Study

Short term impact of artisanal dredges in a Patagonian mussel fishery: comparisons with commercial diving and control sites.

  • Published source details Narvarte M., González R., Medina A., Avaca M.S., Ginsberg S. & Aliotta S. (2012) Short term impact of artisanal dredges in a Patagonian mussel fishery: comparisons with commercial diving and control sites.. Marine Environmental Research, 73, 53-61.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Hand harvest instead of using a dredge

Action Link
Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation
  1. Hand harvest instead of using a dredge

    A replicated, controlled study in 2007 on a mussel bed in the San Matías Gulf, South Atlantic Ocean, Argentina (Navarte et al. 2012 - same experimental set-up as Navarte et al. 2011) found that hand-harvesting mussels caught a similar community composition of unwanted catch, and damaged similar numbers of unwanted sea urchins or brittle stars, compared to standard artisanal dredges. The percentages of total sea urchins Arbacia dufresnei and brittle stars Ophioploccus januarii that were damaged (lightly or severely) were similar by hand-harvesting (sea urchins: 67%; brittle stars: 65%) and dredging (sea urchins: 76%, brittle stars: 75%). Nineteen tows (5 min duration) were conducted in May 2007 on the mussel bed at 14–20 m depth with a standard artisanal dredge (1.6 m mouth width, 80 mm net bag mesh size). Four 40 kg commercial bags of catch hand-harvested by divers in the same area were obtained for comparison. All species were sorted (mussels; unwanted catch), counted, weighed and identified. Average proportions of mussels and unwanted catch (mostly invertebrates) were estimated for each sample. Apart from mussels, sea urchins and brittle stars dominated all samples, and were placed into damage categories: undamaged, lightly damaged or severely damaged (combined under ‘damaged’).

    (Summarised by: Anaëlle Lemasson)

Output references
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