Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit dredging

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    60%
  • Certainty
    20%
  • Harms
    0%

Study locations

Key messages

  • One study examined the effects of prohibiting dredging in marine protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the Firth of Lorn (UK).

 

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

  • Overall community composition (1 study): One paired, replicated, site comparison study in the Firth of Lorn found that sites inside a protected area that had been prohibiting dredging for approximately 2.5 years had different combined invertebrate and fish community composition compared to unprotected dredged sites.

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

  • Overall abundance (1 study): One paired, replicated, site comparison study in the Firth of Lorn found that sites inside a protected area that had been prohibiting dredging for approximately 2.5 years typically had greater combined cover of bryozoans and hydroids (combined) compared to unprotected dredged sites.

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 paired, replicated, site comparison study in 2009 of nine sites in three areas of sandy and rocky seabed in the Firth of Lorn, Scotland, UK (Boulcott et al. 2014) found that sites inside a protected area that had been prohibiting dredging for approximately 2.5 years typically had greater combined cover of bryozoans and hydroids and different combined invertebrate and fish community composition compared to unprotected dredged sites. In four of six comparisons, sites inside the protected area had higher cover of bryozoans and hydroids compared to dredged sites outside (inside 43 vs outside 34%; 25 vs 15%; 21 vs 10%; 22 vs 9%). In two comparisons, cover was similar inside and outside (19 vs 14%; 52 vs 54%). Community composition varied across the three areas, but within each area was always different in the protected and dredged sites (data presented as graphical analyses). Part of the Firth of Lorn was designated as a Special Area of Conservation in March 2005 and closed to scallop dredging in the boreal spring of 2007. Three areas (25–89 m depth) along the boundary of the closed area were selected. In each area, one site on each side of the boundary (i.e. one inside the closed area, one outside) was surveyed in May and again in July–August 2009. Invertebrates were surveyed using a camera at 30–40 sampling stations/area. For three photographs/station/survey, the combined area covered by erect bryozoans and hydroids was measured, and all animals (24 invertebrate species; combined with one species of skate and one group of fish species) identified and counted.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Lemasson, A.J., Pettit, L.R., Smith, R.K. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation. Pages 635-732 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, 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 2021 cover

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, 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 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


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