Lyme Bay - A case study: measuring recovery of benthic...

Lyme Bay - A case study: measuring recovery of benthic species,

assessing potential spill-over effects and socio-economic changes

Annual Report No 2

Final

October 2010

Project Title: Lyme Bay - A case study: measuring recovery of benthic species,

assessing potential spill-over effects and socio-economic changes

Report 2: Annual Report

Project Code: MB0101 Marine Biodiversity R&D Programme

Defra Contract Manager: Carole Kelly

Funded by:

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)

Marine and Fisheries Science Unit

Marine Directorate

Nobel House

17 Smith Square

London SW1P 3JR

&

Natural England

Northminster House

Peterborough PE1 1UA

Authorship: Attrill MJ, Bayley DTI, Gall SC, Hattam C, Jackson EL, Langmead O,

Mangi S, Marshall C, Munro C, Rees S, Rodwell L, Sheehan EV, Stevens, TF.

Strong S. 2010. Lyme Bay – a case-study: measuring recovery of benthic species;

assessing potential “spillover” effects and socio-economic changes, Annual Report,

December 2010. Report to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

from the University of Plymouth-led consortium. Plymouth: University of Plymouth

Enterprise Ltd. 53 pages.

Disclaimer: The content of this report does not necessarily reflect the views of Defra,

nor is Defra liable for the accuracy of the information provided, nor is Defra

responsible for any use of the reports content.

Table of Contents List of Figures ............................................................................................................. 4 List of Tables .............................................................................................................. 5 Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 6 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 10

Project Background........................................................................................ 10

Aims and Objectives ...................................................................................... 10 Structure of this report ................................................................................... 11

Part 1: Predicting the effect of fishery area closures on long-lived sessile species .. 12

1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 12

1.2 Results ..................................................................................................... 12 Part 2: Field surveys of benthic species and assemblages ...................................... 14

2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 14

2.2 Methods ................................................................................................... 14 2.3 Data analysis ........................................................................................... 19

Part 3: Field Surveys of reef associated nekton ....................................................... 25 3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 25

3.2 Methods ................................................................................................... 25 Part 4: Scallops ........................................................................................................ 27

4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 27

4.2 Methods ................................................................................................... 27 4.3 Data analysis ........................................................................................... 31

Part 5: Socio-economic implications ......................................................................... 32

5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 32 5.2 Methods ................................................................................................... 32 5.3 Main results ............................................................................................. 34 5.4 Enforcement of closure ............................................................................ 45 5.5 Discussion ............................................................................................... 45

Part 6: Conclusions and programme for future work ................................................ 47

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. 50 References ............................................................................................................... 50 Appendix................................................................................................................... 51

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 Location of towed video transects in Lyme Bay

Figure 2.2 Area designations of sites within each treatment (1, 2, 3, or 4) for use in

PERMANOVA analyses

Figure 2.3 Location of diver survey sites in Lyme Bay

Figure 2.4 Diver surveying species present in a 0.5 x 0.5 m quadrat in Lyme Bay

Figure 2.5

Mean abundance of Eunicella verrucosa populations in Lyme Bay. Graphs represent

abundance in different areas as determined in Figure 2.4. Error bars are Standard

Error

Figure 2.6

Mean abundance of Phallusia mammillata populations in Lyme Bay. Graphs

represent abundance in different areas as determined in Figure 2.4. Error bars are

Standard Error

Figure 2.7

Mean abundance of target species from belt transects for 2008, 2009 and 2010 for

sites a) within the open controls, b) new closures and c) closed controls. Error bars

are standard deviation

Figure 3.1 Location of sites for baited video sampling

Figure 4.1 Map showing the location of scallop survey sites during the 2010 field season

Figure 4.2 Diagram detailing the survey method for scallop collection (not to scale)

Figure 4.3 Photographs of Pecten maximus showing a) dimensions used for width and height

measurements, and b) clear growth rings on a 3 year old specimen

Figure 4.4 Evidence of damage in the growth ring of two Pecten maximus specimens

Figure 4.5 The underside of 2 Pecten maximus shells showing the attachment of a) bryozoans

and b) numerous Crepidula fornicata

Figure 4.6 Pecten maximus a) after lower shell has been removed and b) showing where the

gonad was cut prior to weighing (dotted line) and the location of the foot

Figure 5.1

Comparisons based on a) wet weight, and b) value of landings one year before and

one year after the closure for all species landed by static gear, towed gear, and

scallops from vessels that had fished in ICES rectangles 30E6 and 30E7

Figure 5.2

Value of landings (£) for fishing vessels that use static gear and those that use towed

gear comparing the value of landings when fishing had been conducted inside or

outside of the closed area

Figure 5.3

Raw sightings data records from 2005 to 2009 collected by the Devon Sea Fisheries

Committee (DSFC). The positions shown are sightings from a patrol boat that were

normalised with the patrol boat effort and are presented for a) static and b) towed

gear types

Figure 5.4 Proportion of divers who reported changes to diving trips to Lyme Bay in the first and

second phase of surveys

Figure 5.5 Changes in various aspects of dive businesses comparing responses for the first and

second surveys

Figure 5.6 Number of trips made by Charter Boat Operators in 2008 and 2009 showing the type

of activity hired for

Figure 5.7 Location of charter operations in 2008 and 2009

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Fieldwork dates for Diver Surveys & Towed Video 2008 - 2010

Table 2.2 Definition of treatments from which survey sites were selected

Table 3.1 Fieldwork dates for Baited Underwater Video 2009 - 2010

Table 5.1

Perceived changes in income, total costs, travel time to fishing sites, number of

fishing trips made and trip duration for towed and static gear fishermen a)

immediately after the closure (towed, n = 15, static, n = 25), and b) one year after the

closure (towed, n = 12, static, n = 18) in Lyme Bay

Table 5.2

Changes in the a) number of vessels and b) number of trips one year before and

after the closure for static and towed gear showing the number fishing inside or

outside of the closed area

Table 5.3 Relative importance (%) of the main impacts reported by fish merchants

(Respondents include a total of seven key fish merchants from Devon and Dorset)

Table 6.1 Reporting deadlines for the 2010-2011 period

Executive Summary

Introduction

Lyme Bay, located off the south west coast of England is home to some of the UK‟s

most important reef habitat and is considered to be both nationally and internationally

important in ecological and conservation terms. It is also an important area for

commercial fishing and has a substantial number of recreational users.

In July 2008 the UK Government (Defra) acted on guidance from Natural England

that advised the closure of a 60 nm2 area of Lyme Bay to bottom towed fishing gear.

This closure took the form of a Statutory Instrument and had the primary aim of

allowing the recovery of benthic biodiversity. The reefs have now also been put

forward by Natural England as part of the Lyme Bay and Torbay candidate Special

Area of Conservation (cSAC).

Following the closure, the Marine Institute, University of Plymouth was awarded the

contract for a three year project funded by Defra and Natural England that aims to

assess both the ecological and socio-economic implications of the closure. The

project partners are the Marine Biological Association of the UK, Plymouth Marine

Laboratory Limited, and Marine Bio-images.

The project has been designed around eight main objectives:

(1) To identify and select a number of representative species within the study area

that could signify changes within the ecosystem. Selection of such indicator

species should include representatives from the full range of life strategies used

by benthic species in the study area (but selection of species should consider

their wider application for monitoring of MPAs);

(2) To develop a cost-effective sampling design for the monitoring of benthic recovery

within the closed area of Lyme Bay;

(3) To quantify the recovery of the indicator species within the closure compared to

areas which continue to be fished using bottom towed gear;

(4) To quantify the effects of the closures on reef-associated nekton, compared to

areas which continue to be fished using towed bottom gear;

(5) To assess the long-term effects of fishery area closures on long lived and sessile

benthic species;

(6) To collect and store samples of selected benthic species for future DNA analysis;

(7) To quantify and assess any effects on adult scallop populations resulting from the

closure;

(8) To assess any socio-economic impacts (e.g. diversification, gear changes,

changes to areas fished, effort changes) which result from the closure restrictions.

This document is the second Annual Report produced by the project team and

reports on work completed to date. Some preliminary data analysis is included, but,

as all analyses are not yet complete, full results will not be presented until the Final

Report which is due at the end of March 2011.

Part 1: Predicting the effect of fishery area closures on long-lived sessile species

It is not possible to assess the long-term effects of fishery area closures in Lyme Bay

directly within the time frame of this project because, as they are often slow growing,

the recovery time for many long-lived sessile species is substantial. The approach

here was to make an informed assessment of the likely outcomes of fishery area

closures using the best available knowledge from the scientific and grey literature.

