Species range maps, tributions from A.-L.H., S.D., E.H., C.Y.K., S.P., J.C. and A.-L.H., P.N.H. W.A., H.B., L.B., B.B., A.B., J.B., P.C., D.P.C., T.E.D., M.D.,. when available, are layered under use areas to describe the F.D., F.F., D.F., H.F.-N., C.B.F., K.M.G., L.G., B.J.G., V.G., G.C.H., degree of coverage of MiCO products. C.H., J.J., D.E.J., S.M.M., G.N.d.S., D.M.P., A.P., M.R., A.F.R., E.R.S., These MiCO products, metadata from the literature review D.S., A.M.M.S., M.S., F.S., S.V.P., B.W., M.V., H.W. and B.W. partici- and cases studies have already informed the work of three pated in advisory activities in the development of the MiCO system regional seas organizations (Nairobi Convention, Abidjan and contributed to the paper. S.Å., J.M.A., P.C., D.C., M.C., M.D., A.F., A.S.F., B.J.G., J.G.-S., J.P.G., Y.H., L.M.H., C.M., M.M., M.R., Convention and the Comisión Permanente del Pacific Sur), A.F.R., N.V.-C. and L.W. contributed data to the MiCO system and the CMS in their development of resolution 12.26, and con- reviewed the manuscript. siderations of area-based management tools, environmental Competing interests. We declare we have no competing interests. impact assessments and capacity building and technology Funding. This paper was supported through a grant to the Global transfer in the negotiations for a new treaty for marine biodi- Ocean Biodiversity Initiative (GOBI) from the International Climate versity in ABNJ. A key component of the system is its ability Initiative (IKI). The German Federal Ministry for the Environment, to track how contributor data have been used in these Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) supports this initiat- ive on the basis of a decision adopted by the German Bundestag. arenas, providing individual researchers the ability to assess A.-L.-H. was supported by funding from the ConocoPhillips and report their impact on management and policy fora. Charitable Investments Global Signature Program to the Migratory This provides incentive for researchers to contribute data to Connectivity Project. A.M.M.S. was supported by an ARC grant policy processes and measure their impact by doing so, no. DE170100841. Funding for P.C. was also provided by FCT, while at the same time, the system protects raw data that Portugal through grant nos. PTDC/BIA-ANM/3743/2014 and MARE-UID/MAR/04292/2019. may not yet be available for public sharing by disseminating Acknowledgements. We would like to thank everyone who has contributed only synthesized products. to MiCO including A. Al Kiyumi, J. Bermejo, A. Broderick, P. Doherty, Support for the system’s development and for outreach to L. F. López-Jurado, A. Machado, N. Papathanasopoulou, S. Pikesley intergovernmental organizations has come from a national and M. Witt. We thank the editor for guidance and R. Waples and an government (the International Climate Initiative of the anonymous reviewer for highly constructive reviews which resulted German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conser- in a stronger paper. vation and Nuclear Safety via the Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative [68]), and from two components of the Global Environment Facility’s Sustainable Fisheries Management Endnote and Biodiversity Conservation of Deep-sea Living Marine Resources and Ecosystems in the ABNJ project. Future support In marine ecology, larval connectivity/dispersal from spawning to settlement site is a form of natal dispersal, while the term marine for the system is likely to come in two phases. The first phase, population connectivity refers to the exchange of individuals dedicated to development of a data-rich system with greater among geographically separated breeding subpopulations (i.e. in a functionality, will probably come from similar sources via permanent rather than periodic/migratory sense to subsequently grants to academic institutions. The second phase, focused on influence population genetics, rates of immigration into populations maintenance and better tailoring to support national reporting and spread of invasive species) [33]. royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspb Proc. R. Soc. B 286: 20191472 References 1. Hussey NE et al. 2015 Aquatic animal telemetry: a 16. Anderson C, Branch TA, Alagiyawadu A, Baldwin R, again: migration in freshwater fishes. Can. J. Zool. panoramic window into the underwater world. Marsac F. 2012 Seasonal distribution, movements 92, 467–479. (doi:10.1139/cjz-2012-0277) Science 348, 1255642. (doi:10.1126/science.1255642) and taxonomic status of blue whales (Balaenoptera 32. Lascelles B et al. 2014 Migratory marine species: 2. Webster MS, Marra PP, Haig SM, Bensch S, Holmes musculus) in the northern Indian Ocean. J. Cetacean their status, threats and conservation management RT. 2002 Links between worlds: unraveling Resour. Manag. 12, 203–218. needs. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 24, migratory connectivity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17,76–83. 17. IUCN. 2017 The IUCN Red list of threatened species. 111–127. (doi:10.1002/aqc.2512) (doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02380-1) Version 2017-3. Cambridge, UK: IUCN. (cited 6 April 33. Pineda J, Hare J, Sponaugle S. 2007 Larval transport 3. Block BA et al. 2011 Tracking apex marine predator 2016). and dispersal in the coastal ocean and movements in a dynamic ocean. Nature 475, 18. Fowler S. 2014 The conservation status of migratory consequences for population connectivity. 86–90. (doi:10.1038/nature10082) sharks. Bonn, Germany: UNEP/CMS Secretariat. Oceanography 20,22–39. (doi:10.5670/oceanog. 4. Weimerskirch H, Delord K, Guitteaud A, Phillips RA, Pinet 19. FAO. 2014 The state of world fisheries and 2007.27) P. 2015 Extreme variation in migration strategies aquaculture 2014. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture 34. Maxwell SM, Hazen EL, Bograd SJ, Halpern BS, between and within wandering albatross populations Organization of the United Nations. Breed GA, Nickel B, Al E. 2013 Cumulative human during their sabbatical year, and their fitness 20. Ogburn MB, Harrison A-L, Whoriskey FG, Cooke SJ, impacts on marine predators. Nat. Commun. 4, consequences. Sci. Rep. 5,1–7. (doi:10.1038/srep08853) Mills Flemming JE, Torres LG. 2017 Addressing 2688. (doi:10.1038/ncomms3688) 5. Egevang C, Stenhouse IJ, Phillips RA, Petersen A, challenges in the application of animal movement 35. Marra PP, Norris RD, Haig SM, Webster M, Royle AJ. Fox JW, Silk JRD. 2010 Tracking of Arctic terns ecology to aquatic conservation and management. 2006 Migratory connectivity. In Connectivity Sterna paradisaea reveals longest animal migration. Front. Mar. Sci. 4,1–7. (doi:10.3389/fmars.2017. conservation (ed. KCM Sanjayan), pp. 157–183. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 2078–2081. (doi:10. 00070) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 1073/pnas.0909493107) 21. Sequeira AMM et al. 2018 Convergence of marine 36. Punt AE, Butterworth DS, de Moor CL, De Oliveira 6. Costa DP, Breed GA, Robinson PW. 2012 New megafauna movement patterns in coastal and open JAA, Haddon M. 2016 Management strategy insights into pelagic migrations: implications for oceans. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 3072–3077. evaluation: Best practices. Fish Fish. 17, 303–334. ecology and conservation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1716137115) (doi:10.1111/faf.12104) Syst. 43,73–96. (doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys- 22. Hays GC et al. 2016 Key questions in marine 37. Punt AE, Donovan GP. 2007 Developing 102710-145045) megafauna movement ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. management procedures that are robust to 7. Secor DH. 2015 Migration ecology of marine fishes. 31, 463–475. (doi:10.1016/j.tree.2016.02.015) uncertainty: lessons from the International Whaling Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. 23. Jeffers VF, Godley BJ. 2016 Satellite tracking in sea Commission. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 64, 603–612. (doi:10. 8. Horton TW et al. 2017 Route fidelity during marine turtles: how do we find our way to the conservation 1093/icesjms/fsm035) megafauna migration. Front. Mar. Sci. 4,1–21. dividends? Biol. Conserv. 199, 172–184. (doi:10. 38. IWC (International Whaling Commission). 2018 (doi:10.3389/fmars.2017.00422) 1016/j.biocon.2016.04.032) Report of the Scientific Committee 2017. J. Cetacean 9. Liu J et al. 2015 Systems integration for global 24. Hays G et al. 2019 Translating marine animal Res. Manag. 19,1–97. sustainability. Science 347, 1258832. (doi:10.1126/ tracking data into conservation policy and 39. IWC (International Whaling Commission). 2019 science.1258832) management. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 459–473. Report of the Scientific Committee 2018. J. Cetacean 10. Halpern BS et al. 2008 A global map of human (doi:10.1016/j.tree.2019.01.009) Res. Manag. 