Action

Establish move-on rules for temporary, targeted fishing restrictions or closures when a catch or unwanted catch threshold is reached

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

Study locations

Key messages

  • Two studies examined the effects of establishing move-on rules for temporary, targeted fishing restrictions or closures when a catch or unwanted catch threshold is reached on marine fish populations. One study was in the North Atlantic Ocean and North Sea (Scotland) and one was in the North Atlantic Ocean (Scotland).

 

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

OTHER (2 STUDIES)

  • Reduction of unwanted catch (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in in the North Atlantic Ocean/North Sea found that after move-on rules were established when a catch threshold limit triggered temporary fishing closures there were lower overall cod discards.
  • Reduction of fishing effort (2 studies): Two before-and-after studies (one replicated and controlled) in the North Atlantic Ocean and North Sea found that after move-on rules were established for vessels when a catch threshold limit was reached fishing effort for cod and blue ling was reduced.
  • Commercial catch abundance (2 studies): Two before-and-after studies (one replicated and controlled) in the North Atlantic Ocean and North Sea found that after move-on rules were established for vessels when a catch threshold limit was reached commercial landings of cod and blue ling were reduced.

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, controlled, before-and-after study in 2008–2009 of four large, fished areas of seabed in the North Sea and North Atlantic off Scotland, UK (Holmes et al. 2011) found that establishing move-on rules for temporary, targeted fishing restrictions or closures when a catch or unwanted catch threshold is reached, resulted in reduced fishing effort and overall discards and landings of Atlantic cod Gadus morhua. Data were not tested statistically. Of 144 temporary real-time closures implemented in 2009 there was a reduction in fishing activity (measured as change in number of fishing data points or pings recorded by the Vessel Monitoring System 14 d pre-closure to 14 d closure period) for 130, by 10–20 pings for the majority (105), estimated as a reduction of 10–40 h trawling. Fishing activity similarly increased when areas reopened. The reductions gave an estimated overall annual decrease in cod catch (landings and discards) of 707 t. Real-time area closures (equivalent to 7.5 square nautical miles; 21 days duration; maximum of 12 at any one time) were implemented in 2008/09 for Scottish vessels fishing in the seas around Scotland, divided into four zones, to control fishing effort and reduce cod mortality and discarding. Closures were triggered when cod catches exceeded 40 cod/hr and from monitoring analyses of landings and vessel monitoring data in each zone. Data were collected in 2008–2009 from landings, observer trips and Vessel Monitoring Systems that record activity of vessels fishing in and around the closure areas. Activity by non-Scottish vessels not required to adhere to closures was also recorded.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A before-and-after study in 2002–2013 of two fished areas of seabed in the northeast Atlantic Ocean off the coasts of Scotland, UK (Posen et al. 2014) reported that after move-on rules were established for vessels when a catch threshold limit was reached fishing effort and landings of blue ling Molva dypterygia decreased, compared to before. Data were not tested statistically. Across both areas and during the spawning season of blue ling, in 2009–2013 after move-on rules were established fishing effort (744–1,901 h) and average blue ling landings (137 t) were lower compared to 2002–2008 before rules were set (fishing effort: 1,060–2,995 h; landings: 304 t). In January 2009, rules were established for vessels fishing within two defined areas (edge of Rosemary Bank and along the Scottish continental shelf) identified as blue ling spawning grounds. The rules prohibited the retention of >6 t of blue ling/trip; at which limit the vessel must cease fishing immediately and leave the area, not returning (to either area) until the catch is landed and with no discarding of blue ling permitted. Fishing effort data from 2002–2013 were taken from Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) data of all UK vessels ≥15 m. Landings data of ling were taken from vessel logbooks and sales information.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Taylor, N., Clarke, L.J., Alliji, K., Barrett, C., McIntyre, R., Smith, R.K., and Sutherland, W.J. (2021) Marine Fish Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Selected Interventions. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Marine Fish Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Marine Fish Conservation
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