Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a water cannon when setting longlines to reduce seabird bycatch We found no evidence for the effects on seabird bycatch rates of using water cannon when setting longlines. '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 actionCollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F287https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F287Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:27:42 +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 sonic scarer when setting longlines to reduce seabird bycatchA single study from the South Atlantic found that seabird bycatch rates did not appear to be lower on longlines set with a sonic scarer, and that changes in seabird behaviour due to the scarer were only temporary. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F295https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F295Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:59:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use acoustic alerts on gillnets to reduce seabird bycatchA repeated, randomised and controlled trial in the USA found that sonic alerts reduced the number of common guillemots Uria aalge but not rhinoceros auklets Cerorhinca monocerata caught in gillnets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F301https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F301Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:02:45 +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 smaller beam trawl One study examined the effects of using a smaller beam trawl on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the North Sea (Germany and Netherlands). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the North Sea found that a smaller beam trawl caused similar mortality of invertebrates in the trawl tracks compared to a larger beam trawl. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2127https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2127Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:23:07 +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 square mesh instead of a diamond mesh codend on trawl nets One study examined the effects of using a square mesh instead of a diamond mesh codend on trawl nets on unwanted catch of subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in the English Channel (UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the English Channel found that a trawl net with a square mesh codend caught less non-commercial unwanted invertebrates in one of two areas, and similar amounts in the other area, compared to a standard diamond mesh codend. OTHER (1 STUDY) Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the English Channel found that a trawl net with a square mesh codend caught similar amounts of commercially targeted fish species in two areas, and that in one of two areas it caught more commercially important shellfish, compared to a standard diamond mesh codend. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2136https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2136Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:56:11 +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 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 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 separator trawl Two studies examined the effect of using a separator trawl on marine fish populations. One study was in the North Sea (UK) and the other in the Atlantic Ocean (Portugal). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (2 studies): One replicated, randomized study in the North Sea found that a separator trawl separated unwanted cod from target fish species into the lower codend, where a larger mesh size allowed more unwanted smaller cod to escape capture. One replicated study in the Atlantic Ocean found that a separator trawl fitted with a square-mesh escape panel caught less of one of two unwanted fish species in a crustacean fishery. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2711https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2711Tue, 29 Dec 2020 16:27:31 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a topless (coverless) trawl Four studies examined the effect of using a topless or coverless trawl on marine fish populations. Two studies were in the North Sea (UK, Norway, Sweden), one study was in the Gulf of Maine (USA) and one study was in the North Sea, Skagerrak and the Baltic Sea (Northern Europe). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (4 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (4 studies): Two of four replicated, controlled studies (three paired) in the North Sea, Gulf of Maine, and North Sea, Skagerrak and Baltic Sea found that using a topless trawl, in one case in combination with another non-conventional trawl type, reduced the catch of unwanted Atlantic cod and discards of commercial fish species compared to conventional trawl types. One study found that topless trawls reduced unwanted catches of larger but not smaller haddock and larger Atlantic cod only in one of two cases, compared to standard trawl types. The other study found that discarded catches of one of four commercial fish species were reduced in topless trawls. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2712https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2712Tue, 29 Dec 2020 16:31:56 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a square mesh instead of a diamond mesh codend in a trawl net Twenty-six studies examined the effects of using a square mesh instead of a diamond mesh codend in a trawl net on marine fish populations. Five studies were in the North Atlantic Ocean (Canada, Portugal, USA), four were in the Aegean Sea (Greece, Turkey), three were in the Mediterranean Sea (Spain) and the Tasman Sea (Australia), two studies were in each of the English Channel (UK), the Adriatic Sea (Italy) and the South Pacific Ocean (Australia, Chile), and one study was in each of the Greenland Sea (Iceland), the North Pacific Ocean (USA), the Bristol Channel (UK), the Kattegat and the Skagerrak (Denmark) and the Coral Sea (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One of two replicated, paired, controlled studies in the Aegean Sea and Bristol Channel found that the short-term survival of two of six fish species was higher after escaping through a square mesh compared to a diamond mesh codend. The other study reported that skate caught in a square mesh codend had a higher overall survival likelihood than those caught in a diamond mesh codend. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (25 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (16 studies): Ten of 16 replicated, controlled studies (including five paired, three randomized and three randomized and paired) in the Greenland Sea, Aegean Sea, Atlantic Ocean, Tasman Sea, Pacific Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, English Channel, Bristol Channel and Coral Sea, found that square mesh codends reduced the unwanted (non-target or non-marketable/discarded) catches of all fish species monitored, young individuals of half or most commercially targeted fish, total unwanted catch (fish and invertebrates), and discarded fish in deeper but not shallower fishing areas, compared to diamond mesh codends; and two of those studies also found that there was a variable effect on unwanted catch between individual fish species/groups. Four studies found no reduction in catches of unwanted small rockfish and flatfish, three of four commercially important bottom fish species, total unwanted catch (fish and invertebrates), or the total number of unwanted species (fish and invertebrates), compared to diamond mesh codends. One study found that square mesh codends retained more fish overall than diamond mesh but varied for individual species by fish shape and size. One study found that unwanted fish catch depended on codend mesh size as well as configuration (square or diamond). Two of the studies, where square mesh codends had no or a varied effect, also found that size selectivity increased with increases in mesh size for both square and diamond mesh codends. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (14 studies): Six of 14 replicated, controlled studies (including three paired, one randomized and one randomized and paired) in the Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Adriatic Sea, Aegean Sea, English Channel, Pacific Ocean, Tasman Sea and the Kattegat and Skagerrak, found that using a square mesh codend in a trawl net (bottom and pelagic) improved size selectivity for silver hake, horse mackerel, European hake, axillary seabream, poor cod, greater forkbeard, blue whiting, discarded fish and three of four commercially targeted fish, compared to diamond mesh codends. Five studies found no difference in size selectivity between square and diamond mesh codends for Atlantic mackerel, long rough dab, yellowtail scad and striped seapike, rockfish and flatfish, and three of four commercially important bottom fish species. The other three studies found that the effect of square mesh instead of diamond mesh codends varied with fish body shape (round or flat), and for three of three and five of five roundfish species size selectivity was improved, but not for one flatfish. Two of the studies, where square mesh codends had either no or a varied effect, also found that size selectivity increased with increases in mesh size for both square and diamond mesh codends. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2714https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2714Fri, 01 Jan 2021 14:39:22 +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 smaller mesh size for fishing nets We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using a smaller mesh size for fishing nets 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%2F2802https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2802Thu, 04 Feb 2021 17:11:57 +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 acoustic decoys to divert mammals away from fishing gear One study evaluated the effects on marine mammals of using acoustic decoys to divert mammals away from fishing gear. The study was in the Gulf of Alaska (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One study in the Gulf of Alaska found that increasing the distance between an acoustic decoy device and fishing lines resulted in fewer sperm whales at the lines, but sperm whale presence and time of arrival did not differ. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2820https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2820Fri, 05 Feb 2021 15:15:05 +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 +0000