Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install stormwater traps or grids We found no studies that evaluated the effects of installing stormwater traps or grids on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2203https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2203Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:14:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove litter from the marine environment We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing litter from the marine environment on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2204https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2204Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:15:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use biodegradable panels in fishing pots We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using biodegradable panels in fishing pots on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2205https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2205Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:15:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Recover lost fishing gear We found no studies that evaluated the effects of recovering lost fishing gear on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2206https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2206Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:16:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Bury electricity cables to reduce electromagnetic fields We found no studies that evaluated the effects of burying electricity cables to reduce electromagnetic fields on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2207https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2207Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:19:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit, cease or prohibit industrial and urban lighting at night We found no studies that evaluated the effects of limiting, ceasing or prohibiting industrial and urban lighting at night on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2208https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2208Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:20:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce underwater noise (other than sonar) We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reducing underwater noise on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2209https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2209Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:20:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit, cease or prohibit the use of sonars We found no studies that evaluated the effects of limiting, ceasing or prohibiting the use of sonars on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2210https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2210Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:22:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit, cease or prohibit the discharge of cooling effluents from power stations We found no studies that evaluated the effects of limiting, ceasing or prohibiting the use of sonars on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2211https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2211Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:23:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit, cease or prohibit the discharge of waste effluents overboard from vessels We found no studies that evaluated the effects of limiting, ceasing or prohibiting the discharge of waste effluents overboard from vessels on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2212https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2212Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:24:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use non-toxic antifouling coatings on surfaces We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using non-toxic antifouling coatings on surfaces on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2213https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2213Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:25:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict the use of tributyltin or other toxic antifouling coatings Four studies examined the effects of restricting the use of tributyltin as an antifouling coating on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study was located in the English Channel (UK), two in the River Crouch estuary (UK), and one in Otsuchi Bay (Japan). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the River Crouch estuary found that after restricting the use of tributyltin, invertebrate community composition changed, but that changes varied with locations. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the River Crouch estuary found that after restricting the use of tributyltin, overall invertebrate species richness and diversity increased. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Molluscs condition (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the English Channel found that after restricting the use of tributyltin, there was a decrease in its concentration in dogwhelks and the penis length of female dogwhelks. Crustacean condition (1 study): One study in Otsuchi Bay found that after restricting the use of tributyltin its concentration decreased in skeleton shrimps. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2214https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2214Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:30:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove and clean-up shoreline waste disposal sites One study examined the effects of removing and cleaning-up shoreline waste disposal sites on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the Southern Ocean (Antarctica). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the Southern Ocean found that after removing and cleaning-up a disused waste disposal site, invertebrate community composition changed, and no further negative impacts were detected, but communities remained different to natural sites. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the Southern Ocean found that after removing and cleaning-up a disused waste disposal site, invertebrate species richness did not change over time and remained different to that of natural sites, but no further negative impacts were detected. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2215https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2215Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:32:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore habitats and/or habitat-forming (biogenic) species following extreme events We found no studies that evaluated the effects of restoring habitats and/or habitat-forming species following extreme events on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2216https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2216Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:34:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage climate-driven range extensions of problematic species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of managing climate-driven range extensions of problematic species on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2217https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2217Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:35:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant/release climate change-resistant captive-bred or hatchery-reared individuals to re-establish or boost native populations We found no studies that evaluated the effects of transplanting/releasing mate change-resistant captive-bred or hatchery-reared individuals on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2218https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2218Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:36:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant captive-bred or hatchery-reared individuals of habitat-forming (biogenic) species that are resistant to climate change We found no studies that evaluated the effects of transplanting captive-bred or hatchery-reared individuals of habitat-forming/biogenic species that are resistant to climate change on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2219https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2219Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:36:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit, cease