Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use passive listening devices to detect mammals and prompt fishing vessels to move away We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using passive listening devices to detect mammals and prompt fishing vessels to move away on marine and freshwater mammal populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2791https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2791Thu, 04 Feb 2021 16:30:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use weakened fishing gear We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using weakened fishing gear on marine and freshwater mammal populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2797https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2797Thu, 04 Feb 2021 16:39:26 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use sinking lines instead of floating lines We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using sinking lines instead of floating lines on marine and freshwater mammal populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2799https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2799Thu, 04 Feb 2021 16:41:08 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use bindings to keep trawl nets closed until they have sunk below the water surface We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using bindings to keep trawl nets closed until they have sunk below the water surface on marine and freshwater mammal populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2800https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2800Thu, 04 Feb 2021 16:41:58 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use stiffened materials or increase tension of fishing gear One study evaluated the effects on marine mammals of using stiffened materials in fishing nets. The study was in the South Atlantic Ocean (Argentina). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Reduction in entanglements/unwanted catch (1 study): One controlled study in the South Atlantic Ocean found that using stiffened fishing nets did not reduce the number of Franciscana dolphin entanglements. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2801https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2801Thu, 04 Feb 2021 17:10:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a smaller mesh size for fishing nets We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using a smaller mesh size for fishing nets on marine and freshwater mammal populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2802https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2802Thu, 04 Feb 2021 17:11:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a larger mesh size for fishing trap-nets One study evaluated the effects on freshwater mammals of using a larger mesh size for fishing trap-nets. The study was in the River Indal (Sweden). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): One controlled study in the River Indal found that a fishing trap-net with a larger mesh size in the first two sections had fewer grey seals feeding around it and less damage caused by seals. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2803https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2803Thu, 04 Feb 2021 17:13:38 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use acoustically reflective fishing gear materials Five studies evaluated the effects on marine mammals of using acoustically reflective fishing gear materials. Two studies were in the Bay of Fundy (Canada) and one study was in each of the Fortune Channel (Canada), the North Sea (Denmark) and the South Atlantic Ocean (Argentina). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Behaviour change (2 studies): One controlled study in the Fortune Channel found that harbour porpoises approached nets made from acoustically reflective material (barium sulfate) and conventional nets to similar distances and for similar durations, but porpoises used fewer echolocation clicks at barium sulfate nets. One controlled study in the Bay of Fundy found that harbour porpoise echolocation activity was similar at barium sulfate and conventional nets. OTHER (3 STUDIES) Reduction in entanglements/unwanted catch (3 studies): Two of three controlled studies (including two replicated studies) in the North Sea, the Bay of Fundy and the South Atlantic Ocean found that fishing nets made from acoustically reflective materials (iron-oxide or barium sulfate) had fewer entanglements of harbour porpoises than conventional fishing nets. The other study found that nets made from barium sulfate did not reduce the number of dolphin entanglements. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2807https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2807Thu, 04 Feb 2021 17:31:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use acoustic devices on fishing gear Thirty-three studies evaluated the effects on marine mammals of using acoustic devices on fishing gear. Eight studies were in the North Atlantic Ocean (Canada, USA, UK), four studies were in each of the North Pacific Ocean (USA) and the North Sea (Germany, Denmark, UK), three studies were in the Mediterranean Sea (Spain, Italy), two studies were in each of the Fortune Channel (Canada), the South Atlantic Ocean (Argentina, Brazil) and the Baltic Sea (Denmark, Germany, Sweden), and one study was in each of Moreton Bay (Australia), the Black Sea (Turkey), the Celtic Sea (UK), the South Pacific Ocean (Peru), the Rainbow Channel (Australia), the UK (water body not stated), the