Detailed results are presented in the Objective 4 report (October 2010), but the main

findings of this work are summarised here. The majority of species investigated were

found to be slow growing with prolonged maturation, and over 66 % have no

regeneration capacity, meaning that their regeneration is dependent on larval

dispersal. Literature searches revealed a lack of published studies that met the

search criteria, highlighting the importance of this work in improving the

understanding of the effects of fishery area closures on hard substrate, temperate

benthic communities, particularly if key aspects of benthic monitoring are continued.

Part 2: Field surveys of benthic species and assemblages

There is a need to develop cost-effective and innovative ways of monitoring changes

in biological assemblages within MPAs due to the current increase in their

designation. The ecological survey was designed with this in mind.

Fieldwork included towed video surveys of the benthos, and diver surveys for

detailed, site specific documentation of change over time within a specific cobble reef

habitat. Survey sites were selected to control for habitat and fishing effort variability.

To allow changes to be detected as a result of the closure, four treatments were

defined:

(1) New closure (previously fished, now closed to mobile ground gear)

(2) Closed controls (previously unfished under a voluntary agreement, continuing to

be unfished)

(3) Near open controls (previously fished, continuing to be fished, < 5 km from

closure boundary)

(4) Far open controls (previously fished, continuing to be fished, > 5 km from

closure boundary)

Survey sites have now been successfully sampled in 2008, 2009 and 2010 and data

sets are now complete. Data analysis includes estimates of abundance data for

mobile species and ten large obvious benthic species as well as detailed frame grab

analysis for a subset of 30 frames per tow. Frame grab analysis is in progress, and in

the same week that this report was due, the extraction of data from the video footage

for all three years was completed. Initial investigations have shown changes in

abundance of indicator species that are typical of an assemblage of organisms in

various stages of recovery. PERMANOVA has revealed significant differences in

abundances of some species between areas within and between treatments. Post

hoc testing is needed before any conclusions can be drawn, but this investigatory

dataset has shown that there is a likely emerging trend for some species towards

„recovery‟ within the new closure. Initial observations of the diver surveyed belt

transects also suggests that there will be differences in species abundance between

treatments and years.

The need for ongoing monitoring is clear as these emerging trends may be the

beginning of a recovery phase, or they may not. We will not know for possibly several

more years due to the long-lived nature of the key species, but if there is recovery it

is vital to capture this in order to inform other potential closures and provide robust

evidence to support their effectiveness.

Part 3: Field surveys of reef-associated nekton

Static baited underwater video sampling was used to quantify the diversity and

structure of nektonic and mobile benthic faunal assemblages. Surveys were

successfully repeated in 2010 and data analysis is underway. Analysis will provide an

understanding of the differences between nekton and benthic mobile species in

terms of species diversity, abundance and assemblage structure between seasons,

(spring, March, and summer, July), spatial treatment differences (CC, NC and OC),

and temporal treatment differences. Full analysis will be presented in the Final

Report.

Part 4: Scallops

Adult scallop populations were surveyed to assess differences in population structure

within and outside the closure. This work was incorporated into the quadrat surveys

undertaken by the dive team and therefore survey sites were predetermined.

Scallops were collected, and data on their length, width, height, and age recorded.

Damage to their shells was also noted. Data analysis is underway and will be

reported in the Final Report. Data from the towed video analysis regarding total

scallop abundance will also be included.

Part 5: Socio-economic implications

Socio-economic assessment used questionnaires and interviews to determine the

effect of the closure on various stakeholder groups – commercial fishermen, sea

anglers, dive businesses, divers, charter boat operators, owners of local hotels, and

fish merchants. Secondary data in the form of catch data from the Marine

Management Organisation (MMO) relating to wet weight and value of landings

reported by vessels that have fished within International Council for the Exploration of

the Sea (ICES) statistical rectangles 30E6 and 30E7 was also used to study changes

in fishing effort following the closure. Data on sightings was also obtained from the

Devon Sea Fisheries Committee (DSFC) and the MMO and was used to explore

changes in areas fished.

Preliminary results indicate that the closed area has imposed a number of costs and

benefits on the stakeholders. For fishermen, impacts differ depending on their choice

of gear and fishing location. Those who fish within the closure have seen an increase

in fishing effort as they are able to increase the number of crab and whelk pots they

deploy. However, outside the closure, conflicts have been reported between static

and mobile gear fishermen. Despite this, analysis of landings data has indicated that

there have been minimal impacts on the average incomes and profits of fishermen

and fish merchants. For all other stakeholder groups minimal changes have been

reported. However, these impacts are immediate and all stakeholders shared the

view that the full impacts of the closure are yet to be realised.

Part 6: Conclusions and program for future work

To date, this project has identified tentative evidence for the recovery of long lived

sessile species within the 60 nm2 closure in Lyme Bay. Preliminary analyses have

revealed a statistically significant effect of treatment for the towed video data, with

sites within the new closure significantly more abundant in sessile benthic organisms

than those outside that continue to be fished. Furthermore, socio-economic analysis

has shown that although there have been some negative effects of the closure on

fishermen, overall the impact on stakeholders has been minimal, and landings data

has revealed that incomes and profits have not been greatly impacted.

However, despite these positive trends, the time period of this project is not adequate

to allow the clear, unequivocal recovery of long lived sessile indicator species to be

determined. The results we have to date show an emerging trend that may be the

beginning of a recovery phase, but continued monitoring is essential to determine

whether this is the case; these data would be of national and international importance

in terms of assessing the value of MPAs and similar closures.

Introduction

Project Background

Lyme Bay, located off the south west coast of England is home to some of the UK‟s

most important reef habitat and is considered to be both nationally and internationally

important in ecological and conservation terms. The bay is an important fishing area

for mobile gear such as scallop dredges, and static gear such as crab and lobster

pots. It also supports a large number of recreational users, including sea anglers and

divers.

Since 2001, some areas of the Lyme Bay reefs have been protected through

voluntary agreements with local fishermen. The size of these areas was increased in

2006. However, following advice given by Natural England, the UK Government

(Defra) closed a 60 nm2 area in July 2008 to bottom towed fishing gear under a

Statutory Instrument to provide protection against damage to the seabed.

Consequently scallop dredgers and demersal trawlers are no longer permitted to fish

within the closed area, but it remains open to fishers using pots and nets, sea

anglers, scuba divers, and other recreational users. The bay has also now been put

forward as a candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) by Natural England

under the EC Habitats Directive.

Aims and Objectives

There are a multitude of factors (both ecological and socio-economic) which are

affected by this type of fisheries closure. A consortium of scientists, lead by the

University of Plymouth Marine Institute, is carrying out a comprehensive study which

aims to monitor both the ecological and socio-economic impacts of this closure. With

these aims in mind the project has been designed around the following objectives:

(1) To identify and select a number of representative species within the study

area that could signify changes within the ecosystem. Selection of such

indicator species should include representatives from the full range of life

strategies used by benthic species in the study area (but selection of species

should consider their wider application for monitoring of MPAs);

(2) To develop a cost-effective sampling design for the monitoring of benthic

recovery within the closed area of Lyme Bay;

(3) To quantify the recovery of the indicator species within the closure compared

to areas which continue to be fished using bottom towed gear;

(4) To quantify the effects of the closures on reef-associated nekton, compared to

areas which continue to be fished using towed bottom gear;

(5) To assess the long-term effects of fishery area closures on long lived and

sessile benthic species;

(6) To collect and store samples of selected benthic species for future DNA

analysis;

(7) To quantify and assess any effects on adult scallop populations resulting from

the closure;

(8) To assess any socio-economic impacts (e.g. diversification, gear changes,

changes to areas fished, effort changes) which result from the closure

restrictions.

The completed study will aim to provide valuable information on the effectiveness of

MPAs at delivering conservation gains, and in determining the kinds of information

that is essential to assessing their socio-economic implications. In addition, they can

be used to provide further detail on where fisheries management and conservation

objectives could be integrated.

The project is now in its final year and will be completed in March 2011. This report

outlines the work completed to date, and provides some preliminary analysis of the

data collected. Detailed analyses are currently in progress and this will be presented

once all datasets are complete in the final report.

Structure of this report

This report is presented in several sections. In general, they correspond to the

objectives as outlined above; however, in some cases it was more logical and

reader-friendly to cover several objectives within a single part. Each part is intended

to stand alone, but should be read in the context of this introduction, and in

conjunction with the overall conclusions at the end of the report.

The timing of this document falls just three months before the completion of the Final

Report. To minimise repetition between reports and to focus resources and efforts on

completing full analyses on time, final analyses will be presented and conclusions

drawn mostly in the Final Report.

