Study

Evaluating the biological effectiveness of fully and partially protected marine areas

  • Published source details Sciberras M., Jenkins S.R., Kaiser M.J., Hawkins S.J. & Pullin A.S. (2013) Evaluating the biological effectiveness of fully and partially protected marine areas. Environmental Evidence, 2, 4

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Designate a Marine Protected Area and introduce some fishing restrictions (types unspecified)

Action Link
Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit all types of fishing

Action Link
Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation
  1. Designate a Marine Protected Area and introduce some fishing restrictions (types unspecified)

    A systematic review of 27 studies published before February 2011 of marine protected areas partially prohibiting fishing (restrictions unspecified) across the world (Sciberras et al. 2013) found that they had greater abundances of scallops and lobsters compared to outside where fishing was fully allowed. Average lobster abundance was 0.53 times higher, and scallop density 2.33 times higher, inside marine protected areas compared to outside. Exact species were not specified. Abundance data were not reported, but the outcome of analysis was reported as statistical model results. The selected studies compared invertebrate abundance inside and outside 25 marine protected areas with partial fishing prohibition. The abundance data were extracted and used in a meta-analysis.

  2. Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit all types of fishing

    A systematic review of 14 studies published until February 2011 of marine protected areas across the world prohibiting all types of fishing (no-take) (Sciberras et al. 2013) found that they had more lobsters (species unspecified) compared to marine protected areas only partially prohibiting fishing. Lobster abundance was on average 1.76 times higher in no-take areas compared to partially protected areas (data were not reported, but the analysis outcome was reported as statistical model results). The selected studies compared lobster abundance inside 14 no-take areas with adjacent partial fishing prohibition zones. The abundance data were extracted and used in a meta-analysis.

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 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

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