{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026623073330219522, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008407286314806165, 'mean_word_length': 5.672897196261682, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Temperate marine reserves enhance targeted but not untargeted fishes in multiple no-take MPAs.

Although many papers report the effects of no-take marine protected areas (MPAs or reserves), scientifically rigorous empirical studies are rare, particularly for temperate reef fishes. We evaluated the responses of fish populations to protection from fishing in reserves by comparing densities and sizes inside and outside of five no-take reserves in southern California, USA. Our results are robust because we compared responses across multiple rocky-reef reserves in two different years and controlled for possible site differences by (a) ensuring that habitat characteristics were the same inside and outside reserves, and (b) sampling species that are not targeted, which would not be expected to have a direct response to fishing. We compared fish density and size and calculated biomass and egg production across all five sites. Fishes targeted by recreational and/or commercial fisheries consistently exhibited increases in mean density (150%), size (30%), biomass (440%), and egg production (730%) inside reserves. Reserve effects were greatest for legal-sized targeted fishes: significantly greater densities were found exclusively inside reserves for targeted species (580%), the largest size classes existed only inside reserves, and mean biomass was 1000% higher. These responses were unlikely to have been caused by habitat differences because there were no significant differences in habitat characteristics between reserve and control locations. Densities of non-targeted species did not differ between reserve and non-reserve locations, further supporting the conclusions that differences in targeted species between reserve and control locations were due to harvesting rather than site-specific effects. Although MPAs cannot replace traditional fisheries management, the concentration of increased biomass and egg production is a unique MPA benefit that serves both reserves and fisheries. Scientifically rigorous studies that include multiple reserves, such as this study, are needed to inform management and policy decisions.