Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35911785›Full record

ArticleMarine policy2022

Fish catch responses to Covid-19 disease curfews dependent on compliance, fisheries management, and environmental contexts.

T R McClanahan, M K Azali, J K Kosgei

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Marine policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

T R McClanahanWildlife Conservation Society, Global Marine Programs, Bronx, NY 10460, USA.
M K AzaliWildlife Conservation Society, Kenya Marine Program, Mombasa, Kenya.
J K KosgeiWildlife Conservation Society, Kenya Marine Program, Mombasa, Kenya.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The responses of small-scale coastal fisheries to pauses in effort and trade are an important test of natural resource management theories with implications for the many challenges of managing common-pool resources. Three Covid-19 curfews provided a natural experiment to evaluate fisheries responses adjacent a marine reserve and in a management system that restricted small-mesh drag nets. Daily catch weights in ten fish landings were compared before and after the curfew period to test the catch-only hypothesis that the curfew would reduce effort and increase catch per unit effort, per area yields, and incomes. Interviews with key informants indicated that fisheries effort and trade were disrupted but less so in the gear-restricted rural district than the more urbanized reserve landing sites. The expected increase in catches and incomes was evident in some sites adjacent the reserve but not the rural gear restricted fisheries. Differences in compliance and effort initiated by the curfew, changes in gear, and various negative environmental conditions are among the explanations for the variable catch responses. Rates of change over longer periods in CPUE were stable among marine reserve adjacent landing sites but declined faster after the curfew in the gear-restricted fisheries. Two landing sites nearest the southern end of the reserve displayed a daily 45 % increase in CPUE, 25-30 % increase in CPUA, and a 45-56 % increase in incomes. Results suggest that recovering stocks will succeed where authorities can achieve compliance, near marine reserves, and fisheries lacking additional environmental stresses.

Indexed as

AnthropauseBACI designCatch modelsCoral reef fisheriesGear managementKenyaMarine reservesSmall-scale fisheriesSocial change

Identifiers

PMID35911785
PMCPMC9314266

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.