Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit all towed (mobile) fishing gear

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    45%
  • Certainty
    23%
  • Harms
    10%

Source countries

Key messages

  • Two studies examined the effects of prohibiting all towed gear in marine protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study was in the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea (UK), the other in the English Channel (UK).

 

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

  • Overall community composition (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the English Channel found that, over the three years after closing a marine protected area to all towed gears, the community composition of reef-indicative invertebrate species became different to that of unprotected fished sites.
  • Overall diversity/species richness (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the English Channel found that, over the three years after closing a marine protected area to all towed gears, the number of reef-indicative invertebrate species remained similar to unprotected fished sites.

POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

  • Overall abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the English Channel found that, over the three years after closing a marine protected area to all towed gears, the abundance of reef-indicative invertebrate species became greater than at unprotected fished sites.
  • Crustacean abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea found that a marine protected area closed to all towed gear (only allowing potting) for 33 to 36 years had mixed effects on the abundances of lobsters and crabs depending on species.
  • Crustacean condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea found that a marine protected area closed to all towed gear (only allowing potting) for 33 to 36 years had mixed effects on the sizes of lobsters and crabs depending on species.

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 replicated, site comparison study in summer 2004–2007 of eight sites in four areas of rocky and sandy seabed in the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea, UK (Hoskin et al. 2011) found that a marine protected area closed to all towed gear for 33–36 years had mixed effects on the abundances and sizes of European lobster Homarus Gammarus, and three crab species. Abundances of large lobsters (≥90 mm) did not change over time in any areas, where they were similar (1–2 lobsters/line). Abundance of small lobsters (<90 mm) increased in the protected areas by 140% (due to spill-over effects from an adjacent no-take zone; from 2 to 4–7 lobsters/line), but not in the fished areas where abundance remained constant (2–4 lobsters/line). The size of large lobsters (≥90 mm) decreased similarly in all areas by 2–3% (from 98 to 95 mm). Abundance of velvet crabs Necora puber decreased inside the protected areas (from 5–6 to 1 crab/line) but increased in the fished areas (from 0–6 to 1–7 crabs/line). Abundance of brown crabs Cancer pagarus did not change over time in any areas but was on average higher in the protected areas (1–2 crabs/line) compared to the fished areas (0.3–2 crabs/line). The average size of brown crabs did not change over time in any areas, and was not different between protected (123–128 mm) and fished areas (116–130 mm). Abundance of spider crabs Maja squinado was similar in 2004 and 2007 for all areas but varied spatially. Lundy Island marine protected area was designated as a voluntary reserve in 1971 (statutory since 1986) and only allowed crab and lobster potting (all other fishing prohibited; apart from a small 4 km2 no-take zone). In 2004–2007, lobsters and crabs were surveyed at two locations in the protected area (outside the no-take zone), and two unprotected fished locations (20–100 km away) (2 sites/location). Four lines of standard commercial baited shellfish pots were deployed (10 pots/line) at each site for 24 h. Upon retrieval, lobsters and crabs were counted and measured (carapace length). The pots were redeployed for five consecutive days each year.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A before-and-after, site comparison study from 2008–2011 of 12 sites of rocky reefs and pebbly sand seabed in Lyme Bay, English Channel, southwest England, UK (Sheehan et al. 2013) found that three years after closing a marine protected area to all towed gears, community composition and abundance of reef-indicative invertebrate species became different to unprotected fished sites, but their species richness remained similar. Community data were reported as graphical analyses. Reef-indicative invertebrate species richness did not statistically change over time and was similar in closed and fished sites both before closure (closed: 8; fished: 5 species/m2) and three years after (closed: 10; fished: 5 species/m2). However, while before closure their abundance was similar in closed (6 individuals/m2) and fished sites (3 individuals/m2), it increased over time in closed sites and was greater than in fished sites after three years (closed: 16; fished: 1 individuals/m2). In particular, abundances of four key species increased in closed sites over time and became more abundant than in fished sites after three years (significantly for: bryozoans Pentapora fascialis closed 0.11 vs fished 0.01; sea squirts Phallusia mammillata 0.06 vs 0.01 and branching sponges 0.05 vs <0.01; non-significantly for hydroids 55 vs 17 individuals/m2). The 206 km2 protected area was closed to towed fishing gears in 2008. Six weeks after closure (considered the ‘before’ timepoint by the authors) and in 2011, five sites inside and seven sites outside the protected area were surveyed using a video camera (two 200 m video-transects/site). All invertebrates observed on the video present on pebbly sand, but indicative of rocky reef habitat, were 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 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 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