Cease or prohibit the harvesting of scallops

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 3
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

45%
Certainty

33%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Commercial harvesting of scallops is usually undertaken using dredges, and as such can impact subtidal benthic invertebrates through removal of untargeted species and damage to the seabed. Recreational and artisanal scallop fishing may cause less impact due to the smaller scale of the operations and the harvesting methods used (for instance hand-harvest). Nevertheless, both harvesting methods have negative consequences on scallop populations, particularly if harvesting levels are unsustainable. Bylaws, legislation, or voluntary agreements could be established which prohibit the harvesting of scallops in an area, potentially allowing scallop populations to recover over time (Bull 1989; Schejter et al. 2008).

When this intervention occurs within a protected area, evidence has been summarised under “Habitat protection – Designate a Marine Protected Area and cease or prohibit harvesting of scallops”. Evidence for related interventions is summarised under “Threat: Biological resource use – Cease or prohibit scallops dredging” and “Habitat protection – Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit dredging”.

_{Bull M.F. (1989) The New Zealand scallop fishery: a brief review of the fishery and its management. Pages 42. Ed. MLC Dredge, WF Zacharin & LM Joli.}

_{Schejter L., Bremec C.S. & Hernández D. (2008) Comparison between disturbed and undisturbed areas of the Patagonian scallop (Zygochlamys patagonica) fishing ground “Reclutas” in the Argentine Sea. Journal of Sea Research, 60, 193–200.}

Study locations

Key messages

Three studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting the harvesting of scallops on their populations. One study was in the South Atlantic Ocean (Argentina), one in the English Channel (UK) and one in the Irish Sea (UK).

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)

Scallop abundance (3 studies): Two of three site comparison studies (one replicated, one before-and-after) in the South Atlantic Ocean, the English Channel, and the Irish Sea found that in areas where scallop harvesting had stopped scallop abundance was similar, and one found that scallop biomass was higher, compared to harvested 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 1998–2002 in two soft seabed areas in the South Atlantic Ocean, Argentina (Schejter et al. 2008) found that an area prohibiting the commercial dredging of Patagonian scallops Zygochlamys patagonica had a higher biomass of scallops compared to adjacent fished areas. Six years after closure, the biomass of scallops was higher in the closed area (4–12 kg/100 m²), compared to the fished area (1–10 kg/100 m²). The area was closed to commercial dredging of scallops in 1996. Samples were collected at 100 m depth once a year in 1998–2002 using a dredge (generalist dredge not specifically targeting scallops; 10 mm mesh) at 23 sites in the closed area and at 71 adjacent sites outside. Scallops were weighed and counted. Information was updated using an erratum (Schejter et al., 2009).
_{Schejter L., Bremec C.S. & Hernández D. (2009) Erratum to “Comparison between disturbed and undisturbed areas of the Patagonian scallop (Zygochlamys patagonica) fishing ground “Reclutas” in the Argentine Sea” [J. Sea Research 60/3 (2008) 193]. Journal of Sea Research 61, 275.}
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Schejter L., Bremec C.S. & Hernández D. (2008) Comparison between disturbed and undisturbed areas of the Patagonian scallop (Zygochlamys patagonica) fishing ground “Reclutas” in the Argentine Sea. Journal of Sea Research, 60, 193-200.
A replicated, site comparison study in 2007 in six rocky seabed areas in Lyme Bay, English Channel, UK (Hinz et al. 2011) found that areas closed to commercial scallop dredging did not have higher abundances of king scallop Pecten maximus or queen scallop Aequipecten opercularis, compared to areas which remained dredged. There was no significant difference in abundance between closed and dredged areas for king scallops (closed: 25–38; dredged: 27–28 individuals/100 m²) or queen scallops (closed: 41–41; dredged: 80–97 individuals/100 m²). In March and August 2007, six areas within the bay were sampled: three voluntarily closed to scallop dredging since September 2006 (but where static gear fisheries occurred) and three that remained open to scallop dredging. Samples were taken using a video camera (10 recordings/area) towed for approximately 10 minutes in a straight line. Abundances of each scallop species were recorded from the videos.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Hinz H., Tarrant D., Ridgeway A., Kaiser M. & Hiddink J. (2011) Effects of scallop dredging on temperate reef fauna. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 432, 91-102.
A before-and-after, site comparison study 2009–2011 in two areas of sandy, pebbly and gravelly seabed in Cardigan Bay, Irish Sea, Wales, UK (Sciberras et al. 2014) found that two years after prohibiting commercial scallop dredging year-round in an area, abundances of king scallop Pecten maximus and queen scallop Aequipecten opercularis had not increased and remained similar to that of an adjacent seasonally dredged area. Abundances of king and queen scallops were similar between closed and fished areas both before (king: closed 0.9 vs fished 0.8; queen: 0.2 vs 0.7 individuals/m²) and two years after closure (king: 0.3 vs 0.3; queen: 0.2 vs 0.7 individuals/m²). Two areas of Cardigan Bay were assessed: one permanently closed to scallop dredging in March 2010, and the other seasonally closed to scallop dredging (May to October). Surveys were conducted before closure (December 2009) and three times after (June 2010 to April 2011). During each survey, a camera was towed for 300 m at six sites/area (at 30 m depth). More than 40 images/camera tow (covering a 0.13 m² area of seabed) were analysed, and scallops were identified and counted.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Sciberras M., Hinz H., Bennell J., Jenkins S., Hawkins S. & Kaiser M. (2013) Benthic community response to a scallop dredging closure within a dynamic seabed habitat. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 480, 83-98.

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
Transplant/release captive-bred or hatchery-reared species - Transplant/release crustaceans Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	5	Synopsis Link
Translocate species - Translocate molluscs Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	7	Synopsis Link
Establish size limitations for the capture of recreational species Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link