or prohibit the degradation and/or removal of carbon sequestering species and/or habitats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of limiting, ceasing or prohibiting the degradation and/or removal of carbon sequestering species and/or habitats on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2220https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2220Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:37:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Promote natural carbon sequestration species and/or habitats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of promoting natural carbon sequestration species and/or habitats on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2221https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2221Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:38:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create a Marine Protected Area or set levels of legal protection where natural climate refugia occur to further promote the persistence and recovery of species facing climate change We found no studies that evaluated the effects of creating a marine protected area or setting levels of legal protection where natural climate refugia occur to further promote the persistence and recovery of species facing climate change on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2222https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2222Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:39:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) to regulate impactful maritime activities We found no studies that evaluated the effects of designating a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2223https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2223Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:59:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit all types of fishing Thirty studies examined the effects of prohibiting all types of fishing in marine protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Four studies were systematic reviews of marine reserves (New Zealand and across the world). Two studies were in the North Atlantic Ocean (Bahamas). Five were in the South Pacific Ocean (New Zealand, French Polynesia). Three were in the North Pacific Ocean (USA). Seven were in the Tasman Sea (New Zealand, Australia). One was in the Florida Keys (USA). One was in the Coral Sea (Australia). Three were in the Mediterranean Sea (Italy, Spain). One was in the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea (UK). Two were in the Firth of Clyde (UK). One was in the Foveaux Straight (New Zealand). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Overall community composition (3 studies): Three site comparison studies (one replicated and paired, one replicated, one paired) in the Mediterranean Sea, the Tasman Sea, and the Firth of Clyde found that marine protected areas that had been prohibiting all fishing for five to 16 years depending on the study, had similar combined algae, invertebrate and fish community composition, similar combined mollusc and echinoderm community composition, and similar overall community composition of large invertebrates but different composition of small sessile invertebrates, compared to fished areas. Overall species richness/diversity (5 studies): One global systematic review, and three site comparison studies (one replicated and paired, one replicated, one paired) in the Mediterranean Sea, the Tasman Sea, and the Firth of Clyde found that marine protected areas that had been prohibiting all fishing for five to 16 years depending on the study, had similar overall invertebrate species richness/diversity, similar combined algae, invertebrate and fish species richness, and similar combined mollusc and echinoderm species richness, compared to fished areas. One site comparison study in the Tasman Sea found inside a marine protected area prohibiting all mobile fishing that macroinvertebrate species richness remained stable over the 15 years after its designation and enforcement, but decreased at fished sites. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (4 studies): Two systematic reviews of marine protected areas across the world prohibiting all fishing found that they had greater overall invertebrate abundance and biomass compared to fished areas. Two site comparison studies (one before-and-after, one replicated) in the Tasman Sea found that inside marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing, overall invertebrate abundance did not change over the 15 years after their designation and enforcement and that it did not change in fished areas either, and that all areas had similar combined mollusc and echinoderm abundance after 16 years. Overall condition (1 study): One global systematic review found that in marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing, invertebrates were bigger compared to fished areas. Crustacean abundance (17 studies): Two reviews (one global and systematic, one of New Zealand areas) found that marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing had more lobsters compared to marine protected areas only partially prohibiting fishing and unrestricted fished areas. Eleven of 15 site comparison studies (including replicated, randomized, paired, before-and-after) in the North Atlantic Ocean, the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea, the Firth of Clyde, the Mediterranean Sea, the North Pacific Ocean, the Florida Keys, the South Pacific Ocean, the Tasman Sea, and the Coral Sea found that inside marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing, the abundances and/or biomasses of lobsters and mud crabs were higher compared to areas where seasonal or unrestricted fishing was allowed, after four to 33 years depending on the study. Four found that they had mixed effects on the abundances of lobster, and crab species, after one to seven years depending on the study. Two found that they had similar abundance of lobsters compared to fished areas after either five to seven years or after approximately 30 years. Crustacean reproductive success (4 studies): Two site comparison studies (one replicated, randomized) in the Florida Keys and the Firth of Clyde found that marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing and harvesting had similar population sex ratios of lobsters compared to where seasonal fishing or all fishing was allowed, after four to seven years depending on the study. Two replicated, site comparison studies (one randomized) in the Tasman Sea and the Mediterranean Sea found that marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing had greater lobster egg production potential compared to commercial fishing exclusion zones and fully fished areas, after either 15 years or 21 to 25 years. One site comparison study in the Firth of Clyde found that marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing had more female lobsters with eggs than fished areas, after four to seven years. Crustacean condition (8 studies): One review of studies in New Zealand, and five of seven site comparison studies (four replicated, one replicated and randomized) in the North Atlantic Ocean, the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea, the Firth of Clyde, the Florida Keys, the South Pacific Ocean, the Coral Sea, and the Tasman Sea, found that marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing had bigger lobsters and crabs compared to seasonally fished or fully fished areas, after four to seven years depending on the study. Three found mixed effects on lobsters and crabs depending on species, sex, and locations, after one to seven years depending on the study. Crustacean population structure (2 studies): Two replicated site comparison studies (one randomized) in the Tasman Sea and the Mediterranean Sea found that marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing had different population size structures of lobsters compared to commercial fishing exclusion zones (only for females) and compared to fished areas, after either 15 years or 21 to 25 years. Echinoderm abundance (3 studies): Two of three site comparison studies (two replicated, one paired) in the North Pacific Ocean, the South Pacific Ocean, and the North Pacific Ocean, found that marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing had similar abundance of Kina sea urchins after more than 10 years, and sea