Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use alerts to reduce grey partridge by-catch during shoots We have captured no evidence for the effects of using alerts to reduce grey partridge by-catch during shoots on farmland wildlife. '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%2F102https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F102Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:57:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use alley croppingParasitism, infection and predation: Two of four studies from Kenya and the USA (including three randomised, replicated, controlled trials) found that effects of alley cropping on parasitism varied between study sites, sampling dates, pest life stages or the width of crop alleys. Two studies found no effect on parasitism. One study found mixed effects on fungal infections in pests and one study found lower egg predation. Natural enemies: One randomised, replicated, controlled study from Kenya found more wasps and spiders but fewer ladybirds. Some natural enemy groups were affected by the types of trees used in hedges. Pests and crop damage: Two of four replicated, controlled studies (two also randomised) from Kenya, the Philippines and the UK found more pests in alley cropped plots. One study found fewer pests and one study found effects varied with pest group and between years. One study found more pest damage to crops but another study found no effect. Weeds: One randomised, replicated, controlled study from the Philippines found mixed effects on weeds, with more grasses in alley cropped than conventional fields under some soil conditions. Yield: One controlled study from the USA found lower yield and one study from the Philippines reported similar or lower yields. Costs and profit: One study from the USA found lower costs but also lower profit in alley cropped plots. Crops studied were alfalfa, barley, cowpea, maize, pea, rice and wheat.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F718https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F718Thu, 30 May 2013 10:53:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use amphibians sustainably We found no evidence for the effects of using amphibians sustainably. '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%2F793https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F793Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:36:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use alley croppingA controlled, randomized, replicated study from Canada found that intercropping with trees resulted in a higher diversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. SOIL TYPES COVERED: sandy-loam.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F903https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F903Wed, 02 Oct 2013 08:57:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use an alternative protein source: krill Two replicated studies in Norway found similar final weight gain between salmon that were fed diets containing fish meal only or a krill meal substitute. When the krill were de-shelled, growth rates were closer to salmon fed fish meal, compared to leaving the krill whole. Feed conversion ratios were found to be similar in both the fish meal and krill meal diets. The number of aerobic bacteria in the hindgut of salmon fed fish meal and krill meal were higher and composition of the bacterial flora was different.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F916https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F916Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:04:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use an alternative protein source: bacteria Evidence for the effects of replacing fish meal with bacterial protein is mixed. Two replicated, controlled studies in Norway found similar growth rates in salmon fed either a 100% fish meal (control) diet or experimental diets containing up to 25% bacterial protein to replace fish meal. In the diet containing 50% bacterial protein, growth rates were lower compared to the control. Another replicated, controlled study in Norway reported higher growth rates in salmon that were fed diets containing 18% and 36% bacterial protein compared to the control or a diet containing 4.5% bacterial protein.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F918https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F918Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:10:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use an alternative protein source: yeast One replicated, controlled experiment in Norway found no differences in weight between Atlantic salmon that were fed diets containing the yeast Yarrowia lipolytica compared to a control diet containing fishmeal.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F920https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F920Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:13:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use an alternative protein source: animal One controlled, replicated study in Canada found no difference in oxygen consumption or swimming speed of Atlantic salmon that were fed diets containing anchovy oil or alternative lipid sources. One controlled, randomised, replicated study from Scotland showed that fish fed a fishmeal diet weighed more than fish fed diets with alternative proteins.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F922https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F922Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:16:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use an alternative protein source: plant-based Six studies (four replicated, controlled) in Norway, Scotland and the USA found that inclusion of plant-based proteins within feed led to decreased growth rates in salmon. Three replicated and/or controlled studies from Norway, Canada and Scotland found similar growth rates in salmon fed either plant-based or fish meal diets. Four replicated, controlled studies (three randomised) from Norway and Scotland found reduced final body weights in salmon fed plant-based protein diets compared to fish meal-based diets. Two controlled studies (one replicated) from Norway found similar final body weights in salmon fed either plant-based or fish meal diets. Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomised) from Norway found lowered levels of feeding efficiency, whereas a replicated study in Norway found increased levels of feeding efficiency in salmon fed plant-based protein diets compared to fish meal diets. Two replicated studies (one controlled) in Canada and Scotland study found similar levels of feeding efficiency across both diet types. Digestibility of feed components by salmon was found to be lower in two replicated, controlled studies when the diets contained plant proteins compared to fish meal. Similar levels of digestibility across both diet types were identified by two randomised, replicated, controlled studies in Scotland and Norway. Two of the studies found that survival rates and appetite were not affected by plant- or fish meal-based protein diets. However morphology of the distal intestine was altered in two randomised, replicated, controlled studies where salmon were fed diets containing plant-based proteins. Condition of the salmon was increased in plant-based protein diets in one randomised, replicated, controlled study but reduced in two other replicated studies.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F924https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F924Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:26:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use an alternative oil source: plant-based Three replicated studies (two controlled) in Norway found growth rates were similar in salmon that were fed diets containing fish oil and vegetable oil. One replicated study in Norway found growth rates were higher in fish fed diets containing vegetable oil.  One replicated, controlled study found salmon growth rates were both lower and higher in vegetable oil diets compared to fish oil diets, dependant on family genetics. Two replicated studies (one controlled) in Norway found similar average final body weights between groups of salmon fed both fish oil and vegetable oil diets. Three studies (two replicated, one controlled) in Norway and Scotland found that the fatty acid profile of salmon flesh reflected oil source within diets. A study in Norway found that oil source in diets did not affect salmon broodstock fecundity levels, egg weights, fertility rates, as well as the weights and development of resultant fry. One replicated Norwegian study found that salmon fed vegetable oil diets had high liver lipid and low plasma lipoprotein compared to the fish oil diet. One replicated, controlled study found high levels of n-3 highly unsaturated fatty acids compared to diets containing rapeseed oil. A replicated, controlled study in Scotland found salmon fed vegetable oil-based diets had lower concentrations of dioxin and polychlorinated biphenyls within flesh, compared with diets containing fish oil. A replicated study in Norway found that fresh, frozen and smoked salmon flesh from fish fed vegetable oil- and fish oil-based diets had similar levels of gaping, texture and liquid holding capacity. Pigment concentration was lower in vegetable oil diets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F926https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F926Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:39:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use alternative means of getting mussel seeds rather than dredging from natural mussel beds We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using alternative means of getting mussel seeds rather than dredging from natural mussel beds 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%2F2122https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2122Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:14:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use alternative de-icers on roads We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of using alternative de-icers on roads. ‘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%2F2616https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2616Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:06:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use an electric (pulse) trawl Three studies examined the effects of using an electric (pulse) trawl on marine fish populations. The studies were in the North Sea (Belgium, Netherlands and multiple European countries).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (3 studies): Two replicated, paired, controlled studies and one review in the North Sea found that using an electric/pulse trawl reduced the catches of non-target or undersized (discarded) commercial fish in some or all cases, compared to using a standard trawl. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2713https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2713Tue, 29 Dec 2020 16:45:07 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use an alternative commercial fishing method Nine studies examined the effects of using an alternative commercial fishing method on marine fish populations. One study was in each of the Arafura Sea (Australia), the Greenland and Norwegian Seas (Norway), the Norwegian Sea (Norway), the Atlantic Ocean (Portugal), the Mediterranean Sea (Italy), the Gulf of Maine (USA), the Coral Sea (Australia), the Tyrrhenian Sea (Italy) and the Kattegat and Skagerrak (Sweden).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (9 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (9 studies): Seven of nine replicated studies (two controlled, one randomized, controlled, one paired, controlled) in the Arafura Sea, Greenland/Norwegian Sea, Norwegian Sea, Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Gulf of Maine, Coral Sea, Tyrrhenian Sea and Kattegat and Skagerrak found that using an alternative method of fishing caught fewer discarded fish species and reduced the catches of unwanted (discarded or non-commercial species) fish overall, and of immature halibut, haddock, Atlantic cod, bluefin tuna and over half of the individual fish species. One study found that an alternative fishing method caught larger (and more likely to be mature) unwanted hammerhead sharks. The other study found that sizes of striped sea bream, annular sea bream and red mullet were similar in catches between gear types. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2730https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2730Wed, 27 Jan 2021 17:06:17 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use an alternative method to commercially harvest plankton One study examined the effect of using an alternative method to commercially harvest plankton on marine fish populations. The study was in the Norwegian Sea (Norway).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Reduction of unwanted catch (1 study): One controlled study in the Norwegian Sea found that the amount of unwanted fish larvae and eggs in fine-mesh catches of zooplankton were reduced after deployment of a bubble-plume harvester, compared to without deployment. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2731https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2731Thu, 28 Jan 2021 11:41:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use acoustic devices at renewable energy sites We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using acoustic devices at renewable energy sites 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%2F2748https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2748Tue, 02 Feb 2021 16:48:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use acoustic devices at cooling water intake structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using acoustic devices at cooling water intake structures 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%2F2751https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2751Tue, 02 Feb 2021 16:53:08 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use acoustic devices on moving vessels We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using acoustic devices on moving vessels 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%2F2761https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2761Tue, 02 Feb 2021 17:05:37 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use acoustic devices at aquaculture systems Six studies evaluated the effects on marine and freshwater mammals of using acoustic devices at aquaculture systems. Four studies were in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA, UK), one was in the Reloncaví fjord (Chile) and one in the Mediterranean Sea (Italy). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (6 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (6 studies): Four of six studies (including five before-and-after and/or site comparison studies and one controlled study) in the North Atlantic Ocean, the Reloncaví fjord and the Mediterranean Sea found that using acoustic devices at salmon farms reduced predation on caged salmon by grey seals, harbour seals and South American sea lions, or reduced the number of harbour seals approaching a fish cage. The two other studies found that using acoustic devices did not reduce harbour seal predation at salmon farms, or reduce the presence, approach distances, groups sizes or time spent around fin-fish farms by common bottlenose dolphins. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2775https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2775Thu, 04 Feb 2021 15:29:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use acoustically reflective fishing gear materials Five studies evaluated the effects on marine mammals of using acoustically reflective fishing gear materials. Two studies were in the Bay of Fundy (Canada) and one study was in each of the Fortune Channel (Canada), the North Sea (Denmark) and the South Atlantic Ocean (Argentina). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Behaviour change (2 studies): One controlled study in the Fortune Channel found that harbour porpoises approached nets made from acoustically reflective material (barium sulfate) and conventional nets to similar distances and for similar durations, but porpoises used fewer echolocation clicks at barium sulfate nets. One controlled study in the Bay of Fundy found that harbour porpoise echolocation activity was similar at barium sulfate and conventional nets. OTHER (3 STUDIES) Reduction in entanglements/unwanted catch (3 studies): Two of three controlled studies (including two replicated studies) in the North Sea, the Bay of Fundy and the South Atlantic Ocean found that fishing nets made from acoustically reflective materials (iron-oxide or barium sulfate) had fewer entanglements of harbour porpoises than conventional fishing nets. The other study found that nets made from barium sulfate did not reduce the number of dolphin entanglements. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2807https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2807Thu, 04 Feb 2021 17:31:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use acoustic devices on fishing gear Thirty-three studies evaluated the effects on marine mammals of using acoustic devices on fishing gear. Eight studies were in the North Atlantic Ocean (Canada, USA, UK), four studies were in each of the North Pacific Ocean (USA) and the North Sea (Germany, Denmark, UK), three studies were in the Mediterranean Sea (Spain, Italy), two studies were in each of the Fortune Channel (Canada), the South Atlantic Ocean (Argentina, Brazil) and the Baltic Sea (Denmark, Germany, Sweden), and one study was in each of Moreton Bay (Australia), the Black Sea (Turkey), the Celtic Sea (UK), the South Pacific Ocean (Peru), the Rainbow Channel (Australia), the UK (water body not stated), the Great Belt (Denmark), Omura Bay (Japan), and the Indian Ocean (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (16 STUDIES) Behaviour change (16 studies): Twelve of 16 controlled studies (including three replicated studies) in the North Atlantic Ocean, the Fortune Channel, the South Atlantic Ocean, Moreton Bay, the Mediterranean Sea, the Celtic Sea, the Rainbow Channel, a coastal site in the UK, the Great Belt, the North Sea, Omura Bay and the Indian Ocean found that using acoustic devices on fishing nets, float lines or simulated fishing nets resulted in harbour porpoises, common bottlenose dolphins, tuxuci dolphins, finless porpoises and seals approaching nets or lines less closely, having fewer encounters or interactions with nets, or activity and sightings were reduced in the surrounding area. The other four studies found that using acoustic devices on trawl nets, float lines or simulated fishing nets did not have a significant effect on the behaviour of common bottlenose dolphins, harbour porpoises, Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins or dugongs. OTHER (19 STUDIES) Reduction in entanglements/unwanted catch (14 studies): Nine studies (including seven controlled studies and two before-and after studies) in the North Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea, the South Atlantic Ocean, the North Pacific Ocean, the Black Sea, and the South Pacific Ocean found that using acoustic devices on cod traps or fishing nets resulted in fewer collisions of humpback whales or entanglements of harbour porpoises, Franciscana dolphins, beaked whales and small