Cease or prohibit aquaculture activity

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    25%
  • Certainty
    20%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

Key messages

  • Two studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting aquaculture activity on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Both studies were in the Mediterranean Sea (Italy and Spain).

 

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

  • Overall community composition (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that after ceasing aquaculture activity invertebrate community composition remained different to that of an unfarmed site.
  • Worm community composition (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that after ceasing aquaculture activity worm community composition community composition remained different to that of an unfarmed site.

POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

  • Overall abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that after ceasing aquaculture activity overall invertebrate abundance was similar to an unfarmed site.
  • Worm abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that after ceasing aquaculture activity abundance of health-indicating worms increased, and abundance of pollution-indicating worms decreased.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A before-and-after, site comparison study in 1997 of two soft seabed sites in the Gulf of Gaeta, Mediterranean Sea, Italy (Mazzola et al. 2000) found that after removing a fish farm, invertebrate abundance appeared similar to that of an unfarmed site after two months, but community composition remained different after four months. Before removal, abundance at the farmed site (850–1,350/10 cm2) appeared different to the unfarmed site (1,250–2,750). This was still true a month after removal (farmed: 1,350; unfarmed: 2,800). After two months, abundances were similar at all sites (farmed: 1,500–2,300; unfarmed: 2,000–2,850). Community composition remained different after four months (data presented as graphical analyses). A fish farm was removed in July 1997. One farmed site and one unfarmed site (1 km north) were surveyed monthly between March and October 1997. Three sediment samples were taken by divers at each site during each survey using a core (3.7 cm diameter, 10 cm depth). Invertebrates (between 37 µm and 1 mm) were identified and counted.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A before-and-after, site comparison study in 2007–2008 in three soft seabed locations 4.8 km off the coast of Murcia, Mediterranean Sea, southeast Spain (Aguado-Giménez et al. 2012) found that eight months after removing a fish farm, the worm community had changed but was still different from that of two nearby unfarmed sites. The similarity in worm community between the farmed and unfarmed sites did not increase after removal (before: 43%; after: 41% similarity). However, abundance of opportunistic (indicating pollution) Capitellidae species decreased, while abundances of Onuphidae and Sabellidae species (indicating good health of sediment) increased at the farmed site after eight months (abundances not reported). A fish farm was dismantled in November 2007. One farmed site and two unfarmed sites (1 km and 1.3 km from the farmed site) were surveyed twice before (January and July 2007) and twice after (January and July 2008) dismantling. Four sediment samples were taken by divers at each site during each survey using a hand grab (20 x 10 x 10 cm). Worms (> 0.5 mm) were identified to family level and counted.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Lemasson, A.J., Pettit, L.R., Smith, R.K., and Sutherland, W.J. (2019) Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation
Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation - Published 2020

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, terrestrial mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust