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

Overall effectiveness category Likely to be beneficial
Number of studies: 4
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

50%
Certainty

40%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Fishing can impact subtidal benthic invertebrates through species removal or habitat damage from gear entering in contact with the seabed (Collie et al. 2000). Specific areas can be designated as protected, and specific management measures taken to control for impactful activities, such as commercial, recreational, or artisanal fishing (Villamor & Becerro 2012), for instance by restricting specific gear or practices. Inside protected areas where some levels of fishing are prohibited, the threat to subtidal benthic invertebrates is removed, and previously impacted populations are, in theory, able to recover over time (Ley‐Cooper et al. 2014). However, species and populations are still subjected to the effects of other fishing activities allowed (for instance recreational fishing).

Here, we present evidence for marine protected areas where the exact level or nature of the fishing restrictions are unclear or unspecified. Evidence for related interventions regarding fishing restrictions within protected areas is summarised under “Habitat protection”.

_{Collie J.S., Hall S.J., Kaiser M.J. & Poiner I.R. (2000) A quantitative analysis of fishing impacts on shelf‐sea benthos. Journal of Animal Ecology, 69, 785–798.}

_{Ley‐Cooper K., De Lestang S., Phillips B.F. & Lozano‐Álvarez E. (2014) An unfished area enhances a spiny lobster, Panulirus argus, fishery: implications for management and conservation within a Biosphere Reserve in the Mexican Caribbean. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 21, 264–274.}

_{Villamor A. & Becerro M.A. (2012) Species, trophic, and functional diversity in marine protected and non-protected areas. Journal of Sea Research, 73, 109–116.}

Study locations

Key messages

Four studies examined the effects of introducing unspecified types of fishing restrictions in marine protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Two studies were in the Indian Ocean (Seychelles, South Africa), one was a global systematic review, and one was in the Mediterranean Sea (Italy).

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

Overall community composition (2 studies): One of two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea found that a marine protected area with unspecified fishing restrictions (year of designation unspecified) had a different combined invertebrate and algae community composition, while the other (time since designation unspecified) found similar compositions compared to fished areas.

POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)

Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that a marine protected area with unspecified fishing restrictions had similar invertebrate abundance compared to unprotected fished areas (time since designation unspecified).
Bryozoan abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that a marine protected area with unspecified fishing restrictions (year of designation unspecified) had similar abundance of bryozoans compared to fished areas.
Crustacean abundance (1 study): One global systematic review found that marine protected areas with unspecified fishing restrictions had more lobsters compared to fished areas.
Echinoderm abundance (2 studies): One of two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Indian Ocean found that marine protected areas with unspecified fishing restrictions had more sea cucumbers after more than 20 years but the other found fewer sea lilies (year of designation unspecified) compared to fished areas.
Hydrozoan abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the Indian Oceanfound that a marine protected area with unspecified fishing restrictions (year of designation unspecified) had more hydrozoans compared to fished areas.
Mollusc abundance (1 study): One global systematic review found that marine protected areas with unspecified fishing restrictions had more scallops compared to fished areas.
Sponge abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that a marine protected area with unspecified fishing restrictions (year of designation unspecified) had more sponges compared to fished areas.
Tunicate abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the Indian Oceanfound that a marine protected area closed to fishing with unspecified fishing restrictions (year of designation unspecified) had similar abundance of ascidians/sea squirts (tunicates) compared to fished areas.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A site comparison study in 2001–2004 in areas of seabed in the Indian Ocean, off the south coast of South Africa (Götz et al. 2009) found that sites inside a marine protected area closed to fishing (exact restrictions unspecified) had a different overall invertebrate and algae community composition and abundances of three of five species groups compared to adjacent fished sites. Community data were presented as graphical analyses. Protected sites had statistically higher abundance (as percentage cover) of sponges (25%) and hydrozoans (9%) compared to fished sites (sponges: 19%; hydrozoans: 7%), lower abundance of sea lilies (closed: 6% vs fished: 10%), and similar abundances of sea quirts (15% vs 13%) and bryozoans (20% vs 24%) than fished sites. Annually in 2001–2004, video footage was recorded at 10–30 m depth at 2–7 sites surveyed inside the protected area (year of designation unspecified), and 4–13 sites outside. At each site, a 225 m² area was video-recorded. Footage was analysed and cover of five invertebrate taxa and algae assessed.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Götz A., Kerwath S.E., Attwood C.G. & Sauer W.H. (2009) Effects of fishing on a temperate reef community in South Africa 2: benthic invertebrates and algae. African Zoology, 31, 253-262.
A replicated, site comparison study in 2008 of 21 sites in seven coral reefs areas across the inner islands of the Seychelles, Indian Ocean (Cariglia et al. 2013) found that sea cucumbers (thirteen species combined) tended to be more abundant inside marine protected areas prohibiting some fishing (exact restrictions unspecified) compared to adjacent fished areas. Seventy-six percent of all sea cucumbers (thirteen species combined) were found within protected areas. The average abundance of sea cucumbers appeared higher in protected areas (2/154 m²), compared to fished areas (0/154 m²), although no statistical test was reported. The probability of finding sea cucumbers was reported to be higher in protected areas (79%), compared to fished areas (48%). In April, divers counted sea cucumbers in three protected areas (established >20 years prior; date unspecified) and four unprotected areas (three sites/area) within sixteen 154 m² circles/site.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Cariglia N., Wilson S.K., Graham N.A.J., Fisher R., Robinson J., Aumeeruddy R., Quatre R. & Polunin N.V.C. (2013) Sea cucumbers in the Seychelles: effects of marine protected areas on high-value species. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 23, 418-428.
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.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
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.
A replicated, site comparison study (year unspecified) of 28 sites across 14 rocky reef areas in the western Mediterranean Sea, Italy (Piazzi et al. 2016) found that protected areas with ‘low human pressures’ (restrictions unspecified) had similar overall invertebrate and algae community composition to unprotected areas with ‘high human pressures’, and similar invertebrate abundance. Community composition data were presented as graphical analyses. Percent cover of invertebrates was similar in protected (6.2%) and unprotected areas (3.7%). Invertebrates and algae were surveyed at two sites inside each of seven marine protected areas (fishing restrictions unspecified) and seven unprotected areas. All protected areas were established between 1997 and 1999 and reported to “preserve reefs from all human activities”. At 30–40 m depth, 10 plots (0.2 m²) were photographed at three 10 m² locations/site. Invertebrates and algae species were identified and their % cover estimated from each photograph. Date of study unspecified.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Piazzi L., La M.G., Cecchi E., Serena F. & Ceccherelli G. (2016) Protection changes the relevancy of scales of variability in coralligenous assemblages. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 175, 62-69.

Please cite as:

Lemasson, A.J., Pettit, L.R., Smith, R.K. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation. Pages 635-732 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit dredging Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit the harvesting of sea urchins Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	2	Synopsis Link
Designate a Marine Protected Area with a zonation system of activity restrictions Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	13	Synopsis Link