Author's Accepted Manuscript

Spatial patterns of benthic megahabitats andconservation planning in the Abrolhos Bank

Rodrigo Leão de Moura, Nélio Augusto Secchin,Gilberto Menezes Amado-Filho, Ronaldo BastosFrancini-Filho, Matheus Oliveira Freitas,Carolina Viviana Minte-Vera, João BatistaTeixeira, Fabiano Lopes Thompson, GuilhermeFraga Dutra, Paulo Yukio Gomes Sumida,Arthur Zigliatti Guth, Rubens Mendes Lopes,Alex Cardoso Bastos

PII: S0278-4343(13)00136-2DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2013.04.036Reference: CSR2787

To appear in: Continental Shelf Research

Received date: 24 January 2012Revised date: 18 April 2013Accepted date: 19 April 2013

Cite this article as: Rodrigo Leão de Moura, Nélio Augusto Secchin, GilbertoMenezes Amado-Filho, Ronaldo Bastos Francini-Filho, Matheus OliveiraFreitas, Carolina Viviana Minte-Vera, João Batista Teixeira, Fabiano LopesThompson, Guilherme Fraga Dutra, Paulo Yukio Gomes Sumida, ArthurZigliatti Guth, Rubens Mendes Lopes, Alex Cardoso Bastos, Spatial patternsof benthic megahabitats and conservation planning in the Abrolhos Bank,Continental Shelf Research, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2013.04.036

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted forpublication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version ofthe manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, andreview of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form.Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered whichcould affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journalpertain.

www.elsevier.com/locate/csr

Spatial patterns of benthic megahabitats and conservation planning in the

Abrolhos Bank.

Rodrigo Leão de Moura1, Nélio Augusto Secchin2, Gilberto Menezes Amado-Filho3,

Ronaldo Bastos Francini-Filho4, Matheus Oliveira Freitas5, Carolina Viviana Minte-

Vera6, João Batista Teixeira7, Fabiano Lopes Thompson1, Guilherme Fraga Dutra8,

Paulo Yukio Gomes Sumida9, Arthur Zigliatti Guth9, Rubens Mendes Lopes9, Alex

Cardoso Bastos2, *

1 - Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. CP 68011, Rio de

Janeiro, RJ, 21944-970, Brazil.

2 - Departamento de Oceanografia, Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo. Avenida

Fernando Ferrari 514, Vitória, ES, 29090-600, Brazil.

3 - Instituto de Pesquisas Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro. Rua Pacheco Leão 915,

Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 22460-030, Brazil.

4 - Departamento de Engenharia e Meio Ambiente, Centro de Ciências Aplicadas e

Educação, Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Rua da Mangueira S/N, Rio Tinto, PB,

58109-753, Brazil.

5 - Grupo de Pesquisa em Ictiofauna, Museu de História Natural Capão da Imbuia. Rua

Prof. Benedito Conceição 407, Curitiba, PR, 82810-080, Brazil.

6 - Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Núcleo de Pesquisas em Limnologia, Ictiologia e

Aqüicultura, Avenida Colombo 5790, Maringá, PR, 87020-900, Brazil.

7 - Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia e

Conservação da Biodiversidade. Rodovia Ilhéus-Itabuna, 45662-900 Ilhéus, BA, Brazil.

8 – Conservation International. Rua Buenos Aires 68/26, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 20070-

022, Brazil.

9 - Departamento de Oceanografia Biológica, Instituto Oceanográfico, Universidade de

São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, 05508-120, Brazil.

* corresponding author (ac.bastos@terra.com.br)

Abstract

Application of sidescan sonar at the regional scale of the Abrolhos Bank, with ground-

truthing by remotely operated vehicles and mixed-gas diving operations, revealed a

much more complex habitat mosaic than previously recognized. The regional benthic

habitat map indicates 8,844 km2 of reefs (earlier estimates from remote sensing were

around 500 km2) and 20,904 km² of rhodolith habitat - the world's largest continuous

bed. Integration of the regional megahabitat map with spatially explicit data on the

distribution of Marine Protected Areas (< 0.2% of each benthic megahabitat area) and

economic activities with the highest potential of environmental impact (fishing, mining,

oil and gas exploitation and dredging) reveals the need of a regional scale spatial

planning process engaging conflicting sectors.

Highlights

� We present a benthic megahabitat map for the Abrolhos Shelf, with three

megahabitats.

� Benthic megahabitats include 8,844 km2 of reefs and the world’s largest rhodolith

bed with 20,904 km².

� Primary and secondary databases on the main economic activities and Marine

Protected Areas were integrated in the analyses.

� Marine Protected Areas coverage is incipient and covers less than 0.5% of each

megahabitat.

� Elements for triggering spatial planning at the regional scale are presented and

discussed.

Introduction

Tropical continental shelves encompass diverse and highly complex marine ecosystems

such as coralline reefs, mangrove forests and seagrass beds, providing fisheries

resources and ecosystem services that exceed the global domestic product (Costanza

et al., 1997; Moberg and Rönnbäck, 2003). Despite this immense importance, even the

distribution and the relative size of interconnected tropical habitat mosaics is still poorly

known across entire ecoregions such as the Eastern Brazilian coast (Leão and

Dominguez, 2000; Spalding et al., 2007), impeding conservation planning.

Habitat is a common term that refers to the living space of organisms, including the

interaction between physical and environmental factors (Heyman & Wright, 2011).

Benthic marine habitats can be defined by geological and oceanographic characteristics

such as depth, temperature, light variation and other water column properties (Freitas et

al., 2003; Diaz et al., 2004). Geomorphology is particularly relevant as a surrogate for

the biotic components of benthic ecosystems, as it conditions seabed stability and

architecture, with the advantage of exhibiting little short-term variation when compared

with other more dynamic oceanographic forcings (e.g. Greene et al., 2007; Diaz et al.,

2004). Species distributions (e.g. Pittman & Brown, 2011), demersal connectivity (e.g.

Moura et al., 2011), and even fishing systems and habitat vulnerability for specific types

of fishing gear (e.g. Collie et al., 1997) can be readily inferred from benthic habitat

maps. Thus, geodiversity mapping based on geophysical methods can be rapidly and

relatively cheaply incorporated into marine spatial planning targeted at ecosystem-

based management (Anderson et al., 2008; Ehler and Douvere, 2009; Heyman and

Wright, 2011).

The Abrolhos Bank is well known for encompassing the most important coralline reefs in

the South Atlantic, with high levels of endemism and unique mushroom-shaped

coralline pinnacles (e.g. Leão and Kikuchi, 2005). Rhodolith beds (e.g. Amado-Filho et

al., 2012), seagrass and algae bottom (e.g. Creed & Amado-Filho, 1999), mangroves

(e.g. Moura et al., 2011) and large extents of nearshore soft bottom (e.g. Marchioro et

al., 2005) are also known to occur in the region, but the relative areas and the spatial

configuration of this habitat mosaic are poorly known, especially in areas with depths

exceeding 20 m.

This study presents a classification of the main benthic megahabitats and their spatial

distribution across the Abrolhos Bank shelf, based on sidescan sonar surveys coupled

with ground-truthing with Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROV) and mixed-gas diving

(TRIMIX). This novel benthic habitat map at the regional scale can help the

understanding of biodiversity and connectivity patterns, and is especially relevant for

marine spatial planning (Ehler and Douvere, 2009). Conflicts in the use of the maritime

space can be highly reduced if a comprehensive use plan is set at the regional scale

(Agardy, 2002; Douvere, 2008), providing guidelines to the traditional project-by-project

and permit-by-permit approach. In the Abrolhos Bank region, the lack of a

comprehensive spatial planning framework has resulted in polarization of sectorial

interests (e.g. fisheries, oil/gas, mining, dredging/shipping, tourism, shrimp farming,

protected areas, environmental NGOs) and is impeding bona fide progress in marine

conservation and coastal management (see Agardy et al., 2003).

Methods

This study is based on direct and indirect data acquired across ~46,000 km² of the

Abrolhos Bank that were further validated with direct observations. Data from previous

studies (Dias et al., 2004; Prates, 2006; Leão et al., 2005) and from the Banco Nacional

de Dados Oceanográficos (www.mar.mil.br/dhn/chm/bndo/) were converted into points

and incorporated in the database, totaling 5,486 points with information on seabed

composition (Supplementary Figure S1). Conversions from data polygons to points,

such as the Landsat TN imagery of emergent and quasi-emergent reefs (Prates, 2006),

were based on vectorings to hexagons with 1,852 m edges (1 nautical mile), with further

calculation of centroids (Wilder and Norris, 2002).

Side-scan sonar records (EdgeTech 4100, 100-500 kHz) were acquired between 2007

and 2011, covering a linear extent of 2,625 km and 1,083 km² (Figure 1). Sonograms

were processed with SonarWiz Map4 (V.4.02) software and converted into

georeferenced images (GeoTIFF format with 1.0 m pixel). Images were integrated and

interpreted in a GIS environment using a supervised qualitative classification method

and vectored into an homologous hexagon grid. Interpretation was based on the

intensity of the acoustic signal return and its indirect topography, allowing for the

recognition of rough and homogeneous patterns with high and low backscatter (Kendall

et al., 2005; Greene et al., 2007). After preliminary analysis of sonographic patterns, 69

points were selected for validation with video footage from a Seabotix LBV150 ROV,

complemented with direct observations by divers using mixed gas (TRIMIX: N, He, 02)

(Figure 1). After classification of each data point, interpolations were performed using

ordinary kriging with a spherical semivariogram model, providing an accurate correlation

between primary and secondary information, representative of larger spatial areas

(Goovaerts, 1997; Wackernagel, 1998).

Interviews during fisheries’ landings were carried out monthly at four coastal

municipalities (Prado, Alcobaça, Caravelas and Nova Viçosa) between May 2005 and

July 2007, in order to identify fishing spots (line, longline and gillnet fisheries) and

shrimp trawling areas in softbottom near the coast. This primary database was

complemented with fishing spots already compiled by Martins et al. (2005). Spatial

information of mining and oil/gas licensing processes and activities were acquired from

the Departamento Nacional de Produção Mineral (www.dnpm.gov.br) and the Agência

Nacional do Petróleo (www.anp.gov.br), respectively. Shapefiles with MPAs’ polygons

were obtained from the Ministério do Meio Ambiente e Recursos Naturais Renováveis

(www.mma.gov.br) and their implementation statuses were evaluated from interviews

with all MPA managers.

Results

The Abrolhos Bank continental shelf encompasses three main megahabitats (Figure 2)

and a complex bathymetry (Supplementary Figure S2). Rhodolith beds comprise the

largest megahabitat, with 20,904 km² (43% of the mapped area), followed by

unconsolidated sediments’ megahabitat covering 19,151 km2 (39%) and by the reefal

megahabitat with 8,844 km2 (18%). Rhodolith beds and unconsolidated sediments are

topographically less complex and form larger continuous extensions when compared to

the reefal megahabitat, which is structurally complex and more patchily configured,

even when examined at the regional scale (Figure 2).

Sonographic data from the unconsolidated sediments’ megahabitat presented a

homogeneous pattern with low acoustic signal returns (Figure 3 A). Unconsolidated

sediments occur continuously in a broad latitudinal gradient as a sandy and muddy

bottom strata along the shore. The cross-shelf range of unconsolidated sediments is

generally narrower than that of rhodolith beds (see Figure 2). Lower-hierarchy

unconsolidated sediment habitats definitely occur in the region (e.g. siliciclastic and

carbonatic sediments, seagrass and algae bottom), but sonographic methods do not

allow for their discrimination.

