Appendix C. Results of 30% target and selection frequency outputs from Marxan analysis.

Results of 30% target and selection frequency outputs from Marxan analysis

Appendix B. Detailed descriptions of input data and resulting cost layers.

Detailed descriptions of input data and resulting cost layers

Appendix A. Detailed information of threatened species used in this study.

Detailed information of threatened species used in this study

Species list Levin et al

Information used to define fish species distribution ranges - depth ranges and marine habitat

Biodiversity features and fishing effort in Israel's Mediterranean Sea territorial waters; a) species richness of 166 biodiversity features (species and geomorphologic features), b) combined fishing effort (entangling nets, longliners, purse seiners and trawlers), where the blue areas (no effort) are restricted fishing areas; marine reserves, military areas and aquaculture.

<p>Biodiversity features and fishing effort in Israel's Mediterranean Sea territorial waters; a) species richness of 166 biodiversity features (species and geomorphologic features), b) combined fishing effort (entangling nets, longliners, purse seiners and trawlers), where the blue areas (no effort) are restricted fishing areas; marine reserves, military areas and aquaculture.</p

Spearman rank correlation (ρ) of the similarity between the selection frequency outputs of each planning scenario.

<p>High values (closer to 1) indicate a more similar spatial pattern in selection frequencies, meaning that these plans will require similar conservation actions. All scenarios show significant correlations (p<0.001).</p

Marxan best solution outputs (the reserve configuration that best reduces opportunity cost and meets biodiversity targets from 1000 Marxan runs) for each planning scenario.

<p>The four colours designate the four types of zones (see <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0104489#pone-0104489-t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a>).</p

Results showing average opportunity cost for 1,000 Marxan runs for each planning scenario.

<p>The constraint/target that 5% of the distribution of all features needs to be within the Conservation Zone (no-take zone) was unable to be reached for nine species. This constraint was removed for these species so targets could all be met. This table shows the opportunity cost of each planning scenario, the percentage of biodiversity targets met in the scenario and the percentage of “no-take area” surface coverage of the entire reserve system. For a description of planning scenarios see <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0104489#pone-0104489-t002" target="_blank">Table 2</a>.</p><p>Targets were set according to IUCN criteria and the size of a species distribution range (as described in the <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0104489#s2" target="_blank">methods</a> section).</p

Selection frequency output maps (shows the percentage of times a planning unit was selected when run in Marxan 1000 times) from Marxan with Zones for each Zone and each zoning scenario.

<p>All scenarios meet biodiversity targets. The dashed black lines represent the proposed marine reserve system by Israel's Nature and Parks Authority <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0104489#pone.0104489-Scheinin1" target="_blank">[45]</a>. The certainty map expresses the level of certainty/agreement of planning units selected (either highly selected for no-take areas or low selection) across all planning scenarios. Therefore, the higher the percentage of certainty means there is more agreement between scenarios.</p

The trade-off between meeting biodiversity targets and maintaining economic objectives for each zoning scenario.

<p>(a) biodiversity targets are met when the fishery targets (percentage of annual fishery revenue) are less than 93% (7% revenue loss) in the Basic Zoning scenario (three zones and six activities), less than 88% (12% revenue loss) in the Intermediate Zoning B scenario (four zones and seven activities), and less than 85% (15% revenue loss) is the Complex Zoning scenario (four zones and ten activities), (b) biodiversity targets are met when hydrocarbon operations (leased and licensed expected revenue) are less than ≤95% (5% revenue loss) in the Intermediate Zoning scenario and less than 94% (6% revenue loss) in the Complex Zoning scenario.</p