Study

Contribution of a large no-take zone to the management of vulnerable reef fishes in the south-west Indian Ocean

  • Published source details Maggs J.Q., Mann B.Q. & Cowley P.D. (2013) Contribution of a large no-take zone to the management of vulnerable reef fishes in the south-west Indian Ocean. Fisheries Research, 144, 38-47.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Cease or prohibit line fishing

Action Link
Marine Fish Conservation

Control human activity in a marine protected area with a zonation system of restrictions

Action Link
Marine Fish Conservation

Cease or prohibit spearfishing

Action Link
Marine Fish Conservation
  1. Cease or prohibit line fishing

    A site comparison study in 2006–2011 of four coral reef sites in a marine protected area in the Indian Ocean, South Africa (Maggs et al. 2013) found that two to seven years after closing a zone to offshore line fishing and all other vessel-based fishing (including spearfishing), there was a higher abundance and larger size of four coral reef fish species, compared to two adjacent zones where boat-based line and spear fishing was permitted. For all years, individual catch rates of four of four species were higher inside the zone closed to line fishing and other vessel-based fishing than in the zone permitting offshore line and spear fishing: slinger Chrysoblephus puniceus (3.1 vs 0.8 fish/angler/h), Scotsman Polysteganus praeorbitalis (1.2 vs 0.3 fish/angler/h), poenskop Cymatoceps nasutus (0.4 vs 0.2 fish/angler/h) and yellowbelly rockcod Epinephelus marginatus (0.6 vs 0.1 fish/angler/h); and average lengths were higher (slinger: 293 vs 240, Scotsman: 415 vs 359, poenskop: 417 vs 380, rockcod: 495 vs 435 mm). The Pondoland Marine Protected Area (800 km2) was designated in 2004 and has a central ‘no-take area’ (400 km2) closed to all offshore (vessel based) exploitation and two adjacent controlled fishing areas where offshore line fishing and spearfishing are permitted. No commercial fishing, such as trawling or long-lining, is permitted anywhere in the protected area. From April 2006 to June 2011, quarterly research angling was conducted at two sites in the no-take zone and two in the nearby exploited zone (6 h angling in each zone) at 10–30 m depth. Data were analysed for four species depleted by line fishing.

    (Summarised by: Leo Clarke)

  2. Control human activity in a marine protected area with a zonation system of restrictions

    A site comparison study in 2006–2011 of two coral reef areas in a zoned marine protected area in the Indian Ocean, South Africa (Maggs et al. 2013, same experimental set-up as Maggs et al. 2013) found higher abundance and larger size of four of four coral reef fish species in a ‘no-take’ zone where almost all fishing is prohibited, compared to an adjacent zone with fewer fishing restrictions, two to seven years after protection. In each year, individual catch rates were higher inside the no-take zone than the fished zone for all four species: slinger Chrysoblephus puniceus (3.1 vs 0.8 fish/angler/h), Scotsman Polysteganus praeorbitalis (1.2 vs 0.3 fish/angler/h), poenskop Cymatoceps nasutus (0.4 vs 0.2 fish/angler/h) and yellowbelly rockcod Epinephelus marginatus (0.6 vs 0.1 fish/angler/h). Average lengths were also higher (slinger: 293 vs 240, Scotsman: 415 vs 359, poenskop: 417 vs 380, rockcod: 495 vs 435 mm). In addition, three of the four species (slinger, Scotsman, rockcod) showed increases in size over time (data not tested statistically). The Pondoland Marine Protected Area (800 km2) was designated in 2004 and comprises a central ‘no-take area’ (400 km2) closed to all offshore (vessel based) exploitation. On either side of the no-take zone are two controlled fishing areas where offshore line fishing and spearfishing are permitted. No commercial fishing, such as trawling or long-lining, is permitted anywhere in the protected area. From April 2006 to June 2011 quarterly research angling was conducted at two sites in the no-take zone and two in the nearby exploited zone (6 h angling in each zone) at 10–30 m depth. Data were analysed for four species that had been depleted by line fishing.

    (Summarised by: Leo Clarke)

  3. Cease or prohibit spearfishing

    A site comparison study in 2006–2011 of four coral reef sites in a marine protected area in the Indian Ocean, South Africa (Maggs et al. 2013) found higher abundance and larger size of four coral reef fish species in a zone closed to offshore (vessel-based) spearfishing and all other vessel-based fishing, compared to edge zones where only offshore spear and line fishing is permitted. Individual catch rates were higher inside the no-take zone than the fished zone for all four species in each year: slinger Chrysoblephus puniceus (3.1 vs 0.8 fish/angler/h), Scotsman Polysteganus praeorbitalis (1.2 vs 0.3 fish/angler/h), poenskop Cymatoceps nasutus (0.4 vs 0.2 fish/angler/h) and yellowbelly rockcod Epinephelus marginatus (0.6 vs 0.1 fish/angler/h), and average lengths were also higher (slinger: 293 vs 240, Scotsman: 415 vs 359, poenskop: 417 vs 380, rockcod: 495 vs 435 mm). In addition, three of the four species (slinger, Scotsman, rockcod) showed increases in size over time (data not tested statistically). The Pondoland Marine Protected Area (800 km2) was designated in 2004 and comprises a central ‘no-take area’ (400 km2) closed to all offshore (vessel based) exploitation. On either side of the no-take zone are two controlled fishing areas where offshore line fishing and spearfishing are permitted. No commercial fishing, such as trawling or long-lining, is permitted anywhere in the protected area. From April 2006 to June 2011, quarterly research angling was conducted at two sites in the no-take zone and two in the nearby exploited zone (6 h angling in each zone) at 10–30 m depth. Data were analysed for four species depleted by line fishing.

    (Summarised by: Leo Clarke)

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