20,1–78. impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319, 25. Bax NJ, Cleary J, Donnelly B, Dunn DC, Dunstan PK, 40. Costa DP, Hückstädt LA, Schwarz LK, Friedlaender 948–952. (doi:10.1126/science.1149345) Fuller M, Halpin PN. 2016 Results of efforts by the AS, Mate BR, Zerbini AN, Kennedy A, Gales NJ. 2016 11. Harrison A-L et al. 2018 The political biogeography Convention on Biological Diversity to describe Assessing the exposure of animals to acoustic of migratory marine predators. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, ecologically or biologically significant marine areas. disturbance: towards an understanding of the 1571–1578. (doi:10.1038/s41559-018-0646-8) Conserv. Biol. 30, 571–581. (doi:10.1111/cobi. population consequences of disturbance. Proc. Meet. 12. Merrie A et al. 2014 An ocean of surprises – trends 12649) Acoust. 27,1–14. (doi:10.1121/2.0000298) in human use, unexpected dynamics and 26. Dingle H, Drake A. 2007 What is migration? 41. Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) 2006 Connectivity governance challenges in areas beyond national Bioscience 57, 113–121. (doi:10.1641/B570206) conservation, Vol. 14. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge jurisdiction. Glob. Environ. Chang. 27,19–31. 27. Bauer S, Klaassen M. 2013 Mechanistic models of University Press. (doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.012) animal migration behaviour: their diversity, 42. López-Hoffman L, Chester CC, Semmens DJ, 13. Ban NC et al. 2014 Systematic conservation structure and use. J. Anim. Ecol. 82, 498–508. Thogmartin WE, Rodríguez-McGoffin MS, Merideth planning: a better recipe for managing the (doi:10.1111/1365-2656.12054) R, Diffendorfer JE. 2017 Ecosystem services from high seas for biodiversity conservation and 28. Begon M, Harper JL, Townsend CR. 1986 Ecology. transborder migratory species: implications for sustainable use. Conserv. Lett. 7,41–54. (doi:10. Individuals, populations and communities. Oxford, conservation governance. Annu. Rev. Environ. 1111/conl.12010) UK: Blackwell Scientific Publications. Resour. 42, 509–539. (doi:10.1146/annurev- 14. Gjerde KM, Dotinga H, Hart S, Molenaar EJ, Rayfuse 29. Wiens JA. 1997 3 - Metapopulation dynamics environ-110615-090119) R, Warner R. 2008 Regulatory and governance gaps and landscape ecology. In Metapopulation biology 43. Ferretti F, Worm B, Britten GL, Heithaus MR, in the international regime for the conservation and (eds I Hanski, MB Gilpin), pp. 43–62. San Diego, Lotze HK. 2010 Patterns and ecosystem sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas CA: Academic Press. consequences of shark declines in the ocean. Ecol. beyond national jurisdiction. Gland, Switzerland: 30. Metcalfe JD, Arnold GP, McDowall PW. 2002 Lett. 13, 1055–1071. (doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248. IUCN. See https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/ Migration. In Handbook of fish biology and fisheries, 2010.01489.x) library/files/documents/EPLP-MS-1.pdf. vol. 1 (eds PJB Hart, JD Reynolds), pp. 175–199. 44. Swartz W, Sala E, Tracey S, Watson R, Pauly D. 2010 15. Robertson G, Gales R (eds). 1998 Albatross biology Oxford, UK: Blackwell Scientific. The spatial expansion and ecological footprint of and conservation. Chipping Norton, Australia: Surrey 31. Brönmark C, Hulthén K, Nilsson PA, Skov C, Hansson fisheries (1950 to present). PLoS ONE 5, e15143. Beatty & Sons. L-A, Brodersen J, Chapman BB. 2013 There and back (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015143) royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspb Proc. R. Soc. B 286: 20191472 45. Vierros M et al. In press. Considering indigenous 54. IUCN. 2016 A global standard for the identification 62. Riede K. 2001 The global register of migratory peoples and local communities in governance of the of key biodiversity areas, version 1.0, 1st edn. Gland, species (GROMS): present status and perspectives. In global ocean commons. Mar. Pol. Switzerland: International Union for the New perspectives for monitoring migratory animals 46. Dunn DC et al. 2014 The Convention on Biological Conservation of Nature. – improving knowledge for conservation (ed. K Diversity’s ecologically or biologically significant 55. Hoyt E, Notarbartolo di Sciara G. 2014 Report of the Riede), pp. 33–42. Münster, Germany: Landwirt- areas: origins, development, and current status. workshop for the development of Important Marine schafts-Verlag. Mar. Policy 49, 137–145. (doi:10.1016/j.marpol. Mammal Area (IMMA) Criteria, Marseille, France, 63. Riede K. 2004 The global register of migratory 2013.12.002) 22 October 2013. species: first results of global GIS analysis. In 47. Johnson DE, Barrio Froján C, Turner PJ, Weaver P, 56. Johnson D, Ardron J, Billett D, Hooper T, Mullier T, Biological resources and migration (ed. D Werner), Gunn V, Dunn DC, Halpin P, Bax NJ, Dunstan PK. Chaniotis P, Ponge B, Corcoran E. 2014 When is a pp. 211–218. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. 2018 Reviewing the EBSA process: improving on marine protected area network ecologically 64. Fossette S et al. 2014 Pan-Atlantic analysis of the success. Mar. Policy 88,75–85. (doi:10.1016/J. coherent? A case study from the North-east Atlantic. overlap of a highly migratory species, the MARPOL.2017.11.014) Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 24,44–58. leatherback turtle, with pelagic longline fisheries. 48. Kot CY, Halpin P, Cleary J, Dunn DC. 2014 A review (doi:10.1002/aqc.2510) Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20133065. (doi:10.1098/rspb. of marine migratory species and the information 57. HELCOM. 2010 Towards an ecologically coherent 2013.3065) used to describe ecologically or biologically network of well-managed Marine Protected Areas. 65. Notarbartolo di Sciara G, Hoyt E, Reeves R, Ardron J, significant areas (EBSAs). UNEP/CMS/COP11/Inf.23. Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. No. 124A. See http://www. Marsh H, Vongraven D, Barr B. 2016 Place-based 49. Freestone D, Laffoley D, Douvere F, Badman T. 2016 helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/BSEP124A.pdf. approaches to marine mammal conservation. Aquat. World heritage in the high seas: an idea whose time 58. Nguyen VM, Young N, Corriveau M, Hinch SG, Cooke Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26,85–100. (doi:10. has come. Paris: UN Education, Scientific and SJ. 2018 What is ‘usable’ knowledge? Perceived 1002/aqc.2642) Cultural Organization. barriers for integrating new knowledge into 66. Queiroz N et al. 2016 Ocean-wide tracking of 50. Dunn DC et al. 2018 A strategy for the conservation management of an iconic Canadian fishery. pelagic sharks reveals extent of overlap with of biodiversity on mid-ocean ridges from deep-sea Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 76, 463–474. (doi:10.1139/ longline fishing hotspots. Proc. Natl Acad. mining. Sci. Adv. 4, eaar4313. (doi:10.1038/ cjfas-2017-0305) Sci. USA 113, 1582–1587. (doi:10.1073/pnas. 161747b0) 59. Diz D, Johnson D, Riddell M, Rees S, Battle J, Gjerde 1510090113) 51. Wedding LM, Friedlander AM, Kittinger JN, Watling K, Hennige S, Roberts JM. 2018 Mainstreaming 67. Holmes J, Clark R. 2008 Enhancing the use of L, Gaines SD, Bennett M, Hardy SM, Smith CR. 2013 marine biodiversity into the SDGs: the role of other science in environmental policy-making and From principles to practice: a spatial approach to effective area-based conservation measures (SDG regulation. Environ. Sci. Policy 11, 702–711. (doi:10. systematic conservation planning in the deep sea. 14.5). Mar. Policy 93, 251–261. (doi:10.1016/j. 1016/j.envsci.2008.08.004) Proc. R. Soc. B 280, 20131684. (doi:10.1098/rspb. marpol.2017.08.019) 68. Johnson D et al. In press. The Global Ocean 2013.1684) 60. Reed TE, Robin SW, Schindler DE, Hard JJ, Kinnison Biodiversity Initiative: promoting scientific support 52. Donald PF et al. 2018 Important Bird and MT. 2010 Phenotypic plasticity and population for global ocean governance. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Biodiversity Areas (IBAs): the development and viability: The importance of environmental Freshw. Ecosyst. (doi:10.1002/aqc.3024) characteristics of a global inventory of key sites for predictability. Proc. R. Soc. B 277, 3391–3400. 69. Vanden BE, Halpin PN, Lang da Silveira F, biodiversity. Bird Conserv. Int. 29, 177–198. (doi:10. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.0771) Stocks K, Grassle F. 2011 Integrating biological 1017/S0959270918000102) 61. Johnson D, Ferreira MA, Kenchington E. 2018 data into ocean observing systems: the future 53. BirdLife International. 2010 Marine Important Bird Climate change is likely to severely limit the role of OBIS. In Proc. Ocean Obs’09: Sustained Ocean Areas toolkit: standardised techniques for effectiveness of deep-sea ABMTs in the North Obs. Info. for Society, vol. 2 (eds J Hall, DE Harrison, identifying priority sites for the conservation of Atlantic. Mar. Policy 87, 111–122. (doi:10.1016/j. D Stammer), pp. 987–990. ESA Publication seabirds at sea. version 1. marpol.2017.09.034) WPP-306. (doi:10.5270/oceanobs09.cwp.91) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences Pubmed Central

Loading next page...
