Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit bottom trawling

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    50%
  • Certainty
    22%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

Key messages

  • Three studies examined the effects of prohibiting bottom trawling in marine protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrates. Two studies were in the South Pacific Ocean (Australia) and one in the Coral Sea (Australia).

 

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)

  • Overall community composition (2 studies): One of two replicated, site comparison studies in the South Pacific Ocean found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling had different invertebrate community composition compared to trawled seamounts and to never-trawled seamounts after four to nine years. The second study found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling had different invertebrate community composition compared to shallow unprotected seamounts (heavily trawled) after two years, but not compared to deep unprotected seamounts (lightly trawled).
  • Overall diversity/species richness (3 studies): One of two replicated, site comparison studies in the South Pacific Ocean found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling had similar invertebrate species richness and diversity to trawled seamounts and never-trawled seamounts after four to nine years. The second study found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling had more invertebrate species compared to shallow unprotected seamounts (heavily trawled) after two years, but not compared to deep unprotected seamounts (lightly trawled). One randomized, replicated, site comparison study in the Coral Sea found similar combined invertebrate and fish species richness in areas closed to trawling and adjacent fished areas, after seven to eight years.

POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)

  • Overall abundance (3 studies): One of two replicated, site comparison studies in the South Pacific Ocean found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling had lower invertebrate biomass compared to trawled seamounts and never-trawled seamounts after four to nine years. The second study found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling had higher invertebrate biomass compared to shallow unprotected seamounts (heavily trawled) after two years, but not compared to deep unprotected seamounts (lightly trawled). One randomized, replicated, site comparison study in the Coral Sea found similar invertebrate and fish biomass in areas closed to trawling and adjacent fished areas, after seven to eight 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 1997 of 14 seamounts south of Tasmania, South Pacific Ocean, Australia (Koslow et al. 2001) found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling tended to have different invertebrate community composition, more species and higher biomass of invertebrates, compared to shallow unprotected seamounts, but not compared to deep unprotected seamounts, after two years. Results were not tested for statistical significance. Invertebrate community composition appeared typically similar at protected seamounts and deep unprotected seamounts, but different to that of shallow unprotected seamounts (data presented as graphical analyses). Protected seamounts tended to have more invertebrate species (22 species/sample) and biomass (6 kg/sample) compared to shallow unprotected seamounts (9 species/sample; 1 kg/sample) and similar to deep unprotected seamounts (20 species/samples; 7 kg/sample). The low diversity and biomass at shallow unprotected were associated with the loss of coral substrate from intense trawling. In 1995, a protected area was established and closed to trawling. In 1997, invertebrates (including corals) (>25 mm) living on the seamounts inside (6 seamounts; 12 samples) and outside (8 seamounts; 22 samples) the protected area (peaks at approximately 660–1,700 m depths) were sampled using a dredge. Invertebrates were sorted into groups and weighed by groups. Shallow unprotected seamounts were heavily fished, but deep seamounts were only lightly fished.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A randomized, replicated, site comparison study in 1992–1993 in four areas of mixed seabed inside the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park off northern Queensland, Coral Sea, Australia (Burridge et al. 2006) found no difference in the biomass of non-commercial unwanted catch (invertebrates and fish discard) or in the number of ‘common’ and ‘rare’ discard species between areas closed to trawling and adjacent fished areas, seven to eight years after the closure. Data were reported as statistical model results. A 10,000 km2 area of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park was closed to trawling in 1985. Two surveys were carried out, one in 1992 and one in 1993. During each survey, 25 randomly selected sites were sampled at each of four areas within the marine park, two closed areas, and two fished areas located 10 nm away, using both a benthic dredge and a prawn trawl. A total of 156 dredges (86 in closed areas, 70 in fished areas) and 122 trawls (68 in closed areas, 54 in fished areas) were towed. For each tow, discard species were collected, identified, counted, and weighed from subsamples (amount not specified). Total weight of discard was estimated from the subsamples. Species were either recorded as ‘common’ (found in at least 11 of the 25 sites) or ‘rare’ (found in 10 or fewer sites).

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A replicated, site comparison study in 2006 of 25 deep-sea seamounts located south of Tasmania, South Pacific Ocean, Australia (Althaus et al. 2009) found that, four to nine years after prohibiting bottom trawling in marine protected areas, invertebrate community composition was different and abundance lower at protected seamounts compared to trawled and natural (never trawled) seamounts, and diversity and species richness was similar to trawled but lower than at natural seamounts. Community data were reported as graphical analyses and diversity data as diversity indices. Species richness was similar at protected (46 species/1,270 m2) and trawled seamounts (46), but lower than natural seamounts (52). Abundance was lowest at protected (1–3 individuals/m2), compared to trawled seamounts (3–5), and natural seamounts where abundance was the highest (5–18). Species richness, diversity, and abundance were positively related to the cover of habitat-forming corals, which was higher on protected seamounts (3%) than trawled seamounts (0.1%), but lower than on natural seamounts (52%). Invertebrates (including corals) were identified and counted at 25 seamounts from videos transects (up to 4.7 km long, from 1,100 to 1,400 m depth; 38 transects in total). Ten seamounts were located either in continuously trawled areas or in areas where trawling had stopped following establishment of reserves (at some point between 1997 and 2003), and 15 were in never-trawled natural areas. Fishing history of individual seamounts was verified using logbook data from the Australian Fisheries Management Authority.

    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 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, terrestrial 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