Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit the number and/or extent of, or prohibit additional, renewable energy installations in an area We found no studies that evaluated the effects of limiting the number and/or extent of, or prohibit additional, renewable energy installations in an area on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2078https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2078Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:46:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Co-locate aquaculture systems with other activities and other infrastructures (such as wind farms) to maximise use of marine space We found no studies that evaluated the effects of limiting the number and/or extent of, or prohibit additional, renewable energy installations in an area on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2079https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2079Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:46:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set limits on the area that can be covered by utility and service lines at one location We found no studies that evaluated the effects of setting limits on the area that can be covered by utility and service lines at one location on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2080https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2080Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:47:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use cables and pipelines of smaller width We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using cables and pipelines of smaller width on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2081https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2081Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:48:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Bury cables and pipelines in the seabed rather than laying them on the seabed We found no studies that evaluated the effects of burying cables and pipelines in the seabed rather than laying them on the seabed on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2082https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2082Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:48:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a different technique when laying and burying cables and pipelines We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using a different technique when laying and burying cables and pipelines on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2083https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2083Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:49:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove utility and service lines after decommissioning We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing utility and service lines after decommissioning on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2084https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2084Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:50:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave utility and service lines in place after decommissioning We found no studies that evaluated the effects of leaving utility and service lines in place after decommissioning on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2085https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2085Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:51:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit shipping  Three studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting shipping on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. All studies were in the North Sea (Belgium, Germany, Netherlands).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (1 study): One site comparison study in the North Sea found that areas closed to shipping developed different overall invertebrate community compositions compared to areas where shipping occurred. Overall species richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in the North Sea found that areas closed to shipping did not develop different overall invertebrate species richness and diversity compared to areas where shipping occurred. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (2 studies): Two site comparison studies (one before-and-after) in the North Sea found that areas closed to shipping had similar overall invertebrate abundance and biomass compared to areas where shipping occurred. Overall abundance (2 studies): Two site comparison studies (one before-and-after) in the North Sea found that areas closed to shipping had similar overall invertebrate abundance and biomass compared to areas where shipping occurred. OTHER (2 STUDIES) Overall community energy flow (1 study): One before-after, site comparison study in the North Sea found that after closing an area to shipping, invertebrate community energy flow did not change, but it increased in nearby areas where shipping occurred. Species energy flow (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the North Sea found that closing an area to shipping had mixed effects on species-level energy flow.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2086https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2086Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:54:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Divert shipping routes We found no studies that evaluated the effects of diverting shipping routes on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2087https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2087Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:59:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit, cease or prohibit recreational boating We found no studies that evaluated the effects of limiting, ceasing or prohibiting recreational fishing and/or harvesting on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2088https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2088Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:59:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit, cease or prohibit anchoring from ships/boats/vessels We found no studies that evaluated the effects of setting limits, ceasing or prohibitinganchroing from ships/boats/vessels on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2089https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2089Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:19:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a different type of anchor We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using a different type of anchor on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2090https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2090Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:19:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide additional moorings to reduce anchoring We found no studies that evaluated the effects of providing additional moorings to reduce anchoring on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2091https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2091Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:21:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use moorings which reduce or avoid contact with the seabed (eco- moorings) We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using moorings which reduce or avoid contact with the seabed (eco-moorings) on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2092https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2092Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:21:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Periodically move and relocate moorings We found no studies that evaluated the effects of periodically moving and relocating moorings on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2093https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2093Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:22:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set limits on hull depth We found no studies that evaluated the effects of setting limits on hull depth on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2094https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2094Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:23:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce ships/boats/vessels speed limits We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reducing ships/boats/vessels speed limits on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2095https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2095Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:24:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit all types of fishing Five studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting all types of fishing on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. All studies were in the North Sea (Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, UK).