Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use artificial light on fishing gear Two studies examined the effects of using artificial light on fishing gear on marine fish populations. One study was in the Pacific Ocean (USA) and one in the Barents Sea (Norway).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Pacific Ocean found that shrimp trawl nets with artificial lights caught fewer unwanted fish when they were fitted to the fishing line, but not to a size-sorting grid, compared to a conventional trawl. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Barents Sea found that size-selectivity of long rough dab, Atlantic cod, haddock and redfish was not improved by the presence of LED lights on a size-sorting grid. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2695https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2695Wed, 02 Dec 2020 17:04:07 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Attach an electropositive deterrent to fishing gear Nine studies examined the effect of attaching an electropositive deterrent to fishing gear on marine fish populations. Three studies were in the Atlantic Ocean (USA, Canada, Bahamas). One study was in each of the Gulf of Alaska (USA), the South Pacific Ocean (Australia) and the Tasman Sea (Australia). One study was a global systematic review and two studies were in laboratory facilities (USA).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Behaviour change (4 studies): Three of four replicated studies (one paired and controlled, one randomized and controlled, one randomized, and one controlled) in the Atlantic Ocean, Tasman Sea, and in laboratory conditions, found that the presence of potentially deterrent materials attached near the bait reduced the frequency of feeding attempts and bait consumption of spiny dogfish, great hammerhead and draughtboard sharks compared to the absence of deterrent materials. The other study found that a potentially deterrent material did not reduce bait consumption by bonnethead and young lemon sharks compared to non-deterrents. One of the studies also found that the bait consumption behaviour of commercially valuable Pacific halibut was unaffected by deterrent materials. OTHER (5 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (5 studies): Two of four replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) in the Gulf of Alaska, the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean found that fishing gear (longlines and traps) fitted with electropositive deterrent materials caught fewer unwanted spiny dogfish, longnose skate, sharks and rays, and fewer undersized halibut, compared to standard fishing gear or gears with non-deterrent materials. The other two studies, and a global systematic review found that electropositive deterrents on fishing gear resulted in similar catches of unwanted spiny dogfish, sharks (total catch), blue shark and sharks and rays (total catch), compared to gear with no deterrents. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2696https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2696Thu, 03 Dec 2020 12:05:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify longline configuration Four studies examined the effects of modifying longline configuration on marine fish populations. One study was in each of the Norwegian Sea (Norway) and Atlantic Ocean (Brazil). Two were global reviews.  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One global review found that survival of unwanted sharks and rays at retrieval of longline gear was higher on nylon hook attachment lines instead of wire for two of three species and lower for one. One replicated, controlled study in the Atlantic Ocean found that survival of unwanted sharks caught on tuna longlines was reduced with nylon hook lines compared to wire. BEHAVIOUR RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (4 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (4 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies in the Norwegian Sea and Atlantic Ocean and one of two reviews of worldwide longline fisheries found that modifying longline configuration (increasing the lead weight on mid-water longlines to increase the sinking rate or using nylon instead of wire hook attachments) reduced the catches of unwanted sharks and/or rays compared to standard longlines. One review found that longline modifications reduced unwanted shark/ray catches in one of two cases. The other study found that modified longlines did not reduce catches of undersized haddock compared to standard longlines. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2699https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2699Wed, 09 Dec 2020 16:42:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a different bait type Eleven studies examined the effects of using different bait on marine fish populations. Two studies were global systematic reviews. Three studies were in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA, Iceland).Two studies were in the South Pacific Ocean (New Zealand). One study was in each of the Norwegian/Barents Seas (Norway), the Barents Sea (Norway), the Denmark Strait (Greenland) and the Mediterranean Sea. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One replicated study in the South Pacific Ocean and one global systematic review found that using different bait species did not reduce hooking injuries (associated with higher post-release mortality) of undersized snapper or sharks and rays, and did not increase survival of sharks and rays on gear retrieval. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (10 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (10 studies): Six of eight replicated studies (three controlled and one randomized) in the Norwegian/Barents Seas, Barents Sea, Denmark Strait, North Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea and the South Pacific Ocean, found that using a different bait type (including size, species and manufacture method) reduced the unwanted catches of undersized haddock (although in one case in only two of six comparisons), Atlantic cod and other unwanted or non-target fish catch, but unwanted catches of torsk and ling were similar, compared to standard or other bait types. Two other studies found no reduction in unwanted catches of pelagic stingray and overall unwanted fish with different bait types. Two systematic global reviews found that using different bait types did not affect the number of unwanted sharks and rays caught. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (1 study): One replicated study in the Denmark Strait found that using a different bait species increased the size-selectivity of commercially targeted Greenland halibut. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2700https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2700Thu, 10 Dec 2020 14:26:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify gillnet or entangling (trammel/tangle) net configuration Four studies examined the effects of modifying gillnet or entangling (trammel or tangle) net configuration on marine fish populations. One study was in each of the Gulf of Maine (USA), the Atlantic Ocean (USA) and the Adriatic Sea (Italy), and one study was in two estuaries in North Carolina (USA).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (4 STUDIES) Reduction in unwanted catch (4 studies): Three of four replicated studies (one controlled, two paired and controlled) in the Gulf of Maine, Atlantic Ocean, Adriatic Sea and estuaries in the USA, found that modifications to the configuration of gillnets, including reduced height, increased tension twine diameter and mesh size and orientation, reduced the unwanted catch of cod in one of two net designs, discarded fish of commercial and non-commercial species, and the discards of non-commercial, but not commercial species (fish and invertebrates), compared to conventional configurations. The other study found that gillnet modification did not typically reduce unwanted shark catches compared to unmodified gillnets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2701https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2701Fri, 11 Dec 2020 11:55:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit escape devices (panels/grids) to encircling nets Three studies examined the effect of fitting fish escape devices (panels or size-sorting grids) to encircling nets on marine fish populations. One study was in the Tasman Sea (Australia), one was in the North and Norwegian Seas (Norway) and one was in the Atlantic Ocean (Portugal).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the North and Norwegian Seas reported no difference in the survival of saithe, but reduced survival of mackerel, between fish that had passed through a rigid size-sorting escape grid in a purse seine net and those that had not, after one month. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (2 studies): Two replicated studies (one controlled) in the Tasman Sea and Atlantic Ocean found that transparent panels of net and a large-diamond mesh escape panel fitted to fish seine nets, reduced the catches of unwanted small individuals of one of four commercially targeted fish and unwanted or undersized fish, compared to conventional seine nets. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Tasman Sea found that size-selectivity of one of four commercial fish species was improved in seine nets with transparent netting panels compared to without. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2703https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2703Mon, 14 Dec 2020 14:09:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change the size of the main body of a trawl net One study examined the effects of changing the size of the main body of a trawl net to reduce unwanted catch on marine fish populations. The study was in the North Sea (Norway). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (1 study): One replicated study in the North Sea found that reducing the size of the main body of a trawl net did not improve the size-selection of cod and haddock. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2705https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2705Thu, 17 Dec 2020 12:05:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify the design or configuration of trawl doors Three studies examined the effects of modifying the design or configuration of trawl doors on marine fish populations. One study was in the Tasman Sea, one in the Clarence Estuary and one in Lake Wooloweyah (all in Australia).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Reduction in unwanted catch (3 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (one paired) in the Tasman Sea, the Clarence Estuary and Lake Wooloweyah found that modified or different designs of trawl doors caught similar amounts of unwanted fish overall, compared to conventional door types. However, one study found fewer of one of five individual unwanted fish species were caught with modified doors. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2707https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2707Mon, 28 Dec 2020 15:41:41 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify a bottom trawl to raise parts of the gear off the seabed during fishing Two studies examined the effects of modifying a bottom trawl to raise parts of the gear off the seabed during fishing on marine fish populations. One study was in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia) and one was in the Atlantic Ocean (USA).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (2 studies): Two replicated studies (one randomized and both controlled) in the Gulf of Carpentaria and the Atlantic Ocean found that bottom trawls with parts of the gear raised off the seabed caught fewer unwanted sharks, other elasmobranchs and fish and fewer of three of seven unwanted fish species compared to conventional trawls. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2708https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2708Mon, 28 Dec 2020 15:51:05 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify design or arrangement of tickler chains/chain mats in a bottom trawl Two studies examined the effects of modifying the design or arrangement of tickler chains in a bottom trawl on marine fish populations. One was in the North Sea (Netherlands/UK) and one was in the Atlantic Ocean (Scotland).