Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fertilize artificial grasslands We captured four studies examining the impacts of fertilizing grasslands, all from the UK and investigating grazing by geese Anser and Branta spp. Two studies found that more geese grazed on areas that were fertilised compared with control areas. Two studies found that cut and fertilised areas were used more than control areas. One study found that fertilised areas were used less than re-seeded grasslands. One study found that fertilisation affected grazing at applications of 50 kg N/ha, but not 18 kg N/ha. One study found that grazing rates only increased with applications of up to 80 kg.N/ha. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F353https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F353Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:06:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fence to prevent grazing after tree planting Four of five studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Australia, Canada , Finland and the USA found that using fences to exclude grazing increased the survival, size and cover of planted trees. Two studies found no effect on tree survival rate and one found mixed effects on planted tree size depending on the structure of the fence. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1254https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1254Fri, 03 Jun 2016 14:24:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Farm more intensively and effectively in selected areas and spare more natural land We found no evidence for the effects of farming more intensively and effectively in selected areas to spare more natural land on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested 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%2F1435https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1435Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:20:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fill/block ditches to create conditions suitable for peatland plants (without planting) Three studies evaluated the effects of filling or blocking ditches (without planting) on peatland vegetation within them. Two studies were in bogs and one was in a fen. Vegetation cover (3 studies): Two studies in a bog in the UK and a fen in the USA reported that blocked or filled ditches were colonized by herbs and bryophytes within 2–3 years. In the USA, vegetation cover (total, bryophyte, forb, grass and sedge) was restored to natural, undisturbed levels. One replicated study in bogs in the UK reported that plants had not colonized blocked gullies after six months. Overall plant richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in a fen in the USA found that a filled ditch contained more plant species than adjacent undisturbed fen, after two years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1805https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1805Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:29:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit a funnel (such as a sievenet) or other escape devices on shrimp/prawn trawl nets One study examined the effects of fitting a funnel, sievenet, or other escape devices on trawl nets on marine subtidal invertebrate. The study was in the North Sea (UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the North Sea found that trawl nets fitted with a sievenet appeared to catch fewer unwanted catch of non-commercial invertebrates compared to unmodified nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2131https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2131Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:27:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit one or more mesh escape panels/windows and one or more soft, rigid or semi-rigid grids or frames to trawl nets One study examined the effects on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations of fitting one or more mesh escape panels/windows and one or more soft, rigid or semi-rigid grids or frames to trawl nets . The study was in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in Gulf of Carpentaria found that trawl nets fitted with an escape window and a grid reduced the total weight of small unwanted catch and caught fewer unwanted large sponges, compared to unmodified nets. OTHER (1 STUDY) Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in Carpentaria found that trawl nets fitted with an escape window and a grid reduced the catch of commercially targeted prawns, compared to unmodified nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2134https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2134Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:52:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit livestock with protective collars to reduce risk of predation by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects of fitting livestock with protective collars to reduce human-wildlife conflict on rates of livestock killings by predators. This study was in South Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated, before-and-after study in South Africa found that livestock protection collars reduced predation on livestock by carnivores. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2448https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2448Tue, 02 Jun 2020 10:46:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fell trees in groups, leaving surrounding forest unharvested Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of felling trees in groups, leaving surrounding forest unharvested. Two studies were in Canada and one was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated studies (including one controlled study and one site comparison study), in Canada, found that felling groups of trees within otherwise undisturbed stands increased the abundance of one of four small mammal species relative to clearcutting. The other study found that none of four small mammal species monitored showed abundance increases. Survival (1 study): A study in the UK found that when trees were felled in large groups with surrounding forest unaffected, there was less damage to artificial hazel dormouse nests than when trees were felled in small groups or thinned throughout. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2648https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2648Sat, 13 Jun 2020 17:59:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit escape devices (panels/grids) to encircling nets Three studies examined the effect of fitting fish escape devices (panels or size-sorting grids) to encircling nets on marine fish populations. One study was in the Tasman Sea (Australia), one was in the North and Norwegian Seas (Norway) and one was in the Atlantic Ocean (Portugal). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the North and Norwegian Seas reported no difference in the survival of saithe, but reduced survival of mackerel, between fish that had passed through a rigid size-sorting escape grid in a purse seine net and those that had not, after one month. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (2 studies): Two replicated studies (one controlled) in the Tasman Sea and Atlantic Ocean found that transparent panels of net and a large-diamond mesh escape panel fitted to fish seine nets, reduced the catches of unwanted small individuals of one of four commercially targeted fish and unwanted or undersized fish, compared to conventional seine nets. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Tasman Sea found that size-selectivity of one of four commercial fish species was improved in seine nets with transparent netting panels compared to without. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2703https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2703Mon, 14 Dec 2020 14:09:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit mesh escape panels/windows to a trawl net Thirty-eight studies examined the effects of fitting one or more mesh escape panels/windows to trawl nets on marine fish populations. Ten studies were in the North Sea (UK, Netherlands, Norway), four studies were in each of the Baltic Sea (Denmark, Sweden, Northern Europe), Kattegat and/or Skagerrak (Norway/Sweden/Denmark) and the Northeast Atlantic Ocean (Iceland, UK, Northern Europe). Two studies were in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia) and two were in the Bay of Biscay (France). One study was in each of the Irish Sea (UK), the Tasman Sea (Australia), the Bering Sea (USA), the Indian Ocean (Mozambique), the Norwegian Sea (Norway), the Pacific Ocean (Chile), the Mid-Atlantic Bight (USA), the Gulf of Maine (USA) and the Tyrrhenian Sea (Italy). Two studies were reviews (Northern Europe), and one study was in a laboratory (Japan). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Baltic Sea found that there was no difference in survival between cod escaping from diamond mesh codends with or without square mesh escape windows. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated study in a laboratory found that small immature masu salmon were able to actively swim (escape) through the meshes of square mesh panels under simulated trawl conditions. OTHER (36 studies) Reduce unwanted catch (30 studies): One before-and-after study in the Baltic Sea and fourteen of 19 replicated studies (including one paired, four controlled, 10 paired and controlled, and one randomized, paired and controlled) in the North Sea, Kattegat and Skagerrak, Irish Sea, Tasman Sea, Bering Sea, Gulf of Carpentaria, Mid-Atlantic Bight, Indian Ocean, Baltic Sea, Northeast Atlantic Ocean, Bay of Biscay, Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pacific Ocean, found that square mesh escape panels/windows of varying designs and number fitted to diamond mesh trawl nets (bottom and pelagic), reduced the unwanted catches (non-target or non-marketable species/sizes) of all fish species monitored, all but one and one of four fish species, the main unwanted fish species but only two of nine other finfish, and the total unwanted/discarded catch (fish and invertebrates combined), compared to standard diamond mesh trawl nets, and the effect varied with panel/window design, position in the net and/or fish body type, as well as catch size. The other five studies and a review study of mesh escape panel/window use in the Kattegat and Skagerrak, found that square mesh panels/windows did not reduce the unwanted catches of fish, Atlantic cod and three of three commercial bottom fish species, compared to diamond mesh nets without panels/windows. Four of five replicated, controlled studies (including three paired) in the North Sea, Northeast Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Maine, found that large diamond mesh escape panels in diamond mesh trawl nets (beam and bottom) reduced unwanted catches of cod, whiting and haddock, and discarded catch (fish and invertebrates), but not of whiting in one study, compared to nets without large diamond mesh panels, and the effect varied with panel design and vessel size. The other study found that the unwanted catches of only one of seven species/groups of non-target fish was reduced by a large diamond mesh panel. Two replicated, paired, controlled studies in the North Sea and Baltic Sea found that new or different configurations of square mesh panels/windows in diamond mesh trawl nets reduced unwanted fish and cod catches, compared to existing/standard panels or windows. One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Gulf of Carpentaria found that diamond mesh trawl nets with either a top square mesh escape panel or a large supported opening ('Bigeye') reduced unwanted shark, but not ray and sawfish catches compared to standard trawl nets. One before-and-after study in the Bay of Biscay found that supplementing a top square mesh escape window in a prawn trawl net with either a bottom window, a flexible escape grid or an increased mesh size diamond codend, did not reduce the unwanted hake catch Improved size selectivity of fishing gear (9 studies): One review study of mesh escape panel/window use in the Kattegat and Skagerrak and four of six replicated, controlled studies (including four paired) in the Baltic Sea, North Sea, northeast Atlantic Ocean, found that square mesh escape panels/windows in diamond mesh trawl nets improved the size selectivity of trawl nets for Atlantic cod and haddock, compared to trawl nets without panels/windows, and there was no difference compared to standard trawl nets with reduced mesh circumferences, and the effect varied with panel position and design. The other two studies found no effect on the size selectivity of undersized fish, haddock, saithe or Atlantic cod, compared to standard trawl nets. One review study of gear size selectivity in the northeast Atlantic Ocean found that the effect of fitting square mesh panels to trawl nets on haddock selectivity varied with panel mesh size, position, and time of year. One replicated, controlled study in the Norwegian Sea found no difference in the size selectivity of cod and haddock between diamond mesh trawl nets fitted with either square mesh escape windows, rigid size-sorting escape grids or a large diamond mesh codend. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2716https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2716Sat, 02 Jan 2021 12:18:36 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit a size-sorting escape grid (rigid or flexible) to a fish trawl net Eighteen studies examined the effects of fitting size-sorting escape grids to a fish trawl net on marine fish populations. Six studies were in the North Sea (France, Norway, Scotland), three were in the North Atlantic Ocean (Portugal, USA), and two were in the Norwegian Sea (Norway). One study was in each of the Barents Sea (Norway), the South Atlantic Ocean (Namibia), the Mediterranean Sea (Spain), the Adriatic Sea (Italy), the Gulf of Maine (USA), and the Baltic Sea (northern Europe). One study was in a laboratory (Japan). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated study in a laboratory in Japan found that masu salmon were able to actively escape through a rigid escape grid, irrespective of grid orientation and towing speed, but escape was reduced in dark conditions compared to light. OTHER (17 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (14 studies): Eleven of 14 replicated studies (three paired and controlled) in the North Sea, North Atlantic Ocean, Barents Sea, South Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Adriatic Sea, Gulf of Maine and Baltic Sea found that fitting size-sorting escape grids of various types and configurations to fish trawl nets reduced the catches of unwanted small mackerel, small monkfish, non-target whiting and haddock, small hake, unwanted spiny dogfish, non-target herring, prohibited halibut, unwanted sizes of cod and other non-target fish, relative to the retained codend catch or compared to trawls without grids. One study found that fitting size-sorting escape grids of three designs to fish trawl nets reduced the discarded catch of nine of 12 fish species and the overall amount of discarded catch (fish and invertebrates combined), relative to the retained codend catch. One study found that fitting size-sorting escape grids had a mixed effect on the reduction of unwanted and/or undersized fish catch relative to the retained codend catch depending on fish ecological group. The other study found that, compared to standard trawl nets without escape grids, trawls with size-sorting escape grids reduced the overall catch of whiting, but not of undersized whiting. Improved size-selection of fishing gear (3 studies): Two of three replicated studies (two paired and controlled and one controlled) in the North Sea and Norwegian Sea, found that a size-sorting escape grid fitted to trawl nets improved the size-selection of haddock, but not saithe or cod, compared to standard nets without grids. One study found that trawl nets fitted with an escape grid did not improve the size-selection of cod and haddock compared to trawl nets fitted with square mesh escape windows. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2720https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2720Fri, 08 Jan 2021 16:54:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit a size-sorting escape grid (rigid or flexible) to a prawn/shrimp trawl net Thirty studies examined the effects of fitting size-sorting escape grids to prawn/shrimp trawl nets on marine fish populations. Five studies were in the North Sea (Scotland/Norway, Belgium/Netherlands, UK, Scotland), four were in the Coral Sea (Australia) and two were in each of the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia), the Indian Ocean (Australia, Mozambique), the North Atlantic Ocean (Portugal, USA), the Pacific Ocean (Chile, USA), the Skagerrak and Kattegat (northern Europe) and the South Atlantic Ocean (Brazil). One study was in each of the Tasman Sea (Australia), the Greenland Sea (Svalbard), the Bay of Biscay (France), the Gulf of Maine (USA), the Gulf of Thailand (Vietnam), the Tyrrhenian Sea (Italy), the Gulf of St Vincent (Australia), the Persian Gulf (Iran) and the Northeast Atlantic Ocean (Norway). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (30 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (30 studies): Seven of seven replicated studies (including one controlled) in the northeast Atlantic Ocean, North Sea, North Atlantic Ocean, Greenland Sea, Gulf of Thailand, Tyrrhenian Sea and the Skagerrak and Kattegat found that fitting rigid or flexible size-sorting escape grids, of various types and configurations, to prawn/shrimp trawl nets reduced unwanted fish catches (non-commercial species and discarded commercial species/sizes) by allowing the escape of unwanted sharks and the other fish species monitored. Two of two before-and-after studies in the Gulf of Maine and Pacific Ocean found that after the introduction of size-sorting escape grids to trawl nets in fisheries for shrimp, the capture of non-target and unwanted fish was reduced compared to before grids were used. Eleven of 20 replicated studies (including one controlled and 19 paired and controlled) in the Tasman Sea, Coral Sea, Gulf of Carpentaria, North Sea, Indian Ocean, Bay of Biscay, Skagerrak and Kattegat, Pacific Ocean, South Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of St Vincent and Persian Gulf found that prawn/shrimp trawls with size-sorting escape grids, of various types and configurations, had lower catches of all or all but one undersized or otherwise unwanted fish and shark/ray species monitored, and unwanted total catch (fish and invertebrates), compared to trawl nets without escape grids. Two found that escape grids reduced non-target catches of most sizes of whiting and plaice and larger sizes of total fish, but increased the retention of small cod and haddock. Three studies found a variable effect of fitting escape grids to shrimp/prawn trawl nets on unwanted fish catch compared to nets with no grids, and the effect varied with year, site and grid type. Three found that grids had no effect on the reduction of unwanted fish and catches were similar for all or most of the unwanted non-commercial and commercial fish species/groups and for the total unwanted catch (fish and invertebrates). The other study found that fewer unwanted fish of 10 of 11 species/groups were retained in a shrimp/prawn trawl net with an escape grid used in combination with a diamond mesh codend with the mesh orientation turned by 90°, compared to a conventional diamond mesh net with no grid. One replicated, randomized study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that the reduction in catch of unwanted sharks depended on the type of escape grid and shrimp/prawn trawl net used. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2721https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2721Mon, 18 Jan 2021 16:42:48 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit a size-sorting mesh funnel (a sieve net) to a prawn/shrimp trawl net Three studies examined the effects of fitting a size-sorting mesh funnel (sieve net) to a prawn/shrimp trawl net on marine fish populations. All three studies were in the North Sea (Belgium, UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (3 studies): Three replicated, paired, controlled studies in the North Sea found that shrimp trawls fitted with a mesh size-sorting funnel, a sieve net, reduced the catches of unwanted (non-commercial or discarded) fish, compared to standard trawls. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2722https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2722Wed, 20 Jan 2021 12:16:50 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit large, supported escape openings (such as Fisheyes, Bigeyes and radial escape sections) to trawl nets Eight studies examined the effects of fitting large, supported escape openings (such as Fisheyes, Bigeyes and radial escape sections) to trawl nets on marine fish populations. Three studies were in the northwest Atlantic Ocean (USA) and three were in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia). One study was in the north Pacific Ocean (USA) and one was in the Coral Sea (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (8 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (8 studies): Six of seven replicated studies (five paired and controlled, and one randomized, paired and controlled) in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Carpentaria, Pacific Ocean and the Coral Sea found that fitting large, supported escape openings (various designs including Fisheyes, Bigeyes and radial escape sections) to trawl nets reduced the overall catches of unwanted fish, immature red snapper and total unwanted catch (fish and invertebrates combined) compared to standard nets. The other study found that there were fewer unwanted Chinook salmon in catches with two of two designs of escape openings, but only one of the designs caught fewer widow rockfish. One replicated, paired and controlled study in the Gulf of Carpentaria found that trawl nets fitted with either large escape openings or a square mesh escape panel reduced unwanted shark catch but not unwanted ray or sawfish catches, compared to standard nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2723https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2723Wed, 20 Jan 2021 16:58:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit mesh escape panels/windows to a trawl net and use square mesh instead of diamond mesh codend One study examined the effects of fitting mesh escape panels to a trawl net and using a square mesh instead of a diamond mesh codend on marine fish populations. The study was in the English Channel (UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Reduction of unwanted catch (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the English Channel found that using a trawl net with square mesh escape panels and a square mesh codend reduced the numbers of discarded finfish compared to a diamond mesh codend with no panels. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2724https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2724Thu, 21 Jan 2021 16:56:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit a size-sorting escape grid (rigid or flexible) to trawl nets and use a square mesh instead of a diamond mesh codend Three studies examined the effects of fitting a size-sorting escape grid (rigid or flexible) to trawl nets and using a square mesh instead of a diamond mesh codend on marine fish populations. The studies were in the North Sea (UK), the Kattegat and Skagerrak (Sweden/Denmark) and the Coral Sea (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (3 studies): Three replicated, paired, controlled studies (one randomized) in the North Sea, Kattegat and Skagerrak and Coral Sea found that trawl nets with an escape grid and a square mesh codend caught fewer unwanted whiting, plaice, cod, haddock and unwanted catch of the most frequently caught fish species, but not hake or less frequently caught species compared to a diamond mesh codend with no grid. One also found that catch rates of most fish species were similar compared to a square mesh codend alone. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2725https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2725Thu, 21 Jan 2021 16:59:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit a size-sorting escape grid (rigid or flexible) and large, supported escape openings to trawl nets Four studies examined the effect of fitting trawl nets with a size-sorting escape grid and large, supported escape openings for fish escape on marine fish populations. Two studies were in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia), one study was in the Atlantic Ocean (USA) and one study was in the Persian Gulf (Iran). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (4 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (4 studies): Three of four replicated studies (three paired and controlled) in the Gulf of Carpentaria, the Atlantic Ocean and the Persian Gulf, found that trawl nets fitted with a both a size-sorting escape grid and a large supported escape opening reduced the catches of unwanted fish and sharks and rays, but not sawfish, compared to standard trawl nets. The other study found that trawl nets with an escape grid/opening caught similar amounts of unwanted sharks to trawl nets without. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2726https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2726Fri, 22 Jan 2021 13:26:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit mesh escape panels/windows and a size-sorting grid (rigid or flexible) to a trawl net Six studies examined the effects of fitting trawl nets with mesh escape panels or windows and a size-sorting grid on marine fish populations. Two studies were in the Atlantic Ocean (Portugal, Suriname), two were in the Indian Ocean (Australia, Mozambique), one study was in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia) and one was in the English Channel (UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (6 STUDIES) Reduce unwanted catch (5 studies): Four of five replicated studies (four paired, controlled) in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Indian Ocean and Atlantic Ocean, found that bottom trawl nets fitted with square mesh escape panels and size-sorting grids of various types reduced the unwanted catch (non-target or undersized) of fish, sharks and stingrays, rays and total discarded catch (fish and invertebrates), compared to standard unmodified trawl nets, and that fish escape through either the panel/window, grid, or both varied between fish species or sizes. The other study found that the escape of non-target fish from the combined use of a square mesh panel and grid depended on the position of the panel in the net. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the English Channel found that size-selectivity of whiting was increased in bottom trawl nets fitted with square mesh escape panels or cylinders in combination with one or two size-sorting grids of different types, compared to standard nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2727https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2727Fri, 22 Jan 2021 15:52:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit a moving device to a trawl net to stimulate fish escape response (stimulator device) Three studies examined the effects of fitting a moving device to a trawl net to stimulate fish escape response (stimulator device) on marine fish populations. Two studies were conducted in laboratory facilities (South Korea) and one study was in the Baltic Sea (Northern Europe). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in a laboratory found that trawl nets fitted with moving devices to stimulate fish escape response increased the escape of young red seabream compared to without devices, but for young olive flounder moving devices were only effective at increasing escape when used in combination with another novel device that made the net shake. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Baltic Sea found that only one of three types of moving stimulator devices fitted in conjunction with square mesh escape panels improved the size selectivity for cod, compared to without devices. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2729https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2729Tue, 26 Jan 2021 14:04:39 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Finance low interest loans to convert to fishing gear that reduces unwanted catch of mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects of financing low interest loans to convert to fishing gear that reduces unwanted catch of 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%2F2835https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2835Fri, 05 Feb 2021 16:08:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Facilitate tidal exchange to restore/create freshwater marshes from other land usesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of facilitating tidal exchange to restore/create freshwater marshes from other land uses or habitat types. ‘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%2F3206https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3206Fri, 09 Apr 2021 07:48:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Facilitate tidal exchange to restore/create freshwater swamps from other land usesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of facilitating tidal exchange to restore/create freshwater swamps from other land uses or habitat types. ‘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%2F3208https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3208Fri, 09 Apr 2021 07:49:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fill/block ditchesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects of filling/blocking ditches in marshes or swamps on vegetation within the ditches. ‘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%2F3210https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3210Fri, 09 Apr 2021 08:47:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Finance low interest loans to convert to fishing gear that reduces unwanted catch of reptiles We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of financing low interest loans to convert to fishing gear that reduces unwanted catch of reptiles. ‘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%2F3619https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3619Thu, 09 Dec 2021 13:29:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fence cliff edges to prevent individuals from falling One study evaluated the effects on reptile populations of fencing cliff edges to prevent individuals from falling. This study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One before-and-after study in Australia found that after installing a fence along a small cliff edge, fewer green turtle carcasses were found at the base of the cliff compared to before installation. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3790https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3790Wed, 15 Dec 2021 16:37:17 +0000