 
/lp/pubmed-central/the-importance-of-migratory-connectivity-for-global-ocean-policy-9x8NazceWa

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Pubmed Central
Copyright
© 2019 The Authors.
ISSN
0962-8452
eISSN
1471-2954
DOI
10.1098/rspb.2019.1472
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The importance of migratory connectivity for global ocean policy royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspb 1,2,†, 3,† 1 1 Daniel C. Dunn , Autumn-Lynn Harrison , Corrie Curtice , Sarah DeLand , 1 1 1 1 1 Ben Donnelly , Ei Fujioka , Eleanor Heywood , Connie Y. Kot , Sarah Poulin , 1 4 1 5 Meredith Whitten , Susanne Åkesson , Amalia Alberini , Ward Appeltans , Evidence 6 7 8,9,35 10 synthesis José Manuel Arcos , Helen Bailey , Lisa T. Ballance , Barbara Block , 1,10 11 12 13 Hannah Blondin , Andre M. Boustany , Jorge Brenner , Paulo Catry , Cite this article: Dunn DC, Harrison A-L et al. 14 1 15 16 2019 The importance of migratory connectivity Daniel Cejudo , Jesse Cleary , Peter Corkeron , Daniel P. Costa , for global ocean policy. Proc. R. Soc. B 286: 17 1 18 Michael Coyne , Guillermo Ortuño Crespo , Tammy E. Davies , 18 19 10,20 21 Maria P. Dias , Fanny Douvere , Francesco Ferretti , Angela Formia , http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.1472 22 16 23 David Freestone , Ari S. Friedlaender , Heidrun Frisch-Nwakanma , 24 25 23 Christopher Barrio Froján , Kristina M. Gjerde , Lyle Glowka , 26 27 28 Received: 21 June 2019 Brendan J. Godley , Jacob Gonzalez-Solis , José Pedro Granadeiro , Accepted: 3 September 2019 24 29 26 30 Vikki Gunn , Yuriko Hashimoto , Lucy M. Hawkes , Graeme C. Hays , 18 31 24 32 Carolina Hazin , Jorge Jimenez , David E. Johnson , Paolo Luschi , 33 1 16 Sara M. Maxwell , Catherine McClellan , Michelle Modest , 34 1 Subject Areas: Giuseppe Notarbartolo di Sciara , Alejandro Herrero Palacio , ecology 35 23 36 26 Daniel M. Palacios , Andrea Pauly , Matt Rayner , Alan F. Rees , 21 7 37 38 Erick Ross Salazar , David Secor , Ana M. M. Sequeira , Mark Spalding , Keywords: 39 15 1,40 14 areas beyond national jurisdiction, Fernando Spina , Sofie Van Parijs , Bryan Wallace , Nuria Varo-Cruz , migratory species, marine spatial planning, 23 41 29 42 Melanie Virtue , Henri Weimerskirch , Laurie Wilson , Bill Woodward area-based management and Patrick N. Halpin Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Author for correspondence: University of Queensland, Level 5, Goddard Building (#8), St Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia Daniel C. Dunn Migratory Bird Center, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological Park, Washington, DC, USA e-mail: daniel.dunn@uq.edu.au 4 Department of Biology, Center for Animal Movement Research, Lund University, Lund, Sweden Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO, IOC Project Office for IODE, Oostende, Belgium SEO/BirdLife, Marine Programme, Barcelona, Spain Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Solomons, MD, USA Southwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries, La Jolla, CA, USA Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA, USA Hopkins Marine Station of Stanford University, Pacific Grove, CA, USA Monterrey Bay Aquarium, Monterey, CA, USA The Nature Conservancy, Houston, TX, USA MARE-Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, ISPA Instituto Universitário, Lisboa, Portugal Biology Department of the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas, Spain Protected Species Branch, NOAA Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA, USA Dept of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA seaturtle.org BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK These authors contributed equally to this UNESCO World Heritage Convention, Paris, France study. Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation, College of Natural Resources and Environment, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA Electronic supplementary material is available Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, NY, USA; Bata, Equatorial Guinea and Libreville, Gabon online at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare. c.4658792. © 2019 The Authors. Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited. royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspb Proc. R. Soc. B 286: 20191472 Sargasso Sea Commission, Washington, DC, USA 1. Introduction Secretariat of the Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals, Bonn, Germany and Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Innovations inanimal tracking technologyare changingtheway GOBI Secretariat, Seascape Consultants Ltd, Romsey, UK we think about how the world’s oceans are connected [1] and IUCN Global Marine and Polar Programme and World Commission on Protected about the migratory connectivity of populations and species Areas, Cambridge, MA, USA [2]. Recent research has revealed basin-scale oceanic migrations Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Cornwall Campus, of sea turtles, marine mammals, seabirds and fishes [3], as well Penryn, UK 27 as circumpolar [4] and pole-to-pole [5] migrations by seabirds. University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain The accumulation of information about marine migratory CESAM, Faculdade de Ciencias da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal species has been swift and massive [1]. Since 1990, over 40 000 Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Pacific Wildlife scientific papers have been published about migratory marine Research Centre, British Columbia, Canada Centre for Integrative Ecology, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia species (electronic supplementary material, appendix S1 for Marviva, San José, Costa Rica the literature search string). Common findings from this litera- University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy ture highlight that many species range farther than previously School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, University of Washington, Bothell known (e.g. [6]), and occur predictably at specific times in Campus, Bothell, WA, USA specific places, in association with specific habitats or along pre- Tethys Research Institute and IUCN Task Force on Marine Mammal Protected Areas, dictable migratory corridors [7,8]. Milano, Italy Migratory species are increasingly exposed to the effects of a Marine Mammal Institute and Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State globalizing world [9], as illustrated by the spreading footprint of University, Newport, OR, USA cumulative human impacts inthe oceans[10].The migrationpat- Auckland War Memorial Museum, Auckland, New Zealand terns and movements of manyspecies span both national waters UWA Oceans Institute and School of Biological Sciences, Indian Ocean Marine (i.e. within Exclusive Economic Zones; EEZs) and areas beyond Research Centre, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia national jurisdiction (ABNJ). A significant portion of many Ocean Foundation, Washington, DC, USA species’ life histories are spent in the 64% of the world’s oceans ISPRA—Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale, Ozzano that lie outside national jurisdiction [11], an environment with dell’Emilia, Italy growing human encroachment and fragmented and incomplete Ecolibrium, Inc, Boulder, CO, USA governance structures [12–14]. In this context, migratory species Centre d’Etudes Biologiques de Chizé, CNRS, Villiers en Bois, France management is a complex process, often including soft law U.S. Animal Telemetry Network, NOAA/IOOS, Silver Spring, MD, USA (international statements, declarations and commitments that DCD, 0000-0001-8932-0681; A-LH, 0000-0002-6213-1765; are not legally binding but that do carry moral significance, CC, 0000-0003-1459-4420; SÅ, 0000-0001-9039-2180; PC, 0000-0003-1553-1253; such as United Nations resolutions including the Sustainable BJG, 0000-0003-3845-0034; GCH, 0000-0002-3314-8189; Development Goals), hard law (international legally binding DMP, 0000-0001-7069-7913; LW, 0000-0002-1972-1196 agreements such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the Convention on the Inter- national Trade of Endangered Species), and multi-national The distributions of migratory species in the ocean span consensus-based management organizations (such as the Inter- local, national and international jurisdictions. Across these national Maritime Organization for shipping and regional ecologically interconnected regions, migratory marine fisheries management organizations for fisheries). Limitations species interact with anthropogenic stressors throughout to effective management include geographical and taxonomic their lives. Migratory connectivity, the geographical gaps in governance, lack of cross-sectoral conservation tools linking of individuals and populations throughout their and limited implementation of ecosystem-based approaches migratory cycles, influences how spatial and temporal to management [13], as well as conservation strategies that dynamics of stressors affect migratory animals and scale focus on individual stages of a species migratory cycle with up to influence population abundance, distribution and little consideration of population connectivity [15,16]. These species persistence. Population declines of many migratory limitations have hindered the development of effective manage- marine species have led to calls for connectivity knowledge, ment strategies for migratory species, many of which are especially insights from animal tracking studies, to be considered at risk and in need of improved management: 95% more systematically and synthetically incorporated into of albatross (21 of 22 species; International Union for Conserva- decision-making. Inclusion of migratory connectivity in tion of Nature (IUCN) [17]), 87% of assessed migratory sharks the design of conservation and management measures is species [18], and 63% of assessed sea turtle subpopulations critical to ensure they are appropriate for the level of risk (10 of 16 subpopulations; IUCN [17]) are listed as Near Threa- associated with various degrees of connectivity. Three tened or Threatened (i.e. Vulnerable, Endangered or Critically mechanisms exist to incorporate migratory connectivity Endangered) by the IUCN due primarily to indirect capture into international marine policy which guides conservation in marine fisheries (bycatch), direct harvest, predation by inva- implementation: site-selection criteria, network design sive species, or loss or degradation of habitat. Similarly, criteria and policy recommendations. Here, we