Action

Use non-ringed hooks

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    not assessed
  • Certainty
    not assessed
  • Harms
    not assessed

Study locations

Key messages

  • One study evaluated the effects of using non-ringed hooks on reptile populations. This study was in the Mediterranean.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

OTHER (1 STUDY)

  • Unwanted catch (1 study): One replicated, paired study in the Mediterranean found that when non-ringed circle hooks were used in a swordfish longline fishery fewer loggerhead turtles were caught compared to when ringed hooks were used.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A replicated, paired study in 2009–2013 in pelagic waters in the Strait of Sicily and South Tyrrhenian Sea, central Mediterranean Sea (Piovano & Swimmer 2017) found that fewer loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta were incidentally caught on non-ringed circle hooks than ringed circle hooks in a longline fishery targeting swordfish Xiphias gladius. No loggerhead turtles were caught on non-ringed hooks, compared to six turtles caught on ringed hooks (statistical analyses not carried out due to small sample size). Catch rates of target swordfish were lower on non-ringed hooks (7 fish/1,000 hooks) compared to ringed hooks (9 fish/1,000 hooks). Ringed and non-ringed circle hooks (size: 16/0) with a 10° offset were alternately set along a mainline in an even ratio from six longline vessels (600–1,100 hooks/vessel). Data were collected during 65 longline deployments (using 25,400 of each hook type) in July-September in 2009–2010 and 2012–2013.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Sainsbury K.A., Morgan W.H., Watson M., Rotem G., Bouskila A., Smith R.K. & Sutherland W.J. (2021) Reptile Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for reptiles. Conservation Evidence Series Synopsis. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Reptile Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Reptile Conservation
Reptile Conservation

Reptile Conservation - Published 2021

Reptile synopsis

What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 19

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust