Study

Lobster and cod benefit from small-scale northern marine protected areas: inference from an empirical before–after control-impact study

  • Published source details Moland E., Olsen E.M., Knutsen H., Garrigou P., Espeland S.H., Kleiven A.R., André C. & Knutsen J.A. (2013) Lobster and cod benefit from small-scale northern marine protected areas: inference from an empirical before–after control-impact study. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280, 20122679.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

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

Action Link
Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation
  1. Designate a Marine Protected Area and only allow hook and line fishing

    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.

    (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 18

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 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