Part 1: Predicting the effect of fishery area closures on long-lived

sessile species

1.1 Introduction

It is not possible to assess the long-term effects of fishery area closures in Lyme Bay

directly within the time frame of this project because, as they are often slow growing,

the recovery time for many long-lived sessile species is substantial. The approach

here was to make an informed assessment of the likely outcomes of fishery area

closures using the best available knowledge from the scientific and grey literature.

This comprised two components:

(1) An investigation into the sensitivity and recoverability of the long-lived sessile

species recorded in the study area of Lyme Bay using biological traits analysis

(2) A review of scientific literature into the long-term effects of fishery area closures

on benthic fauna at a national, regional (NE Atlantic) and global scale to put

findings into wider context.

In addition, this work was supported by predictive species distribution modelling of

the pink sea fan, Eunicella verrucosa, to gain a spatial dynamic to the assessment of

long term change and inform on priority areas for long-term monitoring.

1.2 Results

The results are reported in detail in the Objective 4 report, but in brief, it was found

that recoverability traits varied amongst the sessile species. Over a third of the

sessile long-lived species in Lyme Bay were classified as fragile according to their life

history traits. Many of these (> 66 %) have no regeneration capacity, meaning that

their recovery is dependent on larval dispersal. Larval dispersal distance was

categorised as short (< 0.1 km), medium (0.1 – 1 km) and long (> 10 km). Of the

species lacking regeneration mechanisms, most could travel moderate to long

distances as larvae which could enable recolonisation from outside the Bay.

However, for species such as Amphianthus dorhni (sea fan anemone) which can

neither regenerate nor travel far as a larvae; recoverability is low. Other traits that

were considered in this analysis were growth and age at maturity, since these can

determine the speed of recolonisation. Most of the species investigated here were

slow growing with prolonged maturation.

The analysis of studies reporting recovery in temperate reef communities following

protection was constrained by the paucity of suitable studies that fulfilled the search

criteria. While there is a body of literature on recovery (or lack of) in tropical reef

systems and also a significant amount of information available on the impacts of

fisheries activity on benthic communities, there are few cases where the recovery of

sessile benthic communities has been documented. Where there are studies that

show recovery, it is often reported for mobile rather than sessile species. Findings

are highly variable, with dramatic changes in benthic community composition in some

areas (e.g. Southern Italy (Guidetti 2007)) but others have remained unchanged (e.g.

Lundy, (Hoskin et al,. 2009)).

The predictive modelling work on E. verrucosa compared Generalized

Linear/Additive Model (GLM/GAM) and Maximum Entrophy (Maxent) results in terms

of predictive accuracy and generated predictive maps of E. verrucosa distribution

from the different modelling approaches. These were appraised in terms of the

ecological insight gained from the modelling exercise and their applicability to future

monitoring effort within the Lyme Bay closed area. All three approaches predicted

that a large proportion of the closed area is suitable for supporting the pink sea fan.

In reality, many of these areas are associated with absence records (false positives).

Overall the Maxent model outperformed the other models in all but one of the model

performance indicators and on face value one might use this model in preference to

the GLM output to support spatial management measures.

Part 2: Field surveys of benthic species and assemblages

2.1 Introduction

With the current increase in designation of MPAs there is a need to develop cost-

effective and innovative ways of monitoring changes in the biological assemblages to

enable effective management to be implemented. With this in mind, the specific

objectives of this monitoring program were:

(1) To design and implement a cost-effective and low impact sampling regime to

quantify abundance of benthic biota

(2) To establish monitoring sites for small and large scale surveys

(3) To collect and analyse base-line data as soon as practicable after the

implementation of the closure (2008)

(4) To repeat the data collection surveys annually for two years (2009 & 2010)

The fieldwork aspect has now been completed (Table 2.1), and data analyses are

underway. Preliminary results are presented here and full analyses will be presented

in the Final Report.

Table 2.1: Fieldwork dates for Diver Surveys & Towed Video 2008 - 2010

Date Purpose Status

2008

09.09.08 – 24.09.08 Diver Surveys Completed

25.09.08 – 10.10.08 Towed Video Completed

2009



2010



2.2 Methods Full methods have been reported in the 2009 Annual Report (Attrill et al., 2009), and

Sheehan et al. (in revision) and have therefore only been summarized here.

Two main methodological elements were selected for the monitoring of change in

benthic species abundances and assemblage structure over time. These were

designed to provide quantitative, robust information at a range of scales:

Annual towed High Definition HD (large scale) video transect sampling to

quantify broad-scale changes of benthic assemblages over time.

Annual surveys by divers using quadrat and fixed transects (small scale) for

detailed and site specific documentation of change over time within a specific

cobble reef habitat.

Survey locations were selected following consultation with DSFC, the Marine

Fisheries Agency (MFA, now MMO) and Devon Wildlife Trust (DWT) to ensure that

locations controlled for habitat and fishing effort variability. Target areas were defined

(Table 2.2), and from these, sites were determined during the 2008 field season

using local knowledge and site investigations by divers.

Table 2.2: Definition of treatments from which survey sites were selected

Treatment Definition

New closure Previously fished, now closed to mobile ground gear

Closed controls Previously un-fished under voluntary agreement, continuing to be un-fished

Near open controls Previously fished, continuing to be fished, < 5km from closure boundary

Far open controls Previously fished, continuing to be fished, > 5km from closure boundary

It was predicted that the initial baseline (2008) data would show the closed controls

to be different from both open controls and the new closure. Over time, a recovery

scenario predicts that species composition in the new closures will move to a state

approximating that of the closed controls.

2.2.1 Towed video

Towed video analysis was used to sample abundance of benthic taxa using a low

impact, cost-effective methodology. A total of 64 sites were identified, with 16 sites

surveyed per treatment (Figure 2.1). The survey has now been successfully

completed in the summers of 2008, 2009 and 2010.

Figure 2.1: Locations of towed video transects in Lyme Bay

Data extraction is comprised of two stages:

(1) Quantification of the abundance of ten of the conspicuous „indicator‟ species,

and all of the mobile benthic species from entire video transects.

(2) Detailed frame grab analysis on a subset of 30 frames per transect where all

species are identified and abundances recorded

In the same week as this report was due, extraction of data from the video footage

for all three years was completed. Initial analyses of this dataset are included in this

report by means of a preliminary indication of the results to come, which will be

presented in the final report. PERMANOVA was undertaken on the relative

abundance (per unit area) for each pre-selected „indicator species‟ (Jackson et al.,

2008) and all of the mobile benthic species observed to test for differences between

years (2008, 2009, 2010), area (1, 2, 3 or 4, see Figure 2.2) and treatment, nested in

area (CC, NC, NOC, FOC).

Figure 2.2: Area designations of sites within each treatment (1, 2, 3, or 4) for use in

PERMANOVA analyses

Data extraction from the frame-grabs is not yet complete and will be presented in the

final report.

With the two sets of data complete and a comprehensive dataset compiled of

encrusting and sessile species from the frame grabs and the more conspicuous, less

abundant and/or mobile species identified from the video, it will be possible to

appropriately assess with confidence the effect of the SI on the species associated

with the seabed in Lyme Bay, in the two years that it has been in place.

2.2.2 Random Quadrat and Fixed Transect Diver Survey

To provide more detailed, site-specific data complementing the large scale towed

video camera survey, a smaller scale diver survey was conducted, primarily through

the use of quadrats, focussing on the mixed sediment (referred to as „cobble reef‟)

habitat. Detailed surveys of change in species assemblage over time were carried

out by SCUBA divers.

During July 2010, Marine bio-images survey divers successfully relocated and re-

surveyed all ten fixed monitoring stations (Figure 2.3). As in previous years the diving

survey work was conducted from the 10 m, Lyme Regis based workboat Miss Patty,

with skipper John Walker. The dive survey team (Colin Munro, Lin Baldock, Sean

Lindsley-Leake and Katharina Brown) remained the same, ensuring maximum

continuity in species identification.

Figure 2.3: Location of diver survey sites in Lyme Bay

All stations lay between 20 and 22 m chart datum in areas of level seabed with

similar exposure to tidal streams and wave action. Their location was selected from

areas of cobble reef to ensure habitat homogeneity. As in previous years, at each

station, eight 0.5 x 0.5 m quadrats were dropped at random locations around the

station markers, surveyed and photographed (Figure 2.4). Species from a

predetermined list were recorded quantitatively, and a total species list was produced

from four quadrats.