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (2 studies): One of two replicated, paired, controlled studies in the North Sea and Atlantic Ocean found that removing the tickler chain from a trawl reduced catches of non-commercial target skates/rays and sharks, and individuals were larger, compared to trawling with the chain. The study also found that catches of commercial target species were typically unaffected. The other study found that two modified tickler chain arrangements did not reduce discarded fish catch compared to a standard arrangement. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2709https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2709Mon, 28 Dec 2020 15:58:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a different twine type in a trawl net Five studies examined the effects of using a different twine type in a trawl net on marine fish populations. Two studies were in each of the North Sea (UK) and the Western Baltic Sea (Denmark/Germany), and one study was in the Adriatic Sea (Italy). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (5 STUDIES) Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (5 studies): Four of five replicated studies (four controlled) in the North Sea, Baltic Sea and Adriatic Sea found that using a different twine type (twine thickness and construction material) improved the size-selectivity of bottom fish, haddock, Atlantic cod, plaice and flounder, compared to thinner or other twine materials. One study found that selectivity of non-target haddock and plaice was similar for three different twine diameters. One of these studies also found that size-selectivity of fish was influenced by twine number and mesh orientation, while another found no effect of twine number and mesh orientation, but cod selectivity increased with a smaller codend circumference. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2710https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2710Tue, 29 Dec 2020 16:07:09 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a separator trawl Two studies examined the effect of using a separator trawl on marine fish populations. One study was in the North Sea (UK) and the other in the Atlantic Ocean (Portugal).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (2 studies): One replicated, randomized study in the North Sea found that a separator trawl separated unwanted cod from target fish species into the lower codend, where a larger mesh size allowed more unwanted smaller cod to escape capture. One replicated study in the Atlantic Ocean found that a separator trawl fitted with a square-mesh escape panel caught less of one of two unwanted fish species in a crustacean fishery. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2711https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2711Tue, 29 Dec 2020 16:27:31 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a topless (coverless) trawl Four studies examined the effect of using a topless or coverless trawl on marine fish populations. Two studies were in the North Sea (UK, Norway, Sweden), one study was in the Gulf of Maine (USA) and one study was in the North Sea, Skagerrak and the Baltic Sea (Northern Europe).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (4 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (4 studies): Two of four replicated, controlled studies (three paired) in the North Sea, Gulf of Maine, and North Sea, Skagerrak and Baltic Sea found that using a topless trawl, in one case in combination with another non-conventional trawl type, reduced the catch of unwanted Atlantic cod and discards of commercial fish species compared to conventional trawl types. One study found that topless trawls reduced unwanted catches of larger but not smaller haddock and larger Atlantic cod only in one of two cases, compared to standard trawl types. The other study found that discarded catches of one of four commercial fish species were reduced in topless trawls. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2712https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2712Tue, 29 Dec 2020 16:31:56 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use an electric (pulse) trawl Three studies examined the effects of using an electric (pulse) trawl on marine fish populations. The studies were in the North Sea (Belgium, Netherlands and multiple European countries).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (3 studies): Two replicated, paired, controlled studies and one review in the North Sea found that using an electric/pulse trawl reduced the catches of non-target or undersized (discarded) commercial fish in some or all cases, compared to using a standard trawl. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2713https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2713Tue, 29 Dec 2020 16:45:07 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Rotate the orientation of diamond mesh in a trawl net Six studies examined the effects of rotating the orientation of diamond mesh in a trawl net on marine fish populations. Three studies were in the Baltic Sea (Denmark), and one study was in each of the Kattegat and Skagerrak (northern Europe), the Aegean Sea (Turkey) and the North Sea (Belgium/UK).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (6 STUDIES) Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (6 studies): One review study in the Kattegat and Skagerrak and four of five replicated, controlled studies (one paired) in the Baltic Sea, Aegean Sea, and North Sea found that turning the orientation of diamond mesh in trawl codends by 90° resulted in better size selection of cod, red mullet and common pandora, and round-bodied fish species, but not of plaice, annular sea bream, and flatfish species, compared to standard orientation of diamond mesh in trawl codends. The other study found that turned mesh instead of standard diamond mesh trawl codends did not improve the size selectivity of cod, plaice and flounder. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2715https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2715Fri, 01 Jan 2021 16:13:18 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify the configuration of a mesh escape panel/window in a trawl net Ten studies examined the effects of modifying the configuration (position/size and increased mesh size) of a mesh escape panel/window in a trawl net on marine fish populations. Four studies were in the Baltic Sea (Sweden/Poland). Two studies were in each of the North Sea (UK), the Irish Sea (UK) and the Kattegat and Skagerrak (Northern Europe). One study was in the Atlantic Ocean (Portugal).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Baltic Sea found that modifying the position of a mesh escape panel in a trawl net had no effect on the survival rate of cod. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (9 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (5 studies): Three of five replicated, paired studies (one controlled) in the Irish Sea, Atlantic Ocean and Kattegat-Skagerrak found that modifying the position or mesh size of a mesh escape panel/window in a trawl net reduced the unwanted catches of whiting in one of two cases, haddock and whiting, and boarfish, but caught similar amounts of horse mackerel and blue whiting. The other studies found that catches of unwanted cod or other fish were not reduced. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (4 studies): Two of four replicated, controlled studies in the North Sea and Baltic Sea found that modifying the position and/or size of a mesh escape panel in a trawl net improved size-selectivity of haddock and whiting. One of these studies also found that increasing the mesh size of the panel had no effect on size-selectivity for haddock. The other two studies found that size-selectivity was similar for cod compared to standard trawls. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2717https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2717Tue, 05 Jan 2021 14:46:39 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use netting of contrasting colour in a trawl net One study examined the effect of using netting of contrasting colour in a trawl net on marine fish populations. The study was in the Baltic Sea (Denmark).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Reduction of unwanted catch (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Baltic Sea found that a trawl codend with contrasting black netting used in conjunction with a square mesh escape panel caught a similar amount of undersized cod as a conventional codend. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Baltic Sea found that two designs of contrasting netting colour in trawl codends with square mesh escape windows did not improve the size-selectivity of cod compared to conventional codend netting colour. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2718https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2718Tue, 05 Jan 2021 15:46:48 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit rigid (as opposed to mesh) escape panels/windows to a trawl net One study examined the effects of fitting rigid escape windows/panels to trawls for fish escape on marine fish populations. The study was in the Baltic Sea.  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Reduction of unwanted catch (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Baltic Sea found that fitting rigid escape windows in a section of trawl net reduced the catch of unwanted flatfish compared to a trawl net without escape windows. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2719https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2719Tue, 05 Jan 2021 15:50:35 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit a size-sorting mesh funnel (a sieve net) to a prawn/shrimp trawl net Three studies examined the effects of fitting a size-sorting mesh funnel (sieve net) to a prawn/shrimp trawl net on marine fish populations. All three studies were in the North Sea (Belgium, UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (3 studies): Three replicated, paired, controlled studies in the North Sea found that shrimp trawls fitted with a mesh size-sorting funnel, a sieve net, reduced the catches of unwanted (non-commercial or discarded) fish, compared to standard trawls. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2722https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2722Wed, 20 Jan 2021 12:16:50 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit large, supported escape openings (such as Fisheyes, Bigeyes and radial escape sections) to trawl nets Eight studies examined the effects of fitting large, supported escape openings (such as Fisheyes, Bigeyes and radial escape sections) to trawl nets on marine fish populations. Three studies were in the northwest Atlantic Ocean (USA) and three were in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia). One study was in the north Pacific Ocean (USA) and one was in the Coral Sea (Australia).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (8 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (8 studies): Six of seven replicated studies (five paired and controlled, and one randomized, paired and controlled) in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Carpentaria, Pacific Ocean and the Coral Sea found that fitting large, supported escape openings (various designs including Fisheyes, Bigeyes and radial escape sections) to trawl nets reduced the overall catches of unwanted fish, immature red snapper and total unwanted catch (fish and invertebrates combined) compared to standard nets. The other study found that there were fewer unwanted Chinook salmon in catches with two of two designs of escape openings, but only one of the designs caught fewer widow rockfish. One replicated, paired and controlled study in the Gulf of Carpentaria found that trawl nets fitted with either large escape openings or a square mesh escape panel reduced unwanted shark catch but not unwanted ray or sawfish catches, compared to standard nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2723https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2723Wed, 20 Jan 2021 16:58:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit mesh escape panels/windows to a trawl net and use square mesh instead of diamond mesh codend One study examined the effects of fitting mesh escape panels to a trawl net and using a square mesh instead of a diamond mesh codend on marine fish populations. The study was in the English Channel (UK).