Sonographic data from the rhodolith megahabitat is characterized by a gentle

bathymetric gradient and intense acoustic signal returns typical of hard substrates

(Figure 3 B). Rhodoliths are free-living calcareous nodules with 3 to 15 cm in diameter,

composed mostly of encrusting coralline algae (Corallinales and Sporolithales,

Rhodophyta). The rhodolith bed megahabitat is widely distributed, ranging from the mid

shelf to the shelf break across most of the latitudinal range of the study region, with the

exception of its southernmost extreme off the Doce river mouth. On the inner shelf,

rhodolith beds intermingle with unconsolidated sediments and can be partially buried by

sand or terrigenous mud (divers’ observations).

The reef megahabitat is characterized by heterogeneous and diverse acoustic signal

returns, with obvious shadows and rugosities typical of convex tridimensional hard

structures. Besides the well-known pinnacles and banks with high coral cover, typical of

the emergent and quasi-emergent reefs previously known from the region, we found a

much larger realm of mesophotic reefs across the mid and outer shelf (see Figure 2), in

depths from 25-90 m. These structures include non-emergent pinnacles, coalesced reef

structures, paleovalleys and channels (Figure 4), as well as sinkhole-like depressions

locally known as “buracas” (see Bastos et al, this volume). The mesophotic reefs

interact predominantly with unconsolidated sediments and secondarily with rhodolith

beds, occurring patchily across the entire latitudinal and cross-shelf gradient of the

study region, but in higher concentration in the mid-shelf and with a notable hiatus in its

central portion (see Figure 2).

The non-emergent pinnacles occur predominantly in large clusters of up to 1,900 m2,

generally with soft intereefal sediments between the structures, which have 2- 8 m

heights and 4-15 m widths. Conversely to the two reef arcs of emerging and quasi-

emerging reefs, these mesophotic reefal structures seem to be partially or completely

drowned, presenting lower cover of hermatypic corals (with the exception of

Montastraea spp. and Siderastrea spp). The coalesced reefs in the mesophotic realm

are analogous to the reef banks that are widespread in the coastal arc of emergent and

quasi-emergent structures, but are generally lower, attaining 2-3 m heights. These

platforms can reach 100’s of square meters and have flat tops and irregular margins,

generally interfacing with soft sediments (Figure 4 B). Apparently, these coalesced bank

reefs are drowned structures with little or no active biomineralization from corals.

Paleovalleys and channels were observed at the central and northern part of the Bank.

They occur at various depths (25 to 45 m) and their steep walls can reach up to 10 m in

height (Figure 4 C and D).

The area covered by the three main economic activities with high potential to affect

habitat structure and ecosystem functionality (oil and gas exploitation, mining and

dredging) is still relatively small (<1% of the region) (Table 1). On the other hand,

fisheries are widespread across the region, including highly destructive bottom trawling

in the inner shelf, an activity that spans across 4,871 km2, or 25.4% of the soft

sediments’ megahabitat. Oil and gas operations and mining are concentrated in the

south-central portion of the region, mostly off the Espírito Santo State and over soft

sediments and reefs. The area covered by Marine Protected Areas is also very small

(less than 0.5% of each benthic megahabitat) and biased towards reefs, especially the

emerging and quasi emerging pinnacles in the two coastal arcs, with nearly 100%

coverage by MPAs (but mostly within a multiple-use “paper park”).

Discussion

Our results allowed for the mapping of benthic megahabitats at an unprecedented

spatial scale and resolution in the Eastern Brazilian coast (Leão & Dominguez, 2000).

Because habitat hierarchy is dependent on the spatial scale of mapping, the main

hierarchical level of our analyses was that of megahabitats, typical of small-scale

mapping (1:1,000,000 or less) (Greene et al., 1999; Anderson et al., 2008).

The three megahabitats of the Abrolhos Bank continental shelf seem to be conditioned

by the interaction between the coastal input of sediments, depth, and antecedent

geology. The rhodolith megahabitat encompasses the largest continuous rhodolith bed

in the world (20,904 km2), covering an area comparable to that of coral reefs in the

Caribbean (21,600 km2) ( Amado-Filho et al. 2012). The combination of a wide,

relatively flat and shallow tropical shelf with seasonal wave disturbance provides

favorable conditions to the development of such extensive rhodolith beds (Amado-Filho

et al., 2010, 2012). This megahabitat is strongly conditioned by lower sedimentation

rates of terrigenous particulates (Melo et al., 1975), being absent from nearshore areas

and preponderant in the mesophotic realm (>30 m), including the areas near the shelf

break (70-90 m). With the exception of patches with expressive cover of the reef

building coral Montastraea cavernosa (Figure 5), it seems that corals contribute less to

the aggregation of crustose coralline algae in larger blocks in these deeper areas where

rhodoliths thrive. Rhodoliths are well-known ecosystem-engineers that provide relatively

stable and structurally complex microhabitats for invertebrates and algae (Foster, 2001),

aggregating biodiversity and commercially-important fisheries resources. The exact role

of the Abrolhos’ rhodolith beds is still poorly understood and the relevance of this

immense carbonatic realm is still under-acknowledged (Amado-Filho et al., 2010, 2012).

The inner shelf is relatively flat due to the burial of the topography by Holocene

sediments, with 70% of sediments of siliciclastic origin from Tertiary deposits (Melo et

al., 1975). Carbonate sediments predominate in the middle and outer shelf, and also

around reefs (Leão & Ginsburg, 1997; Leão et al., 2005). The predominance of sand

and carbonate mud at the base of reefs results from the breakdown of the reef

structures and, to a lesser extent, from in situ production of reef-associated organisms

such as molluscs, echinoderms, foraminifera, ostracodes and Halimeda (Leão &

Ginsburg, 1997). With the exception of mangrove forests inside estuaries and river

mouths, seagrass and benthic algae growth is limited to very shallow and intertidal soft

bottom, providing limited stabilization of sediments.