Figure 2.4: Diver surveying species present in a 0.5 x 0.5 m quadrat in Lyme Bay

Each quadrat was photographed using a 10 megapixel DSLR and wide-angle lens

(approximately 100 degree angle of acceptance allowing a camera-to-subject

distance of about 0.4 m) to ensure image clarity. Images were collected as RAW files

and have been given limited processing to improve contrast and resolution prior to

being archived on CD as high quality JPEG files.

An 8 x 2 m belt transect fixed between two markers at each station was also

surveyed. This focussed on larger, more widely distributed species that are less likely

to fall, or be accurately recorded within quadrats. The target species for which counts

were performed were Eunicella verrucosa, Alcyconium digitatum, Pentapora foliacea,

Cliona celata (raphus form only), Phallusia mamillata and all erect branching axinellid

sponges over 3 cm in height (grouped as a single category).

2.3 Data analysis

Data collection is now complete (Table 2.1) and analysis underway. Data presented

here are preliminary, and full analysis will be included in the Final Report.

2.3.1 Towed video analysis

Initial investigations into the changes in abundance of indicator species are giving

results typical of an assemblage of organisms exhibiting various stages of recovery.

This would be expected based on the fact that these species were selected to

represent a range of life histories, tolerances to disturbance and abilities to recover

from disturbance (Jackson et al., 2008).

There also appear to be geographical differences between „area‟ (Figure 2.2), which

will be formalized once post-hoc tests have been carried out. For example, E.

verrucosa populations were significantly different between areas within and between

treatments (PERMANOVA P < 0.05, see Appendix A).

Figure 2.5: Mean abundance (number of individuals) of Eunicella verrucosa populations in

Lyme Bay. Graphs represent abundance in different areas as determined in Figure 2.4. Error

bars are Standard Error

Post hoc tests are required to formally explain results; however, it appears that there

are geographical differences between the west and east of the bay within the New

Closure (Figure 2.5, see Appendix). The abundance of pink sea fan appears to be

increasing in sites on the eastern side, but not on the west (Figures 2.2 & 2.5, see

Appendix). In areas which continue to be fished, pink sea fans continue to be mostly

absent.

Similarly, populations of the sea squirt Phallusia mammilata had significantly

different abundances between treatment and area (P < 0.05 PERMANOVA,

Appendix A) and showed no apparent change in fished areas, nor within tows to the

far western area of the New Closure (Figures 2.2 & 2.6, Appendix A). Increases in

abundance of this species however, appear to be occurring further east in the bay

within the New Closure (Figures 2.2 & 2.6, see Appendix).

Figure 2.6: Mean abundance (number of individuals) of Phallusia mammillata populations in

Lyme Bay. Graphs represent abundance in different areas as determined in Figure 2.4. Error

bars are Standard Error

Without appropriate post hoc tests, it is too early to draw any conclusions, but, on the

basis of this investigatory dataset, there is likely to be an emerging trend for some

species towards „recovery‟. Although this is not statistically demonstrated here, there

may also be a geographic effect, in that some species are showing apparent

recovery in the east, but not in the west.

The need for ongoing monitoring is clear, these emerging trends may be the

beginning of a recovery phase, or they may not. We will not know for possibly several

more years, so the opportunity exists for further benthic monitoring to provide the first

robust data on recovery of such temperature reefs that will be vital to inform future

closures.

2.3.2 Random quadrat and fixed transect diver survey

Preliminary analysis has been completed and initial results are presented below.

Statistical analysis has not yet been conducted due to time constraints and therefore

only basic observations can be presented at this stage.

Figure 2.7 shows mean abundance and standard deviation for the six target species

recorded by belt transects at sites within Open Controls, New Closures and Closed

Controls in 2008, 2009 and 2010.

a) Open controls

b) New closure

c) Closed controls

Figure 2.7: Mean abundance of target species from belt transects for 2008, 2009 and 2010 for

sites a) within the open controls, b) new closure and c) closed controls. Error bars are

standard deviation

These initial observations reveal that in the open controls, species abundance is low.

P. foliacea is the most abundant species, and with the exception of A. digitatum

which has a very low abundance for all three years, no other species is present

consistently across sampling seasons. However, with the exception of C. celata in

2008 in the new closure, all six target species are present for all years in the new

closure and closed controls.

Repeated measures ANOVA will be used to look at the statistical significance of the

data and allow trends to be examined, and full results and analyses will be presented

in the final report.

Part 3: Field Surveys of reef associated nekton

3.1 Introduction

In this study, we used the well established methods of static baited video sampling

(e.g. Stobart et al. 2007) to quantify the diversity and structure of nektonic and mobile

benthic faunal assemblages. The specific objectives were:

(1) To establish baited video sampling stations for time-series monitoring of changes

in species abundance and assemblage structure over time

(2) To quantify differences between nektonic and mobile benthic species and

assemblages between different treatment types, as defined in Part 3.

(3) To quantify seasonal differences between nektonic and mobile benthic species

and assemblages, in the context of different treatments (Attrill et al., 2009).

3.2 Methods

The 2010 sampling followed the methods detailed in Attrill et al. (2009).

Figure 3.1: Location of sites for baited video sampling

Six sites were surveyed per treatment (CC, NC & NOC) giving a total of eighteen,

and each site consisted of 3 replicates (Figure 3.1).

Data collection is now completed for this work (Table 3.1) and analysis is underway.

Full methods and analysis for 2009 are presented in the 2009 Annual Report (Attrill

et al, 2009). Findings confirmed that the baited video method is capable of detecting

changes between treatments, and analysis of the species and higher taxonomic

group levels showed that there are distinct suites of species characteristic of

impacted or un-impacted sites (Attrill et al., 2009).

Table 3.1: Fieldwork dates for Baited Underwater Video 2009 - 2010

Date Purpose Status

2009

29.03.09 – 03.04.09 Baited Underwater Video Completed


2010



Analysis of the 2010 data will allow these trends to be further examined, and will

provide an understanding of differences between nekton and benthic mobile species

in terms of species diversity, abundance and assemblage structure between

seasons, (spring, March, and summer, July), spatial treatment differences (CC, NC

and OC), and temporal treatment differences which will show how the response

variables have changed between 2009 and 2010 within treatments. If positive

temporal differences are detected in the NC and CC, but not the OC, then we will be

able to draw positive conclusions regarding the success of the SI for the recovery of

mobile species associated with the sea bed in Lyme Bay.

Part 4: Scallops

4.1 Introduction At the start of this project it was asked that we undertake a scallop spat study to

understand whether the SI will affect king scallop Pecten maximus populations over

time. The study was commissioned too late in the year to set up scallop spat

collectors and after some consideration it was also thought that the amount of effort

necessary to detect this change far exceeded this project. Additionally, genetic

analysis, to determine different scallop populations and to quantify where spat were

coming from and going to, and scallop collection up and down the coast from Lyme

Bay would need to be undertaken.

As a compromise it was agreed that instead we would refocus the objective to

concentrate on the adult populations and begin to look for differences in scallops

inside and outside of the box using divers to collect them. The health of scallop

populations could then be assessed and any changes over time detected.

To make this economically feasible (as it was not part of the original study plan),

dives which were necessary to collect scallops were incorporated into the quadrat

work undertaken by Colin Munro during the first week of August 2009 (Attrill et al.,

2009).

Here we present the scallop collection methods to quantify changes in scallop

populations as a result of the cessation of scallop dredging in the Lyme Bay SI. The

analyses and results will be presented in the Final Report.

4.2 Methods

Surveys to compare scallop populations were conducted over two consecutive

summers (2009 and 2010). Scallop populations were measured in three of the four

treatment areas, at sites as determined by the diver surveys (Figure 4.1).

(1) New closure (previously fished, now closed to mobile ground gear)

(2) Closed controls (previously unfished under a voluntary agreement,

continuing to be unfished)

(3) Near open controls (previously fished, continuing to be fished, < 5km from

closure boundary)

Figure 4.1: Map showing the location of scallop survey sites during the 2010 field season

Sampling was undertaken by the dive team using SCUBA (nitrox), alongside the

divers survey work from the vessel “Miss Pattie”. A shot line was deployed within a

200 m radius of the permanent markers at each station to ensure that scallop work

and diver survey work remained separate. Two divers then deployed a 10 m transect

north from the shot (replicate 1) with 1 diver length between the shot and the start of

the transect to ensure independence of the replicates. A 2 m pole was held

perpendicular to the transect line between the divers to standardise the area from

where the scallops were collected (Figure 4.2). Every P. maximus found in the 2 m x

10 m transect was collected. This was then repeated east, south and west of the

shot, with the scallops from each transect collected in different bags, giving a total of

4 replicates per site (Figure 4.2).

Figure 4.2: Diagram detailing the survey method for scallop collection (not to scale)

The scallops collected were measured at the surface for width, length (Figure 4.3a)

and height (highest point on upper shell to lowest point on lower shell). They were

then aged by counting their growth rings, and damage to their shells was recorded

(present/absent).

Figure 4.3: Photographs of P. maximus showing a) dimensions used for width and height

measurements, and b) clear growth rings on a 3 year old specimen

The age of P. maximus is determined by counting rings that are laid down annually

(Allison et al., 1994). A thumb placed at the hinge end of the shell represents one

a) b)

year‟s growth, and from there the growth rings can be counted starting from year 2

(Figure 4.3b). By inspecting these growth rings it is also possible to determine if the

scallop shell has been damaged. A uniform set of growth rings curving across the

shell indicates no damage, whereas an uneven ring with obvious abnormalities is

likely to have been damaged (Figure 4.4).

Figure 4.4: Evidence of damage in the growth ring of two P. Maximus specimens

Damage to the growing edge of the upper shell was ignored as this may have

occurred during collection. Conspicuous epibionts, with the exception of algae,

attached to the scallop shells were also identified to Class level and recorded (Figure

4.5a & b).

Figure 4.5: The underside of 2 P. maximus shells showing the attachment of a) bryozoans and

b) numerous Crepidula fornicata

A subsample of 4 individuals from each transect was sacrificed so that total body

mass and gonad weight could be measured. All other scallops were returned at sea.

Prior to weighing the whole scallop any large aggregations of Crepidula fornicata

were removed, but all other epibionts were left on the shell.

Each scallop was opened by cutting the adductor muscle from the lower shell, the

internal organs were removed and the gonad was cut anterior to the foot and

subsequently weighed (Figure 4.6a & b).

Figure 4.6: P. maximus a) after lower shell has been removed and b) showing where the gonad

was cut prior to weighing (dotted line) and the location of the foot.

4.3 Data analysis

Data collection is now complete and analysis is underway. This will be reported in full

in the Final Report in March 2011 and will include the scallop abundance data

derived from the towed video footage.

Part 5: Socio-economic implications

5.1 Introduction

As conservation theory and practice moves away from excluding resource users and

towards creating partnerships with them, it is becoming increasingly clear that

conservation of marine ecosystems is as much about understanding people as it is

about understanding ecological processes. Social and economic factors can

influence whether and how individuals and communities exploit resources or

cooperate to conserve them. Integrating high quality social science at conservation

sites can help to adapt and refine management strategies to reflect the needs and

desires of the stakeholders. It also enables the selection of strategies that are

appropriate for local conditions, and ensures that scarce resources are used more

wisely by targeting specific strategies at the segments of the population where they

are most needed. Objective 7 therefore focuses on the socio-economic implications

of the 60 nm2 closure in Lyme Bay to scallop dredging and bottom trawling.

The specific objectives of this socio-economic assessment were to:

(1) Quantify the socio-economic changes resulting from the closure for:

a. Fishermen, such as diversification and gear changes, changes in areas

fished, landings and fishing effort;

b. Tourism and recreational activities;

c. Supporting industries e.g. fish merchants and processors; and

d. Enforcement agencies

(2) Examine the perceptions, and changes in attitudes to the closed area amongst

local and wider communities

5.2 Methods

The socio-economic impacts of the closure on the various stakeholder groups have

been assessed using a combination of primary and secondary data.

5.2.1 Primary data

Primary data collection has mainly employed surveys. Seven questionnaires have

been developed and used to obtain socio-economic details of the main user groups

of Lyme Bay including commercial fishermen, sea anglers, dive businesses, divers,

charter boat operators, owners of local hotels and fish merchants. A combination of

interview methods has been used to collect data on costs, income and perceptions of

the various stakeholders, including online surveys, face-to-face, postal and telephone

interviews. A full explanation of the methods used to survey each stakeholder

category and the selection of respondents is presented in our earlier report (Mangi et

al., 2009). During the second phase of the survey which was completed in April this

year (2010), we invited the same people to participate as in the first survey i.e. 157

commercial fishermen, 10 dive businesses, 57 charter operators, 62 UK angling

clubs, 180 dive clubs, 68 local hotels and 7 fish processors.

Data analyses have focused on comparing results of the first survey which was

conducted immediately after the closure was implemented, and the second survey

that was conducted one year later. Given that only demersal mobile gear is restricted

in the closed area, analyses have been completed with data pooled into either towed

or static gear types. Data on the perceptions of fishermen towards changes in

income, costs, travel time to fishing sites, and fishing duration are reported based on

the proportion of fishermen who participated in the survey.

We have also completed interviews with various stakeholder groups (including static

and towed gear fishermen, sea anglers, charter boat operators, dive businesses and

divers) aimed at assessing the social impacts of the closure. The focus of these has

been changes in stakeholder behaviours and conflicts that could be attributed to the

closure.

5.2.2 Secondary data

Data on the volume of species landed by different gear types have been obtained

from the MMO for each vessel that has fished in ICES statistical rectangles 30E6 and

30E7 from 2005 to 2009 (for a map on the ICES rectangles and position of closure

please see our earlier report Mangi et al 2009). The catch data includes the wet

weight and value of landings reported by fishermen and fish merchants to the MMO

at various ports around the South West of England. We understand that these data

could be underestimating the actual landings and fishing effort since a high

proportion of inshore fishing activities do not report their catches. We have, however,

used these data sets as they present the official landings and fishing effort.

Based on information from enforcement agencies and data on sightings collected by

the DSFC using their patrol boat, daily catches for each vessel were matched to the

corresponding location of the vessel on the date when fishing was done. Officers of

the DSFC patrol the waters around the coast of Devon to monitor byelaws and in the

process record positions of fishing vessels within the 6 mile limit. The assumption

was that the catch of each vessel came from the location at which the vessel had

been sighted. This is not true for all vessels especially the big ones and therefore

was only applied to vessels that were sighted and those that the DSFC officers were

sure that they would only fish in certain areas e.g. because they were less than 10m

and would therefore only fish up to the 2 mile limit. This underestimates the value of

catches coming from the various areas but because we could not get disaggregated

data using a combination of expert judgements (officers from SFCs), the sightings

data (air, navy patrol and SFCs patrol boat) together with the landings data has

allowed us to make such comparisons. This is however a first step in this analysis

and will be improved as more information becomes available. The fishing locations

were categorised as either inside or outside the closed area and the value of

landings from each were then plotted and compared based on the gear types used.

To study changes in fishing effort following the closure, the number of vessels and

number of trips made per month was used.

To explore changes in areas fished, data on sightings of fishing vessels have been

obtained from the DSFC and the MMO. These data are based on sightings made via

surveillance aircraft and patrol boats. Air and sea surveillance for the closed area

follows an enforcement procedure which confirms the exact position of the vessel

and its observed activity to a level of evidence that is sufficient for prosecution if

appropriate. The sightings data set includes the position of the vessel (latitude and

longitude), the activity (fishing or steaming) and the ICES rectangle used for all

vessels (both under and over 15 m).

Sightings data from 2005 to 2009 were imported into ArcGIS and overlaid on a base

map of the Lyme Bay area. Only vessels sighted fishing were mapped according to

the fishing gear used whilst vessels sighted steaming were removed from the

analysis. Annual comparisons from 2005-2009 (using a July to June year) were

made based on grouped sightings data to reflect annual variation before and after the

closure.

Data on the costs of enforcing the closure restrictions have been obtained from the

MMO and DSFC. Enforcement costs were gathered from the deployment of

surveillance aircraft and Royal Navy fisheries protection vessels by the MMO, and a

patrol vessel by DSFC. At the time of reporting, no infringements of the Lyme Bay

closed area have been detected by the enforcing authorities.

5.3 Main results

5.3.1 Impacts on commercial fishermen

a) Diversification and gear changes

Four fishermen indicated that they have changed gear as a result of the closure. The

majority are still using their preferred gear type while two fishermen have changed

gear type, but not as a consequence of the closure. For example, one sold his fishing

vessel because of restrictions to catch quotas. During the social interviews however,

some fishermen suggested that the number that have changed gear may possibly be

as high as nine or ten. We are currently investigating this issue further.

b) Perceived changes to costs and incomes

The majority of fishermen (73 %) who use towed gear claim that their income has

decreased (Table 5.1). This is a view shared by 40 % of static gear fishermen, while

52 % of claim that fishing incomes have remained at similar levels to before the

closure (Table 5.1). Between 68 and 83 % of all fishermen in both surveys claimed

that total costs have increased (Table 5.1).

The reasons provided for this increase include a reduction in scalloping, an increase

in fuel costs, and increased duration of fishing. Static gear fishermen also claim that

the fall in income is due to the displacement of towed gear fishermen into fishing

grounds traditionally used by static gear fishermen. Another reason given was that

the quality of scallops harvested from outside the closed area is lower and hence

they fetch lower prices. Over 75% of towed gear fishermen have seen increases in

the time taken to travel to fishing sites, while most of the static gear fishermen have

seen no change as their fishing grounds have remained the same (Table 5.1).

Table 5.1: Perceived percentage change in income, total costs, travel time to fishing sites,

number of fishing trips made and trip duration for towed and static gear fishermen a)

immediately after the closure (towed, n = 15, static, n = 25), and b) one year after closure

(towed, n = 12, static, n = 18) in Lyme Bay

a) Immediately after closure

Perceived changes to: Gear Increased

(%)

Decreased

(%) Same (%)

No response

(%)

Income Towed 0 73 20 7

Static 4 40 52 4

Total costs Towed 73 0 7 20

Static 68 0 28 4

Travel time to fishing sites Towed 80 0 13 7

Static 16 4 76 4

Number of trips per month Towed 13 0 87 0

Static 4 4 76 16

Fishing duration Towed 67 0 20 13

Static 28 4 64 4

b) One year after closure

Perceived changes to: Gear Increased

(%)

Decreased

(%) Same (%)

No response

(%)

Income Towed 0 83 8 8

Static 6 44 39 11

Total costs Towed 83 8 0 8

Static 78 0 11 11

Travel time to fishing sites Towed 75 0 8 17

Static 17 0 50 33

Number of trips per month Towed 0 17 75 8

Static 0 11 89 0

Fishing duration Towed 50 25 8 17

Static 28 6 50 17

Both towed and static gear fishermen still make the same number of fishing trips per

month, but fishing duration has increased for most towed gear fishermen due to the

need to access more distant fishing sites (Table 5.1). Fishermen were asked if they

had any other sources of income in order to determine their level of dependence on

fishing, in particular fishing in Lyme Bay. Most of them claimed that they had no other

income and attributed 98 to 100 % of their monthly income to fishing in Lyme Bay.

c) Changes in wet weight and value of landings

The value of landings for static gear fishermen from July 2007 to June 2008 (one

year before the closure) was very similar to the value of landings from July 2008 to

July 2009 (one year after the closure) at around £2.2 million (Figure 5.1b). Similarly,

the total value landed by mobile gear including scallop dredging one year before the

closure was very similar to the value of landings one year after the closure at £1.1

million.

Figure 5.1: Comparisons based on a) wet weight, and b) value of landings one year before and

one year after the closure for all species landed by static gear (pots, nets), towed gear (scallop

dredgers and demersal trawlers), and scallops from vessels that had fished in ICES rectangles

30E6 and 30E7

Landings for scallops indicate a 26.7 % increase from £560,610 the year before

closure to £710,844 afterwards (Figure 5.1b). These landings data reveal that the

majority of the catches for both static and towed gear fishermen have been coming

from outside the closed area (Figure 5.2).

Figure 5.2: Value of landings (£) for fishing vessels that use static gear and those that use

towed gear comparing the value of landings when fishing had been conducted inside or

outside of the closed area.

Fishing effort data show that the number of vessels fishing inside the closed area

using static gear has remained between 28 and 31 vessels per month one year

before and after the closure (Table 5.2). The number of vessels using static gear

fishing outside the closure remained the same one year before and after the closure.

Similar results are evident for fishing vessels using towed gear. The number of trips

however rose for both those fishing inside and outside of the closed area from 246 to

281 (Table 5.2).

Table 5.2: Changes in number of vessels and number of trips one year before and after the

closure for static and towed gear showing the number fishing inside or outside the closed area

based on sightings data. Towed gear is not allowed inside the closure hence the blanks.

Static inside Static outside Towed inside Towed outside

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Number of vessels

One year before closure 28 10 55 11 7 2 16 4

One year after closure 31 10 55 15 16 7

Number of trips

One year before closure 78 40 246 64 57 21 53 19

One year after closure 142 45 281 85 76 25

d) Changes in areas fished and distribution of fishing effort

Analyses of vessel density on the sightings data from 2005 to 2009 showed that

fishing intensity in the ICES rectangles 30E6 and 30E7 fluctuated widely prior to the

closure (Figure 5.3). The number of fishing vessels using static gear in the now

closed area remained fairly similar from 2005 to 2008 but went up after the closure

was introduced. These activities have spread to new areas inside the closure as

most fishermen are deploying more pots. According to the DSFC the number of pots

deployed per fisherman has doubled inside the closure (B. Lawrence, Pers. Comm.).

Between 2005 and 2008, fishing vessels using towed gear dominated the area which

is now closed, but vessel numbers fluctuated throughout the year. Spatial distribution

of fishing effort by towed gear fishermen indicates that the most intensively dredged

areas after the introduction of the closure are now the inshore waters around

Exmouth (Figure 5.3).

a) Static gear

b) Towed gear

Figure 5.3: Raw sightings data records from 2005-2009 collected by DSFC for a) static, & b)

towed. Positions are patrol boat sightings normalised with patrol boat effort. Dates clockwise

from top left: Jan 05–June 06, July 07–June 08, July 06–June 07 & July 08–Dec 09

Point density analysis shows that this area was popular with scallop dredgers before

the closure, and after the closure it has experienced a considerable increase in the

number of towed gear vessels. Views from static gear fishermen indicate that the

increased fishing effort within the fishing grounds west of Lyme Bay is causing

conflicts with static gear fishermen, who regard this area as their traditional fishing

ground.

5.3.2 Changes for divers

The number of trips made by divers to Lyme Bay was higher in 2009 than in 2008 but

this was because divers took more dive trips in general in 2009. Out of 84 responses

received from divers to our questionnaires, 20 % claim that they are making more

trips to the closed area now than before, 47 % claim that they are making fewer trips,

while 31 % said that they are making the same number of trips (Fig 5.4).

Figure 5.4: Proportion of divers who reported changes to diving trips to Lyme Bay in the first

and second phase of surveys

Perceptions of divers indicate that most of them support the closure. Some urged

that large scale industrial fishing should be completely banned to aid recovery of

marine ecosystems, while some felt that displacement of effort will ruin other areas

currently favoured for diving. Divers indicated that the closure has led to a reduction

in conflict between commercial fishermen and recreational users and has increased

the abundance of marine life, and is therefore positive for the ecosystem.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2008 (n = 46)

2009 (n = 37)

Re

spo

nd

en

ts (

%)

Year

No response

Same

Less

More

5.3.3 Changes for dive businesses

Changes in turnover, number of divers on trips, number of staff and number of

students taught as indicated by dive businesses are presented in Figure 5.5. Dive

business owners stated that as yearly changes are influenced by weather conditions,

recession and expansion of business it is hard to attribute changes to the closure.

Figure 5.5: Changes in various aspects of dive businesses comparing responses for the first

and second surveys

Perceptions and attitudes of most dive business owners indicate that they support

the closed area policy. They claimed that it has led to an increase in environmental

awareness locally, has long term advantages to fish stocks, and should increase

diver numbers. One respondent was still not aware that the closed area existed.

5.3.4 Changes for charter boat operators

In both 2008 and 2009 the majority of people hiring charter boats were sea anglers

(Fig 5.6). There was a large increase in the number of charters hired for trips into the

closed area in 2009 (Fig 5.7). Charter boat operators however, reported little change

as a consequence of the closure. They attribute most of the changes to an increase

in fuel costs, poor weather, recession or business expansion. Charter boat operators

have mixed opinions, but generally are in support of the closure for conservation

reasons. However, they feel that it has to be done right, and some were worried

about the effects of the closure on fishermen‟s livelihoods.

Figure 5.6: Number of trips made by charter boat operators in 2008 and 2009 for angling, diving

and other activities

Figure 5.7: Response from charter boat operators on the location of charter operations in 2008

and 2009

0

40

80

120

160

200

2008 (n = 16)

2009 (n = 9)

2008 (n = 5)

2009 (n = 2)

2008 (n = 9)

2009 (n = 2)

Angling Diving Other

Nu

mb

er

of

char

ters

Charter type

0

50

100

150

200

250

2008 (n = 16)

2009 (n = 9)

2008 (n = 16)

2009 (n = 9)

2008 (n = 16)

2009 (n = 9)

Outside Lyme Bay Outside Closed Area Inside Closed Area

Nu

mb

er

of

char

ters

Location

5.3.5 Changes for sea anglers

Sea anglers had mixed opinions towards the closure. Those who fish within the

closed area reported improvements in their catches, while those who fish outside

have seen no benefits. All sea anglers interviewed were particularly concerned over

the enforcement of the closure. None had changed the frequency of their angling

activities.

5.3.6 Changes for fish processors and merchants

During the first round of interviews, fish processors and merchants claimed that they

had been heavily impacted by the closure. The main impacts they felt included a

decrease in volume of scallops purchased, increased haulage costs from sourcing

scallops from more distant areas and purchasing low quality scallops (Table 5.3).

Table 5.3: Relative importance (%) of the main impacts reported by fish merchants. Blank cells

mean that the impact was not mentioned in the second survey i.e. one year after closure.

(Respondents include a total of seven key fish merchants from Devon and Dorset)

Main impacts felt Immediately

after closure

One year

after closure

Decline in number of boats landing scallops hence sourcing

fewer scallops from Brixham market 27

Decrease in quality of scallops and subsequent decrease in

customer satisfaction 20

Increase in haulage coats from sourcing scallops from more

distant areas 7 10

Loss of trade 13

Buying scallops from bigger boats that fish a more distant

locations 7 10

Closure has had no effect on business 13 25

No change in the quality of scallops 20

Fishing boats are fishing in other areas such that the volume of

scallops reaching the market has not changed 15

Sourcing scallops from same boats as before the closure 13 20

Our main concern is for the fishermen as we source scallops

from other areas they cannot 35

During the second survey however, most fish merchants claimed that there were no

major impacts that they could attribute to the closure. The majority claimed that the

closure has had little impact on their businesses. They had seen no change in the

quality of scallops purchased and felt that the reduced volumes of purchases are part

of seasonal cycles and not necessarily due to the closure. Most are still sourcing

scallops from the same boats that now fish in more distant areas. Most fish

processors and merchants claimed that they were not experiencing major impacts

but were concerned that the fishermen were being heavily impacted by the closure.

However, one fish merchant claimed that they have had to change the way they buy

scallops (i.e. through the market) which is more unreliable and that they have had to

change the focus of their business to compensate for their inability to meet contracts:

they recently lost a contract to supply scallops to a major retailer.

5.3.7 Local hotel owners

Local hotel owners provided mixed comments, with some completely against the

closure, saying that it aims at protecting sea fans that only a few people will ever see

while ruining people‟s incomes. Others were in support and felt that improved

biodiversity will lead to tourism benefits, and that the closure illustrates a green

image of Dorset and Devon which should increase tourism.

5.4 Enforcement of closure

Risk based enforcement activity was and continues to be undertaken by the MMO

and other enforcement agencies including Devon and Southern SFCs. Enforcement

officers have not sighted any prohibited vessels operating in the closed area illegally,

but there have been sightings of vessels operating close to the boundaries of the

area or transiting through it. Concerns were received by the MMO from a number of

parties in the general area that illegal fishing was taking place. These took the form

of correspondence from a local wildlife trust and some anonymous complaints. The

local SFCs received similar complaints. There were also a small number of reports of

loss of static fishing gear, a possible indicator that it may have been towed away by

trawl gear. However, these were investigated and no infringements were evident.

5.5 Discussion

The establishment of the closed area has affected various activities in Lyme Bay and

imposed a number of costs and benefits on the stakeholders. We have examined the

initial impacts of the closure on seven stakeholder groups including commercial

fishermen, fish merchants, sea anglers, divers, dive businesses, local hotel owners,

and charter operators in order to evaluate the changes that have occurred one year

after its establishment. The results indicate that impacts on fishermen differ

according to gear type and the fishing location used. Most static gear fishermen who

fish within the closure have seen an increase in fishing effort mostly because they

have been able to increase the number of crab and whelk pots they deploy.

The effects of the closure on static gear fishermen who fish outside the closure has

been reported in the form of increased conflicts with towed gear fishermen who now

fish regularly in their traditional grounds. Fishermen using towed gear have also been

impacted as they have been forced to find other fishing grounds outside the closure.

Despite the impacts felt by the fishermen, analyses of landings data (ICES rectangles

30E6 and 30E7) indicate that the introduction of the closed area has so far had

minimal impacts on the average incomes and profits of fishermen and fish

merchants. It is worth noting that although the landings dataset used is from official

sources, it does not contain all the catches as a proportion of landings is not declared

to the authorities. In addition, most recreational users have seen few changes to their

daily activities in Lyme Bay indicating that the introduction of the closure has had

minimal impacts to all stakeholder groups. This conclusion, however, is based on

preliminary findings and reflects a short-term view as the impacts of the closure of

are likely to be felt for many years. This is the view shared by most fishermen, fish

merchants and recreational users who stated that the impacts of the closure are yet

to be fully realized.

Part 6: Conclusions and programme for future work

6.1 Predicting the effects of fishery area closures on long lived sessile species

The main findings of this work to date show that the majority of species investigated

were found to be slow growing with prolonged maturation. Over 66 % have no

regeneration capacity, and their regeneration is dependent on larval dispersal. The

literature search has revealed a lack of published studies that meet the search

criteria, highlighting the importance of this work in improving the understanding of the

effects of fishery closures, and the recovery and sensitivity of sessile benthic species.

6.2 Field surveys of benthic species and assemblages

Survey work has now been successfully completed giving a comprehensive three

year dataset from which it will be possible to appropriately assess the effect of the SI

on benthic species in Lyme Bay over the two years that it has been in place.

Preliminary analysis of the diver belt transects has identified species whose

abundance differs between treatment types and years. Differences are more

apparent from investigatory analysis of the completed video transect data for the

predetermined indicator species which has revealed statistically significant

differences between treatments, areas and years for some species. There is likely to

be an emerging trend of recovery which will be further investigated using post hoc

tests in the Final Report. However, the need for ongoing monitoring is clear as these

trends may be the beginning of a recovery phase, or they may not, and this is

something that may not be conclusively proven for several years.

6.3 Field surveys of reef associated nekton

Baited underwater video surveys were successfully completed in spring and summer

2010 and data analysis is underway. This will allow the trends identified in 2009 to be

further examined and will provide an understanding of the differences between

nekton and benthic mobile species in terms of species diversity, abundance, and

assemblage structure between seasons, spatial treatment differences and temporal

treatment differences.

6.4 Scallops

Scallop populations were surveyed in 2009 and 2010 using the sites pre-determined

by the random quadrat and fixed diver surveys. Data analysis is underway and will be

reported in the Final Report. This will include the total abundance of scallops, as

derived from the towed video footage.

6.5 Socio-economics Two rounds of socio-economic questionnaires and the social impact survey have

now been completed, and the third round of questionnaires will begin in December

2010. To date, preliminary results have shown that impacts have been minimal for all

stakeholders except fishermen. Impacts to fishermen have varied depending on gear

type and fishing location. Static gear fishermen have seen benefits inside the closure

as they are able to increase the number of crab and whelk pots used, however, those

outside the closure have noticed an increase in conflict between static and mobile

gear fishermen due to the displacement of boats using mobile fishing gear. However,

landings data reveals that impacts on average income and profits have been

minimal. All stakeholders were of the opinion that the full impact of the closure has

yet to be realised.

6.6 Program for 2010-2011

With the exception of the socio-economic study, all survey work is now complete.

Table 6.1 shows the remaining project deadlines, and work for 2010 and 2011 will

focus on these. The Final Report will report fully on all objectives and include detailed

analysis of the data that has been collected to allow conclusions to be drawn.

Table 6.1: Reporting deadlines for the 2010-2011 period

Date Report

31/10/2010 Objective 4 Long Lived Species Report

13/12/2010 Stakeholder Workshop Report

16/02/2011 Final Project Report Draft

30/03/2011 Final Project Report

Work for Objective 4 is now complete and is currently being compiled into a detailed

report, due at the end of October (Table 6.1). The monitoring results from the towed

video and frame grab analysis will be used to put these findings into context in the

Final Report, enabling a comparison of the actual results with the expected

recoverability and sensitivity of the indicator species. This can then be used to inform

future management of the effectiveness of MPAs at delivering conservation gains.

Analysis of towed video is underway, with work on 2009 and 2010 frame grabs still to

be completed. Once analysed, these will allow a detailed comparison of species

composition before and after the closure was implemented and detailed information

on the recovery of species within the closure. This work will also enable an

estimation of recovery time and can be used to inform management of the likely

scale of recovery of species on hard substrate in UK waters.