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Reduction of unwanted catch (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the English Channel found that using a trawl net with square mesh escape panels and a square mesh codend reduced the numbers of discarded finfish compared to a diamond mesh codend with no panels. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2724https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2724Thu, 21 Jan 2021 16:56:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit a size-sorting escape grid (rigid or flexible) to trawl nets and use a square mesh instead of a diamond mesh codend Three studies examined the effects of fitting a size-sorting escape grid (rigid or flexible) to trawl nets and using a square mesh instead of a diamond mesh codend on marine fish populations. The studies were in the North Sea (UK), the Kattegat and Skagerrak (Sweden/Denmark) and the Coral Sea (Australia).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (3 studies): Three replicated, paired, controlled studies (one randomized) in the North Sea, Kattegat and Skagerrak and Coral Sea found that trawl nets with an escape grid and a square mesh codend caught fewer unwanted whiting, plaice, cod, haddock and unwanted catch of the most frequently caught fish species, but not hake or less frequently caught species compared to a diamond mesh codend with no grid. One also found that catch rates of most fish species were similar compared to a square mesh codend alone. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2725https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2725Thu, 21 Jan 2021 16:59:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit a size-sorting escape grid (rigid or flexible) and large, supported escape openings to trawl nets Four studies examined the effect of fitting trawl nets with a size-sorting escape grid and large, supported escape openings for fish escape on marine fish populations. Two studies were in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia), one study was in the Atlantic Ocean (USA) and one study was in the Persian Gulf (Iran).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (4 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (4 studies): Three of four replicated studies (three paired and controlled) in the Gulf of Carpentaria, the Atlantic Ocean and the Persian Gulf, found that trawl nets fitted with a both a size-sorting escape grid and a large supported escape opening reduced the catches of unwanted fish and sharks and rays, but not sawfish, compared to standard trawl nets. The other study found that trawl nets with an escape grid/opening caught similar amounts of unwanted sharks to trawl nets without. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2726https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2726Fri, 22 Jan 2021 13:26:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit mesh escape panels/windows and a size-sorting grid (rigid or flexible) to a trawl net Six studies examined the effects of fitting trawl nets with mesh escape panels or windows and a size-sorting grid on marine fish populations. Two studies were in the Atlantic Ocean (Portugal, Suriname), two were in the Indian Ocean (Australia, Mozambique), one study was in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia) and one was in the English Channel (UK).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (6 STUDIES) Reduce unwanted catch (5 studies): Four of five replicated studies (four paired, controlled) in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Indian Ocean and Atlantic Ocean, found that bottom trawl nets fitted with square mesh escape panels and size-sorting grids of various types reduced the unwanted catch (non-target or undersized) of fish, sharks and stingrays, rays and total discarded catch (fish and invertebrates), compared to standard unmodified trawl nets, and that fish escape through either the panel/window, grid, or both varied between fish species or sizes. The other study found that the escape of non-target fish from the combined use of a square mesh panel and grid depended on the position of the panel in the net. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the English Channel found that size-selectivity of whiting was increased in bottom trawl nets fitted with square mesh escape panels or cylinders in combination with one or two size-sorting grids of different types, compared to standard nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2727https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2727Fri, 22 Jan 2021 15:52:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit a moving device to a trawl net to stimulate fish escape response (stimulator device) Three studies examined the effects of fitting a moving device to a trawl net to stimulate fish escape response (stimulator device) on marine fish populations. Two studies were conducted in laboratory facilities (South Korea) and one study was in the Baltic Sea (Northern Europe).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in a laboratory found that trawl nets fitted with moving devices to stimulate fish escape response increased the escape of young red seabream compared to without devices, but for young olive flounder moving devices were only effective at increasing escape when used in combination with another novel device that made the net shake. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Baltic Sea found that only one of three types of moving stimulator devices fitted in conjunction with square mesh escape panels improved the size selectivity for cod, compared to without devices. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2729https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2729Tue, 26 Jan 2021 14:04:39 +0000
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 21

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 ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue