Study

Does full protection count for the maintenance of β-diversity patterns in marine communities? Evidence from Mediterranean fish assemblages

  • Published source details Appolloni L., Bevilacqua S., Sbrescia L., Sandulli R., Terlizzi A. & Russo G.F. (2017) Does full protection count for the maintenance of β-diversity patterns in marine communities? Evidence from Mediterranean fish assemblages. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 27, 828-838

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Cease or prohibit all types of fishing in a marine protected area

Action Link
Marine Fish Conservation
  1. Cease or prohibit all types of fishing in a marine protected area

    A site comparison study in 2008 of two submerged rocky cliff areas in the Tyrrhenian Sea, Italy (Appolloni et al. 2017) found higher overall fish species richness, higher fish abundance and biomass overall and for fisheries target species, and similar abundance and biomass of non-target fish inside a no-take zone of a marine protected area where all fishing was banned, compared to fished areas, although the effect varied with depth. Overall fish species richness, total abundance and total biomass were higher inside the no-take zone than fished areas at all depths (species richness: 14–18 vs 9–9, abundance: 235–357 fish vs 125–141 fish, biomass data reported as log-transformed). The abundance of targeted fish species was higher inside the no-take zone than fished areas at shallower depths (5 m: 136 vs 30, 10 m: 194 vs 25) but not at the deepest (20 m: 41 vs 23), and biomass was higher inside at all depths (data log-transformed). Abundance and biomass of non-target fish species were similar between areas (data reported as statistical results). The marine protected area at Punta Campanella (1,300 ha, year of designation not reported) extends from the coastline to 60 m depth and has two no-take areas. Underwater visual censuses were undertaken in June and October 2008 at one of the no-take zones where all fishing is banned (21 ha), and six partially protected sites where only some fishing (local fishers only and small vessels <10 gross tonnage) and other activities like diving are allowed. Fish were recorded along transects (25 m × 5 m × 5 m) at three depths (5 m, 10 m, 20 m). Three replicate transects were surveyed at each depth.

    (Summarised by: Khatija Alliji)

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