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

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    30%
  • Certainty
    30%
  • Harms
    10%

Study locations

Key messages

  • One study examined the effects of installing physical barriers to prevent trawling in a protected area on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in the South China Sea (Hong Kong).

 

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

  • Worm community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the South China Sea found that sites in a protected area where physical barriers were installed to prevent trawling had a different community composition of nematode worms compared to nearby unprotected fished sites, after up to two years.
  • Worm species richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the South China Sea found that sites in a protected area where physical barriers were installed to prevent trawling had similar diversity and species richness of nematode worms to nearby unprotected fished sites, after up to two years.

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

  • Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the South China Sea found that sites in a protected area where physical barriers were installed to prevent trawling had fewer small invertebrates compared to nearby unprotected fished sites, after up to two years.
  • Worm abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the South China Sea found that sites in a protected area where physical barriers were installed to prevent trawling had fewer nematode worms compared to nearby unprotected fished sites, after up to two years.

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

  1. 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.

    Study and other actions tested
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

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation
Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation - Published 2020

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