Designate a Marine Protected Area and only allow hook and line fishing

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

75%
Certainty

32%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

‘Hook and line’ fishing is a term used for a range of fishing methods that use short fishing lines with hooks. Hook and line fishing is more selective than other types of fishing and has little impact on the seabed. In addition, bycatch species can often be returned to the sea alive because the lines are only in place for a short time. These methods also reduce the direct contact with the seabed, any unintentional physical harm and disturbances, and reduce the amount of bycatch. Specific areas can be designated as protected, and specific management measures taken to control for fishing gears. Inside protected areas where only hook and line fishing is allowed, the threat from these practices to subtidal benthic invertebrates is removed, and previously impacted populations are, in theory, able to recover over time.

When this intervention occurred outside of a protected area, evidence has been summarised under “Threat: Biological resource use – Use hook and line fishing instead of other fishing methods”.

_{Moland E., Olsen E.M., Knutsen H., Garrigou P., Espeland S.H., Kleiven A.R., André C. & Knutsen J.A. (2013) Lobster and cod benefit from small-scale northern marine protected areas: inference from an empirical before–after control-impact study. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280, 1754.}

Study locations

Key messages

One study examined the effects of allowing only hook and line fishing in marine protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in the Skagerrak (Norway).

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Crustacean abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the Skagerrak found that sites inside a protected area only allowing hook and line fishing had greater increases in lobster abundance over the four years after the area was designated compared to unprotected fully fished sites.
Crustacean condition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the Skagerrak found that sites inside a protected area only allowing hook and line fishing had greater increases in lobster size over the four years after the area was designated compared to unprotected fully fished sites.

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 replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in 2006–2010 in six areas of seabed off the Norwegian Skagerrak coast (Moland et al. 2013) found that, during the four years after being designated, protected areas only allowing hook and line fishing had greater increases in the number and size of European lobster Homarus gammarus, compared to fully fished areas. Before designation, lobster abundance (as catch/unit effort) was typically similar in all areas (protected: 0.5 lobster/trap; fully fished areas: 0.5–1.5 lobsters/trap). Over time, abundance increased at all sites, but increased more in protected areas, and after four years had increased by 245% in protected areas, (1–3 lobsters/trap), but only by 87% in fully fished areas (0.5–2.5 lobsters/trap). Before designation, lobster size was similar across areas (protected: 23–24 cm; fully fished: 24–25 cm). Over time, size increased at all sites, but more in the protected areas, and after four years had increased by 12–15% (26–28 cm), but only by 3% in fully fished areas (24–25 cm). In September 2006, three marine protected areas only allowing hook and line fishing were established. Annually in 2006–2010, lobsters were sampled inside each protected area and at three fully fished areas (no gear restriction; one adjacent to each protected area) using traps (25/area) deployed at 10–30 m depth. After 24 h, all lobsters in traps were counted and measured (carapace length). Traps were redeployed daily over four days.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Moland E., Olsen E.M., Knutsen H., Garrigou P., Espeland S.H., Kleiven A.R., André C. & Knutsen J.A. (2013) Lobster and cod benefit from small-scale northern marine protected areas: inference from an empirical before–after control-impact study. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280, 20122679.

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 set a no-anchoring zone Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Designate a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) to regulate impactful maritime activities Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit bottom trawling Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	3	Synopsis Link