Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit oil and gas drilling We found no studies that evaluated the effects of ceasing or prohibiting oil and gas drilling 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%2F2061https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2061Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:43:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit the deposit of drill cuttings on the seabed We found no studies that evaluated the effects of ceasing or prohibiting the deposit of drill cuttings 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%2F2062https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2062Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:45:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit marine mining One study examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting mining on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in the Bering Sea (USA).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall community composition (1 study): One site comparison study in the Bering Sea found that following cessation of gold mining, overall invertebrate community composition became similar to that of an unmined site. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in the Bering Sea found that following cessation of gold mining, overall invertebrate richness and diversity became similar to that of an unmined site. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the Bering Sea found that following cessation of gold mining, overall invertebrate abundance and biomass became similar to that of an unmined site. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2075https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2075Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:43:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit mining waste (tailings) disposal at sea We found no studies that evaluated the effects of ceasing or prohibiting mining waste (tailings) disposal at sea 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%2F2076https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2076Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:43:47 +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: 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: 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 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit static fishing gear We found no studies that evaluated the effects of ceasing or prohibiting static fishing gear 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%2F2103https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2103Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:29:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit aquaculture activity Two studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting aquaculture activity on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Both studies were in the Mediterranean Sea (Italy and Spain).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that after ceasing aquaculture activity invertebrate community composition remained different to that of an unfarmed site. Worm community composition (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that after ceasing aquaculture activity worm community composition community composition remained different to that of an unfarmed site. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that after ceasing aquaculture activity overall invertebrate abundance was similar to an unfarmed site. Worm abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that after ceasing aquaculture activity abundance of health-indicating worms increased, and abundance of pollution-indicating worms decreased. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2185https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2185Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:46:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit shellfish dredging One study examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting shellfish dredging on marine fish populations. The study was in the North Sea (Denmark). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the North Sea reported that 10 years after mussel dredging ceased in an area closed to all towed fishing gears there was no change in species richness of bottom-dwelling fish compared to before and to open areas. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the North Sea, reported that ceasing mussel dredging in an area closed to all towed gears had no effect on the abundance of bottom-dwelling fish after 10 years, and compared to open areas. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIESCollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2668https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2668Thu, 19 Nov 2020 15:42:05 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit mobile midwater (pelagic) fishing gears One study examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting fishing with towed (mobile) midwater fishing gears on marine fish populations. The study was in the Norwegian Sea (Norway). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Condition (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the Norwegian Sea found that in the five years after drift netting was prohibited in an area, the weights of young salmon returning to rivers were higher than before, and weights of older salmon were similar or lower. Abundance (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the Norwegian Sea found that in the five years after the use of drift nets was prohibited, there were more young salmon returning to rivers than before, and similar numbers of older multi-returning salmon. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2669https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2669Thu, 19 Nov 2020 16:06:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit line fishing One study examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting line fishing in an area on marine fish populations. The study was in the Indian Ocean (South Africa). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)  Abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that prohibiting offshore line fishing and all other boat-based fishing in a zone of a marine protected area resulted in higher abundances of four of four fish species over-exploited by line fishing, compared to two zones where boat-based line and spear fishing was permitted. Condition (1 study): One site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that in a zone of a marine protected area closed to offshore line fishing and all other boat-based fishing for two to seven years, four of four fish species over-exploited by line fishing were larger, compared to two zones where boat-based line and spear fishing was permitted. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2671https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2671Thu, 19 Nov 2020 16:41:12 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit spearfishing Five studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting spearfishing in an area on marine fish populations. Two studies were in the Mediterranean Sea (France, Corsica). One study was in each of the Tasman Sea (Australia) and the Indian Ocean (South Africa). One study was a review of marine reserves around the world. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): Two of three site comparison studies in the Mediterranean Sea, the Tasman Sea and the Indian Ocean found that prohibiting spearfishing, and line fishing, in protected areas increased the abundances of European seabass and gilthead seabream (years unknown) and of coral reef fish species, compared to protected and unprotected fished areas, after two to seven years. The other study found that fish densities differed between spearfished and non-spearfished areas after 10–12 years, and was affected by depth and/or fish size. A review of reef marine reserves around the world reported that two non-spearfished reserves in the northwestern Atlantic had more snappers and grunts after two years in one, and higher densities of reef fish, including snappers and grunts after 20 years in the other, compared to nearby fished reefs. Condition (3 studies): Two site comparison studies in the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean found that prohibiting spearfishing (and linefishing) in marine protected areas resulted in larger European seabass and coral reef fish species, compared to protected and unprotected fished areas, after two to seven years. A review of global reef marine reserves reported that reef fish were larger in one reserve in the northwestern Atlantic that had banned spearfishing for 20 years, compared to nearby fished reefs. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY)  Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, site-comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that prohibiting spearfishing in specific zones of a marine reserve resulted in higher commercial and recreational fishery catches of targeted common dentex compared to zones that allowed spearfishing and areas outside the reserve after one to three years.    Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2672https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2672Fri, 20 Nov 2020 09:32:23 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit mobile fishing gears that catch bottom (demersal) species and are dragged across the seafloor Ten studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting mobile fishing gears that catch bottom (demersal) species and are dragged across the seafloor on marine fish populations. Two studies were in each of the North Atlantic Ocean (Canada, Portugal), the Indian Ocean (Tasmania, Kenya) and the Mediterranean Sea. One study was in each of the North Sea (Denmark), the Arafura Sea (Australia), the Coral Sea (Australia) and the Gulf of Mexico (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)  Richness/diversity (3 studies): Two of three site comparison studies (one replicated and randomized, and one before-and-after) in the North Sea, Indian Ocean and Gulf of Mexico found that the number of fish species, the fish assemblage and overall species richness and diversity (fish and invertebrates combined) varied between areas with different exposures to bottom trawling, and was also dependent on bottom depth and habitat type. The other study reported no effect of closing an area to all towed bottom fishing gears on the species richness of bottom-dwelling fish after 10 years and compared to areas open to trawling.  POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Two of three replicated studies (one controlled and before-and-after, and two site comparison) and one of two before-and-after studies (one site comparison) in the North Sea, Arafura Sea, North Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea found that ceasing or prohibiting fishing with towed bottom gears resulted in higher total fish biomass after 15 years, higher biomass of adult red mullet after 14 years and increased abundances of long-snouted, but not short-snouted, seahorses after one year, compared to openly fished areas. The other two studies found that a ban on towed bottom fishing gears for five and 10 years had no effect on the abundance of bottom-dwelling fish species after closure compared to before, or the abundance and biomass of fish and invertebrate species (combined) compared to areas open to towed gears/trawling. Reproductive success (2 studies): One of two before-and-after studies (one site comparison) in the North Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea found that after the closure of an area to all bottom-towed fishing gears for 14 years, recruitment of young red mullet had increased. The other study found that an area closed to bottom trawling did not have higher recruitment of young haddock seven years after closure and compared to a trawled area. Survival (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that closing an area to bottom trawling did not increase the survival of young haddock seven years after closure, and compared to a trawled area. Condition (5 studies): One of four replicated studies (two site comparison and one randomized, site comparison) and one before-and-after study in the Arafura Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Gulf of Mexico and the Indian Ocean found that areas prohibiting bottom towed fishing gears had larger sizes of adult red mullet 14 years after closure than before. Two studies found that the effect on fish size of closing areas to towed bottom gears for 3–6 years or areas with no bottom fishing activity varied between individual fish groups and with habitat type, compared to fished areas. The other two found that areas closed to bottom trawling for five years and 15 years had no effect on the overall size of fish and invertebrate species combined or average fish weight, compared to trawled areas. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduce unwanted catch (1 study): One randomized, replicated, site comparison study in the Coral Sea found no reduction in the biomass of non-commercial unwanted catch (fish and invertebrate discard) or in the number of ‘common’ and ‘rare’ discard species in areas closed to trawling for seven years compared to trawled areas. Catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the Indian Ocean found that areas prohibiting beach and all other seine nets for 3–6 years found overall fish catch rates were higher, and catch rates of individual fish groups were variable, compared to unrestricted areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2673https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2673Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:12:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit customary fishing (indigenous fishing for cultural and community needs) One study examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting customary fishing in an area, on marine fish populations. The study was in the Bismark Sea (Papua New Guinea). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the Bismark Sea found a higher abundance of only one of seven fish species in an area closed to customary fishing for eight years, compared to an area open to customary fishing. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One site comparison study in the Bismark Sea found that in an area closed to customary fishing for eight years, six of seven fish species had a lower flight response distance compared to an area open to customary fishing, making them more vulnerable to capture with spear guns. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2675https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2675Fri, 27 Nov 2020 15:46:26 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit all types of fishing in a marine protected area Seventy-nine studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting all types of fishing in a marine protected area on fish populations. Fifteen studies were in the Indian Ocean (Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa, Mozambique, Madagascar, multiple African countries, Australia). Twelve studies were in the Mediterranean Sea (Spain, France, Italy). Ten studies were in the Pacific Ocean (New Zealand, USA, Hawaii, New Caledonia, Costa Rica, Tonga, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands). Seven studies were in each of the Coral Sea (Australia, Vanuatu), the Tasman Sea (New Zealand, Australia) and the Atlantic Ocean (Brazil, USA, Puerto Rico, Argentina, South Africa, UK, Canary Islands, Portugal, Turks and Caicos Islands). Four studies were in the Philippine Sea (Philippines). Three studies were in the Caribbean Sea (Belize, Puerto Rico). One study was in each of the Gulf of Mexico (USA), the Java Sea (Indonesia), the Pacific and Indian Oceans (multiple countries), the Sulu Sea (Malaysia) and the North Sea (Norway). Six studies were reviews of marine reserves (New Zealand, Latin America/Caribbean, regions unspecified and across the world).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (26 STUDIES)  Community composition (7 studies): Seven site comparison studies (two replicated, and one before-and-after) in the Mediterranean Sea, Indian Ocean, Philippine Sea and the Atlantic Ocean found that protected areas where all fishing had been prohibited for between three and 16 years, had a different fish community composition, compared to fished areas.  Richness/diversity (22 studies): Fourteen of 20 site comparison studies (eight replicated, one replicated and paired, and one before-and-after) in the Indian Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Philippine Sea, Tasman Sea, Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, Coral Sea and the Pacific Ocean, found that marine protected areas that had prohibited all fishing for between one to more than 25 years, had higher fish species/richness compared to fished areas. Six studies found similar fish species/richness between one and 20 years after all fishing was banned in protected areas, compared to fished areas. One systematic review in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans found no difference in species richness between unfished protected areas and fished areas. One replicated, site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that the effects of prohibiting all fishing on fish species richness/diversity after 15 years varied with the sampling method used. POPULATION RESPONSE (66 STUDIES) Abundance (64 studies): Thirty of 54 site comparison studies (18 replicated, eight replicated and paired, two before-and-after, one paired and before-and-after, and one replicated and before-and-after) in the Indian Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Pacific Ocean, Tasman Sea, Coral Sea, Philippine Sea, Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, and the Sulu Sea, found that marine protected areas that had been prohibiting all fishing for up to 25 years or more, had higher abundances (density and/or biomass) of all fish (total fish biomass, total fish density), fishery targeted fish species, non-fishery targeted fish species and all or most of the individual fish species/groups monitored, except fish densities (all or most) and non-fishery targeted species, compared to unprotected fished areas and/or partly-fished protected areas. The studies also found that in some cases where the total fish biomass or densities were higher in no-fished areas, the effect varied between individual groups of fish based on species family and/or position in the food chain, commercial target and non-target species, fish sizes, depth and habitat types. Eight studies found that inside protected areas prohibiting all fishing there were similar abundances of all fish, and all or most of the individual fish species/groups monitored, compared to fished areas between one and 20 years after implementation. The other sixteen studies found that the effect of prohibiting fishing in protected areas for three to 20 years on fish abundance varied between fish species or groups and on their fished status (fishery target or non-target) and/or position in the food chain. One also found that the effect varied with size or age of the protected areas. Five of six reviews (three systematic) across the world, in the Pacific and/or Atlantic Oceans and in unreported regions found that non-fished marine reserves with one to 27 years of protection had higher abundances of all fish, all fish and invertebrates combined and blue cod compared to fished areas, but there were differences between species/groups and fishing intensity outside reserves. The other review found that fish abundance varied between species in no-take marine reserves between one and 25 years old, and was affected by food chain position, level of exploitation and duration of protection. One replicated study in the Pacific Ocean found a long-term decline in the abundance/presence of eight of 12 shark and ray species inside an established (>15 years) no-fishing protected area, however enforcement was poor. One before-and after, site comparison study in the Pacific Ocean, found no differences in overall fish abundance between a marine reserve closed permanently to fishing for five years and a closed area that was harvested for two years during the same period. One site comparison study in the Coral Sea found that in a no-take zone of an area protected for at least 10 years, fish abundance of four of six fish groups were similar to no-entry and fished zones, but two had lower abundance than the no-entry zone. One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the