Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 34

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Investigating the effects of mobile bottom fishing on benthic biota: a systematic review protocol

Hughes, Kathryn M, Kaiser, Michel J, Jennings, Simon, McConnaughey, Robert A, Pitcher, Roland, Hilborn, Ray, Amoroso, Ricardo O, Collie, Jeremy, Hiddink, Jan, Parma, Ana M, Rijnsdorp, Adriaan·2014·Environmental Evidence

Abstract

Mobile bottom fishing, such as trawling and dredging, is the most widespread direct human impact on marine benthic systems. Knowledge of the impacts of different gear types on different habitats, the species most sensitive to impacts and the potential for habitats to recover are often needed to inform implementation of an ecosystem approach to fisheries and strategies for biodiversity conservation. This knowledge helps to identify management options that maximise fisheries yield whilst minimising negative impacts on benthic systems. The methods are designed to identify and collate evidence from experimental studies (e.g. before/after, control/impact) and comparative studies (spanning a gradient of fishing intensity) to identify changes in state (numbers, biomass, diversity etc.) of benthic biota (flora and fauna), resulting from a variety of mobile bottom fishing scenarios. The primary research question that the outputs will be used to address is: “to what extent does a given intensity of bottom fishing affect the abundance and/or diversity of benthic biota?” Due to the variety of gear and habitat types studied, the primary question will be closely linked with secondary questions. These include: “how does the effect of bottom fishing on various benthic biota metrics (species, faunal type, trait, taxon etc.) vary with (1) gear type and (2) habitat, and (3) gear type-habitat interactions?” and (4) “how might properties of the community and environment affect the resilience (and recovery potential) of a community to bottom fishing?”

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/2047-2382-3-23

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Image 1
CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 1 Flow diagram showing the development of the final bibliography to be used in the meta-analysis. NA=not available.
Figure 1 Flow diagram showing the development of the final bibliography to be used in the meta-analysis. NA=not available.CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 26 references

Cited by

See all 34

Metadata

Authors
Hughes, K. M., Kaiser, M. J., Jennings, S., McConnaughey, R. A., Pitcher, R., Hilborn, R., Amoroso, R. O., Collie, J., Hiddink, J., Parma, A. M., & Rijnsdorp, A.
Venue
Environmental Evidence
Published
2014
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
23
ISSN
2047-2382
Cited by
34
References
26
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Investigating the effects of mobile bottom fishing on benthic biota: a systematic review protocol. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/2047-2382-3-23
The paper
Hughes, K. M., Kaiser, M. J., Jennings, S., McConnaughey, R. A., Pitcher, R., Hilborn, R., Amoroso, R. O., Collie, J., Hiddink, J., Parma, A. M., & Rijnsdorp, A. (2014). Investigating the effects of mobile bottom fishing on benthic biota: a systematic review protocol. Environmental Evidence. https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-2382-3-23

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.