Well‐designed and effectively managed networks of marine reserves can be effective tools for both fisheries management and biodiversity conservation. Connectivity, the demographic linking of local populations through the dispersal of individuals as larvae, juveniles or adults, is a key ecological factor to consider in marine reserve design, since it has important implications for the persistence of metapopulations and their recovery from disturbance. For marine reserves to protect biodiversity and enhance populations of species in fished areas, they must be able to sustain focal species (particularly fishery species) within their boundaries, and be spaced such that they can function as mutually replenishing networks whilst providing recruitment subsidies to fished areas. Thus the configuration (size, spacing and location) of individual reserves within a network should be informed by larval dispersal and movement patterns of the species for which protection is required. In the past, empirical data regarding larval dispersal and movement patterns of adults and juveniles of many tropical marine species have been unavailable or inaccessible to practitioners responsible for marine reserve design. Recent empirical studies using new technologies have also provided fresh insights into movement patterns of many species and redefined our understanding of connectivity among populations through larval dispersal. Our review of movement patterns of 34 families (210 species) of coral reef fishes demonstrates that movement patterns (home ranges, ontogenetic shifts and spawning migrations) vary among and within species, and are influenced by a range of factors (e.g. size, sex, behaviour, density, habitat characteristics, season, tide and time of day). Some species move <0.1–0.5 km (e.g. damselfishes, butterflyfishes and angelfishes), <0.5–3 km (e.g. most parrotfishes, goatfishes and surgeonfishes) or 3–10 km (e.g. large parrotfishes and wrasses), while others move tens to hundreds (e.g. some groupers, emperors, snappers and jacks) or thousands of kilometres (e.g. some sharks and tuna). Larval dispersal distances tend to be <5–15 km, and self‐recruitment is common. Synthesising this information allows us, for the first time, to provide species, specific advice on the size, spacing and location of marine reserves in tropical marine ecosystems to maximise benefits for conservation and fisheries management for a range of taxa. We recommend that: (i) marine reserves should be more than twice the size of the home range of focal species (in all directions), thus marine reserves of various sizes will be required depending on which species require protection, how far they move, and if other effective protection is in place outside reserves; (ii) reserve spacing should be <15 km, with smaller reserves spaced more closely; and (iii) marine reserves should include habitats that are critical to the life history of focal species (e.g. home ranges, nursery grounds, migration corridors and spawning aggregations), and be located to accommodate movement patterns among these. We also provide practical advice for practitioners on how to use this information to design, evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of marine reserve networks within broader ecological, socioeconomic and management contexts.

Overfishing and habitat destruction due to local and global threats are undermining fisheries, biodiversity, and the long-term sustainability of tropical marine ecosystems worldwide, including in the Coral Triangle. Well-designed and effectively managed marine reserve networks can reduce local threats, and contribute to achieving multiple objectives regarding fisheries management, biodiversity conservation and adaptation to changes in climate and ocean chemistry. Previous studies provided advice regarding ecological guidelines for designing marine reserves to achieve one or two of these objectives. While there are many similarities in these guidelines, there are key differences that provide conflicting advice. Thus, there is a need to provide integrated guidelines for practitioners who wish to design marine reserves to achieve all three objectives simultaneously. Scientific advances regarding fish connectivity and recovery rates, and climate and ocean change vulnerability, also necessitate refining advice for marine reserve design. Here we review ecological considerations for marine reserve design, and provide guidelines to achieve all three objectives simultaneously regarding: habitat representation; risk spreading; protecting critical, special and unique areas; reserve size, spacing, location, and duration; protecting climate resilient areas; and minimizing and avoiding threats. In addition to applying ecological guidelines, reserves must be designed to address social and governance considerations, and be integrated within broader fisheries and coastal management regimes.

Baited remote underwater stereo‐video systems (stereo‐BRUVs) are a popular tool to sample demersal fish assemblages and gather data on their relative abundance and body size structure in a robust, cost‐effective and non‐invasive manner. Given the rapid uptake of the method, subtle differences have emerged in the way stereo‐BRUVs are deployed and how the resulting imagery is annotated. These disparities limit the interoperability of datasets obtained across studies, preventing broadscale insights into the dynamics of ecological systems. We provide the first globally accepted guide for using stereo‐BRUVs to survey demersal fish assemblages and associated benthic habitats. Information on stereo‐BRUVs design, camera settings, field operations and image annotation are outlined. Additionally, we provide links to protocols for data validation, archiving and sharing. Globally, the use of stereo‐BRUVs is spreading rapidly. We provide a standardized protocol that will reduce methodological variation among researchers and encourage the use of Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable workflows to increase the ability to synthesize global datasets and answer a broad suite of ecological questions.

No-take marine reserves are expected to enhance coral reef resilience indirectly through suppression of algal growth and thus maintenance of coral dominance. The mechanism of such enhancement is protection of functionally important herbivorous fishes from harvest. We provide indirect (inferred) evidence of reserves performing this role. We used data on herbivorous fishes, macroalgae and corals collected at one point in time in 15 reserves (range of duration of protection: 0.5 to 11 yr) and at 15 fished sites in the Philippines. Results inferred a 9- and 15-fold increase in density and biomass, respectively, of herbivorous fishes, which coincided with a 13-fold decrease in macroalgal cover inside reserves after 11 yr of protection. The inferred decline in macroalgal cover was more rapid during the first 5 yr of protection. No significant trends in fish abundance or macroalgal cover were detected among fished sites. Biomass of herbivorous fishes was 8 times higher, and cover of macroalgae 25 times lower, on average, inside older (8 to 11 yr) reserves than at fished sites. Parrotfishes (Scaridae) and surgeonfishes (Acanthuridae) had markedly different inferred trajectories of population recovery. Recovery of parrotfish was more rapid than that of surgeonfish in the first 5 yr of protection, suggesting that the functional role of parrotfish was important in reducing macroalgal cover. The inferred relationships of hard coral cover with duration of reserve protection and with herbivore biomass were non-significant. Even at fished sites, coral cover (mostly >25%) was much higher than macrolgal cover (mostly <15%). Thus, there was no evidence that the current levels of fishing of herbivores on these reefs have led to ‘benthic phase shifts’