Deeper and relatively extensive areas with unconsolidated sediments are only found at

the mouth of the Doce River, the largest drainage of the study region, located in its

southern extreme, as well as in the so-called Abrolhos Depression (Melo et al., 1975;

see Supplementary Figure S2). This latter remarkable feature is a paleolagoon with

sediment filling associated with the old base level. The Abrolhos Depression comprises

a depositional environment that received terrigenous sediments at lowered sea levels,

but which has been gradually filled by other reworked sedimentary material (Melo et al.,

1975; Vicalvi et al., 1978). Deeper unconsolidated sediments (30-95 m) are subject to

low turbulence and are less frequently reworked than soft bottom in the shallow inner-

shelf, presenting favorable conditions for extensive growth of benthic invertebrates,

mainly bryozoans, sponges, echinoderms, gorgonians and other soft-bodied cnidarians

such as Neospongodes atlantica, this latter sometimes forming extensive beds.

The mid and outer shelf presents a much more complex topography, with widespread

occurrence of different types of reefs, transverse deep channels, and rhodolith beds.

The Abrolhos region is widely recognized for comprising the largest and richest coralline

reefs in the South Atlantic (see references in Introduction). These previously-known

reefs are emergent and quasi-emergent pinnacles and banks with high coral cover

(especially Mussismillia spp. in the tops and Montastraea spp. in the walls), occurring as

a coastal arc 5-25 km from the coastline and an outer arc 60-65 km offshore, bordering

the east side of the Abrolhos Archipelago in depths of up to 25 m. This distinctive reef

system has been attracting the attention of the scientific community since earlier

accounts by 19th Century naturalists (e.g. Hartt, 1870; Verrill, 1868), with relevant

syntheses about reef development, structure, and biodiversity provided by Laborel

(1969, 1970), Leão et al. (2003) and Dutra et al. (2005). However, the reefal

megahabitat is indeed much more structurally diverse and covers ~8,800 km2, an area

21 times bigger than previously supposed from remote-sensing imagery (Prates, 2006;

420 km2).

Mesophotic pinnacles and consolidated banks are similarly-sized to and resemble the

emerging and quasi-emerging structures that occur in the two arcs of the inner and mid-

shelf (Figure 4). However, these mesophotic pinnacles lack the expanded and flat tops

typical of the structures that are actively growing near the sea surface. Encrusting

coralline algae and macroalgae are the predominant benthic organisms in the

mesophotic reefs. The steep walls of palleochannels, with up to 10 m heights, present

expressive live cover of encrusting coralline algae and black-corals (see Figure 4), and

are considered by fisherfolks as major fishing spots for reef fishes and lobsters. The

arrangement of paleodrainages during the last sea level oscillations is associated with a

rough surface because of the presence of several small banks with steep-sided

channels, which likely represent past drainage systems.

The more irregular tops of deeper pinnacles resemble erosive surfaces and completely

lack branching corals (Millepora spp.) and the massive brain corals of genus

Mussismilia, these latter the main coral reef builders in the shallow areas (Leão et al.,

2003). Coral cover is incipient, with predominance of coral genera Montastraea, with

sparse colonies of genera Siderastrea, Agaricia, Porites, Madracis and Favia, as well as

solitary corals of genus Scolymia. Black corals (Cirrhipathes and Antiphates) are also

frequent in the mesophotic reefs (see Figures 4 and 5). Sinkhole-like structures (Bastos

et al., this volume) and structures associated with paleovalley systems and erosive

processes of old reefs are also frequent features in the mesophotic realm.

The degree of connectivity among mesophotic reefs and other benthic habitats is a

major topic for further ecosystem-level investigations in the Abrolhos area (see Moura et

al., 2011), especially because the demersal/benthic connectivity provided by rhodolith

beds is probably limited to a subset of the reef-associated community. Also, it is not

clear if the observed discontinuity in the mesophotic reef megahabitat between 18 and

19oS (Figure 2) also reflects in a major larval connectivity gap between the northern and

southern mesophotic reef areas. A relative homogeneity in brachyuran larval

composition within the entire extension of Abrolhos Bank (Koettker & Lopes, this

volume), combined with the presence of mesoscale eddies (Soutelino et al., 2011) and

complex tidal currents (Knoppers et al., 1999) interacting with the along-shore

southward transport, are indicative of meroplankton retention processes in the area

(Koettker & Lopes, this volume). Connectivity is important to provide access to habitats

and resources demanded by organisms to complete their life cycle and recover from

natural disturbances (Harris & Baker, 2011).

From the ad hoc establishment of Marine Protected Areas to spatial planning

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are one of the cornerstones for biodiversity

conservation and sustainable use of marine resources, including both no-take marine

reserves and multiple-use areas (Russ et al., 2004). With jurisdiction over the entire

tropical Southwestern Atlantic continental shelf and encompassing eight whole Marine

Ecoregions (Spalding et al., 2007), Brazil is the first signatory of 1992’s Convention on

Biological Diversity (CBD), having committed internationally to establish an effectively

managed and ecologically representative MPA system covering at least 10% of each

ecoregion by 2020 (CBD, 2010). Despite a National Strategic Plan for Protected Areas

launched in 2006 and the approval of even more ambitious targets by the “National

Biodiversity Commission” (CONABIO), there has been little effective progress. Besides

major implementation gaps in the existing MPAs, the country will take more than 500

years to accomplish its commitments under the current level of MPA designations (610

km2/year in the last two decades). Even the Abrolhos Bank, an area that is fully

recognized as a National and Global priority for marine biodiversity conservation

(Moura, 2002), still does not have a representative MPA subsystem (Table 1; Figure 6).