cucumbers after eight years to fished areas, and a third found higher abundance of red sea urchins after approximately 30 years. One also found that the effects on abundance of red sea urchins depended on the age of the protected area and the size of the urchins. Echinoderm condition (1 study): One paired, site comparison study in the South Pacific Ocean found that marine protected areas that had been prohibiting all fishing for over 10 years had heavier Kina sea urchins compared to fished areas. Mollusc abundance (10 studies): Four of 10 site comparison studies (including replicated before-and-after, and site comparison) in the North Atlantic Ocean, the North Pacific Ocean the South Pacific Ocean, the Tasman Sea, and the Foveaux Straight found that inside a marine reserve prohibiting all fishing, abundances/biomass of giant clams, adult queen conch, Cook’s turban snails, rock scallops and green abalone were higher compared to a fished area, after eight to 36 years depending on the study. Six found similar abundances of scallop species, pink abalone, juvenile queen conch, and top shell species, after five to 36 years depending on the study. Three found lower abundances of star limpets after 23 to 25 years and blacklip abalone after 15 to 16 years. One found that the effects of marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing on the abundance of mussel species compared to a commercial fishing exclusion zone varied with the age and location of the protected areas. Mollusc reproductive success (1 study): One site comparison study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that inside a marine protected area that had been prohibiting all fishing for 33 to 36 years, abundance of queen conch larvae was higher compared to an unprotected fished area. Mollusc condition (1 study): One site comparison study in the North Pacific Ocean found that in marine protected areas that had been prohibiting all fishing pink abalone were bigger five to 23 years after their designation, compared to fished site. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2224https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2224Tue, 22 Oct 2019 14:04:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit commercial fishing Three studies examined the effects of prohibiting commercial fishing in marine protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrates. Two studies were in the South Pacific Ocean (New Zealand), and one in the Caribbean Sea (Mexico). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Crustacean abundance (2 studies): Two replicated studies (one before-and-after, one site comparison) in the South Pacific Ocean found that after implementing a marine park prohibiting commercial fishing but allowing the recreational harvest of lobsters, lobster abundance inside the park did not increase over the 12 years after implementation, and abundance was similar inside the park and outside where fishing occurred. Crustacean condition (3 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in the South Pacific Ocean found that over the 12 years after implementing a marine park prohibiting commercial fishing but allowing the recreational harvest of lobsters, the biomass of legal-size lobsters inside the park did not increase. One of two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the South Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea found bigger lobsters in an area closed to commercial fishing for an unspecified amount of time compared to a fished area. The second study found that 10 years after implementing a marine park prohibiting commercial fishing but allowing the recreational harvest of lobsters, lobster size was similar inside the park and outside where fishing occurred. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Crustacean behaviour (1 study): One site comparison study in the Caribbean Sea found that 80% of the lobster population occurring in a protected area (year of designation unspecified) where commercial fishing was prohibited remained in the unfished area, and thus remained protected. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2225https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2225Tue, 22 Oct 2019 14:59:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit bottom trawling Three studies examined the effects of prohibiting bottom trawling in marine protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrates. Two studies were in the South Pacific Ocean (Australia) and one in the Coral Sea (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): One of two replicated, site comparison studies in the South Pacific Ocean found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling had different invertebrate community composition compared to trawled seamounts and to never-trawled seamounts after four to nine years. The second study found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling had different invertebrate community composition compared to shallow unprotected seamounts (heavily trawled) after two years, but not compared to deep unprotected seamounts (lightly trawled). Overall diversity/species richness (3 studies): One of two replicated, site comparison studies in the South Pacific Ocean found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling had similar invertebrate species richness and diversity to trawled seamounts and never-trawled seamounts after four to nine years. The second study found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling had more invertebrate species compared to shallow unprotected seamounts (heavily trawled) after two years, but not compared to deep unprotected seamounts (lightly trawled). One randomized, replicated, site comparison study in the Coral Sea found similar combined invertebrate and fish species richness in areas closed to trawling and adjacent fished areas, after seven to eight years. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (3 studies): One of two replicated, site comparison studies in the South Pacific Ocean found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling had lower invertebrate biomass compared to trawled seamounts and never-trawled seamounts after four to nine years. The second study found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling had higher invertebrate biomass compared to shallow unprotected seamounts (heavily trawled) after two years, but not compared to deep unprotected seamounts (lightly trawled). One randomized, replicated, site comparison study in the Coral Sea found similar invertebrate and fish biomass in areas closed to trawling and adjacent fished areas, after seven to eight years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2226https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2226Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:03:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and install physical barriers to prevent trawling One study examined the effects of installing physical barriers to prevent trawling in a protected area on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in the South China Sea (Hong Kong). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Worm community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the South China Sea found that sites in a protected area where physical barriers were installed to prevent trawling had a different community composition of nematode worms compared to nearby unprotected fished sites, after up to two years. Worm species richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the South China Sea found that sites in a protected area where physical barriers were installed to prevent trawling had similar diversity and species richness of nematode worms to nearby unprotected fished sites, after up to two years. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the South China Sea found that sites in a protected area where physical barriers were installed to prevent trawling had fewer small invertebrates compared to nearby unprotected fished sites, after up to two years. Worm abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the South China Sea found that sites in a protected area where physical barriers were installed to prevent trawling had fewer nematode worms compared to nearby unprotected fished sites, after up to two years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2227https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2227Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:05:31 +0100