review straddling (those shared between two or more jurisdictions) the concept of migratory connectivity and its use in inter- and highly migratory fish stocks experience twice the rate of national policy, and describe the Migratory Connectivity in overfishing as those within a single national jurisdiction [19]. the Ocean system, a migratory connectivity evidence-base In response to population declines of migratory species, for the ocean. We propose that without such collaboration there has been a general call for knowledge generated from focused on migratory connectivity, efforts to effectively animal movement data to be more effectively incorporated conserve these critical species across jurisdictions will have into management and policy frameworks (e.g. [20]). However, limited effect. while the quantity of data on marine migratory species has royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspb Proc. R. Soc. B 286: 20191472 increased dramatically in recent decades [21], efforts to syn- angustirostris, southern elephant seals, Mirounga leonina and thesize and integrate information on animal movement and many shearwater species, electronic supplementary material, connectivity into global management and policy fora are nas- appendix S2). To underpin an evidence-base on migratory con- cent with examples largely originating from individual efforts nectivity, we developed a list of migratory megavertebrate [22–24]. Current mechanisms to enable discovery and access species from multiple sources including Lascelles et al. [32] to data (e.g. data or metadata repositories) are insufficient by (n = 829), Fowler [18] (n = 94), fish species managed by Regional themselves to support global intergovernmental efforts to con- Fisheries Management Organizations (n = 40), seabirds of the serve and manage migratory species because capacity and U.S. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (n = 171) and BirdLife Inter- resources for policy-makers and managers to synthesize raw national (n = 280). After removing duplicates, the initial set of dataare extremely limited [25].Inthispaper, we review concepts species to be included in our synthesis includes 439 fish, 346 of migratory connectivity as they relate to the conservation and seabird, 99 marine mammal and seven sea turtle species. The sustainable use of biodiversity in the oceans, with a focus on list was reviewed by taxa experts and updates to some scientific ABNJ. We provide the current status of effortsto include connec- names were made based on these recommendations. tivity in management and governance approaches, and we In this paper, we focus on synthesizing knowledge about review the information currently available to policy-makers migratory fishes, marine mammals, seabirds, sharks and sea tur- and managers. Finally, we describe an approach that is support- tles (electronic supplementary material, appendix S2), because ing governance and management of transboundary species by these are the taxonomic groups included in the broadest policy aggregating, synthesizing and disseminating new knowledge definition represented by the CMS definition. However, we on migratory connectivity in the ocean. acknowledge that other marine taxa are migratory species by biological definitions and their omission from policy definitions may be detrimental to their management. Bridging the gap between science and policy definitions of migratory species is a 2. Definitions of migratory species differ in first step in translating migratory connectivity knowledge into science and policy policy and we hope to support increasing knowledge about Scientifically, migratory movement is commonly defined as such species through the synthesis approach outlined below. collective, cyclical movement between separated or well- defined locations or habitats, and tends to be expressed at 3. Understanding connectivity is crucial for population or species levels [26]. These levels respectively represent the collective outcomes of individual behaviours the conservation and sustainable use of [7], and the persistent, directed movements of an individual migratory species [27]. Existing scientific definitions include: (i) mass directional movements of large numbers of a species from one location to Migratory species depend upon critical habitats for breeding another [28], (ii) broad-scale movements of populations [29], and foraging, as well as pathways connecting these habitats. (iii) movements of individuals or populations from one well- Over the course of their lives, many migratory marine species defined habitat to another, usually on temporally predictable exhibit at least one of the three forms of connectivity described and periodic basis [30,31], and (iv) collective movement of indi- by Webster et al. [2]: (i) migratory connectivity, the seasonal viduals that occurs chiefly through motivated behaviours, movements of individuals between breeding and post-breed- resulting in changed ecological status [7]. ing foraging sites; (ii) landscape/seascape connectivity, the While scientific definitions usually include some measure regional movement of individuals among habitat patches; of separation, they are commonly not restricted by the need and (iii) natal dispersal, the spread of individuals from birth to cross geopolitical boundaries as is often the case with sites to breeding sites. During their migrations, individuals established policy definitions. For example, the Convention and populations encounter a variety of stressors, from preda- on Migratory Species (CMS, Article I, 1.a) defines migratory tion and adverse weather to human impacts including species as ‘the entire population or any geographically separ- habitat destruction, direct and incidental fishing mortality, ate part of the population of any species or lower taxon of ship strikes, noise, hazardous substances and other pollutants wild animals, a significant proportion of whose members [10,34]. Migratory connectivity, the geographical linking of cyclically and predictably cross one or more national jurisdic- individuals and populations throughout their migratory tional boundaries’. This definition shares two commonalities cycles [35] (see case study in box 1), is a major factor affecting with scientific definitions by referring to collective and cycli- how stressors impact individuals at each crucial life-history cal movements, however, it specifically requires the crossing stage, and how these effects may scale up to effects on popu- of national boundaries. There are strong policy rationales lation abundance and distribution, and species persistence for this requirement in the Convention’s text. Primary prin- (for a worked example, see [40]). Understanding how a popu- ciples of the CMS are that States are the protectors of the lation is connected, how connectivity influences demographic migratory species that live within or pass through their juris- rates, and designing conservation and management measures dictions, and international cooperation of States is essential appropriate for the level of risk associated with various degrees for the conservation of migratory species. of connectivity, are all critical to the conservation and While the CMS definition itself is not explicitly limiting to sustainable use of migratory species (box 1, [41]). taxonomic grouping, in practice, all species listed on the CMS The need to maintain migratory connectivity is also critical are vertebrates with the exception of a single terrestrial invert- for sustaining human livelihoods and cultural connections. ebrate, the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus). The CMS Migratory species provide a diverse array of cultural, regu- Conference oftheParties propose and approve appendixlistings, lating and provisioning ecosystem services, including and many species, clearly migratory by scientific definitions, are contributions to aesthetic and recreational experiences, spiri- not included (for example, northern elephant seals, Mirounga tual or religious enrichment, reduction of pest infestations royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspb Proc. R. Soc. B 286: 20191472 Box 1. Use of migratory connectivity knowledge in global ocean policy, a case study from the International Whaling Commission (IWC). To evaluate effects of incidental or directed take of cetaceans with reference to a conservation and management goal, the Scientific Committee of the IWC uses a process called the Revised Management Procedure (RMP) to estimate sustainable catch limits for commercial whaling of baleen whales. The RMP is a management strategy evaluation (simulation modelling) approach [36] that accounts for abundance, catches and population structure—including how many stocks exist and how they mix across space and time—to project population estimates under management scenarios [37]. While the RMP does not explicitly include a ‘connectivity’ parameter, connectivity information is used to inform the discussion on abundance esti- mates and stock structure. The evaluation process considers available evidence on movements of individuals/populations through time/area strata, for example, between breeding and feeding areas and these estimates are carried forward through simulation trials [37]. Connectivity information is therefore critical for defining model parameters, including stock structure, and for assessing differential impacts to populations of evaluated management scenarios. Regular Implementation Reviews are required to assess available evidence for abundance estimates and stock structure [37]. Migratory movements are incorporated through many data types, including photo identity, passive acoustics, genetics and satellite telemetry. A recent example of how this works in practice is the first Implementation Review for western North Pacific Bryde’s whales (Balaenoptera brydei/edeni), initiated in 2017 [38]. Given many data gaps for spatial and genetic structure of cetacean populations, migratory connectivity between breeding and foraging areas is often uncertain or unknown and thus multiple hypotheses of spatial stock structure are typically advanced for formal evaluation. Among multiple hypotheses of stock structure for western North Pacific Bryde’s whales, two hypotheses (named hypotheses 2 and 5 by the committee) were selected as plausible given available evidence and advanced to be used in implementation simulation trials [38]. The two hypotheses clearly illustrate separate possibilities regarding migratory connectivity between breeding and feeding areas. Hypothesis 2 supports strong connectivity between breeding stocks and feeding