The conservation significance of the Abrolhos Bank was first highlighted by Joly et al.

(1969), who proposed the establishment of a 2,570 km2 no-take reserve covering all

coralline reefs known at that time. This MPA, indeed Brazil’s first National Marine Park

(no-take), was finally created in 1983, under an ad hoc design by government officials

aiming to “compromise conservation and economic activities needs” (Gonchorosky et

al., 1989), but covering only one third of the initially proposed area. In 1993, after

tourism and real estate escalated in Abrolhos, the Bahia State government declared the

Ponta da Baleia/Abrolhos State Protected Area, a 3,460 km2 multiple-use MPA

encompassing the region’s main estuary and nearly all the reefs in the coastal arc, with

the objectives of “regulating economic and social activities”. However, up to the present

(two decades), there has been no implementation, as happened with most other state-

level MPAs across the country. Indeed, Brazil’s state-level multiple-use MPAs are

generally “paper parks” aiming to expand State-level jurisdiction over the coast (e.g.

licensing processes and environmental impact assessments).

Commercial fisheries oriented towards non-local markets and targeting shrimps,

lobsters and reef/coastal fishes have been growing since the 1980’s, with stout

incentives and government subsidies (Abdallah & Sumaila, 2007). Currently, Abrolhos

accounts for the largest fisheries yields in Eastern Brazil (Cordell, 2006), and fishing is

widespread across the region, including regular poaching in the no-take reserve

(Francini-Filho and Moura, 2008) and clear signs of overfishing in the open-access

areas (Freitas et al., 2011). Commercial fleets are largely based in the Espírito Santo

State and in the cities of Alcobaça and Prado (Bahia State), and have been steadily

pressuring local traditional small-scale fisheries. As a result, from the late 1990’s on,

local communities started to demand the creation of Extractive Reserves (ERs), which

are co-managed multiple-use protected areas in which traditional populations have

exclusive rights over natural resources. This grassroots’ movement resulted in the

establishment of the Corumbau (895 km2) (Moura et al., 2009a) and Cassurubá ERs

(1,006 km2), this latter created in 2009 after conflicts between fisherfolks, crab-

gatherers and a large scale shrimp-farming enterprise (Figure 7).

In 2003, a major portion of the Abrolhos Bank was offered by the National Petroleum

Agency (ANP) in an international auction of 243 blocks for oil and gas exploitation,

including the reefs and mangroves within the Ponta da Baleia/Abrolhos State Protected

Area (Figure 7A). Following an independent environmental impact assessment

(Marchioro et al. 2005), 162 blocks were removed from the auction by ANP itself, and a

legal charge resulted in the exclusion of the additional 81 blocks (Figure 7B). In 2006,

the Brazilian Environmental Agency (IBAMA) declared a 95,000 km2 Buffer Zone

around the Abrolhos National Park, with strict rules for licensing oil and gas exploitation

(Figure 7C). This huge marine management area was decommissioned in 2007 (Figure

7D), after legal charges of shrimp farming companies. As a result of such conflicts, the

agendas of mining, aquaculture, fisheries and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) did not

move forward. For instance, oil and gas exploitation is now allowed to be carried out off

only 50 km of the National Park. However, interest in these areas remains limited, as

there is no cross-sector consensus regarding the spatial planning at the regional scale,

meaning that any attempt to license a seismic or drilling project will definitely result in

legal charges from conflicting sectors.

We emphasize that the existing MPAs do not cover representative portions of the main

megahabitats of the Abrolhos Bank. Indeed, they almost completely fail to cover the

rhodolith bed megahabitat and several macrohabitat features such as palleovalleys,

channels and sinkhole-like structures (Table 1). Marine Protected Areas established ad

hoc under different political motivations and without a unifying spatial planning

framework fail to represent biodiversity in the least number of available sites

(Kirkpatrick, 1983), and also have a great chance to fail as a tool for managing fisheries

(Freitas et al., 2011). This situation is clearly narrowing opportunities to negotiate

acceptable outcomes when conservation competes against social, economic and

management constraints (Possingham et al., 2000), as shown by the escalating

conflicts between sectors in the Abrolhos Bank (Marchioro et al., 2006).

Conclusion

This study shows that the Abrolhos Bank continental shelf encompasses a complex

benthic habitat mosaic than has not been previously recognized. For instance, we show

that the region encompasses the world’s largest rhodolith bed with ~20,900 km2, and

that coralline reefs cover ~8,800 km2, against previous estimates of ~500 km2. An

integration of this novel benthic megahabitat map with data on MPAs and economic

activities with the highest potential of environmental impact reveals provide a regional-

scale baseline for marine spatial planning that can help to disentangle the current

science implementation-gap (Knight et al., 2008). For this task, the core planning

agencies (e.g. ministries of Environment and Natural Resources, Fisheries and

Aquaculture, Mines and Energy, Science and Technology) shall establish a proactive

and transparent agenda involving industries, academia, NGOs and local stakeholders,

particularly fisherfolks, who can input relevant traditional ecological knowledge. We

expect that the science foundation provided herein can engender a broader

participatory (and not merely consultative) spatial planning process towards the

implementation of an ecosystem-based management approach centered on MPAs.

Acknowledgments

We thank Les Kaufman (Boston University), Deborah Faria and Mariana Neves

(Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz), Marcelo Lourenço, Joaquim Neto and Ronaldo

Oliveira (ICMBio), Cecília Mello and Pedro Meirelles (Univ. Federal do Rio de Janeiro),

Fabio Motta and Marcia Hirota (Fundação SOS Mata Atlântica), Michael Orbach (Duke

University), Ken Lindeman (Florida Institute of Technology), Agnaldo Martins, Mauricio

Hostim and Hudson Pinheiro (Univ. Federal do Espírito Santo), Beatrice Ferreira (Univ.

