Abstract
The main goal of our study was to develop a flexible conservation-planning framework to prioritize marine protected areas (MPAs) in places that would result in multiple benefits today and in the future1. Every model has assumptions that will affect its results to varying degrees. In the accompanying Comment, Ovando et al.2 challenge two important assumptions of our food provision model: (1) the scale of spatial connectivity of unassessed stocks and (2) the nature of the density dependence. Here, we isolate and test for the effect of reducing the scale of spatial connectivity and provide arguments for why assuming a global density dependence is justified.