Great Belt (Denmark), Omura Bay (Japan), and the Indian Ocean (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (16 STUDIES) Behaviour change (16 studies): Twelve of 16 controlled studies (including three replicated studies) in the North Atlantic Ocean, the Fortune Channel, the South Atlantic Ocean, Moreton Bay, the Mediterranean Sea, the Celtic Sea, the Rainbow Channel, a coastal site in the UK, the Great Belt, the North Sea, Omura Bay and the Indian Ocean found that using acoustic devices on fishing nets, float lines or simulated fishing nets resulted in harbour porpoises, common bottlenose dolphins, tuxuci dolphins, finless porpoises and seals approaching nets or lines less closely, having fewer encounters or interactions with nets, or activity and sightings were reduced in the surrounding area. The other four studies found that using acoustic devices on trawl nets, float lines or simulated fishing nets did not have a significant effect on the behaviour of common bottlenose dolphins, harbour porpoises, Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins or dugongs. OTHER (19 STUDIES) Reduction in entanglements/unwanted catch (14 studies): Nine studies (including seven controlled studies and two before-and after studies) in the North Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea, the South Atlantic Ocean, the North Pacific Ocean, the Black Sea, and the South Pacific Ocean found that using acoustic devices on cod traps or fishing nets resulted in fewer collisions of humpback whales or entanglements of harbour porpoises, Franciscana dolphins, beaked whales and small cetaceans. Three studies (including two controlled studies and one before-and-after study) in the North Pacific Ocean found that using acoustic devices on fishing nets resulted in fewer entanglements of some species but not others. One controlled study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that fishing nets with a ‘complete’ set of acoustic devices had fewer entanglements of harbour porpoises, but those with an ‘incomplete’ set did not. One replicated, controlled study in the North Sea and Baltic Sea found that using acoustic devices on fishing nets reduced harbour porpoise entanglements in one fishing area but not the other. Human-wildlife conflict (6 studies): Five of six studies (including six controlled studies, one of which was replicated) in the Baltic Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, the North Pacific Ocean, a coastal site in the UK and the North Sea found that using acoustic devices reduced damage to fish catches and/or fishing nets caused by common bottlenose dolphins and seals. The other study found that acoustic devices did not reduce damage to swordfish catches by California sea lions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2808https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2808Thu, 04 Feb 2021 17:56:14 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use acoustic devices on fishing vessels Five studies evaluated the effects on marine mammals of using acoustic devices on vessels. One study was in each of the Shannon Estuary (Ireland), the Rainbow Channel (Australia), Keppel Bay (Australia), the North Atlantic Ocean (Azores) and the Indian Ocean (Crozet Islands). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Behaviour change (4 studies): One controlled study in the Shannon Estuary found that common bottlenose dolphins avoided a boat more frequently when acoustic devices of two types were deployed alongside it. One controlled study in the Indian Ocean found that killer whales were recorded further from a fishing vessel when an acoustic device was used during hauls, but distances decreased after the first exposure to the device. Two before-and-after studies in the Rainbow Channel and Keppel Bay found that an acoustic device deployed alongside a vessel reduced surfacing and echolocation rates and time spent foraging or socializing of Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins and Australian snubfin dolphins but there was no effect on 8–10 other types of behaviour (e.g. vocalizing, diving, travelling etc.). OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): One randomized, controlled study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that using acoustic devices of two types did not reduce predation of squid catches by Risso’s dolphins. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2815https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2815Fri, 05 Feb 2021 14:45:12 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use acoustic devices on moorings Eight studies evaluated the effects on marine and freshwater mammals of using acoustic devices on moorings. Two studies were in the South Pacific Ocean and one study was in each of the Puntledge River (Canada), the Bay of Fundy (Canada), the Shannon Estuary (Ireland), the Rivers Conon and Esk (UK), the Kyle of Sutherland estuary (UK) and the North Atlantic Ocean (UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (7 STUDIES) Behaviour change (7 studies): Two of four controlled studies in the South Pacific Ocean, the Kyle of Sutherland estuary and the North Atlantic Ocean found that deploying acoustic devices on moorings reduced numbers of grey and harbour seals, and the activity of harbour porpoises, short-beaked common dolphins and common bottlenose dolphins. The two other studies found that using an acoustic device on a mooring did not have a significant effect on the number, direction of movement, speed, or dive durations of migrating humpback whales. One controlled study in the Bay of Fundy found that using an acoustic device on a mooring reduced harbour porpoise echolocation activity, but the probability of porpoises approaching within 125 m of the device increased over 10–11 days. One controlled study in the Shannon Estuary found that one of two types of acoustic device reduced the activity of common bottlenose dolphins. One replicated, controlled study in the Rivers Conon and Esk found that using acoustic devices reduced the number of grey and harbour seals upstream of the device but did not reduce seal numbers overall. OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): One randomized controlled study in the Puntledge River found that deploying an acoustic device on a mooring reduced the number of harbour seals feeding on migrating juvenile salmon. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2816https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2816Fri, 05 Feb 2021 15:00:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use an electric current to deter mammals from fishing gear One study evaluated the effects of using an electric current to deter mammals from fishing gear. The study was in the Fraser River (Canada). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): One controlled study in the Fraser River found that using an electric current on a fishing net reduced Pacific harbour seal predation on salmon catches. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2818https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2818Fri, 05 Feb 2021 15:10:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use noise aversive conditioning to deter mammals from fishing gear One study evaluated the effects on marine mammals of using noise aversive conditioning to deter mammals from fishing gear. The study was in the North Pacific Ocean (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): One study in the North Pacific Ocean found that noise aversive conditioning did not reduce bait foraging behaviour by California sea lions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2819https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2819Fri, 05 Feb 2021 15:12:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use acoustic decoys to divert mammals away from fishing gear One study evaluated the effects on marine mammals of using acoustic decoys to divert mammals away from fishing gear. The study was in the Gulf of Alaska (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One study in the Gulf of Alaska found that increasing the distance between an acoustic decoy device and fishing lines resulted in fewer sperm whales at the lines, but sperm whale presence and time of arrival did not differ. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2820https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2820Fri, 05 Feb 2021 15:15:05 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use catch and hook protection devices on fishing gear Five studies evaluated the effects on marine mammals of using catch and hook protection devices on fishing gear. Two studies were in the South Pacific Ocean (Chile, Australia and Fiji), two were in the Indian Ocean (Seychelles, Madagascar) and one was in the Southwest Atlantic Ocean. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (5 STUDIES) Reduction in entanglements/unwanted catch (1 study): One study in the South Pacific Ocean found that using cage or chain devices on fishing hooks resulted in fewer unwanted catches of toothed whales. Human-wildlife conflict (5 studies): Two of four studies (including three controlled and one before-and-after study) in the South Pacific Ocean, the Southwest Atlantic Ocean and the Indian Ocean found that net sleeves or cage and chain devices on fishing hooks reduced damage to fish catches by sperm whales, killer whales and toothed whales. The two other studies found that attaching ‘umbrella’ or ‘spider’ devices on fishing hooks did not reduce predation and/or damage to fish catches by sperm whales or toothed whales. One controlled study in the Indian Ocean found that attaching catch protection devices made from streamers to fishing lines reduced Indo-Pacific bottlenose and spinner dolphin predation on fish bait, but only during the first two trials. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2821https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2821Fri, 05 Feb 2021 15:18:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use different bait species for fishing that are less attractive to mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using different bait species for fishing that are less attractive to mammals on marine and freshwater mammal populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2826https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2826Fri, 05 Feb 2021 15:57:29 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘mammal-safe’ nets to capture and release mammals trapped in fishing structures One study evaluated the effects on marine mammals of using ‘mammal-safe’ nets to capture and release mammals trapped in fishing structures. The study was in the Bay of Fundy (Canada). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One controlled study in the Bay of Fundy found that using ‘marine mammal nets’ with a larger mesh size to release harbour porpoises from herring weirs resulted in lower porpoise mortality compared to using conventional herring nets. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2828https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2828Fri, 05 Feb 2021 16:00:21 +0000