Study

A comparison of demersal communities in an area closed to trawling with those in adjacent areas open to trawling: a study in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Australia.

  • Published source details Burridge C.Y, Pitcher C.R., Hill B.J., Wassenberg T.J & Poiner I.R. (2006) A comparison of demersal communities in an area closed to trawling with those in adjacent areas open to trawling: a study in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Australia. Fisheries Research, 79, 64-74

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit bottom trawling

Action Link
Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

Cease or prohibit mobile fishing gears that catch bottom (demersal) species and are dragged across the seafloor

Action Link
Marine Fish Conservation
  1. Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit bottom trawling

    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).

  2. Cease or prohibit mobile fishing gears that catch bottom (demersal) species and are dragged across the seafloor

    A replicated, randomized, site comparison study in 1992–1993 in four areas of mixed seabed inside the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in the Coral Sea, Australia (Burridge et al. 2006) found no difference in the biomass of non-commercial unwanted catch (fish and invertebrate discard) or in the number of ‘common’ and ‘rare’ discard species between areas closed to trawling for seven years and adjacent open fished areas. Data were reported as statistical model results. An extensive area (10,000 km2) of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park was closed to trawling (types unspecified) 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 deployed. 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’.

Output references

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

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

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