Study

Response of meiofaunal community with special reference to nematodes upon deployment of artificial reefs and cessation of bottom trawling in subtropical waters, Hong Kong.

  • Published source details Liu X.S., Xu W.Z., Cheung S.G. & Shin P.K.S. (2011) Response of meiofaunal community with special reference to nematodes upon deployment of artificial reefs and cessation of bottom trawling in subtropical waters, Hong Kong. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 63, 376-384

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Designate a Marine Protected Area and install physical barriers to prevent trawling

Action Link
Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation
  1. Designate a Marine Protected Area and install physical barriers to prevent trawling

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2007–2008 of four soft seabed sites in the South China Sea, Hong Kong (Liu et al. 2011) found that sites inside a marine protected area where barriers were deployed to prevent trawling had fewer small invertebrates and nematode worms, a different nematode community composition, but similar nematode diversity and species richness, compared to adjacent unprotected fished sites, after up to two years. Invertebrate abundance was lower in the protected area (198 individuals/10 cm2), compared to the unprotected fished area (290 individuals/10 cm2). Nematode abundance was lower in the protected area (183 individuals/10 cm2), compared to the unprotected fished area (280 individuals/10 cm2). Nematode community was different inside and outside the protected area (community data reported as a graphical analysis). Nematode diversity (reported as diversity indices) and species richness were typically similar in the protected (ranging from 10 to 39 species) and unprotected areas (ranging from 20 to 33 species). Increased abundances were associated with increased sediment disturbance from trawling. In 2006, a 12 km2 area was designated as a marine protected area and trawling discouraged by placing artificial reefs and concrete blocks with steel spikes inside and along the boundary of the area. Two sites inside and two outside the protected area were sampled at quarterly intervals between April 2007 and January 2008 at 20 m depth using a sediment grab (0.1 m2). Small invertebrates (0.038–0.5 mm) were extracted and counted. Nematode worms were identified and counted. In the sites outside the protected area, one bottom trawl was conducted prior to each sampling.

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 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