There are many precedents for protection of these types of species SP600125 purchase in the terrestrial world; migratory birds are vigorously protected by some countries

while others actively hunt them (e.g. Fox and Madsen, 1997) and terrestrial parks do not protect the entire range of migratory mammals such a wildebeest (e.g. Thirgood et al., 2004). The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) is an environmental treaty within the United Nations Environmental Programme that focuses on the conservation and sustainable use of migratory animals and their habitats. CMS is currently engaged in efforts to develop a global conservation instrument for migratory sharks as well as addressing issues facing cetaceans and turtles, including bycatch. The pelagic realm represents the largest global ecosystem and 99% of the Earth biosphere volume (Angel, 1993) and is the least protected marine habitat (Game et al., 2009). It has become increasingly apparent Selleck AZD2281 that the structure and function of this ecosystem has significantly changed largely

due to fishing (Coleman and Williams, 2002, Hyrenbach et al., 2000, Myers and Worm, 2003 and Verity et al., 2002). Based on the greater scientific understanding of the nearshore environment, the most obvious solution to this problem is a no-take MPA. However, pelagic species and habitats are generally thought to be less amenable to spatial protection measures, a view that has translated into a lack of closed area designations within this environment (Day and Roff, 2000 and Game et al., 2009). Two aspects of the pelagic system have fostered the prevailing belief that the application of area closures is an inappropriate management approach; (1) the potentially highly migratory nature of many of the species that inhabit the pelagic system (Boersma and Parrish, 1999) and (2) the ephemeral nature of the physical processes that drive pelagic biological distributions (Etnoyer et al., 2004), though such models fail to adequately consider aspects of habitat heterogeneity and the effects of fishers’ behaviour

(Apostolaki et al., 2002 and Roberts and Sargant, 2002). Habitat heterogeneity is particularly true Adenosine around oceanic islands, with the island mass effect resulting in localised increases in oceanic productivity (e.g. Doty and Oguri, 1956, Hargraves et al., 1970, Gilmartin and Revelante, 1974, Simpson et al., 1982, Le Borgne et al., 1985 and Hernández-León, 1988). There are various theories (reviewed in Genin, 2004) as to why these islands are hotspots of pelagic biodiversity (Worm et al., 2003), particularly for apex predators (Stevenson et al., 2007). Seamounts can perform a similar function (Morato et al., 2008) and have been shown to host populations of bigeye (Holland et al., 1999, Itano and Holland, 2000 and Morato et al., 2008), yellowfin (Holland et al., 1999 and Itano and Holland, 2000) and skipjack tuna (Fonteneau, 1991 and Morato et al., 2008).