sub-areas, i.e. individuals found in each feeding sub-area are hypothesized to be members of separate breeding stocks. By contrast, hypothesis 5 allows for mixing of individuals from the two breeding stocks in the eastern portion of sub-area 1. Both hypotheses are then considered in simulation modelling variants. In 2018, final specifications for parameters in simulation models were agreed upon by the Scientific Committee, including abundance estimates for sub-areas, mixing matrices, and future sighting survey plans and whaling options [39]. Finally, to complete the Implementation Review, the Scientific Committee (most typically through inter-sessional workshops, [37]) conducts population projections under alternative RMP variants and survey plans, results of which are intended for 2019 [39]. The processes described above are reliant on data contributions and attendance at meet- ings by individual experts. While this framework has generated important results, a systematic approach to aggregating, storing and disseminating knowledge of the migratory connectivity of cetacean populations (like the one described below) could greatly aid the work of the Scientific Committee. (a)(b) hypothesis 2 180° feeding sub-area 1 sub-area 2 breeding stock 1 stock 2 hypothesis 5 165° E 180° sub-area 1 sub-area 2 feeding stock 1 stock 2 breeding (a) A Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera brydei/edeni) surfaces in waters of the Pacific Ocean. Photo credit: David Day. (b) Among multiple hypotheses of western North Pacific Bryde’s whale stock structure/migratory connectivity, two (named hypotheses 2 and 5) were selected as plausible given available evidence and advanced for evaluation in simulation modelling by the IWC’s Scientific Committee (adapted from [38]). Hypothesis 2 demonstrates strong connectivity between breeding and feeding areas while hypothesis 5 allows for mixing of the two breeding stocks in the eastern portion of feeding sub-area 1. royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspb Proc. R. Soc. B 286: 20191472 and disease transmission, and provision of food [42]. A further importance for life-history stages of species’ and ‘Importance regulatory service comes from the disproportionately strong for threatened, endangered or declining species and/or habi- influence that highly migratory species, many of which are tats’) are used to describe important sites for migratory apex predators, play in structuring of ecological communities species [48]. A common justification for describing a site as [43]. As fishing, shipping and pollution increased in ABNJ meeting either criterion is the existence of an Important Bird after the 1950s [12,44], the potential for negative effects on and Biodiversity Area (IBA). IBAs are identified by BirdLife migratory species with socioeconomic or cultural significance International based on the per cent of a population using a has increased. Groups of culturally significant species, like specific site. For marine birds, IBAs usually encompass impor- salmon to the indigenous coastal communities of the Pacific tant foraging habitats and are typically located around northwest coast of North America, and sharks to Micronesian breeding grounds, or in post-breeding areas [52]. However, in cultures in the western South Pacific, have been impacted by specific cases, enough of a population may be geographically activities in ABNJ—far distant from the human communities constrained during migration to result in a portion of a that culturally value them [45]. migratory corridor also being identified as an IBA [53]. The Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) framework, led and coordi- nated by a partnership of 12 conservation organizations uses 4. Connectivity has been included in area-based a similar population threshold approach and thus may also identify portions of a migratory corridor for species in addition management approaches and governance of to seabirds, at least for those species that can easily be counted areas beyond national jurisdiction [54]. The IUCN Marine Mammal Protected Area Task Force has also developed general criteria based on expert opinion to Area-based management of migratory species in ABNJ is at a describe Important Marine Mammal Areas (IMMAs) including critical stage. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Migratory Routes (sub-criterion C (iii); [55]), that are acknowl- is concluding the first iteration of regional workshops to edged at an intergovernmental level (UNEP/CMS Resolution describe Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas 12.13)). (EBSA) [25,46,47] many of which are based on the distribution of migratory species [48]. The CBD’s EBSA process encouraged the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organ- (b) Network design criteria ization (UNESCO) to consider expanding its purview to Connectivity as a concept is often included in criteria for the identify World Heritage Sites in ABNJ [49]. Global fisheries development of networks of marine protected areas, most fre- and deep-sea mining authorities are continuing to develop quently in reference to larval connectivity (natal dispersal), and modify spatial management measures [50,51]. Three but also in reference to migratory and seascape connectivity. Regional Seas Organizations have implemented marine pro- For example, connectivity is not explicitly one of the site- tected areas in ABNJ pursuant to the Convention for the selection criteria for EBSAs, but is one of five criteria in the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal CBD’s scientific guidance for selecting areas to establish a Region of the Mediterranean 1995 (Barcelona Convention); representative network of marine protected areas (CBD the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Decision IX/20 Annex II). As a network criterion, connec- Living Resources 1980 (CCAMLR) and the Convention for tivity has been used operationally to assess the ecological the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Northeast coherence of networks of protected areas (e.g. [56,57]). Atlantic 1992 (OSPAR Convention). At least three other Regional Seas Organizations are seeking to expand their man- date to cover ABNJ. The International Whaling Commission (c) Policy recommendations (IWC) uses information on migratory connectivity to improve Beyond site-selection and network criteria, intergovernmental their understanding of cetacean stock structure for their revised organizations have also addressed the question of connectivity management process (box 1), and Regional Fisheries Manage- through decisions, resolutions and targets. For example, Aichi ment Organizations require similar information to manage fish Biodiversity Target 11 calls for 10% of coastal and marine areas stocks and mitigate bycatch. Finally, ongoing negotiations at to be conserved through, inter alia, ‘well-connected systems of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) over a treaty for the conser- protected areas’. The CMS has gone further in describing con- vation and sustainable use of biodiversity in ABNJ include nectivity and migratory connectivity by adopting resolutions discussions of a global mechanism to develop cross-sectoral on ecological networks (consolidated and updated in 2017; marine protected areas and engage in strategic environmental UNEP/CMS/Resolution 12.7) and the importance of includ- assessments (UNGA Resolution 72/249). ing migratory connectivity in conservation decisions (UNEP/ As the above policies and management regimes unfold, CMS/Resolution 12.26). Resolution 12.7 recommends making understanding of how migratory species fit into these frame- connectivity between important areas explicit. works is critical. Examples of the inclusion of migratory 4. Encourages Parties and other Range States, when identifying connectivity in policy can be divided into three categories: areas of importance to migratory terrestrial, avian and aquatic site-selection criteria, network design criteria and policy species, to take into account and make explicit by description, recommendations. schematic maps or conceptual models the relationship between those areas and other areas which may be ecologically linked to them, in physical terms, for example as connecting corridors, (a) Site-selection criteria or in other ecological terms, for example as breeding areas related to non-breeding areas, stopover sites, feeding and resting places Within area-based planning frameworks, focus is frequently (CMS 2017). placed on areas that are important to specific life-history stages of migratory species. For example, two of the CBD’s While the concept of connectivity is ubiquitous in multilateral EBSA criteria (CBD Decision IX/20 Annex I; ‘Special environmental agreements, the ‘schematic maps or conceptual royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspb Proc. R. Soc. B 286: 20191472 models’ recommended by CMS are still rare. A lack of easily species. AquaMaps provides modelled range and distribution accessible and usable [58] geospatial information prevents the maps of many migratory marine species. The State of the full consideration of migratory connectivity in area-based World’s Sea Turtles (SWOT) has compiled distribution infor- planning processes [25], and limits the ability to conduct mean- mation on the world’s seven sea turtle species from literature ingful environmental impact assessments and strategic and expert opinion. However, the spatial resolution of distri- environmental assessments. Further, these types of maps and bution and range maps in GROMS, BirdLife’s Datazone, models are necessary to achieve United Nations Sustainable the IUCN Redlist, AquaMaps and the SWOT database lack Development Goal 14 as they inform sustainable management the spatial, temporal and ecological resolution necessary to of coastal and marine ecosystems (14.2), underpin fisheries inform the development of specific area-based management models required to end overfishing (14.4), support develop- measures, and they do not contain information on migration ment of area-based management tools (14.5), provide pathways or migratory connectivity. economic benefit to Small Island Developing States that depend on migratory species (14.7), and increase scientific (b) Electronic tracking data knowledge, capacity development and technology transfer The most readily accessible information for directly informing (14.A). Mainstreaming marine biodiversity into the United area-based management (e.g. animal location data provided by Nations Sustainable Development Goals will require inte- acoustic and satellite telemetry