Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 636

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Global analysis of response and recovery of benthic biota to fishing

Open access
Kaiser, MJ, Clarke, KR, Hinz, H, Austen, MCV, Somerfield, PJ, Karakassis, I·2006·Marine Ecology Progress Series

Abstract

MEPS Marine Ecology Progress Series Contact the journal Facebook Twitter RSS Mailing List Subscribe to our mailing list via Mailchimp HomeLatest VolumeAbout the JournalEditorsTheme Sections MEPS 311:1-14 (2006) - doi:10.3354/meps311001 Global analysis of response and recovery of benthic biota to fishing M. J. Kaiser1,*, K. R. Clarke2, H. Hinz1, M. C. V. Austen2, P. J. Somerfield2, I. Karakassis3 1School of Ocean Sciences, University of Wales-Bangor, Menai Bridge, Anglesey LL59 5AB, UK 2Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, West Hoe, Plymouth PL1 3DH, UK 3Institute of Marine Biology of Crete, PO Box 2214, Heraklion 71003, Crete, Greece *Email: michel.kaiser@bangor.ac.uk ABSTRACT: Towed bottom-fishing gears are thought to constitute one of the largest global anthropogenic sources of disturbance to the seabed and its biota. The current drive towards an ecosystem approach in fisheries management requires a consideration of the implications of habitat deterioration and an understanding of the potential for restoration. We undertook a meta-analysis of 101 different fishing impact manipulations. The direct effects of different types of fishing gear were strongly habitat-specific. The most severe impact occurred in biogenic habitats in response to scallop-dredging. Analysis of the response of different feeding guilds to disturbance from fishing revealed that both deposit- and suspension-feeders were consistently vulnerable to scallop dredging across gravel, sand and mud habitats, while the response of these groups to beam-trawling was highly dependent upon habitat type. The biota of soft-sediment habitats, in particular muddy sands, were surprisingly vulnerable, with predicted recovery times measured in years. Slow-growing large-biomass biota such as sponges and soft corals took much longer to recover (up to 8 yr) than biota with shorter life-spans such as polychaetes (<1 yr). The results give a possible basis for predicting the outcome of the use of different fishing gears in a variety of habitats with potential utility in a management context. KEY WORDS: Fishing impacts · Towed gears · Benthic habitats · Feeding guilds · Meta-analysis · Recovery time Full text in pdf format Supplementary appendix (pdf, 84KB) NextExport citation RSS - Facebook - Tweet - linkedIn Cited by Published in MEPS Vol. 311. Online publication date: April 13, 2006 Print ISSN: 0171-8630; Online ISSN: 1616-1599 Copyright © 2006 Inter-Research.

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 · 10.3354/meps311001

Cites

Statistics

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

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Kaiser, M., Clarke, K., Hinz, H., Austen, M., Somerfield, P., & Karakassis, I.
Venue
Marine Ecology Progress Series
Published
2006-04-13
Volume
311
Pages
1-14
ISSN
  • 0171-8630 (ISSN-L)
  • 1616-1599
OpenAlex
W2071053423
Cited by
636
References
0
FWCI
21.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

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.