Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set longlines at night to reduce seabird bycatch Six out of eight studies from fisheries around the world found lower rates of seabird bycatch on longlines set at night, compared with during the day, or with previously collected data. However, effects seemed to depend on the species caught. Two studies found higher rates of bycatch on night-set longlines, due to high numbers of white-chinned petrels Procellaria aequinoctialis or northern fulmars Fulmarus glacialis being caught at night.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F283https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F283Tue, 24 Jul 2012 13:04:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set lines underwater to reduce seabird bycatch Four replicated and controlled studies and a literature review in Norway, South Africa and the North Pacific found reductions in northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis, albatross and petrel bycatch rates when using an underwater setting funnel. Although one found a disproportionate number of albatross were caught during day line setting. A replicated and controlled study found that underwater setting increased attack rates of shearwaters Puffinus spp. on longlines and did not reduce bycatch.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F288https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F288Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:38:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set longlines at the side of the boat to reduce seabird bycatch We found no evidence for the effects on seabird bycatch rates of setting longlines from the side of the boat. '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%2F289https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F289Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:44:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set minimum distances for approaching birds (buffer zones) We captured no evidence for the effects on bird populations of setting minimum distances for approaching birds. '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%2F310https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F310Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:15:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set limits for change in sediment particle size during rock dumping We found no studies that evaluated the effects of setting limits for change in sediment particle size during rock dump 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%2F2055https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2055Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:30:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set limits for change in sediment particle size during aggregate extraction We found no studies that evaluated the effects of setting limits for change in sediment particle size during aggregate extraction 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%2F2072https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2072Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:19:08 +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: 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: Set commercial catch quotas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of setting commercial catch quotas 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%2F2105https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2105Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:33:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set habitat credits systems We found no studies that evaluated the effects of setting habitat credits systems 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%2F2106https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2106Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:34:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set commercial catch quotas and habitat credits systems We found no studies that evaluated the effects of setting commercial catch quotas and habitat credits systems 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%2F2107https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2107Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:34:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set or improve minimum sewage treatment standards One study examined the effects of improving minimum sewage treatment standards on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the Bay of Biscay (Spain).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall community composition (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Bay of Biscay found that after introducing a secondary treatment of sewage wastewaters, invertebrate community composition at an impacted site did not significantly change compared to unimpacted sites. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Bay of Biscay found that after introducing a secondary treatment of sewage wastewaters, invertebrate richness and diversity at an impacted site did not significantly change compared to unimpacted sites. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Bay of Biscay found that after introducing a secondary treatment of sewage wastewaters, total cover of invertebrates significantly increased at an impacted site at 8 m but not 3 m depth, compared to unimpacted sites. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2180https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2180Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:36:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set regulatory ban on marine burial of nuclear waste We found no studies that evaluated the effects of setting regulatory ban on marine burial of nuclear waste 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%2F2184https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2184Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:44:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set recreational catch quotas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of setting recreational catch quotas 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%2F2273https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2273Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:49:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set minimum distances for approaching mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of setting a minimum permitted distance to which they can be approached. ‘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%2F2327https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2327Thu, 21 May 2020 10:36:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set maximum number of people/vehicles approaching mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of setting a maximum to the number of people or vehicles permitted to approach mammals. ‘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%2F2328https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2328Thu, 21 May 2020 10:38:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set hunting quotas based on target species population trends Three studies evaluated the effects of setting hunting quotas for mammals based on target species population trends. One study each was in Canada, Spain and Norway. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two studies, in Spain and Norway, found that restricting hunting and basing quotas on population targets enabled population increases for Pyrenean chamois and Eurasian lynx. Survival (1 study): A before-and-after study in Canada found that setting harvest quotas based on population trends, and lengthening the hunting season, did not decrease the number of cougars killed by hunters. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2607https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2607Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:07:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set or improve minimum sewage treatment standards We found no studies that evaluated the effects of setting or improving minimum sewage treatment standards 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%2F2867https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2867Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:27:34 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set regulatory ban on marine burial of nuclear waste We found no studies that evaluated the effects of setting a regulatory ban on marine burial of nuclear waste on marine 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%2F2875https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2875Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:41:02 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set commercial catch quotas We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of setting commercial catch quotas. ‘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%2F3548https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3548Wed, 08 Dec 2021 12:05:07 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set unwanted catch quotas One study evaluated the effects of setting unwanted catch quotas on reptile populations. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One study in the USA found that following the re-opening of a swordfish long-line fishery with turtle catch limits in place, loggerhead turtle bycatch reached the annual catch limit in two of three years, and when the limit was reached the fishery was closed for the rest of the year. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3549https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3549Wed, 08 Dec 2021 12:07:09 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set gillnets perpendicular to the shore We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of setting gillnets perpendicular to the shore. ‘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%2F3557https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3557Wed, 08 Dec 2021 14:11:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set regulatory ban on marine burial of persistent environmental pollutants, including nuclear waste We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of setting regulatory bans on marine burial of persistent environmental pollutants, including nuclear waste. ‘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%2F3595https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3595Wed, 08 Dec 2021 16:25:34 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set catch shares by area We found no studies that evaluated the effects of setting catch shares by area on marine fish 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%2F3813https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3813Fri, 27 May 2022 08:29:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set catch shares by species One study examined the effects of setting catch shares by species on marine fish populations. The study was in the Pacific Ocean (Canada).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Reduction of unwanted catch (1 study): One before-and-after study in the Pacific Ocean found that after a species-specific catch share was set (Individual Vessel Bycatch Quota) unwanted halibut catch in a multi-species fishery was reduced, whereas it was higher under a previous catch share system (Individual Transferable Quota) based on all species in the catch. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3814https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3814Fri, 27 May 2022 08:31:55 +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