Parrotfish Proving Pelagic Protection

One of the hardest things about studying the ocean is that it is fluid (yes, that was a joke). But what I mean is that the only real boundaries are land. I would argue that our “blue planet” has more cracks and creavaces for marine life to hide than land. We can predict general areas where certain species should be, but that does not always mean we will find our target material.

Scientists and policy makers alike try to mitigate this issue by creating Marine Protected Areas (MPA). MPAs are boundaries set within the ocean where human use is limited for multiple purposes. A few reasons for creating a MPA could be to preserve an endemic species, restore a habitat, biodiversity, and of course there are many more.

The intentions of MPAs are excellent but creation poses a new question: If the wildlife is also not adhering to these boundaries, how are we supposed to know if they really work? A good friend of mine, Nicole Sedran, decided to tackle this question.

Sedran spent time in the School for Field Studies research site at Turks and Caicos where she decided to study the effectiveness of its South Caicos Marine Protected Area. The project consisted of studying the sizes of different species of Parrotfish inside of the boundary and the size of the fish that fishermen caught on land. Ideally, the Parrotfish residing in primary habitat within the boundary should be larger and more abundant than those from other reefs. Overall, with an MPA the idea is that the area should be protected which increases the health, size, and population of fish which eventually spill over into the outer boundary. The outer boundary is fair game for fishermen. If that trend continues, it would benefit the small fishing industry of South Caicos Island as a whole. This effort took a unique culmination of scientific work, public relations, and videography skills that did not fail to deliver an important study.

What inspired this idea to use parrotfish to assess the MPA’s?  (Also, are the other fish mentioned in the Paper varieties of the parrotfish family?)

I used parrotfish to assess the MPAs because as of 2011 it has been illegal to land parrotfish because they are such an important species for reef health. In fact , they are considered a keystone species for coral reefs. Having the ban in place has removed fishing pressure to this ecosystem and allows an increase in size and biomass; a possible indicator if an MPA is effective. Ideally, parrotfish should be more abundant in the MPAs than outside of them. 

The other fish in the paper are different species of fish. Those were the fish that the other members in my directed research group decided to study. I studied parrotfish, specifically the seven species found in Turks and Caicos. These are Scarus iserti (striped parrotfish), Scarus taeniopterus (princess parrotfish), Scarus vetula (queen parrotfish), Sparisoma aurofrenatum (redband parrotfish), Sparisoma chyrusopterum (redtail parrotfish), Sparisom rubrinpinne (yellowtail parrotfish), and Sparisoma viride (stoplight parrotfish).

Do you feel like one particular species aided to your study more than others?

From what I remember, I don’t feel that one species contributed more to my study than others. I was looking more so at parrotfish (Scaridae) as a whole.

Was it difficult interacting with the fishermen? Or was there a mutual understanding?

At times it was very difficult interacting with the fishermen of South (Caicos). There was not a mutual understanding that this data was going to be used for science instead of government regulation. South Caicos, TCI (Turks and Caicos Island) is a fishing community through and through. It is their number one source of income. Fishermen often would think that if we (researchers) saw any illegal catches or landings, that we would report it to the government or that the data that we were collecting was going to help implement more regulations, so we got some pushback. Luckily, my advisor had a good relationship with most of the fishermen and buyers, who would often let us measure their fish. These pre-existing relationships made the finfish studies possible. 

Do you have any advice for people who have to work with opposing stakeholders?

I think the best thing you could do when working with opposing stakeholders is being as transparent as possible. Stakeholders should know the whole truth as to what is going on in your study or project. This hopefully will earn and apprehensive stakeholders trust and backing!

Additionally, if you come across a stakeholder that has opposing opinions than you, it helps to have a sound argument based on fact prepared. This wasn’t necessarily the case with this study, but I did have to do this for another project I worked on later.

Did any of your results shock you?

I was a little shocked to see that parrotfish were not necessarily bigger inside the MPAs, which is what I would have assumed.  Since you could never fish inside the MPAs I believed it possible for fish to live longer and grow bigger inside of the boundaries.

With your experience working to protect marine life, how did you feel about Seaspiracy? Do you feel like it validated or took away credit from your efforts?

I feel that Seaspiracy is extremely controversial and quite frankly one sided, misleading, and filled with falsehoods. I would even go as far to argue that Seaspiracy is an act of poor journalism and editing. It is very clear that interviews were cut and edited to work in the favor of one opinion… the film maker. This angered me as a marine conservationist, especially because it ironically demonizes the very organizations that are actively solving these issues. Do not get me wrong, overfishing is a major issue, but simply giving up seafood, as this documentary promotes, is not the answer and the solution is far more complex. For one, giving up seafood is not tangible for the entire world. Approximately 3 billion people in the world rely on seafood (wild-caught and farmed) as a primary source of protein and opting for vegetarianism or veganism is a very 1st world take on this issue (WWF, 2021). In addition to food security, fisheries provide 10-12% of the world’s populations livelihoods (OurOceans, 2016). Lastly, I feel that the documentary villainized Asian countries. Overfishing is a global issue that is going to need to be addressed GLOBALLY with legislative changes and improved enforcement, which will be very difficult to do. All in all, I do feel that Seaspiracy has the potential to do more harm than good to the marine conservation efforts.

How can the average person help the fight for marine protected areas?

Take action by supporting NGO efforts and/or advocate for global policy and legislation.

What would you say is the best defense when talking to people who do not abide by fishing laws and regulations?

Be transparent about the laws and regulations and have the facts to back it up. However, don’t put yourself in a situation that could potentially be dangerous. If you see something and don’t feel safe confronting it yourself, call your local or state environmental conservation officers to respond.