Conservation benefits of a network of marine reserves and partially protected areas

  • Published source details Coleman M.A., Palmer-Brodie A. & Kelaher B.P. (2013) Conservation benefits of a network of marine reserves and partially protected areas. Biological Conservation, 167, 257-264.


This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Designate a Marine Protected Area with a zonation system of activity restrictions

Action Link
Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation
  1. Designate a Marine Protected Area with a zonation system of activity restrictions

    A site comparison study in 2010 of six sites in two zones inside a marine protected area in the Bristol Channel, UK (Coleman et al. 2013 – similar set-up as Davies et al. 2014) found that sites in the no-take zone (where all fishing had been prohibited for six years) had more and bigger European lobsters Homarus gammarus than sites outside in the refuge zone where potting was allowed. Lobsters were caught in higher abundance inside the no-take zone (514) than outside (152) and grew bigger inside (99 mm) than outside (86 mm). In addition, more lobsters were above the minimum landing size (90 mm) inside the no-take zone (75% of lobsters) than in the refuge zone (36% of lobsters). A higher proportion of egg-bearing females were found in the no-take zone (31%) compared to the refuge zone (7%). Overall, similar proportions of injured lobsters were found inside the no-take zone (33%) and inside the refuge zone (26%). The percentage of diseased lobsters was higher inside the no-take zone (27%) compared to the refuge zone (18%). Lundy Island marine protected area was designated as a voluntary reserve in 1971 (statutory since 1986). In 2003, it included a 4 km2 no-take zone (no fishing or harvesting allowed), the rest being a refuge zone only allowing crab and lobster potting (all other fishing is prohibited). In 2010, six sites inside the protected area were surveyed: two within the no-take zone and four in the refuge zone. At each site, one line of 35 baited pots was deployed for 24–48 h, and all lobsters caught were measured (carapace length), sexed, assessed for injuries and diseases, and released back into the water. This process was repeated continuously over four days in May and again in June.

    (Summarised by: Anaëlle Lemasson)

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