The socio-economic team will be holding a stakeholder workshop later in the year

and will begin their final round of questionnaires in December 2010. Once these are

completed final data analysis will begin, allowing the impact of the closure over the 3

years post closure to be determined.

6.7 Conclusion

To date, this project has identified some evidence for the recovery of long lived

sessile species within the 60 nm2 closure in Lyme Bay. Preliminary analysis of towed

video has revealed a statistically significant effect of treatment with sites within the

new closure significantly more abundant in sessile benthic organisms than those

outside. Furthermore, socio-economic analysis has shown that although there have

been some negative effects of the closure on fishermen, overall the impact on

stakeholders has been minimal, and landings data has revealed that incomes and

profits have not been greatly impacted.

However, despite these positive trends, the time period of this project is not adequate

to allow the recovery of long lived sessile indicator species to be determined. The

results we have to date show an emerging trend that may be the beginning of a

recovery phase, but continued monitoring is essential to determine whether this is the

case. We suggest that the benthic video monitoring should be continued for a further

three years to allow robust data on recovery to be obtained.

Acknowledgements

We thank the large number of people who collected the information which appears in

this report, and those who assisted in fieldwork, analysis and production.

References

Allison, E.H., Wilson, U.A.W, and Brand, A.R. (2004). Age determination and the first

growth ring in North Irish Sea populations of the scallop, Pecten maximus (L.).

Molluscan Studies, 60, 91 -95

Attrill, M.J., Fowell, S., Hall-Spencer, J., Hattam, C., Jackson, E.L., Langmead, O.,

Mangi, S., Marshall, C., Munro, C., Rees, S., Rodwell, L., Sheehan, E.V., Stevens,

T.F. (2009). Lyme Bay – a case-study: measuring recovery of benthic species;

assessing potential “spillover” effects and socio-economic changes, Annual Report,

December 2009. Report to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

from the University of Plymouth-led consortium. Plymouth: University of Plymouth

Enterprise Ltd. 70 pages.

Hoskin, M.G., Coleman, R.A., von Carlhausen, L. (2009). Ecological effects of the

Lundy No-Take Zone: the first 5 years (2003-2007). Final Report to Natural England,

DEFRA & WWF-UK

Guidetti, P. (2007). Potential for Marine Reserves to Cause Community-Wide

Changes beyond Their Boundaries. Conservation Biology, 21, 540-545

Mangi, S., Hattam, C., Rodwell, L., Rees, S., Stehfest, K., (2009) Initial report on

socio-economic costs of closing Lyme Bay to scallop dredging and heavy trawling

gear. Report to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from the

Plymouth Marine Laboratories and the University of Plymouth-led consortium.

Plymouth: University of Plymouth Enterprise Ltd. 50 pp. Defra Contract No. MB101

Sheehan, E.V., Stevens, T.F. & Attrill, M.J. (in revision). A quantitative, non-

destructive methodology for habitat characterization and benthic monitoring at

offshore renewable energy developments. Submitted to PLos ONE

Stobart, B., García-Charton, J.A., Espejo, C., Rochel, E., Goñi, R., Reñones, O.,

Herrero, A., Crec'hriou, R., Polti, S., Marcos, C., Planes, S., Pérez-Ruzafa, A. (2007)

A baited underwater video technique to assess shallow-water Mediterranean fish

assemblages: Methodological evaluation. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology

and Ecology, 345. 158-174

Appendix Investigatory PERMANOVA analysis of towed video transects for 13 indicator species. Analysis

is by treatment (4 x Closed Control; 4 x New Closure; 3 x Near Open Control; 3 x Far Open

Control with four replicate tows per treatment), year (2008, 2009, 2010) and Area (1, 2, 3 & 4). *

denotes a significant result (p < 0.05)

Species Source df SS MS Pseudo-

F P(perm)

Pecten maximus Year 2 5205.10 2602.60 2.02 0.11

Treatment 3 7384.40 2461.50 0.87 0.49

Area(Treatment) 11 34105.00 3100.50 3.06 0.00*

Year x Treatment 6 10395.00 1732.50 1.35 0.24

Year x Area(Treatment)** 20 25731.00 1286.50 1.27 0.12

Residual 125 126740.00 1013.90

Total 167 212560.00

Phallusia mammillata

Year 2 14093.00 7046.60 2.47 0.05

Treatment 3 88501.00 29500.00 5.18 0.01*

Area(Treatment) 11 68710.00 6246.40 2.89 0.00*

Year x Treatment 6 19948.00 3324.70 1.16 0.33


Residual 125 270330.00 2162.60

Total 167 524810.00

Pentapora foliacea

Year 2 2503.80 1251.90 0.58 0.75

Treatment 3 91254.00 30418.00 5.83 0.00*

Area(Treatment) 11 62305.00 5664.10 2.41 0.00*

Year x Treatment 6 17690.00 2948.30 1.37 0.19


Residual 125 293340.00 2346.70

Total 167 518080.00

Aiptasia mutabilis

Year 2 39140.00 19570.00 6.79 0.00*

Treatment 3 41722.00 13907.00 3.67 0.01*

Area(Treatment) 11 44821.00 4074.60 2.12 0.00*

Year x Treatment 6 33395.00 5565.90 1.93 0.08

Year x Area(Treatment)** 20 57745.00 2887.20 1.50 0.03*

Residual 125 240150.00 1921.20

Total 167 477830.00


F P(perm)

Alcyconium digitatum

Year 2 10189.00 5094.50 3.05 0.01*

Treatment 3 44534.00 14845.00 2.51 0.06

Area(Treatment) 11 71315.00 6483.20 2.83 0.00*

Year x Treatment 6 26562.00 4427.00 2.65 0.00*


Residual 125 286670.00 2293.40

Total 167 473350.00

Eunicella verrucosa

Year 2 3777.90 1889.00 1.54 0.17

Treatment 3 62909.00 20970.00 2.11 0.10

Area(Treatment) 11 122820.00 11166.00 5.15 0.00*

Year x Treatment 6 6964.20 1160.70 0.95 0.53


Residual 125 270800.00 2166.40

Total 167 494330.00

Erect branching sponges

Year 2 29394.00 14697.00 3.58 0.01*

Treatment 3 83049.00 27683.00 6.98 0.00*

Area(Treatment) 11 46821.00 4256.50 2.05 0.00*

Year x Treatment 6 14595.00 2432.60 0.59 0.87


Residual 125 259070.00 2072.60

Total 167 517320.00

Asterias rubens Year 2 7620.20 3810.10 2.02 0.07

Treatment 3 31689.00 10563.00 0.75 0.60

Area(Treatment) 11 175510.00 15956.00 10.50 0.00*

Year x Treatment 6 20860.00 3476.70 1.84 0.04*


Residual 125 189900.00 1519.20

Total 167 468610.00

Necora puber Year 2 35480.00 17740.00 9.39 0.00*

Treatment 3 35457.00 11819.00 3.17 0.06

Area(Treatment) 11 44150.00 4013.60 2.16 0.01*

Year x Treatment 6 24138.00 4023.00 2.13 0.06


Residual 125 232770.00 1862.10

Total 167 419250.00


F P(perm)

Cancer pagurus Year 2 3691.60 1845.80 0.87 0.44

Treatment 3 11902.00 3967.30 2.18 0.13

Area(Treatment) 11 20374.00 1852.20 1.14 0.32

Year x Treatment 6 12393.00 2065.50 0.97 0.48


Residual 125 203490.00 1627.90

Total 167 298120.00

Thorogobius ephippiatus

Year 2 10808.00 5403.80 8.41 0.00*

Treatment 3 1299.90 433.31 0.73 0.52

Area(Treatment) 11 6431.30 584.67 0.94 0.48

Year x Treatment 6 1708.50 284.75 0.44 0.87


Residual 125 77716.00 621.73

Total 167 112220.00

Ciona intestinalis

Year 2 34820.00 17410.00 2.75 0.05

Treatment 3 26195.00 8731.50 2.28 0.10

Area(Treatment) 11 45335.00 4121.40 2.08 0.00*

Year x Treatment 6 35128.00 5854.70 0.93 0.52


Residual 125 247690.00 1981.60

Total 167 530720.00

Aequipecten opercularis

Year 2 14453.00 7226.30 1.88 0.12

Treatment 3 51951.00 17317.00 2.07 0.07

Area(Treatment) 11 102330.00 9302.70 4.22 0.00*

Year x Treatment 6 16017.00 2669.60 0.70 0.78


Residual 125 275530.00 2204.20

Total 167 540200.00

Lyme Bay - A case study: measuring recovery of benthic...

Documents

Transcript of Lyme Bay - A case study: measuring recovery of benthic...