Designate a Marine Protected Area and only allow hook and line fishing

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    75%
  • Certainty
    32%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

Key messages

  • One study examined the effects of allowing only hook and line fishing in marine protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in the Skagerrak (Norway).

 

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

  • Crustacean abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the Skagerrak found that sites inside a protected area only allowing hook and line fishing had greater increases in lobster abundance over the four years after the area was designated compared to unprotected fully fished sites.
  • Crustacean condition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the Skagerrak found that sites inside a protected area only allowing hook and line fishing had greater increases in lobster size over the four years after the area was designated compared to unprotected fully fished 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 replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in 2006–2010 in six areas of seabed off the Norwegian Skagerrak coast (Moland et al. 2013) found that, during the four years after being designated, protected areas only allowing hook and line fishing had greater increases in the number and size of European lobster Homarus gammarus, compared to fully fished areas. Before designation, lobster abundance (as catch/unit effort) was typically similar in all areas (protected: 0.5 lobster/trap; fully fished areas: 0.5–1.5 lobsters/trap). Over time, abundance increased at all sites, but increased more in protected areas, and after four years had increased by 245% in protected areas, (1–3 lobsters/trap), but only by 87% in fully fished areas (0.5–2.5 lobsters/trap). Before designation, lobster size was similar across areas (protected: 23–24 cm; fully fished: 24–25 cm). Over time, size increased at all sites, but more in the protected areas, and after four years had increased by 12–15% (26–28 cm), but only by 3% in fully fished areas (24–25 cm). In September 2006, three marine protected areas only allowing hook and line fishing were established. Annually in 2006–2010, lobsters were sampled inside each protected area and at three fully fished areas (no gear restriction; one adjacent to each protected area) using traps (25/area) deployed at 10–30 m depth. After 24 h, all lobsters in traps were counted and measured (carapace length). Traps were redeployed daily over four days.

    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 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