Federal de Pernambuco) for insights and contributions. We especially thank the

fisherfolks from the Extractive Reserves of Corumbau, Canavieiras and Cassurubá for

the continued support to our fieldwork, and the Colônias dos Pescadores (Fishing

Guilds) from the municipalities of Porto Seguro, Prado, Alcobaça, Caravelas, Nova

Viçosa, Barra do Riacho and Regência. Daniel Klein, Camilo Ferreira, Cao Fuschini,

Ericka Coni, Danilo Araujo, Marilia Previero, Danieli Nobre and Felipe Caetano for

assistance in the field. Financial support was provided by the Gordon and Betty Moore

Foundation through Conservation International, CNPq (PROABROLHOS), US

Embassy, IFS, and FAPERJ. This paper is a contribution from the Rede Abrolhos

(Abrolhos Network - www.abrolhos.org), funded by the National Biodiversity System

(SISBIOTA) - CAPES/CNPq/FAPES.

References

Abdallah, P.R., Sumaila, U.R., 2007. A historical account of Brazilian policy on fisheries

subsidies. Mar. Policy 31, 444-450.

Agardy, T., Bridgewater, P., Crosby, M.P., Day, J., Dayton, P., Kenchington, R.,

Laffoley, D., 2003. Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues and ideological clashes

around marine protected areas. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater

Ecosystems 13, 353-367.

Amado-Filho, G.M., Maneveldt, G.W., Pereira-Filho, G.H., Manso, R.C.C., Bahia, R.G.,

Barros-Barreto, M.B., Guimarães, S.M.P.B., 2010. Seaweed associated with a Brazilian

tropical rhodolith bed. Ciencias Marinas 36, 371-391.

Amado-Filho, G.M., Moura, R.L., Bastos, A.C., Salgado, L.T., Sumida, P.Y., Guth, A.Z.,

Francini-Filho, R.B., Pereira-Filho, G.H., Abrantes, D.P., Brasileiro, P.S., Bahia, R.G.,

Leal, R.N., Kaufman, L., Kleypas, J.A., Farina, M., Thompson, F.L. 2012. Rhodolith

Beds Are Major CaCO3 Bio-Factories in the Tropical South West Atlantic. PLoS ONE:

7(4): e35171.

Anderson, J.T., Holliday, D.V., Kloser, R., Reid, D.G., and Simard, Y., 2008. Acoustic

seabed classification: Current practice and future directions. ICES J. of Mar. Sci 65,

1004-1011.

Bastos, A.C., Moura, R.L., Amado-Filho, G.M., Dagostini, D., Secchin, N.A., Francini-

Filho, R.B., Güth, A.Z., Sumida, P.Y, Thompson, F.L. (this volume). Novel and unusual

sinkhole-like reef structures in the Abrolhos Bank.

CBD, 2010. COP 10 – Tenth ordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the

Convention on Biological Diversity, COP 10. Strategic plan for biodiversity 2011-2020.

United Nations Environment Programme. Nagoya, Japan.

Collie, J.S., Escanero, G.A., Valentine, P.C., 1997. Effects of bottom fishing on the

benthic megafauna of Georges Bank. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 155:159-172

Cordell, J., 2006. Brazil: Dynamics and challenges of marine protected area

development and coastal protection, in: Scaling up marine management: The role of

Marine Protected Areas. The World Bank, Washington, pp. 58-77.

Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K.,

Naeem, S., O'Neil,l R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M., 1997.

The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253-260.

Creed, J.C., Amado-Filho, G.M., 1999. Disturbance and recovery of the macroflora of a

seagrass (Halodule wrightii Ascherson) meadow in the Abrolhos Marine National Park,

Brazil: An experimental evaluation of anchor damage. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 235, 285-

306.

Dias, G.T.M., El Robrini, M., Freire, G.S.F., Figueiredo-Jr, A.G., 2004. Cartas de

sedimento de fundo. Programa de Avaliação do Potencial Sustentável dos recursos

vivos na Zona Econômica Exclusiva. REVIZEE. CD-ROM.

Diaz, R. J., Solan, M., Valente, R.M., 2004. A review of approaches for classifying

benthic habitats and evaluating habitat quality. J. Env. Management 73, 165–181.

Douvere, F., 2008. The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystem-

based, sea use management. Marine Policy 32, 762-771.

Dutra, G.F., Allen, G.R., Werner, T., McKenna, S.A. 2005. A rapid marine biodiversity

assessment of the Abrolhos Bank, Bahia, Brazil. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment

38. Conservation International, Washington DC.

Ehler, C., Douvere, F., 2009. Marine Spatial Planning: A step-by-step approach toward

ecosystem-based management. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and

Man and the Biosphere Programme. IOC Manual and Guides No. 53. UNESCO.

Foster, M. 2001. Rhodoliths: between rocks and soft places. J. Phycol., 37: 659-667.

Freitas, M.O., Moura, R.L., Francini-Filho, R.B., Minte-Vera, C.V. 2011. Spawning

patterns of commercially important reef fish (Lutjanidae and Serranidae) in the tropical

western South Atlantic. Scientia Marina 75, 135-146.

Freitas, R., Rodrigues, A.M., Quintino, V., 2003. Benthic biotopes remote sensing using

acoustics. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 285, 339-353.

Francini-Filho, R.B., Moura, R.L., 2008. Dynamics of fish assemblages on coral reefs

subjected to different management regimes in the Abrolhos Bank, eastern Brazil.

Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 18, 1166-1179

Gonchorosky, J., Sales, G., Belém, M.J.C., Castro, C.B. 1989. Importance,

establishment and management plan of the Parque Nacional Marinho dos Abrolhos,

Brazil, in: C. Neves (ed.), Coastlines of Brazil. Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., New York, pp.