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): Two site comparison studies (one before-and-after) in the North Sea found that areas closed to all fishing developed different overall invertebrate community compositions compared to fished areas. Overall species richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two site comparison studies (one before-and-after) in the North Sea found that areas closed to all fishing did not develop different overall invertebrate species richness and diversity compared to fished areas after three years, but the other found higher species richness in the closed areas after 20 years. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (2 studies): Two site comparison studies (one before-and-after) in the North Sea found that areas closed to all fishing had similar overall invertebrate abundance and biomass compared to fished areas after three and five years. Crustacean abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the North Sea found that closing a site to all fishing led to similar numbers of lobster compared to a fished site after 20 months. Crustacean condition (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the North Sea found that closing a site to all fishing led to larger sizes of lobster compared to a fished site after 20 months. OTHER (1 STUDY) Overall community energy flow (1 study): One before-after, site comparison study in the North Sea found that, during the 12–14 months after closing an area to all fishing, the invertebrate community structure (measured as energy flow) at sites within the closed area did not change, but that it increased in nearby fished sites. Species energy flow (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the North Sea found that closing an area to all fishing for 12–14 months had mixed effects on species-level energy flow. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2096https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2096Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:32:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit commercial fishing Three studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting commercial fishing on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Two studies were in the Tasman Sea (New Zealand), the third on Gorges Bank in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (1 study): One site comparison study in the Tasman Sea  found that an area closed to commercial trawling and dredging for 28 years had different overall invertebrate communities than an area subject to commercial fishing. Overall species richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study on Georges Bank found no difference in invertebrate species richness between an area closed to commercial fishing for 10 to 14 years and a fished area. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (2 studies): Two site comparison studies in the Tasman Sea  and on Georges Bank found that areas prohibiting commercial fishing for 10 to 14 years and 28 years had greater overall invertebrate abundance compared to areas where commercial fishing occurred. One of the studies  also found higher biomass, while the other found similar biomass in closed and fished areas. Crustacean abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Tasman Sea found that in commercial fishing exclusion zones lobster abundance was not different to adjacent fished areas after up to two years. OTHER (1 STUDY) Overall community biological production (1 study): One site comparison study in the Tasman Sea  found that an area closed to commercial trawling and dredging for 28 years had greater biological production from invertebrates than an area where commercial fishing occurred. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2097https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2097Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:41:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish temporary fisheries closures Six studies examined the effects of establishing temporary fisheries closures on subtidal benthic invertebrates. One study was in the English Channel (UK), one in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel (Australia), one in the North Pacific Ocean (USA), two in the Mozambique Channel (Madagascar), and one in the North Sea (UK).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall species richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the English Channel found that sites seasonally closed to towed-gear fishing did not have greater invertebrate species richness than sites where towed-fishing occurred year-round. Mollusc community composition (1 study): One replicated, before-and after study in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel found that temporarily reopening an area previously closed to all fishing for 12 years only to recreational fishing led to changes in scallop species community composition over four fishing seasons. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the English Channel found that sites seasonally closed to towed-gear fishing did not have a greater invertebrate biomass than sites where towed-fishing occurred year-round. Crustacean abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the North Sea found that reopening a site to fishing following a temporary 20-month closure led to lower total abundance but similar marketable abundance of European lobsters compared to a continuously-fished site after a month. Mollusc abundance (5 studies): One replicated, site comparison study English Channel found that sites seasonally closed to towed gear did not have higher abundance of great scallops than sites where towed-fishing occurred year-round. Two before-and after, site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Mozambique Channel found that temporarily closing an area to reef octopus fishing did not increase octopus abundance/biomass compared to before closure and to continuously fished areas. Two replicated, before-and after studies in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel and the North Pacific Ocean found that temporarily reopening an area previously closed to all fishing to recreational fishing only led to a decline in scallop abundance after four fishing seasons and in red abalone after three years. Mollusc condition (3 studies): One replicated, before-and after study in the North Pacific Ocean found that temporarily reopening an area previously closed to fishing led to a decline in the size of red abalone after three years. Two before-and after, site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Mozambique Channel found that temporarily closing an area to reef octopus fishing increased the weight of octopus compared to before closure and to continuously fished areas, but one also found that this effect did not last once fishing resumed. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2098https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2098Tue, 22 Oct 2019 08:34:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit bottom trawling Four studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting bottom trawling on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Two studies were in the Bering Sea (USA), one in the North Sea, and one in the Mediterranean Sea (Italy).