Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install physical barriers to prevent trawling One study examined the effects of installing physical barriers to prevent trawling on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in the Bay of Biscay (Spain). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall community composition (1 study): One before-and-after study in the Bay of Biscay found that one to four years after installing artificial reefs as physical barriers to prevent trawling invertebrate community composition changed. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in the Bay of Biscay found that one to four years after installing artificial reefs as physical barriers to prevent trawling overall invertebrate biomass increased. Echinoderm abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in the Bay of Biscay found that one to four years after installing artificial reefs as physical barriers to prevent trawling the biomass of sea urchins and starfish increased. Molluscs abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in the Bay of Biscay found that one to four years after installing artificial reefs as physical barriers to prevent trawling the biomass of gastropods (sea snails), of one species of cuttlefish, and of two species of octopus increased. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2112https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2112Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:40:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area with a zonation system of activity restrictions Thirteen studies examined the effects of designating a marine protected area with a zonation system of activity restrictions on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Four studies were in the Caribbean Sea (Belize, Mexico), three in the Mediterranean Sea (Italy), one in the Central Pacific Ocean (Ecuador), three in the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea (UK), one in the Indian Ocean (Australia), and one in the North Atlantic Ocean (Portugal). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (1 study): One site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, the combined invertebrate and algae species community composition was different at a site prohibiting all fishing compared to sites where some fishing occurs, after six years. Overall species richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, sites prohibiting nearly all fishing had similar invertebrate species richness to sites where fishing was mostly allowed, after two years. POPULATION RESPONSE (13 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, abundances of specific invertebrate groups varied between sites prohibiting nearly all fishing and sites where fishing was mostly allowed, after two years. Crustacean abundance (7 studies): Three of seven site comparison studies (two replicated) in the Caribbean Sea, the Central Pacific Ocean, and in the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, abundance and/or biomass of spiny lobsters increased in a zone closed to all/commercial fishing and were greater than in a zone where fewer fishing restrictions occurred, after four to 20 years depending on the study. One found that sites closed to all fishing had higher abundances of spiny lobsters and slipper lobsters after eight to ten years compared to fished sites. Two found that sites closed to all fishing for six to seven years had more European lobsters than sites where potting was allowed. And one found that abundances of European lobsters, velvet crabs, brown crabs and spider crabs, after one to four years, varied with the levels of protection. Crustacean condition (4 studies): Three of five site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea, and in the Caribbean Sea found that, inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, sites prohibiting all fishing for seven years or commercial fishing (duration unspecified) had bigger lobsters compared to fished areas. One found that the sizes of lobsters, velvet crabs, brown crabs and spider crabs varied with the levels of protection, and one study found that the size of spiny lobsters decreased similarly in an area prohibiting all fishing and in an area with fewer restrictions 14 to 20 years after designation of the protected area. Two studies undertaken in the same area found conflicting effects of prohibiting all fishing for six to seven years on disease and injury of lobsters. Echinoderm abundance (2 studies): One of two site comparison studies in the Mediterranean Sea found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, at a site prohibiting all fishing for 17 to 18 years, abundances of two species of sea urchins were higher than at sites allowing the recreational fishing of purple sea urchins. The other one found similar abundance of purple sea urchins inside fully protected sites, sites where some restricted urchin harvest occurs, and unprotected fished sites outside the protected area after five years. Echinoderm condition (2 studies): Two site comparison studies in the Mediterranean Sea found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, sites prohibiting all fishing had bigger sea urchins compared to sites where some restricted urchin harvest occurs and compared to unprotected fished sites outside the protected area, after either four years or 17 to 18 years. Mollusc abundance (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the Indian Ocean found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, abundance of blacklip abalone was higher in sites that had been prohibiting all fishing for five years compared to those prohibiting commercial fishing only. Two site comparison studies in the Caribbean Sea found that inside marine protected areas with a zonation system, abundances of adult queen conch increased over time in a zone closed to all fishing and were greater than in zones with fewer restrictions, but abundances of juvenile conch did not differ or vary differently between zones, after either five to eight years or 14 to 20 years. Mollusc condition (1 study): One site comparison study in the Caribbean Sea found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, the size of queen conch decreased similarly in the area prohibiting all fishing and in the area with fewer restrictions, after 14 to 20 years. Sponge abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, the cover of sponges Cliona was higher at a site prohibiting all fishing for six years compared to sites where some fishing occurred. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Crustacean behaviour (1 study): One site comparison study in the Caribbean Sea found that, inside a marine protected area with a zonation system (year of designation unspecified), 80% of the lobster population occurring in the unfished area remained in the protected unfished area, and thus remained protected. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2230https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2230Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:21:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create artificial reefs Twelve studies examined the effects of creating artificial reefs on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Three studies were in the Mediterranean Sea (Italy); three were in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA, Portugal, France); one in the Firth of Lorn (UK); two in the North Pacific Ocean (USA); one in the English Channel (UK), one in the Gulf of Mexico (USA); and one in the Yellow Sea (China). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Overall community composition (3 studies): Two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the English Channel and North Atlantic Ocean found that invertebrate communities growing on artificial reefs were different to that of natural reefs. One replicated study the North Pacific Ocean found that invertebrate community composition changed over time on an artificial reef. Overall richness/diversity (6 studies): Two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Mediterranean Sea and North Atlantic Ocean found that invertebrate species richness and/or diversity on the artificial reef or in the sediments inside and adjacent to the reef area were lower compared to on natural reefs or in nearby natural sediments. One replicated, site comparison study in the Gulf of Mexico found that artificial breakwaters had more species of nekton compared to adjacent mudflats. One site comparison study in English Channel recorded 263 taxa on the artificial reef, including at least nine not recorded on nearby natural reefs but excluding at least 39 recorded on natural reefs. One replicated study in the North Pacific Ocean found a 49% increase in species richness over five years on an artificial reef. One study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that artificial reefs hosted at least five species of large mobile invertebrates. Mollusc richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that mollusc species richness and diversity were lower on artificial reefs compared to natural reefs. Worm community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the North Pacific Ocean found that polychaete worm community composition was similar at one of two artificial reefs compared to a natural reef. Worm richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the North Pacific Ocean found that polychaete worm species richness and diversity were similar at one of two artificial reefs compared to a natural reef, but lower at the second artificial reef. POPULATION RESPONSE (12 STUDIES) Overall abundance (10 studies): One of two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Mediterranean Sea found that abundance of invertebrates in the sediment was lower at the reef sites than in nearby natural sediments, but increased in the sediments directly adjacent to the reefs, while the other study found that abundance was similar in the sediments inside and directly adjacent to the artificial reef area, but lower than in nearby natural sediments. Of five site comparison studies (four replicated) in the North Pacific Ocean, the North Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico and the Yellow Sea, one found that invertebrate biomass was higher on the artificial reef than in adjacent natural sediments, two that invertebrate abundance and biomass and nekton abundance were similar on artificial reefs and natural habitats (reef; mudflat), and two found mixed effects on abundances of invertebrates. One site comparison study in the English Channel reported that the abundances of some species were lower on the artificial reef compared to natural reefs. One replicated study in the North Pacific Ocean reported an 86% increase in invertebrate abundance growing on an artificial reef over five years. One study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that two of five species at one artificial reef, and three of seven at another, were recorded during >50% of dives. Overall condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Yellow Sea found mixed effects of creating an artificial reef on the sizes of mobile invertebrates. Mollusc abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that mollusc abundance was lower on artificial reefs compared to natural reefs. Crustacean abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison in the Firth of Lorn found that abundances of edible crabs and velvet swimming crabs were typically higher on artificial than natural reefs. OTHER (1 STUDY) Biological production (1 study): One site comparison study in North Atlantic Ocean found that secondary production was higher from invertebrates growing on an artificial reef than from invertebrates in adjacent natural sediments. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2258https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2258Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:26:30 +0100