185-194.

Goovaerts, P., 1997. Geostatistics for natural resources evaluation. Oxford University

Press, New York.

Greene, H.G., Bizzarro, J.J., O’Connell, V.M., Brylinsky, C.K., 2007. Construction of

digital potential marine benthic habitat maps using a coded classification scheme and its

application, in: Todd, B.J., Greene, H.G. (Eds), Mapping the seafloor for habitat

characterization. Geological Association of Canada, Newfoundland, pp. 141-155.

Harris, P. T. & Baker, E. K. (Eds), 2011. Seafloor geomorphology as benthic habitat:

GeoHAB atlas of seafloor geomorphic features and benthic habitats. Elsevier, 936 pp.

Hartt, C.F., 1870. Geology and physical geography of Brazil. Boston, Fields, Osgood

and Co.

Heyman, W.D., Wright, D., 2011. Marine geomorphology in the design of marine

reserve networks. The Professional Geographer 63, 1-14.

Joly, A.B., Oliveira-Filho, E.C., Narchi, W. 1969. Projeto de criação de um parque

marinho na região de Abrolhos. An. Acad. Bras. Cienc., 41, suppl.

Kendall, M.S., Jensen, O.P.; Alexander, C.; Field, D.; McFall, G.; Bohne, R., Monaco,

M. E., 2005. Benthic mapping using sonar, video transects, and an innovative approach

to accuracy assessment: A characterization of bottom features in the Georgia Bight. J.

Coast. Res. 21, 1154-1165.

Kirkpatrick, J.B. 1983. An iterative method for establishing priorities for the selection of

nature reserves: An example from Tasmania. Biol. Conserv. 25, 127-134.

Knight, A.T., Cowling, R.M., Rouget, M.,Balmford, A., Lombard, A.T., Campbell, B.M.,

2008. Knowing but not doing: Selecting priority conservation areas and the research-

implementation gap. Conservation Biology 22, 610-617.

Knoppers, B. A., Meyerhofer, M.; Marone, E. ; Dutz, J.; Lopes, R.; Camargo, R. , 1999.

Compartments of the pelagic system and material transport at the Abrolhos Bank coral

reefs, Brazil. Archive of Fishery and Marine Research 47, 285-306.

Laborel, J.L., 1969. Les peuplements des madreporaires des cotes tropicales du Brésil.

Ann. Univ. Abidjan, Serie E, II, 1-260.

Laborel, J.L., 1970. Madreporaires et hydrocoralliaires recifaux des cotes bresiliennes.

Systematique, ecologie, repartition verticale et geographie. Ann. Instit. Oceanogr. Paris,

47,171-229.

Leão, Z.M.A.N., Dominguez, J.M. 2000. Tropical coast of Brazil. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 41,

112-122.

Leão, Z.M.A.N., Ginsburg, R.N., 1997. Living reefs surrounded by siliciclastic

sediments: the Abrolhos coastal reefs, Bahia, Brazil. Proc. Int. Coral Reef Symp. 8,

1767-1772.

Leão, Z.M.A.N., Kikuchi, R.K.P., 2005. A relic coral fauna threatened by global changes

and human activities, Eastern Brazil. Mar. Poll. Bull. 51, 599-611.

Leão, Z.M.A.N., Kikuchi, R.K.P., Testa, V., 2003. Corals and coral reefs of Brazil, in:

Cortés, J. (Ed.). Latin America coral reefs, Elsevier Science, pp. 9-52.

Leão, Z.M.A.N., Dutra, L.X., Spanó, S., 2005. The characteristics of bottom sediments,

in: Dutra, G.F., Allen, G.R., Werner, T., McKenna, S.A. (Eds), A rapid marine

biodiversity assessment of the Abrolhos Bank, Bahia, Brazil. RAP Bulletin of Biological

Assessment 38. Conservation International, Washington DC, pp 75-81.

Marchioro, G.B., Nunes, M.A., Dutra, G.F., Moura, R.L., Pereira, P.G.P., 2005.

Avaliação dos impactos da exploração e produção de hidrocarbonetos no Banco dos

Abrolhos e adjacências. Megadiversidade 1, 225-310.

Martins, A.S., Olavo, G., Costa, P.A.S., 2005. Recursos demersais capturados com

espinhel de fundo no talude superior da região entre Salvador (BA) e o Cabo de São

Tomé (RJ), in: Martins, A.S., Olavo, G., Costa, P.A.S. (Eds.), Pesca e potenciais de

exploração de recursos vivos na região central da Zona Econômica Exclusiva

Brasileira. Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, pp. 109–128.

Mello, U., Summerhayes, C.P., Ellis, J.P., 1975. Upper continental margin

sedimentation off Brazil, Part IV: Salvador to Vitoria, Southeastern Brazil. Contrib.

Sedimentol. 4, 78-116.

Moberg, F., Folke, C.,1999. Ecological goods and services of coral reef ecosystems.

Ecological Economics 29, 215–233.

Moura, R.L., 2002. Brazilian reefs as priority areas for biodiversity conservation in the

Atlantic Ocean. Proc. Int. Coral Reef Symp. 9, 917–920.

Moura, R.L., Minte-Vera, C.V., Curado, I.B., Francini-Filho, R.B., Rodrigues, H.C.L.,

Dutra, G.F., Alves, D.C., Souto, F.J.B., 2009. Challenges and prospects of fisheries

co-management under a marine extractive reserve framework in Northeastern

Brazil. Coastal Management 37, 617–632.

Moura, R.L., Francini-Filho, R.B., Chaves, E.M., Minte-Vera, C.V., Lindeman, K.C.,

2011. Use of riverine through reef habitat systems by dog snapper (Lutjanus jocu) in

eastern Brazil. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 95, 274-278.

