Grizzle et al.: Effects of a large fishing closure on benthic communities in the western Gulf of Maine 
313 
(aidiues/exet jo jsqtunu) 
sseuqou ojiuouoxex 
( z lu j. '0/6) sseutojg 
( s iu L O/Jsqtunu) A)|SU9Q 
(aidtues/exei jo J0qwnu) 
sseuqou oiwouoxej_ 
( z w/exei jo jeqiunu) 
sseuqou ojiuouoxei 
> >> 
5 o 
£5o 
•D >• 
SO 
l/i T5 
c 
_ a> ,E 
<. if 
1 1 
03 O 
= o 
W 
( 2 tu l. 0/6) sseujoig 
“| « >. 
3 TO C 
I rn O 
O 
C c 
CO ^ 
£ c 
§ .2 
P a3 
P- >H 
P 
I 
o 
03 
P 
P 
,p 
T £ 
0) . . 
5 = — , 
3 fe 
W I 
iZ 0 
Jo 
03 
eg 3 
<P O 
•rH CO 
^ 3 
5h 
P ^ 
03 -m 
o X 
P d) 
be cd 
P 
^ '•a 
>> a? 
'p -2 
° 1 
0) o 
a u 
>> CO 
-4-3 
4_J P 
c 2 
<D H 
E 3 
T3 CD 
^ rn 
>> « 
42 II 
to » 
§ O 
>-1 CD 
43 £ 
.2 a 
( 2 lu (. o/Jsqcunu) A}|SU0 q 
(giu/jsqiunu) Aysueo 
•£ a3 
s s 
o u 
C ai 
o s- 
X 3 
03 to 
-*-> o 
■"CJ CD 
P CD 
P ^ 
.2 3 
42 03 
for significant in vs. out differences for infauna or epi- 
fauna. For sand, there were strong and consistently 
greater density, biomass, and taxonomic richness for 
infauna inside the closure, but no in vs. out differences 
for epifauna. For gravel, there were no in vs. out dif- 
ferences for infauna, but greater density and taxonomic 
richness for epifauna inside the closure. In the context 
of fishing gear use, these data indicate recovery inside 
the closure from the negative impacts of otter trawls 
on infauna in sand, but not mud, and recovery inside 
the closure from the impacts of gillnets on epifauna on 
gravel bottoms. The magnitude of recovery, however, 
cannot be directly inferred from these data because of 
the confounding factor of different fishing intensities 
when the preclosure and postclosure data were com- 
pared (Fig. 3). The overall negative impact of trawls 