and other types of electronic gration of migratory connectivity information and its animal tracking devices) rest in data repositories, e.g. the application to ‘other effective conservation measures’ such as United States’ Animal Telemetry Network, Australia’sInte- sectoral ‘in-situ’ efforts to conserve biodiversity [59]. grated Marine Observing System Animal Tracking Database, Access to baseline information on migratory connectivity BirdLife International’s Seabird Tracking Database, OBIS- in the ocean will become even more important for the devel- SEAMAP, the Ocean Tracking Network, Movebank or the satel- opment of area-based management tools and conservation lite tracking and analysis tool of seaturtle.org (see the electronic planning under future climate change scenarios. Species supplementary material, Appendix S3). However, for most that migrate between breeding and feeding habitats can be decision-making purposes, a substantial amount of work is strongly affected by climate change. For example, climate required to make practical use of tracking data. Considerations change could easily disrupt cross-environment correlations including deployment location, sample size, location error and that make migration routes and timing adaptive to environ- representativeness of life-history stages, sexes, populations and mental cues [60], potentially altering connectivity patterns speciesneedtobeassessedand treatedappropriately prior to and in turn, the effectiveness of protected areas. Johnson use which requires analytical expertise and time [20]. The need et al. [61] considered the interaction of climate change on to process and analyse tracking data prior to including them EBSAs and existing area-based management tools in the within decision-making frameworks has limited their use to North Atlantic Ocean, concluding that altered patterns of date in existing area-based planning and management processes. connectivity related to climate change can be expected to influence the effectiveness of marine protected areas. Devel- oping baselines now and monitoring changes in migratory (c) Derived products focusing on important sites connectivity through time will be critical to plan for future Taxa-specific and/or regional efforts to summarize infor- changes. mation pertaining to migratory connectivity have been The parties to the CMS recognized this need (i.e. to aggre- published (e.g. [64]), but have rarely been developed into gate and synthesize information on migratory connectivity) open-access knowledge systems for use by marine spatial plan- and in 2017 encouraged ‘support for the enhancement of the ning processes. BirdLife International provides synthesized databases… [and] targeted joint analyses of animal movements telemetry data products to management and policy arenas and other factors using these databases in an integrated way via its identification of marine IBAs. The existence of a freely across the marine and terrestrial realms so as to improve under- accessible database of IBAs has resulted in stronger uptake standing of the biological basis of migratory species and application of this information in the CBD’s regional connectivity’ (UNEP/CMS/Resolution 12.26). Below, we con- EBSA workshops compared to other taxonomic groups that sider in more depth what databases and information are do not have such knowledge summarized and available [25]. currently available. Analogous efforts for marine mammals (IMMAs, [65]), sea tur- tles (SWOT’s Global Sea Turtle Tracking Initiative), sharks (e.g. the Global Shark Movement Project; [66]) and across 5. What information on marine migratory taxa (e.g. the Marine Megafauna Movement Analytical Pro- gram (MMMAP); [21]) share a similar vision. connectivity is available to policy-makers and managers? 6. The Migratory Connectivity in the Ocean (a) Species distribution Products with spatial information on species distribution are system combines efforts to move from data to currently available (electronic supplementary material, Appen- usable knowledge dix S3). The Global Register of Migratory Species (GROMS) summarized the state of knowledge on the distribution of The efforts described above provide critical services as data and migratory species globally [62,63]. GROMS is a relational data- information brokers, but none provide usable geospatial knowl- base containing distribution data for 2880 (terrestrial and edge on migratory connectivity to management and policy marine) vertebrate migratory animals, last updated in 2004. arenas. The many intergovernmental management and policy IUCN and BirdLife International both provide range maps of processes we reviewed above seek to use information about royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspb Proc. R. Soc. B 286: 20191472 limited research to policy track data collection data processing analysis publish paper International Ocean Governance knowledge transfer gap policy recommendations individual management measures contributors national reporting and planning data repositories MiCO bridging the gap with a policy-focused synthesis usable data connectivity literature bridging consortium knowledge contributions synthesis review steering committee � online exploratory mapping interface by species, � electronic tracking synthesis of developers country, contributor or guided story lines � mark-recapture available published contributors � downloadable connectivity products (corridors, � stable isotope information funders nodes, networks) � genetics � exported reports for user-driven queries with � acoustic monitoring data summaries, contributor acknowledgments, and references Figure 1. MiCO bridges a knowledge communications gap between researchers and policy fora. The typical flow of knowledge from data collection to scientific publication limits access to that knowledge and is dependent on participation by each individual researcher in all relevant policy processes. Bridging consortia like MiCO provide mechanisms to increase access to knowledge, ensure that it is provided in a usable format, and allow contributors to track the impact of their work. migratory species, suggesting that an evidence-base of accessi- advisory panels populated with leading researchers from aca- ble, easily interpreted and synthesized knowledge on the topic demia, government agencies and data repositories and (ii) a could have a large policy impact. However, there are obstacles policy advisory panel including staff from CMS (and its to effective knowledge transfer between scientists and policy- family of instruments), CBD, UNESCO, OBIS, IUCN, the makers, including ‘differences between researchers and Sargasso Sea Commission and NGOs. policy-makers in their cultures, time-frames, reward structures, MiCO integrates information across data types by aggregat- and motivations’, and the need for better mechanisms ing and synthesizing available information about migratory ‘to ensure uptake of research that is intended to be policy-rel- connectivity through a comprehensive literature review, aggre- evant’ [67]. In response to this need, a consortium of data gating existing data and synthetic products from contributors, repositories, national observing systems, taxa conservation and creating new synthetic products to serve policy processes. groups, museums, environmental non-governmental organiz- Six types of data can be used to derive products to help ations (NGOs), universities, individuals, intergovernmental describe migratory connectivity: electronic tracking data, organizations and UN bodies, many of which initiated pro- capture–mark–recapture, observations including visual cesses and created tools described in this paper above, have surveys, data on stable isotope ratios, population genetics now developed a global open-access online system providing and passive acoustic monitoring. Each of the methodologies usable knowledge about migratory connectivity in the ocean has unique characteristics, provides information at different (MiCO: www.mico.eco). The MiCO consortium designed the spatial and temporal scales, and may be better suited for system to be a bridge between individuals/organizations gen- species with different traits. To serve as an evidence-base for erating data or products that describe migratory connectivity available scientific information on the migratory connectivity and policy fora or management organizations engaged in of marine species, the systematic literature review reduces marine resource management, conservation, spatial planning biases by: (i) the transparent development of a list of migratory and environmental assessment processes (figure 1). megavertebrate species to be included (described above and in To impact and support global ocean policy efforts, the evi- the electronic supplementary material, Appendix S2); (ii) vet- dence-base that MiCO is creating: (i) provides additional ting this list with species experts (many of the co-authors of value to both data/product contributors, and policy-makers this paper); (iii) creating and testing taxa-specific search strings and managers; (ii) complements the strengths of existing data for sensitivity in results returned; (iv) conducting the searches repositories and research programmes globally; (iii) integrates over a short period to avoid biases in literature availability; and information across data types, primary scientific literature, tra- (v) ensuring an exhaustive search by conducting searches on ditional knowledge and expert opinion; (iv) facilitates the two separate large, multi-disciplinary indexing and citation delivery of those products to management organizations and databases (Web of Science and SCOPUS), as well as a separate policy processes in a transparent manner with explicit acknowl- manual searches on an un-indexed and highly relevant journal edgement of contributors; and, (v) is easily accessible, freely (Animal Biotelemetry). While our search was systematic and available and updated on time-scales relevant to policy and exhaustive for English-language literature, broadening the management requirements. To ensure that the system provides evidence-base to include non-English sources is a future goal. value to both contributors and users, advisory panels were The initial focus of MiCO analyses has been the development developed including: (i) strategic (longer-term goal setting) of products from this literature review and from electronic and technical (frequent input on methods and implementation) tracking data, provided either directly by data holders or royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspb Proc. R. Soc. B 286: 20191472 through literature