Relationships between mobile macroinvertebrates and reef structure in a temperate marine reserve

  • Published source details Alexander T., Barrett N., Haddon M. & Edgar G. (2009) Relationships between mobile macroinvertebrates and reef structure in a temperate marine reserve. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 389, 31-44.


This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit all types of fishing

Action Link
Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation
  1. Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit all types of fishing

    A before-and-after, site comparison study in 1992–2007 in twelves rocky sites in the Tasman Sea, Australia (Alexander et al. 2009) found that over the 15 years after designating and enforcing a marine protected area prohibiting all fishing, mobile macroinvertebrate species richness remained stable at protected sites but decreased at fished sites, while overall abundance did not change at any sites. Before enforcement, total macroinvertebrate species richness was lower at protected sites (11 species) compared to fished sites (16). After 15 years, species richness remained stable within protected sites (10–12) but had decreased in fished sites to similar levels (13–14). Before enforcement, overall mobile macroinvertebrate abundance was lower at protected sites (330–560 individuals/site) than fished sites (760–1,030) and remained similar at all sites over 15 years (protected: 375–430; fished: 625–820). This pattern was due to opposing changes in abundances of specific groups and species (see paper for details). In addition, abundance of blacklip abalone Haliotis rubra decreased over time inside the protected sites relative to fished sites, while abundance of southern rock lobsters Jasus edwardsii increased in protected sites but decreased in fished sites (data not provided). An area within Maria Island National Park was declared a no-take area in 1991 and closed to all fishing. In spring 2006 and autumn 2007, a diver visually identified and counted all mobile macroinvertebrates (echinoderms, crustaceans, and molluscs >1 cm) along four 50 m transects at six sites inside and six outside the no-take area (5 m water depth). Data were compared to historical surveys in spring and autumn 1992 before effective enforcement. 

    (Summarised by: Anaëlle Lemasson & Laura Pettit)

Output references
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 21

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 ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust