Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use 1% barley in wheat crops for corn buntings We have found no evidence for the effects of adding 1% barley into wheat crop for corn buntings. '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%2F87https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F87Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:27:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘mosaic management’ A replicated, controlled before-and-after study from the Netherlands found that northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus population trends changed from decreases to increases following the introduction of mosaic management. Three other waders did not show such a response. A replicated, paired sites study in the Netherlands found that black-tailed godwits Limosa limosa had higher productivity under mosaic management than other management types, and nests were less likely to be trampled by livestock. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F202https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F202Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:52:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use 1% barley in wheat crops for corn buntingsWe have found no studies investigating the impact of adding barley to wheat on corn bunting Miliaria calandra populations.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F212https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F212Mon, 16 Jul 2012 17:48:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘mussel socks’ to prevent birds from attacking shellfishA randomised, replicated controlled experiment in Canada found that fewer medium-sized mussels were taken from mussel socks with a protective ‘sleeve’, compared to un-sleeved socks. There were no differences for small or large mussels. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F250https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F250Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:11:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a line shooter to reduce seabird bycatch A randomised, replicated and controlled trial from a pelagic fishery in the North Pacific found significantly higher seabird bycatch when a line shooter was used to set longlines. A second randomised, replicated and controlled trial (from Norway), found no effect of a line shooter on bycatch rates. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F290https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F290Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:47:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a different technique when laying and burying cables and pipelines We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using a different technique when laying and burying cables and pipelines on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2083https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2083Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:49:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a different type of anchor We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using a different type of anchor on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2090https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2090Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:19:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a midwater/semi-pelagic trawl instead of bottom/demersal trawl One study examined the effects of using a semi-pelagic trawl instead of a demersal trawl on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the Indian Ocean (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, study in the Indian Ocean found that fishing with a semi-pelagic trawl did not reduce the abundance of large sessile invertebrates, which was similar to non-trawled plots, but a demersal trawl did. OTHER (1 STUDY) Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, study in the Indian Ocean found that fishing with a semi-pelagic trawl reduced the abundance of retained commercially targeted fish compared to fishing with a demersal trawl. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2118https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2118Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:49:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a pulse trawl instead of a beam trawl One study examined the effects of using a pulse trawl instead of a beam trawl on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the North Sea (Netherlands). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, study in the North Sea found that pulse trawls caught less unwanted invertebrate catch compared to traditional beam trawls, but the effects varied with species. OTHER (1 STUDY) Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, study in the North Sea found that pulse trawls reduced the volume of commercial catch by 19% compared to beam trawls. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2126https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2126Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:22:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a larger codend mesh size on trawl nets One study examined the effects of using a larger codend mesh size on trawl nets on unwanted catch of subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in the Gulf of Mexico (Mexico). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch species richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Gulf of Mexico found that trawl nets fitted with a larger mesh codend caught fewer combined species of non-commercial unwanted invertebrates and fish compared to a traditional codend. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Gulf of Mexico found that trawl nets fitted with a larger mesh codend caught lower combined biomass and abundance of non-commercial unwanted invertebrates and fish compared to a traditional codend. OTHER (1 STUDY) Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Gulf of Mexico found that trawl nets fitted with a larger mesh codend caught less biomass and abundance of commercially targeted shrimps compared to a traditional codend, but that the biomass ratios of commercially targeted to discard species was similar for both. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2135https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2135Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:53:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a larger mesh size on trammel nets One study examined the effects of using a larger mesh size on trammel nets on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the North Atlantic Ocean (Portugal). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that using larger mesh sizes in the inner and/or outer panels of trammel nets did not affect the community composition of unwanted catch of non-commercial invertebrates (discard). POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that using larger mesh sizes in the inner and/or outer panels of trammel nets did not reduce the abundance of unwanted catch of non-commercial invertebrates (discard). Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2141https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2141Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:07:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘shock collars’ to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects on mammals of using ‘shock collars’ to deter crop damage to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that electric shock collars (combined with loud noise) reduced damage caused by black-tailed deer to tree seedlings. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2508https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2508Thu, 04 Jun 2020 16:39:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a different method to sort or bring catch onboard We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using different methods to sort or bring catches onboard vessels 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%2F2689https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2689Wed, 02 Dec 2020 14:45:13 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a larger mesh size Forty-two studies examined the effects of using a larger mesh size of fishing net on marine fish populations. Ten studies, and one review, were in the Atlantic Ocean (UK, Portugal, USA). Eight studies were in the Aegean Sea (Greece, Turkey). Five studies were in the North Sea (UK, Netherlands, France, North Europe) and three were in the Tasman Sea (Australia). Two studies were in each of the Mediterranean Sea (Italy, Turkey), the Pacific Ocean (USA, Chile), the Skagerrak and Kattegat (Northern Europe) and the Gulf of Mexico (Mexico). One study was in each of the English Channel (UK), the Bering Sea (USA), the Baltic Sea (Finland), the Caribbean Sea (Barbados), the Persian Gulf (Kuwait), the Bristol Channel (UK), the Barents Sea (Norway) and the Arabian Sea (India). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Survival (3 studies): One of three controlled studies (one replicated and paired, and one replicated) in the Atlantic Ocean, Baltic Sea and Bristol Channel found that larger mesh sizes improved the post-capture survival of skates and rays compared to smaller meshes. The other two found similar post-capture survival in haddock, whiting and small herring between trawl nets with larger mesh and nets of smaller mesh size. Condition (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Bristol Channel reported that the condition of skates and rays at capture was better with a larger trawl codend mesh size compared to a smaller mesh. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (41 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (21 studies): Fifteen of 20 replicated studies (five controlled, two paired, eight paired and controlled, one randomized and one randomized and controlled) in the North Sea, Skagerrak/Kattegat, Aegean Sea, Caribbean Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Atlantic Ocean, Tasman Sea, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific Ocean, Bering Sea and the Bristol Channel found that using a larger mesh size in a fishing net (various trawls, gillnets, seines and trammel nets) reduced the catches of unwanted (small/undersized, non-commercial, discarded) fish or fish and invertebrates combined, compared to nets with standard/smaller mesh sizes. One study found that amounts of unwanted fish were reduced with larger mesh at smaller catch sizes but were similar between large and small meshes at larger catch sizes, and one found that increasing a trawl codend mesh size reduced the unwanted catch of one of two fish species compared to a standard mesh. Three found that larger mesh sized fishing nets did not typically reduce the unwanted fish catch compared to nets of smaller mesh sizes. One study found that increasing both the mesh size and minimum size limit reduced catches of the youngest fish. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (23 studies): Nineteen of 21 replicated studies (eight controlled, four paired and controlled, three randomized and controlled, and one paired) and one review, in the North Sea, Aegean Sea, Baltic Sea, Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, Tasman Sea, Arabian Sea, Persian Gulf, Barents Sea and the Mediterranean Sea found that larger mesh sizes (both diamond and square) of the netting of various gear types improved the size-selectivity for all fish species assessed and in one, for two of three fish species, compared to smaller mesh sizes. One study found that size-selectivity for fish was not improved with larger mesh size in the netting of fish traps. The other found that increasing the codend mesh size of trawls fitted with size-sorting escape grids resulted in similar size-selectivity of the codend for fish compared to smaller codend mesh sizes. One controlled study in the English Channel found that a trawl net codend with a larger size of square mesh had similar size-selectivity for Atlantic mackerel as a smaller diamond mesh codend. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2697https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2697Thu, 03 Dec 2020 19:56:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a different hook type Twenty-five studies examined the effect of using a different hook type on marine fish populations. Nine studies were in the Atlantic Ocean (Portugal, South Africa, USA, Brazil, Portugal, Iceland), six studies were in Pacific Ocean (New Zealand, Japan, Costa Rica, Hawaii, Fiji) and two studies were in the Mediterranean Sea (Spain, Italy). One study was in each of the Barents Sea (Norway), the Denmark Strait (Greenland), the Coral Sea (Australia) and the Strait of Gibraltar (Spain/Morocco). Four studies were reviews (worldwide, Atlantic and Pacific Oceans). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (10 STUDIES) Survival (10 studies): Four of seven replicated, controlled studies in the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean and Coral Sea and two of three worldwide systematic reviews, found that using different hook types in longline or recreational fisheries, including sizes, styles and other modifications to hooks, reduced the incidence of fish hook injuries (associated with higher post-release mortality), and reduced the capture mortality of some species of unwanted sharks and rays and non-target billfish species, compared to conventional hooks or other hook types. The other four studies found that using a different hook type did not reduce the post-release mortality of young sea breams, or the capture mortality of sharks species and non-target fish species, but did reduce the incidence of deep-hooking in some cases. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (23 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (20 studies): Eight of 16 replicated studies (13 controlled, one randomized) in the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Barents Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Denmark Strait and Coral Sea, found that using a different hook type, including different sizes, styles and hook modifications, reduced the unwanted catch in longline and recreational hook fisheries of non-commercially targeted and targeted fish species, small non-target fish species, overall fish catch, overall discarded bony fish catch but not sharks and rays, undersized haddock, two of three unwanted fish species, non-target sharks and rays and non-target rays and sailfish, compared to standard hooks or hooks of other types. Seven studies found that changing hook type did not reduce the unwanted catch of young or non-target fish species, unwanted sharks and rays, unwanted blue shark, unwanted roughhead grenadier or non-target pelagic stingray and silky shark, compared to standard or other hook types. The other study found that catch rates of young groupers, and non-target fish and shark species varied with hook design, and larger hooks caught fewer non-target fish species overall, but more undersized grouper and sharks compared to other hook types. Four global systematic reviews found that hook style did not affect the unwanted catch of billfish species, sharks and rays or sharks, compared to standard styles. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (3 studies): Two of three replicated studies in the Atlantic Ocean and Strait of Gibraltar, found that increasing hook sizes improved the size-selectivity (by increasing the average catch length) of hottentot and black spot seabream compared to smaller hook sizes. The other study found that a different hook size improved size selectivity for two of five commercially targeted fish species and was also affected by bait size. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2698https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2698Tue, 08 Dec 2020 15:46:56 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a different bait type Eleven studies examined the effects of using different bait on marine fish populations. Two studies were global systematic reviews. Three studies were in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA, Iceland).Two studies were in the South Pacific Ocean (New Zealand). One study was in each of the Norwegian/Barents Seas (Norway), the Barents Sea (Norway), the Denmark Strait (Greenland) and the Mediterranean Sea. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One replicated study in the South Pacific Ocean and one global systematic review found that using different bait species did not reduce hooking injuries (associated with higher post-release mortality) of undersized snapper or sharks and rays, and did not increase survival of sharks and rays on gear retrieval. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (10 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (10 studies): Six of eight replicated studies (three controlled and one randomized) in the Norwegian/Barents Seas, Barents Sea, Denmark Strait, North Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea and the South Pacific Ocean, found that using a different bait type (including size, species and manufacture method) reduced the unwanted catches of undersized haddock (although in one case in only two of six comparisons), Atlantic cod and other unwanted or non-target fish catch, but unwanted catches of torsk and ling were similar, compared to standard or other bait types. Two other studies found no reduction in unwanted catches of pelagic stingray and overall unwanted fish with different bait types. Two systematic global reviews found that using different bait types did not affect the number of unwanted sharks and rays caught. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (1 study): One replicated study in the Denmark Strait found that using a different bait species increased the size-selectivity of commercially targeted Greenland halibut. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2700https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2700Thu, 10 Dec 2020 14:26:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a different twine type in a trawl net Five studies examined the effects of using a different twine type in a trawl net on marine fish populations. Two studies were in each of the North Sea (UK) and the Western Baltic Sea (Denmark/Germany), and one study was in the Adriatic Sea (Italy). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (5 STUDIES) Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (5 studies): Four of five replicated studies (four controlled) in the North Sea, Baltic Sea and Adriatic Sea found that using a different twine type (twine thickness and construction material) improved the size-selectivity of bottom fish, haddock, Atlantic cod, plaice and flounder, compared to thinner or other twine materials. One study found that selectivity of non-target haddock and plaice was similar for three different twine diameters. One of these studies also found that size-selectivity of fish was influenced by twine number and mesh orientation, while another found no effect of twine number and mesh orientation, but cod selectivity increased with a smaller codend circumference. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2710https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2710Tue, 29 Dec 2020 16:07:09 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a different design or configuration of size-sorting escape grid/system in trawl fishing gear (bottom and mid-water) Twenty-three studies examined the effects of using a different design or configuration of size-sorting escape grid/system in trawl fishing gear on marine fish populations. Ten studies were in the Atlantic Ocean (Canada, USA, Brazil, Spain, Norway). Five studies were in the Barents and/or Norwegian Sea (Norway). Two studies were in the Kattegat and Skagerrak (Denmark/Sweden). One study was in each of the Arafura Sea (Australia), the Greenland Sea (Norway), the North Sea (Norway), the North Pacific Ocean (USA) and the Indian Ocean (Australia). One study was in a laboratory (Japan). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (23 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (17 studies): Six of 16 replicated studies (eight paired and controlled, three controlled, one randomized and controlled, and one paired) in the Atlantic Ocean, a laboratory, Arafura Sea, Barents Sea, Kattegat and Skagerrak, Greenland Sea, North Sea, Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean, and one controlled study in the Barents Sea found that using a different design or configuration of size-sorting escape grid/system in trawl nets reduced the unwanted (undersized, non-target, discarded) catches of all or most of the fish species assessed, compared to standard or other grid designs/configurations. Four studies found that the effect of using different escape grids on the reduction of unwanted catch varied with fish species, light conditions, and the type of trawl net used. The other six found that, overall, using a different escape grid did not reduce unwanted fish catch. Improve size-selectivity of fishing gear (7 studies): Three of seven replicated studies (three controlled, one paired and controlled) in the Barents/Norwegian Sea, the Atlantic Ocean and the Greenland Sea found that different types or configurations of size-sorting escape grid systems in trawl nets resulted in better size-selectivity for unwanted redfish and Greenland halibut and of commercial target hake compared to other designs or configurations. Three studies found that the effect of using a different design or configuration of size-sorting escape grid/system on improving the size-selectivity of trawls varied between fish species compared to standard or other escape grid designs. The other study found that a new design of grid system did not improve the size-selectivity of unwanted redfish compared to an existing system. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2728https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2728Mon, 25 Jan 2021 16:30:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a larger mesh size for fishing trap-nets One study evaluated the effects on freshwater mammals of using a larger mesh size for fishing trap-nets. The study was in the River Indal (Sweden). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): One controlled study in the River Indal found that a fishing trap-net with a larger mesh size in the first two sections had fewer grey seals feeding around it and less damage caused by seals. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2803https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2803Thu, 04 Feb 2021 17:13:38 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘soft start’ procedures to deter marine and freshwater mammals to reduce noise exposure Three studies evaluated the effects of using ‘soft start’ procedures to deter marine and freshwater mammals to reduce noise exposure. One study was in each of the South Atlantic Ocean (Gabon), the South Pacific Ocean (Australia) and various water bodies (UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Behaviour change (3 studies): One study in various water bodies around the UK found that a greater proportion of cetaceans (including whales, dolphins and porpoise) avoided or moved away from vessels during ‘soft start’ procedures with seismic airguns compared to when airguns were not firing. One study in the South Atlantic Ocean found that during ‘soft start’ procedures using seismic airguns, a pod of short-finned whales initially moved away but remained within 900 m of the vessel as it passed by. One study in the South Pacific Ocean found that during ‘soft-start’ procedures with a small experimental airgun array, migrating humpback whales slowed their speed towards the vessel but did not significantly alter their course. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2897https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2897Mon, 08 Feb 2021 12:12:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a different bait type: Sea turtles Nine studies evaluated the effects of using a different bait type on sea turtle populations. Three studies were in each of the Atlantic and Pacific, and one was in each of the Atlantic and north Pacific, the Gulf of Garbes (Tunisia) and Italy. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): Two studies (including one replicated, controlled study) off the coast of Hawaii and in the Southern Atlantic found that the percentage of loggerhead and leatherback turtles that survived being caught by fish-baited or squid-baited hooks or fish-baited circle hooks and squid-baited J-hooks was similar. Condition (1 study): One before-and-after study off the coast of Hawaii found that fish-baited circle hooks deeply hooked fewer leatherback and hard-shell turtles compared to squid-baited J-hooks. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One controlled study in Italy found that loggerhead turtles in a captive setting were less likely to bite at fish bait than squid bait. The study also found that smaller turtles were more likely to bite at mackerel bait and larger turtles at squid bait. OTHER (8 STUDIES) Unwanted catch (8 studies): Four of five studies (including one replicated, paired, controlled study) in the North Pacific, Eastern Pacific, Atlantic and Atlantic and North Pacific found that fish-baited hooks caught fewer sea turtles or were swallowed by fewer olive ridley turtles than squid baited hooks. One study also found that fish bait in combination with larger circle hooks lead to the highest percentage of external hookings. The other study found mixed effects of using fish or squid-baited hooks on the unwanted catch of hard-shell and leatherback turtles. One replicated, controlled study in the north-western Atlantic Ocean found that fish-baited J-hooks caught fewer sea turtles compared to squid-baited hooks. The study also found that unwanted catch was more similar for fish-baited and squid-baited circle hooks. One before-and-after study off the coast of Hawaii found that fish-baited circle hooks caught fewer loggerhead and leatherback turtles compared to compared to squid-baited J-hooks. One replicated study in the Gulf of Garbes found that hooks baited with stingray caught fewer loggerhead turtles compared to fish-baited hooks. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3612https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3612Thu, 09 Dec 2021 12:02:07 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a different bait type: Tortoises, terrapins, side-necked & softshell turtles Two studies evaluated the effects of using a different bait type on tortoise, terrapin, side-necked and softshell turtles. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Unwanted catch (2 studies): One randomized, controlled study in the USA found that a crab pot with mackerel bait caught more diamondback terrapins than when chicken bait or no bait was used. One replicated, paired study in the USA found that hoop nets with soap bait caught fewer turtles than nets with cheese bait. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3613https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3613Thu, 09 Dec 2021 12:21:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a different bait type: Snakes & lizards We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using a different bait type on snake and lizard 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%2F3614https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3614Thu, 09 Dec 2021 13:22:03 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a different bait type: Crocodilians We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using a different bait type on crocodilian 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%2F3615https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3615Thu, 09 Dec 2021 13:23:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘warmer’ (red/yellow) lighting rather than other lighting colours Five studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using ‘warmer’ (red/yellow) lighting rather than other lighting colours. Two studies were in the Netherlands and one study was in each of Germany, Slovenia and the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Behaviour change (5 studies): Four replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized, paired study and two paired studies) in Germany, the Netherlands, Slovenia and the UK found that fewer individual moths, and moth species, were attracted to yellow, green, white or red lights (which in one case also emitted at a lower intensity) than to UV, actinic, blue or conventional metal halide lights. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the Netherlands found that four moth species spent more time feeding under red lights than under white or green lights, but less time feeding than when in complete darkness. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3906https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3906Tue, 09 Aug 2022 15:23:37 +0100