cetaceans. Three studies (including two controlled studies and one before-and-after study) in the North Pacific Ocean found that using acoustic devices on fishing nets resulted in fewer entanglements of some species but not others. One controlled study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that fishing nets with a ‘complete’ set of acoustic devices had fewer entanglements of harbour porpoises, but those with an ‘incomplete’ set did not. One replicated, controlled study in the North Sea and Baltic Sea found that using acoustic devices on fishing nets reduced harbour porpoise entanglements in one fishing area but not the other. Human-wildlife conflict (6 studies): Five of six studies (including six controlled studies, one of which was replicated) in the Baltic Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, the North Pacific Ocean, a coastal site in the UK and the North Sea found that using acoustic devices reduced damage to fish catches and/or fishing nets caused by common bottlenose dolphins and seals. The other study found that acoustic devices did not reduce damage to swordfish catches by California sea lions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2808https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2808Thu, 04 Feb 2021 17:56:14 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use acoustic devices on fishing vessels Five studies evaluated the effects on marine mammals of using acoustic devices on vessels. One study was in each of the Shannon Estuary (Ireland), the Rainbow Channel (Australia), Keppel Bay (Australia), the North Atlantic Ocean (Azores) and the Indian Ocean (Crozet Islands). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Behaviour change (4 studies): One controlled study in the Shannon Estuary found that common bottlenose dolphins avoided a boat more frequently when acoustic devices of two types were deployed alongside it. One controlled study in the Indian Ocean found that killer whales were recorded further from a fishing vessel when an acoustic device was used during hauls, but distances decreased after the first exposure to the device. Two before-and-after studies in the Rainbow Channel and Keppel Bay found that an acoustic device deployed alongside a vessel reduced surfacing and echolocation rates and time spent foraging or socializing of Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins and Australian snubfin dolphins but there was no effect on 8–10 other types of behaviour (e.g. vocalizing, diving, travelling etc.). OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): One randomized, controlled study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that using acoustic devices of two types did not reduce predation of squid catches by Risso’s dolphins. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2815https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2815Fri, 05 Feb 2021 14:45:12 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use acoustic devices on moorings Eight studies evaluated the effects on marine and freshwater mammals of using acoustic devices on moorings. Two studies were in the South Pacific Ocean and one study was in each of the Puntledge River (Canada), the Bay of Fundy (Canada), the Shannon Estuary (Ireland), the Rivers Conon and Esk (UK), the Kyle of Sutherland estuary (UK) and the North Atlantic Ocean (UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (7 STUDIES) Behaviour change (7 studies): Two of four controlled studies in the South Pacific Ocean, the Kyle of Sutherland estuary and the North Atlantic Ocean found that deploying acoustic devices on moorings reduced numbers of grey and harbour seals, and the activity of harbour porpoises, short-beaked common dolphins and common bottlenose dolphins. The two other studies found that using an acoustic device on a mooring did not have a significant effect on the number, direction of movement, speed, or dive durations of migrating humpback whales. One controlled study in the Bay of Fundy found that using an acoustic device on a mooring reduced harbour porpoise echolocation activity, but the probability of porpoises approaching within 125 m of the device increased over 10–11 days. One controlled study in the Shannon Estuary found that one of two types of acoustic device reduced the activity of common bottlenose dolphins. One replicated, controlled study in the Rivers Conon and Esk found that using acoustic devices reduced the number of grey and harbour seals upstream of the device but did not reduce seal numbers overall. OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): One randomized controlled study in the Puntledge River found that deploying an acoustic device on a mooring reduced the number of harbour seals feeding on migrating juvenile salmon. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2816https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2816Fri, 05 Feb 2021 15:00:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use acoustic devices to deter marine and freshwater mammals from an area to reduce noise exposure Four studies evaluated the effects of using acoustic devices to deter marine and freshwater mammals from an area to reduce noise exposure. Two studies were in the North Sea (Germany), one study was in the Great Belt (Denmark) and one was in Faxaflói Bay (Iceland). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Behaviour change (4 studies): Three studies (including two controlled and one before-and-after study) in the North Sea and the Great Belt found that using acoustic devices to deter mammals from an area at a wind farm construction site or pelagic sites reduced the activity and sightings of harbour porpoises at distances of 1–18 km from the devices. One before-and-after study in Faxaflói Bay found that when an acoustic device was deployed from a boat, minke whales swam away from the device, increased their swimming speed, and swam more directly. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2896https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2896Mon, 08 Feb 2021 12:04:42 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use alternative methods instead of airguns for seismic surveys We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using alternative methods instead of airguns for seismic surveys 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%2F2899https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2899Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:10:05 +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