Study

Comparison between disturbed and undisturbed areas of the Patagonian scallop (Zygochlamys patagonica) fishing ground “Reclutas” in the Argentine Sea

  • Published source details Schejter L., Bremec C.S. & Hernández D. (2008) Comparison between disturbed and undisturbed areas of the Patagonian scallop (Zygochlamys patagonica) fishing ground “Reclutas” in the Argentine Sea. Journal of Sea Research, 60, 193-200

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Cease or prohibit the harvesting of scallops

Action Link
Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

Cease or prohibit dredging

Action Link
Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation
  1. Cease or prohibit the harvesting of scallops

    A site comparison study in 1998–2002 in two soft seabed areas in the South Atlantic Ocean, Argentina (Schejter et al. 2008) found that an area prohibiting the commercial dredging of Patagonian scallops Zygochlamys patagonica had a higher biomass of scallops compared to adjacent fished areas. Six years after closure, the biomass of scallops was higher in the closed area (4–12 kg/100 m2), compared to the fished area (1–10 kg/100 m2). The area was closed to commercial dredging of scallops in 1996. Samples were collected at 100 m depth once a year in 1998–2002 using a dredge (generalist dredge not specifically targeting scallops; 10 mm mesh) at 23 sites in the closed area and at 71 adjacent sites outside. Scallops were weighed and counted. Information was updated using an erratum (Schejter et al., 2009).

    Schejter L., Bremec C.S. & Hernández D. (2009) Erratum to “Comparison between disturbed and undisturbed areas of the Patagonian scallop (Zygochlamys patagonica) fishing ground “Reclutas” in the Argentine Sea” [J. Sea Research 60/3 (2008) 193]. Journal of Sea Research 61, 275.

    (Summarised by: Anaëlle Lemasson & Laura Pettit)

  2. Cease or prohibit dredging

    A site comparison study in 1998–2002 in two areas of soft seabed in the South Atlantic Ocean, Argentina (Schejter et al. 2008) found that an area prohibiting the commercial dredging of scallops for six years did not have different invertebrate community composition, species richness, or biomass, compared to adjacent fished areas. Community data were presented as graphical analyses. Species richness was similar in closed areas (11–24 species groups/site) and fished area (6–25 species groups/site) throughout the study. Six years after closure, biomass of invertebrates was similar in the closed (2–13 kg/100 m2) and fished areas (2–16 kg/100 m2). The area was closed to commercial dredging of scallops in 1996. Samples were collected at 100 m depth once a year between 1998 and 2002 using a dredge (which does not catch scallops; 10 mm mesh) at 23 sites in the closed area and at 71 adjacent sites outside. Invertebrates were identified to species level when possible, counted and weighed. Information was updated using an erratum (Schejter et al. 2009).

    Schejter L., Bremec C.S. & Hernández D. (2009) Erratum to “Comparison between disturbed and undisturbed areas of the Patagonian scallop (Zygochlamys patagonica) fishing ground “Reclutas” in the Argentine Sea” [J. Sea Research 60/3 (2008) 193]. Journal of Sea Research 61, 275.

    (Summarised by: Anaëlle Lemasson & Laura Pettit)

Output references

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, terrestrial 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