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): Two site comparison studies (one before-and-after, one replicated) in the North Sea and the Mediterranean Sea found that in areas prohibiting trawling for either 15 or 20 years, overall invertebrate community composition was different to that of trawled areas. Overall species richness/diversity (3 studies): Two of three site comparison studies (one paired, one before-and-after, one replicated) in the Bering Sea, the North Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea found that invertebrate diversity was higher in sites closed to trawling compared to trawled sites after either 37 or 15 years, but the other found no differences after 20 years. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (2 studies): One of two site comparison studies (one paired, one replicated) in the Bering Sea and the Mediterranean Sea found that total invertebrate abundance was higher in sites closed to trawling compared to trawled sites after 37 years, but the other found no differences after 20 years. Both found no differences in total invertebrate biomass. Unwanted catch overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in the Bering Sea found that during the three years after closing areas to all bottom trawling, unwanted catch of crabs appeared to have decreased, while no changes appeared to have occurred in nearby trawled areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2099https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2099Tue, 22 Oct 2019 08:41:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit midwater/semi-pelagic trawling We found no studies that evaluated the effects of ceasing or prohibiting midwater/semi-pelagic trawling on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2100https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2100Tue, 22 Oct 2019 08:44:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit dredging Four studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting dredging on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study was in the North Atlantic Ocean (Portugal), one in the South Atlantic Ocean (Argentina), one in the English Channel and one in the Irish Sea (UK).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall community composition (3 studies): One of three site comparison studies (one replicated, one before-and-after) in Atlantic Ocean and the Irish Sea found that after ceasing dredging, overall invertebrate community composition was different to that in dredged areas. The other two found that communities remained similar in dredged and non-dredged areas. Overall richness/diversity (3 studies): One of three site comparison studies (one replicated, one before-and-after) in Atlantic Ocean and the Irish Sea found that after ceasing dredging, large (macro-) invertebrate diversity was higher but small (meio-) invertebrate diversity was lower compared to dredged areas. The other two found that overall diversity remained similar in dredged and non-dredged areas. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (3 studies): One of three site comparison studies (one replicated, one before-and-after) in Atlantic Ocean and the Irish Sea found that four years after ceasing dredging, large (macro-) and small (meio-) invertebrate abundance and/or biomass appeared higher to that in dredged areas. The other two found that abundance and/or biomass remained similar in dredged and non-dredged areas after either two or six years. Tunicate abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the English Channel found that a year after ceasing dredging in three areas, abundance of ascidians/sea squirts (tunicates) was similar to that in dredged areas. Bryozoan abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the English Channel found that a year after ceasing dredging in three areas, abundance of bryozoan was higher than in dredged areas. Crustacean abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the English Channel found that a year after ceasing dredging in three areas, abundance of spider crabs was higher than in dredged areas, but abundance of edible crab was similar. Cnidarian abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the English Channel found that a year after ceasing dredging in three areas, abundance of sea fans was higher than in dredged areas. Sponge abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the English Channel found that a year after ceasing dredging in three areas, abundance of sponges was higher than in dredged areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2101https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2101Tue, 22 Oct 2019 08:53:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit all towed (mobile) fishing gear Eight studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting all towed fishing gear on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study was in the Limfjord (Denmark), two in the English Channel (UK), three in Georges Bank in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA and Canada), one in the Ria Formosa lagoon (Portugal), and one in the Irish Sea (Isle of Man).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Overall community composition (3 studies): Two of three replicated, site comparison studies in the Limfjord and the English Channel, found that areas excluding towed fishing gear for either an unspecified amount of time or two to 23 years had different overall invertebrate community composition compared to areas where towed-fishing occurred and one found that ceasing towed-gear fishing for nine years had mixed effects. Overall species richness/diversity (3 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in the English Channel reported that areas excluding towed fishing gear for either an unspecified amount of time or two to 23 years had different or greater invertebrate species richness and diversity to areas where towed-fishing occurred. One site comparison study in Georges Bank found no difference in invertebrate species richness between an area closed to mobile fishing gear for 10 to 14 years and a fished area. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (3 studies): Two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the English Channel and Georges Bank found that sites excluding towed gear for either two to 23 years or 10 to 14 years had greater overall invertebrate biomass compared to sites where towed-gear fishing occurred, but one also found that abundance was similar in both areas. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the Ria Formosa lagoon found that ceasing towed gear for 10 months led to increases in the cover of mobile but not sessile Mollusc abundance (2 studies): Two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Irish Sea and the English Channel found that areas closed to towed fishing gear for either two to 23 years or 14 years had more scallops compared to adjacent fished areas. Mollusc condition (1 study): One site comparison study the Irish Sea found that an area closed to towed fishing gear for 14 years had higher proportions of older and larger scallops compared to an adjacent fished area. Starfish abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Georges Bank found more starfish in areas closed to towed fishing gear for five to nine years compared to adjacent fished areas. Starfish condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Georges Bank found that starfish arm length was similar in areas closed to towed fishing gear for five to nine years and adjacent fished areas. OTHER (1 STUDY) Overall community biological production (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in Georges Bank found an increase in the biological production from invertebrate in sites closed to towed fishing gear for approximately five years compared to adjacent fished sites. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2102https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2102Tue, 22 Oct 2019 08:58:29 +0100
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