Figure 1.
Map of study area on Madagascar's West Coast, and locations mentioned in the text.
Study area is shown in grey with black outline Most of the study area is in Madagascar's Exclusive Economic Zone with the exception of small areas that fall in Glorieuses and Juan de Nova.
Table 1.
Data used in the study (I), sources, methods (M), and an overview of the comparisons (C).
Figure 2.
Non-biological inputs to the analysis.
A: Fishing pressure from fish catch model [54], units are metric tons/km2/yr.; B: Environmental exposure probability [33].
Figure 3.
Mangroves, reef geomorphology and bioregions.
Figure 4.
Additional biological inputs into the analysis.
A: Biological richness showing number of fish species per 25 km2 grid cell; B: Biodiversity value measured using Zonation algorithm.
Table 2.
Biodiversity data used in the analysis.
Figure 5.
Two results of RGB visual overlay of primary variables (biodiversity, fishing pressure, exposure).
A: Biodiversity value expressed as fish species richness; B: Biodiversity value measured using the Zonation algorithm. Key shows classification in 3-dimensional RGB color cube, with biodiversity (letter B in the key) assigned to Red (z-axis), fishing (F) assigned to Green (y-axis), and exposure (E) assigned to Blue (x-axis). Only the colors formed on the inner and outer planes of the cube are visible. On the inner planes, one variable is always 0. On the outer planes, one variable is always 255. The inner corner (black) has 0 values for all variables. The outer corner (white) has values of 255 for all variables.
Figure 6.
Two views of conservation and management priorities.
A: results of the categorical classification (see Table 3 for class descriptions); B: target-based priority-setting with Marxan.
Table 3.
Management categories for management actions assigned to combinations of high and low variables based on the conceptual model of McClanahan et al. [68].
Figure 7.
This map shows a continuous ranking of conservation value by the Zonation algorithm. Higher ranked cells are more important for species representation, and tend to have lower fishing pressure and exposure values.
Table 4.
Comparison of results.
Figure 8.
A: Strict protection class of the categorical classification; B: Marxan 30% solution; C: Marxan 16% solution; D: Zonation 16% solution.
Figure 9.
The number (one, two or three) indicates the number of 16% solutions represented; in other words, the number of times a planning unit has been selected by either the strict protection, Marxan 16% or Zonation 16% result.