Identifying South African Marine Protected Areas at risk from marine heatwaves and cold spells


Abstract

Marine thermal extremes (i.e. marine heatwaves (MHWs) and marine cold-spells (MCSs)) are not currently accounted for in the design of South Africa’s Marine Protected Area (MPA) network. As such, the implications of thermal extremes cannot be addressed through spatial conservation management. Consequently, this study aimed to characterize MHWs and MCSs in MPAs across the six South African marine ecoregions. In so doing, a novel index was developed to enable the comparison of thermal event severity and the relative challenge posed by extreme thermal events in each MPA. Thermal events declined in duration and intensity from west to east, with the least severe thermal events recorded in the Delagoa ecoregion. Walker Bay MPA, within the Agulhas ecoregion, was identified as the MPA most at risk from extreme thermal events, with MHW and MCS severity indices almost double that of any other MPA. These thermal events may challenge the ability of this cetacean sanctuary MPA to meet its primary conservation objectives, as climate-driven changes in temperature can affect whale distribution, movement and reproduction. Understanding the variation in nature of thermal extremes across ecoregions and among MPAs will assist in prioritizing sites for in situ monitoring of water temperatures and studies of the local impacts of extreme thermal events, as well as identifying areas for expansion of refugia. Notably, if past trends in the number and cumulative intensity of MHWs are indicative of future trends, 62% of South African MPAs could experience more severe heatwaves in the future. The use of this approach to identify MPAs most vulnerable to thermal events can help to support adaptive management and secure the effectiveness of MPAs into the future.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at peer.review@peerj.com.