Angel Perez-Ruzafa

Prof. Angel Perez-Ruzafa

University of Murcia, Spain
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

39Years (1988-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
24 February 2008 in Ecology Letters
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
JCJoachim Claudet
Joachim Claudet
COCraig W. Osenberg
Craig W. Osenberg
LBLisandro Benedetti‐Cecchi
Lisandro Benedetti‐Cecchi
PDPaolo Domenici
Paolo Domenici
JGJosé‐Antonio García‐Charton
José‐Antonio García‐Charton
SPSerge Planes
Serge Planes

1 March 2014 in Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
Alice NewtonAlice Newton
Alice Newton
JIJohn Icey
John Icey
SCSónia Cristina
Sónia Cristina
Ana BritoAna Brito
Ana Brito
ACAna Cristina Cardoso
Ana Cristina Cardoso
JZJosé-Manuel Zaldívar
José-Manuel Zaldívar

1 July 2018 in Journal for Nature Conservation
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
ANAlice Newton
Alice Newton
Ana BritoAna Brito
Ana Brito
JIJohn D. Icely
John D. Icely
VDValérie Derolez
Valérie Derolez
ICInês Clara
Inês Clara
VKValeriy Khokhlov
Valeriy Khokhlov

1 April 2010 in Ecological Applications
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JCJ. Claudet
J. Claudet
COC. W. Osenberg
C. W. Osenberg
PDP. Domenici
P. Domenici
Fabio BadalamentiFabio Badalamenti
Fabio Badalamenti
MMM. Milazzo
M. Milazzo
SPS. Planes
S. Planes
Marine reserves are assumed to protect a wide range of species from deleterious effects stemming from exploitation. However, some species, due to their ecological characteristics, may not respond positively to protection. Very little is known about the effects of life history and ecological traits (e.g., mobility, growth, and habitat) on responses of fish species to marine reserves. Using 40 data sets from 12 European marine reserves, we show that there is significant variation in the response of different species of fish to protection and that this heterogeneity can be explained, in part, by differences in their traits. Densities of targeted size‐classes of commercial species were greater in protected than unprotected areas. This effect of protection increased as the maximum body size of the targeted species increased, and it was greater for species that were not obligate schoolers. However, contrary to previous theoretical findings, even mobile species with wide home ranges benefited from protection: the effect of protection was at least as strong for mobile species as it was for sedentary ones. Noncommercial bycatch and unexploited species rarely responded to protection, and when they did (in the case of unexploited bentho‐pelagic species), they exhibited the opposite response: their densities were lower inside reserves. The use of marine reserves for marine conservation and fisheries management implies that they should ensure protection for a wide range of species with different life‐history and ecological traits. Our results suggest this is not the case, and instead that effects vary with economic value, body size, habitat, depth range, and schooling behavior.

4 September 2003 in Marine Biology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Just Tomàs Bayle-SempereJust Tomàs Bayle-Sempere
Just Tomàs Bayle-Sempere
DMD. Moreno
D. Moreno
JGJosé Antonio García-Charton
José Antonio García-Charton
Angel Perez-RuzafaAngel Perez-Ruzafa
Angel Perez-Ruzafa
PSPablo Sanchez-Jerez
Pablo Sanchez-Jerez
ORO. Reñones
O. Reñones

8 April 2010 in Journal of Coastal Conservation
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Angel Perez-RuzafaAngel Perez-Ruzafa
Angel Perez-Ruzafa
CMConcepción Marcos
Concepción Marcos
IPIsabel María Pérez-Ruzafa
Isabel María Pérez-Ruzafa
MPMaría Pérez-Marcos
María Pérez-Marcos