Tasman Sea found that in a non-fished marine park zone abundance of commercially targeted fish was higher than partly fished zones but lower than unprotected areas after four to eight years. Reproductive success (1 study): One site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found more eggs of four commercially targeted fish species inside a non-fished marine reserve enforced for three years than in fished areas outside the reserve. Survival (1 study): One site comparison study in the Atlantic Ocean found that prohibiting all fishing in a marine protected area for three years resulted in similar survival of red hind grouper, compared to fished areas. Condition (20 studies): Two global review studies (one systematic) and two systematic reviews in the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans found that prohibiting all fishing in marine protected areas for one to 27 years resulted in larger fish overall and larger blue cod compared to fished areas, but there were differences between individual fish families or species. Eight of 11 site comparison studies (four replicated, one before-and-after, one paired, and one replicated and paired) in the Tasman Sea, Pacific Ocean, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Atlantic Ocean, Java Sea and the Philippine Sea, found that non-fished protected areas had larger fish overall and larger individuals of all or most of the fish species/groups monitored, compared to fished areas, after one to 22 years. The other three studies found similar fish sizes of all or all but one species, compared to fished areas one to 16 years after all fishing was prohibited. Three site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Coral Sea, Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean found that fish size in protected areas that had not been fished for six to more than 20 years, varied between fish species or food chain groups. One site comparison study in the Atlantic Ocean found that red hind grouper were larger, but had similar growth, in an area protected from fishing for three years compared to fished areas. One site comparison study in the Atlantic Ocean found that young lemon sharks in areas protected from fishing for 20 years had similar growth rates, but lower condition, than sharks in unprotected fished areas. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)  Behaviour change (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the Pacific and Indian Oceans found that surgeonfish and parrotfish inside established protected areas where fishing was prohibited, showed a similar avoidance response to fishing gears as in fished areas, and this increased with increasing fishing intensity outside the protected areas. One replicated, site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that in non-fished areas protected for one and 24 years, fish grazing rates were higher compared to fished areas.  OTHER (15 STUDIES) Use (7 studies): Four of six site comparison studies in the Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean and the Tasman Sea found that marine protected areas where all fishing had been prohibited for at least five to 15 years, were used for a large proportion of time by shark and ray species and commercially important reef fish species, compared to fished areas, thus were provided protection from fishing. Two other studies found that time spent inside areas closed to all fishing for 20 years and over 30 years, varied between species and with size for three shark species and with size for giant trevally. One replicated study in the Indian Ocean found that most individuals of five fish species remained inside a marine reserve zone closed to fishing over a nine-year period. Catch abundance (2 studies): One of two site comparison studies in the Mediterranean Sea and Pacific Ocean found that commercial fish catch rates in small-scale traditional fisheries were highest closest to a marine reserve closed to all fishing for 22 years, and decreased with increasing distance from the reserve. The other study found that there was no increase in fish catch rates in commercially landed catch in the five years after a no-fishing zone was implemented in a co-managed protected area. Stock biomass (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that the stock biomass (the harvested portion of the population) of reef fish species was highest in enforced protected areas closed to all fishing, compared to various other area management regimes.  Fishing mortality (2 studies): Two site comparison studies in the North Sea and Pacific Ocean found that prohibiting fishing in protected areas resulted in reduced commercial fishing mortality of corkwing wrasse tagged inside non-fished marine reserves compared to fished areas, and that the overall fishing mortality of grey reef sharks tagged inside protected areas was low.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2682https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2682Sat, 28 Nov 2020 14:35:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit the disposal of drill cuttings at sea or in rivers We found no studies that evaluated the effects of ceasing or prohibiting the disposal of drill cuttings at sea or in rivers 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%2F2874https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2874Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:40:05 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit all types of fishing We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of ceasing or prohibiting all types of fishing. ‘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%2F3543https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3543Tue, 07 Dec 2021 17:21:27 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit commercial fishing We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of ceasing or prohibiting commercial fishing. ‘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%2F3544https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3544Tue, 07 Dec 2021 17:22:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit discharge of waste effluents overboard from vessels We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of ceasing or prohibiting discharge of waste effluents overboard from vessels. ‘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%2F3572https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3572Wed, 08 Dec 2021 15:13:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit the disposal of drill cuttings at sea or in rivers We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of ceasing or prohibiting the disposal of drill cuttings at sea or in rivers. ‘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%2F3593https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3593Wed, 08 Dec 2021 16:22:48 +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