review, with the intent to add additional and global indicators, would see the system transferred to an data types in the future to underpin network diagrams illus- intergovernmental organization with a budget for structural trating directionality and strength of connectivity among support of the system. The history of OBIS presents a direct use areas. analogue for this life cycle, beginning as a programme of the To facilitate delivery of migratory connectivity knowledge Census of Marine Life and then was transferred to within to policy and management arenas, a prototype system (www. UNESCO-IOC [69]. mico.eco/system) was developed to provide a basis for contri- MiCO seeks to build on its strong foundation and invites butors and policy-makers to offer feedback on methods and engagement from additional stakeholders to inform its contin- usability. The system was launched in April 2019 at the ued development and enhancement to best serve both users second UN Intergovernmental Conference on a new inter- and contributors. Strong forward momentum in global ocean national treaty for the conservation and sustainable use of governance will soon result in major policy changes for the marine biological diversity of ABNJ. The prototype includes ocean with many management implications for migratory a set of 38 standardized area-use models describing general marine species. By integrating and scaling up the information and core-use areas for a given population/species by activity gained through the tens of thousands of scientific papers (e.g. breeding, migrating, non-breeding, ranging, etc.; see about migratory species into knowledge that is relevant and www.mico.eco/methods for detail) for 357 animals from usable in this new era of ocean policy, we hope to make a seven species across 55 EEZs. To provide this knowledge in step-change in evidence-based policy to conserve migratory as transparent a manner as possible, metadata describing data- marine species. sets, animals, activity and (if known) population, sex, age class and data density are graphically presented by month and year Data accessibility. All products from the Migratory Connectivity in the for each area or population/species. System users can view Ocean (MiCO) system are freely available online at mico.eco/system. summaries of area use by species, by a country’s EEZ or relative Authors’ contributions. D.C.D., A.-L.H. and C.C. conceived and led the writing on the manuscript. D.C.D. and C.C. conceived and led the to ABNJ, and review summaries of data contributed per provi- MiCO system and the consortium of partners. S.D., E.H., C.Y.K., der, with associated references created from the data. An S.P., M.W., A.H.P., G.O.C., A.A., H.B. and P.N.H. analysed data, interactive mapper allows detailed geographical exploration, reviewed literature and contributed to writing the manuscript. E.F., examination and overlays of animal use areas filtered by any B.D., C.C. and D.C.D. led development of the MiCO system with con- combination of available metadata. Species range maps, tributions from A.-L.H., S.D., E.H., C.Y.K., S.P., J.C. and A.-L.H., P.N.H. W.A., H.B., L.B., B.B., A.B., J.B., P.C., D.P.C., T.E.D., M.D.,. when available, are layered under use areas to describe the F.D., F.F., D.F., H.F.-N., C.B.F., K.M.G., L.G., B.J.G., V.G., G.C.H., degree of coverage of MiCO products. C.H., J.J., D.E.J., S.M.M., G.N.d.S., D.M.P., A.P., M.R., A.F.R., E.R.S., These MiCO products, metadata from the literature review D.S., A.M.M.S., M.S., F.S., S.V.P., B.W., M.V., H.W. and B.W. partici- and cases studies have already informed the work of three pated in advisory activities in the development of the MiCO system regional seas organizations (Nairobi Convention, Abidjan and contributed to the paper. S.Å., J.M.A., P.C., D.C., M.C., M.D., A.F., A.S.F., B.J.G., J.G.-S., J.P.G., Y.H., L.M.H., C.M., M.M., M.R., Convention and the Comisión Permanente del Pacific Sur), A.F.R., N.V.-C. and L.W. contributed data to the MiCO system and the CMS in their development of resolution 12.26, and con- reviewed the manuscript. siderations of area-based management tools, environmental Competing interests. We declare we have no competing interests. impact assessments and capacity building and technology Funding. This paper was supported through a grant to the Global transfer in the negotiations for a new treaty for marine biodi- Ocean Biodiversity Initiative (GOBI) from the International Climate versity in ABNJ. A key component of the system is its ability Initiative (IKI). The German Federal Ministry for the Environment, to track how contributor data have been used in these Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) supports this initiat- ive on the basis of a decision adopted by the German Bundestag. arenas, providing individual researchers the ability to assess A.-L.-H. was supported by funding from the ConocoPhillips and report their impact on management and policy fora. Charitable Investments Global Signature Program to the Migratory This provides incentive for researchers to contribute data to Connectivity Project. A.M.M.S. was supported by an ARC grant policy processes and measure their impact by doing so, no. DE170100841. Funding for P.C. was also provided by FCT, while at the same time, the system protects raw data that Portugal through grant nos. PTDC/BIA-ANM/3743/2014 and MARE-UID/MAR/04292/2019. may not yet be available for public sharing by disseminating Acknowledgements. We would like to thank everyone who has contributed only synthesized products. to MiCO including A. Al Kiyumi, J. Bermejo, A. Broderick, P. Doherty, Support for the system’s development and for outreach to L. F. López-Jurado, A. Machado, N. Papathanasopoulou, S. Pikesley intergovernmental organizations has come from a national and M. Witt. We thank the editor for guidance and R. Waples and an government (the International Climate Initiative of the anonymous reviewer for highly constructive reviews which resulted German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conser- in a stronger paper. vation and Nuclear Safety via the Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative [68]), and from two components of the Global Environment Facility’s Sustainable Fisheries Management Endnote and Biodiversity Conservation of Deep-sea Living Marine Resources and Ecosystems in the ABNJ project. Future support In marine ecology, larval connectivity/dispersal from spawning to settlement site is a form of natal dispersal, while the term marine for the system is likely to come in two phases. The first phase, population connectivity refers to the exchange of individuals dedicated to development of a data-rich system with greater among geographically separated breeding subpopulations (i.e. in a functionality, will probably come from similar sources via permanent rather than periodic/migratory sense to subsequently grants to academic institutions. The second phase, focused on influence population genetics, rates of immigration into populations maintenance and better tailoring to support national reporting and spread of invasive species) [33]. royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspb Proc. R. Soc. B 286: 20191472 References 1. Hussey NE et al. 2015 Aquatic animal telemetry: a 16. Anderson C, Branch TA, Alagiyawadu A, Baldwin R, again: migration in freshwater fishes. Can. J. Zool. panoramic window into the underwater world. Marsac F. 2012 Seasonal distribution, movements 92, 467–479. (doi:10.1139/cjz-2012-0277) Science 348, 1255642. (doi:10.1126/science.1255642) and taxonomic status of blue whales (Balaenoptera 32. Lascelles B et al. 2014 Migratory marine species: 2. Webster MS, Marra PP, Haig SM, Bensch S, Holmes musculus) in the northern Indian Ocean. J. Cetacean their status, threats and conservation management RT. 2002 Links between worlds: unraveling Resour. Manag. 12, 203–218. needs. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 24, migratory connectivity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17,76–83. 17. IUCN. 2017 The IUCN Red list of threatened species. 111–127. (doi:10.1002/aqc.2512) (doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02380-1) Version 2017-3. Cambridge, UK: IUCN. (cited 6 April 33. Pineda J, Hare J, Sponaugle S. 2007 Larval transport 3. Block BA et al. 2011 Tracking apex marine predator 2016). and dispersal in the coastal ocean and movements in a dynamic ocean. Nature 475, 18. Fowler S. 2014 The conservation status of migratory consequences for population connectivity. 86–90. (doi:10.1038/nature10082) sharks. Bonn, Germany: UNEP/CMS Secretariat. Oceanography 20,22–39. (doi:10.5670/oceanog. 4. Weimerskirch H, Delord K, Guitteaud A, Phillips RA, Pinet 19. FAO. 2014 The state of world fisheries and 2007.27) P. 2015 Extreme variation in migration strategies aquaculture 2014. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture 34. Maxwell SM, Hazen EL, Bograd SJ, Halpern BS, between and within wandering albatross populations Organization of the United Nations. Breed GA, Nickel B, Al E. 2013 Cumulative human during their sabbatical year, and their fitness 20. Ogburn MB, Harrison A-L, Whoriskey FG, Cooke SJ, impacts on marine predators. Nat. Commun. 4, consequences. Sci. Rep. 5,1–7. (doi:10.1038/srep08853) Mills Flemming JE, Torres LG. 2017 Addressing 2688. (doi:10.1038/ncomms3688) 5. Egevang C, Stenhouse IJ, Phillips RA, Petersen A, challenges in the application of animal movement 35. Marra PP, Norris RD, Haig SM, Webster M, Royle AJ. Fox JW, Silk JRD. 2010 Tracking of Arctic terns ecology to aquatic conservation and management. 2006 Migratory connectivity. In Connectivity Sterna paradisaea reveals longest animal migration. Front. Mar. Sci. 4,1–7. (doi:10.3389/fmars.2017. conservation (ed. KCM Sanjayan), pp. 157–183. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 2078–2081. (doi:10. 00070) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 1073/pnas.0909493107) 21. Sequeira AMM et al. 2018 Convergence of marine 36. Punt AE, Butterworth DS, de Moor CL, De Oliveira 6. Costa DP, Breed GA, Robinson PW. 2012 New megafauna movement patterns in coastal and open JAA, Haddon M. 2016 Management strategy insights into pelagic migrations: implications for oceans. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 3072–3077. evaluation: Best practices. Fish Fish. 17, 303–334. ecology and conservation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1716137115) (doi:10.1111/faf.12104) Syst. 43,73–96. (doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys- 22. Hays GC et al. 2016 Key questions in marine 37. Punt AE, Donovan GP. 2007 Developing 102710-145045) megafauna movement ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. management procedures that are robust to 7. Secor DH. 2015 Migration ecology of marine fishes. 31, 463–475. (doi:10.1016/j.tree.2016.02.015) uncertainty: lessons from the International Whaling Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. 23. Jeffers VF, Godley BJ. 2016 Satellite tracking in sea Commission. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 64, 603–612. (doi:10. 8. Horton TW et al. 2017 Route fidelity during marine turtles: how do we find our way to the conservation 1093/icesjms/fsm035) megafauna migration. Front. Mar. Sci. 4,1–21. dividends? Biol. Conserv. 199, 172–184. (doi:10. 38. IWC (International Whaling Commission). 2018 (doi:10.3389/fmars.2017.00422) 1016/j.biocon.2016.04.032) Report of the Scientific Committee 2017. J. Cetacean 9. Liu J et al. 2015 Systems integration for global 24. Hays G et al. 2019 Translating marine animal Res. Manag. 19,1–97. sustainability. Science 347, 1258832. (doi:10.1126/ tracking data into conservation policy and 39. IWC (International Whaling Commission). 2019 science.1258832) management. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 459–473. Report of the Scientific Committee 2018. J. Cetacean 10. Halpern BS et al. 2008 A global map of human (doi:10.1016/j.tree.2019.01.009) Res. Manag. 20,1–78. impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319, 25. Bax NJ, Cleary J, Donnelly B, Dunn DC, Dunstan PK, 40. Costa DP, Hückstädt LA, Schwarz LK, Friedlaender 948–952. (doi:10.1126/science.1149345) Fuller M, Halpin PN. 2016 Results of efforts by the AS, Mate BR, Zerbini AN, Kennedy A, Gales NJ. 2016 11. Harrison A-L et al. 2018 The political biogeography Convention on Biological Diversity to describe Assessing the exposure of animals to acoustic of migratory marine predators. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, ecologically or biologically significant marine areas. disturbance: towards an understanding of the 1571–1578. (doi:10.1038/s41559-018-0646-8) Conserv. Biol. 30, 571–581. (doi:10.1111/cobi. population consequences of disturbance. Proc. Meet. 12. Merrie A et al. 2014 An ocean of surprises – trends 12649) Acoust. 27,1–14. (doi:10.1121/2.0000298) in human use, unexpected dynamics and 26. Dingle H, Drake A. 2007 What is migration? 41. Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) 2006 Connectivity governance challenges in areas beyond national Bioscience 57, 113–121. (doi:10.1641/B570206) conservation, Vol. 14. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge jurisdiction. Glob. Environ. Chang. 27,19–31. 27. Bauer S, Klaassen M. 2013 Mechanistic models of University Press. (doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.012) animal migration behaviour: their diversity, 42. López-Hoffman L, Chester CC, Semmens DJ, 13. Ban NC et al. 2014 Systematic conservation structure and use. J. Anim. Ecol. 82, 498–508. Thogmartin WE, Rodríguez-McGoffin MS, Merideth planning: a better recipe for managing the (doi:10.1111/1365-2656.12054) R, Diffendorfer JE. 2017 Ecosystem services from high seas for biodiversity conservation and 28. Begon M, Harper JL, Townsend CR. 1986 Ecology. transborder migratory species: implications for sustainable use. Conserv. Lett. 7,41–54. (doi:10. Individuals, populations and communities. Oxford, conservation governance. Annu. Rev. Environ. 1111/conl.12010) UK: Blackwell Scientific Publications. Resour. 42, 509–539. (doi:10.1146/annurev- 14. Gjerde KM, Dotinga H, Hart S, Molenaar EJ, Rayfuse 29. Wiens JA. 1997 3 - Metapopulation dynamics environ-110615-090119) R, Warner R. 2008 Regulatory and governance gaps and landscape ecology. In Metapopulation biology 43. Ferretti F, Worm B, Britten GL, Heithaus MR, in the international regime for the conservation and (eds I Hanski, MB Gilpin), pp. 43–62. San Diego, Lotze HK. 2010 Patterns and ecosystem sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas CA: Academic Press. consequences of shark declines in the ocean. Ecol. beyond national jurisdiction. Gland, Switzerland: 30. Metcalfe JD, Arnold GP, McDowall PW. 2002 Lett. 13, 1055–1071. (doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248. IUCN. See https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/ Migration. In Handbook of fish biology and fisheries, 2010.01489.x) library/files/documents/EPLP-MS-1.pdf. vol. 1 (eds PJB Hart, JD Reynolds), pp. 175–199. 44. Swartz W, Sala E, Tracey S, Watson R, Pauly D. 2010 15. Robertson G, Gales R (eds). 1998 Albatross biology Oxford, UK: Blackwell Scientific. The spatial expansion and ecological footprint of and conservation. Chipping Norton, Australia: Surrey 31. Brönmark C, Hulthén K, Nilsson PA, Skov C, Hansson fisheries (1950 to present). PLoS ONE 5, e15143. Beatty & Sons. L-A, Brodersen J, Chapman BB. 2013 There and back (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015143) royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspb Proc. R. Soc. B 286: 20191472 45. Vierros M et al. In press. Considering indigenous 54. IUCN. 2016 A global standard for the identification 62. Riede K. 2001 The global register of migratory peoples and local communities in governance of the of key biodiversity areas, version 1.0, 1st edn. Gland, species (GROMS): present status and perspectives. In global ocean commons. Mar. Pol. Switzerland: International Union for the New perspectives for monitoring migratory animals 46. Dunn DC et al. 2014 The Convention on Biological Conservation of Nature. – improving knowledge for conservation (ed. K Diversity’s ecologically or biologically significant 55. Hoyt E, Notarbartolo di Sciara G. 2014 Report of the Riede), pp. 33–42. Münster, Germany: Landwirt- areas: origins, development, and current status. workshop for the development of Important Marine schafts-Verlag. Mar. Policy 49, 137–145. (doi:10.1016/j.marpol. Mammal Area (IMMA) Criteria, Marseille, France, 63. Riede K. 2004 The global register of migratory 2013.12.002) 22 October 2013. species: first results of global GIS analysis. In 47. Johnson DE, Barrio Froján C, Turner PJ, Weaver P, 56. Johnson D, Ardron J, Billett D, Hooper T, Mullier T, Biological resources and migration (ed. D Werner), Gunn V, Dunn DC, Halpin P, Bax NJ, Dunstan PK. Chaniotis P, Ponge B, Corcoran E. 2014 When is a pp. 211–218. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. 2018 Reviewing the EBSA process: improving on marine protected area network ecologically 64. Fossette S et al. 2014 Pan-Atlantic analysis of the success. Mar. Policy 88,75–85. (doi:10.1016/J. coherent? A case study from the North-east Atlantic. overlap of a highly migratory species, the MARPOL.2017.11.014) Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 24,44–58. leatherback turtle, with pelagic longline fisheries. 48. Kot CY, Halpin P, Cleary J, Dunn DC. 2014 A review (doi:10.1002/aqc.2510) Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20133065. (doi:10.1098/rspb. of marine migratory species and the information 57. HELCOM. 2010 Towards an ecologically coherent 2013.3065) used to describe ecologically or biologically network of well-managed Marine Protected Areas. 65. Notarbartolo di Sciara G, Hoyt E, Reeves R, Ardron J, significant areas (EBSAs). UNEP/CMS/COP11/Inf.23. Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. No. 124A. See http://www. Marsh H, Vongraven D, Barr B. 2016 Place-based 49. Freestone D, Laffoley D, Douvere F, Badman T. 2016 helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/BSEP124A.pdf. approaches to marine mammal conservation. Aquat. World heritage in the high seas: an idea whose time 58. Nguyen VM, Young N, Corriveau M, Hinch SG, Cooke Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26,85–100. (doi:10. has come. Paris: UN Education, Scientific and SJ. 2018 What is ‘usable’ knowledge? Perceived 1002/aqc.2642) Cultural Organization. barriers for integrating new knowledge into 66. Queiroz N et al. 2016 Ocean-wide tracking of 50. Dunn DC et al. 2018 A strategy for the conservation management of an iconic Canadian fishery. pelagic sharks reveals extent of overlap with of biodiversity on mid-ocean ridges from deep-sea Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 76, 463–474. (doi:10.1139/ longline fishing hotspots. Proc. Natl Acad. mining. Sci. Adv. 4, eaar4313. (doi:10.1038/ cjfas-2017-0305) Sci. USA 113, 1582–1587. (doi:10.1073/pnas. 161747b0) 59. Diz D, Johnson D, Riddell M, Rees S, Battle J, Gjerde 1510090113) 51. Wedding LM, Friedlander AM, Kittinger JN, Watling K, Hennige S, Roberts JM. 2018 Mainstreaming 67. Holmes J, Clark R. 2008 Enhancing the use of L, Gaines SD, Bennett M, Hardy SM, Smith CR. 2013 marine biodiversity into the SDGs: the role of other science in environmental policy-making and From principles to practice: a spatial approach to effective area-based conservation measures (SDG regulation. Environ. Sci. Policy 11, 702–711. (doi:10. systematic conservation planning in the deep sea. 14.5). Mar. Policy 93, 251–261. (doi:10.1016/j. 1016/j.envsci.2008.08.004) Proc. R. Soc. B 280, 20131684. (doi:10.1098/rspb. marpol.2017.08.019) 68. Johnson D et al. In press. The Global Ocean 2013.1684) 60. Reed TE, Robin SW, Schindler DE, Hard JJ, Kinnison Biodiversity Initiative: promoting scientific support 52. Donald PF et al. 2018 Important Bird and MT. 2010 Phenotypic plasticity and population for global ocean governance. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Biodiversity Areas (IBAs): the development and viability: The importance of environmental Freshw. Ecosyst. (doi:10.1002/aqc.3024) characteristics of a global inventory of key sites for predictability. Proc. R. Soc. B 277, 3391–3400. 69. Vanden BE, Halpin PN, Lang da Silveira F, biodiversity. Bird Conserv. Int. 29, 177–198. (doi:10. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.0771) Stocks K, Grassle F. 2011 Integrating biological 1017/S0959270918000102) 61. Johnson D, Ferreira MA, Kenchington E. 2018 data into ocean observing systems: the future 53. BirdLife International. 2010 Marine Important Bird Climate change is likely to severely limit the role of OBIS. In Proc. Ocean Obs’09: Sustained Ocean Areas toolkit: standardised techniques for effectiveness of deep-sea ABMTs in the North Obs. Info. for Society, vol. 2 (eds J Hall, DE Harrison, identifying priority sites for the conservation of Atlantic. Mar. Policy 87, 111–122. (doi:10.1016/j. D Stammer), pp. 987–990. ESA Publication seabirds at sea. version 1. marpol.2017.09.034) WPP-306. (doi:10.5270/oceanobs09.cwp.91)

Journal

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological SciencesPubmed Central

Published: Sep 25, 2019

References