Bull Mar Sci. 93(1):173–198. 2016 https://doi.org/10.5343/bms.2015.1083 173 Bulletin of Marine Science © 2017 Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science of the University of Miami Impacts of TURFs and marine reserves on fsheries and conservation goals: theory, empirical evidence, and modeling Sarah E Lester 1 * Gavin McDonald 2 Michaela Clemence 2 Dawn T Dougherty 3 Cody S Szuwalski 2 ABSTRACT.—Unsustainable fshing in marine systems creates fsheries management and conservation challenges, with implications for ecosystem health, livelihoods, economies, and seafood supply. Tus there is a need for management approaches that can support productive fsheries and healthy ecosystems. Property rights, and particularly spatial rights or territorial use rights in fsheries (TURFs), are increasingly proposed as a solution. It has been suggested that TURFs may align fshers’ incentives with long-term stewardship, resulting in improved yields and positive conservation outcomes. Here we examined this idea by reviewing existing theoretical and empirical evidence for TURF performance in achieving both fsheries and conservation goals, and fnd equivocal evidence that TURFs can consistently deliver on this promise. We then explored the potential to improve outcomes by implementing no- take marine reserves with TURFs (“TURF-reserves”). We evaluated theoretical and empirical evidence in the literature and develop a simulation model to examine tradeofs for achieving conservation and fshery objectives. With our model, we examined diferent management regimes (e.g., open access vs TURFs), harvest controls within the TURF (e.g., selectivity and harvest rate restrictions), and varying reserve sizes. We found that combining reserves with TURFs does not eliminate the tradeof between fsheries and conservation goals if the TURF already efectively controls fshing pressure. However, given the results from our literature review, many TURFs may not achieve efective fsheries management. Tus, TURF-reserves may be better able to balance fsheries and conservation goals relative to TURF-only systems, but outcomes will depend on target species mobility, TURF size, and fshing intensity outside the TURF-reserve. 1 Department of Geography, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306. 2 Marine Science Institute and Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106. 3 National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93101. * Corresponding author email: <slester@fsu.edu>. Date Submitted: 16 November, 2016. Date Accepted: 12 April, 2016. Available Online: 20 May, 2016. Mote Symposium invited paper