Pittman, S.J., Brown, K.A., 2011. Multi-scale approach for predicting fish species

distributions across coral reef seascapes. PLoS ONE 6(5), e20583.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020583

Possingham, H.P., Ball, I., Andelman, S. 2000. Mathematical methods for identifying

representative reserve networks, in: Ferson, S., Burgman, M. (Eds) Quantitative

methods for conservation biology. Springer-Verlag, pp. 291-305.

Prates, A.P., 2006. Atlas dos recifes de coral nas unidades de conservação. Ministério

do Meio Ambiente, Secretaria de Biodiversidade e Florestas, Brasília.

Russ, G.R., Alcala, A.C., Maypa, A.P., Calumpong, H.P., White, A,T., 2004. Marine

reserve benefits local fisheries. Ecological Applications 14, 597–606.

Spalding, M.D., Fox, H.E., Allen, G.R., Davison, N., Ferdaña, Z. A., Finlayson, M.,

Halpern, B.S., Jorge, M.A., Lombana, A., Lourie, S.A., Martin, K.D., McManus, E.,

Molnar, J., Recchia, C.A., Robertson, J., 2007. Marine ecoregions of the world: A

bioregionalization of coastal and shelf areas. BioScience 57, 573-583.

Verrill, A.E. 1868. Notes of the radiates in the Museum of Yale College, with

descriptions of new genera and species. 4. Notes of the corals and echinoderms

collected by Prof. C.F. Hartt at the Abrolhos reefs, Province of Bahia, Brazil.

Connecticut Acad. Arts Sci. Transact. 1,351-371.

Vicalvi, M.A., Costa, M.P.A., Kowsmann, R.O., 1978. Depressão de Abrolhos: Uma

paleolaguna Holocênica na plataforma continental leste brasileira. Bol. Tec. Petrobrás,

21, 279-286.

Wackernagel, H., 1998. Multivariate geostatistics. Springer, Berlin.

Wilder, D., Norris H., 2002. Mapping bottom habitats along the southeastern U.S.

continental margin, in: Breman, J. (Ed), Marine Geography. GIS for the Oceans and

Seas, pp. 79-86.

LEGENDS FOR FIGURES

Supplementary Figure S1. Distribution of the 5,486 points with information on seabed

composition

Supplementary Figure S2. Bathymetric profile of the Abrolhos Bank continental shelf.

Figure 1. Study region (Abrolhos Bank), showing side-scan sonar tracks and the 69

validation stations where we carried out ROV and mixed-gas diving operations.

Figure 2. The three main megahabitats of the Abrolhos Bank continental shelf.

Figure 3. Physiognomies of the two megahabitats with relatively flat bathymetry in the

Abrolhos Bank. Sonographic records (above) and underwater images (below) from the

soft sediments (A) and rhodolith bed megahabitat (B).

Figure 4. Physiognomies of the main macrohabitats within the larger reefal

megahabitat. Sonographic records from non-emerging pinnacles (A), coalesced reef

banks (B), paleovalleys and channels (C). Underwater photograph of the steep wall of a

paleochanel at 50-60 m deph, showing expressive cover of coralline algae and black

corals (D) (photo: R.L. Moura).

Figure 5. Contrasts between previously-known emerging and quasi-emerging reefs and

mesophotic pinnacles. A: High diversity benthic coverage in the coastal arc, including

corals, zoanthids, coralline algae and macroalgae (large coral colony in the lower right:

Mussismilia brasiliensis). B) Partially drowned mesophotic reef with low cover and

diversity of corals (coral colony: Montastraea cavernosa). Photos: S Zumbrunn.

Figure 6. Megahabitats, Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and the main economic

activities in the Abrolhos Bank.

Figure 7. Examples of conflicts between sectors, resulting in an overall stagnation of

conflicting agendas and low effectiveness of the MPA network. Upper line: A) Blocks for

oil and gas exploitation offered inside and near MPAs in 2003 and B) Licensed

exploratory blocks (2011). Lower line: C) Shrimp farming project proposed in 2005 and

buffer zone proposed in 2006 and D) Current MPA network (Buffer Zone

decommissioned), showing partially implemented Federal MPAs and the large multiple-

use state “paper park”.

Figure 2

Figure 1

Fig

ure

3

Fig

ure

4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Tabl

e 1.

Are

a us

ed b

y th

e m

ain

econ

omic

act

iviti

es (e

xcep

t fis

herie

s) a

nd M

arin

e P

rote

cted

Are

as’ c

over

age

in th

e th

ree

bent

hic

meg

ahab

itats

of t

he A

brol

hos

Ban

k.

Me

ga

ha

bit

ats

Un

co

ns

oli

da

ted

(19

,151

km

2)

Re

ef

(8,8

44 k

m2)

Rh

od

olith

s

(20

,904

km

2)

Ac

tivit

yS

tatu

sA

rea

(km

2)

%A

rea

(km

2)

%A

rea

(km

2)

%

Oil &

Gas

Con

cess

ione

d96

6.2

0.05

37.3

<0.0

124

80.

0118

63

Pro

duct

ion

92.5

<0.0

10

01.

7<0

.01

Po

tas

h s

alt

s

min

ing

Res

earc

h or

conc

essi

on3,

521.

40.

0625

5.3

0.03

00

Ca

rbo

na

tes

an

d s

an

d

min

ing

Res

earc

h or

conc

essi

on45

.10.

060

00

0

Ta

ble

1

Oth

er

min

ing

R

esea

rch

or

conc

essi

on

13.6

0.

06

0 0

0 0

Mar

ine

Pro

tect

ed A

reas

No-

take

44.3

<0

.01

807.

8 0.

09

26.2

<0

.01

Mul

tiple

-

use

61

7 0.

03

486.

8 0.

06

19.9

<0

.01

"pap

er

park

" 2,

172.

5 0.

11

1,57

3.9

0.18

3.

7 <0

.01