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.

Coastal aquaculture is a globally expanding enterprise. Currently, 1200 salmon farms operate in coastal Norway, yet their capacity to aggregate and sub- sequently modify wild fish distributions is poorly known. Aggregations of wild fish at 9 farms and 9 control loca- tions were counted on 3 separate days in June to August 2007. On each sampling occasion, 6 counts were made at 5 distinct depth-strata at each farm and control location. Wild fish were 1 to 3 orders of magnitude more abundant at farms than at control sites, depending on the location. Gadoid fish (Pollachius virens, Gadus morhua and Me- lanogrammus aeglefinus) dominated farm-associated assemblages and were present across a wide range of sizes, from juveniles to large adults. Estimated total farm- aggregated wild fish biomass averaged 10.2 metric tonnes (t) per farm across the 9 farms (range: 600 kg to 41.6 t). Applied across the geographical range of Norway's 1200 salmon farms, our estimates indicate that salmon farms attract and aggregate over 12 000 t of wild fish into a total of just 750 ha of coastal waters on any given day in sum- mer. Possible consequences of these persistent, substan- tial aggregations of wild fishes at farms include a height- ened potential for the transfer of pathogens from salmon farms to wild fish and among adjacent salmon farms, and altered availability of wild fish to fisheries. Restrictions on fishing in the immediate surrounds of salmon farms may avoid farms acting as ecological traps, particularly for species with depressed populations such as G. morhua, which are highly attracted to farms.

Aquaculture is an increasingly important food-producing sector, providing protein for human consumption. However, marine aquaculture often struggles for space due to the crowded nature of human activities in many marine coastal areas, and because of limited attention from spatial planning managers. Here, we assess the need for coastal spatial planning, emphasising the establishment of suitable areas for the development of marine aquaculture, termed Allocated Zones for Aquaculture (AZAs), in which aquaculture has secured use and priority over other activities, and where potential adverse environmental impacts and negative interactions with other users are minimised or avoided. We review existing examples of marine aquaculture spatial development worldwide and discuss the proper use of site selection in relation to different legal and regulatory requirements. National or regional authorities in charge of coastal zone management should carry out spatial planning defining optimal sites for aquaculture to promote development of sustainable marine aquaculture and avoid conflict with other users, following a participatory approach and adhering to the principles of ecosystem-based management