Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish fallowing to reduce pollutionA trial in Tasmania found sediment community structure under Atlantic salmon cages became more similar to non- impacted sites over two fallowing cycles.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1027https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1027Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:45:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish no-mining zones in/near watersheds so as to preserve water levels and water quality We found no evidence for the effects of establishing no-mining zones in/near watersheds so as to preserve water levels and water quality on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1452https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1452Tue, 17 Oct 2017 12:55:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish temporary fisheries closures Six studies examined the effects of establishing temporary fisheries closures on subtidal benthic invertebrates. One study was in the English Channel (UK), one in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel (Australia), one in the North Pacific Ocean (USA), two in the Mozambique Channel (Madagascar), and one in the North Sea (UK).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall species richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the English Channel found that sites seasonally closed to towed-gear fishing did not have greater invertebrate species richness than sites where towed-fishing occurred year-round. Mollusc community composition (1 study): One replicated, before-and after study in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel found that temporarily reopening an area previously closed to all fishing for 12 years only to recreational fishing led to changes in scallop species community composition over four fishing seasons. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the English Channel found that sites seasonally closed to towed-gear fishing did not have a greater invertebrate biomass than sites where towed-fishing occurred year-round. Crustacean abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the North Sea found that reopening a site to fishing following a temporary 20-month closure led to lower total abundance but similar marketable abundance of European lobsters compared to a continuously-fished site after a month. Mollusc abundance (5 studies): One replicated, site comparison study English Channel found that sites seasonally closed to towed gear did not have higher abundance of great scallops than sites where towed-fishing occurred year-round. Two before-and after, site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Mozambique Channel found that temporarily closing an area to reef octopus fishing did not increase octopus abundance/biomass compared to before closure and to continuously fished areas. Two replicated, before-and after studies in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel and the North Pacific Ocean found that temporarily reopening an area previously closed to all fishing to recreational fishing only led to a decline in scallop abundance after four fishing seasons and in red abalone after three years. Mollusc condition (3 studies): One replicated, before-and after study in the North Pacific Ocean found that temporarily reopening an area previously closed to fishing led to a decline in the size of red abalone after three years. Two before-and after, site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Mozambique Channel found that temporarily closing an area to reef octopus fishing increased the weight of octopus compared to before closure and to continuously fished areas, but one also found that this effect did not last once fishing resumed. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2098https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2098Tue, 22 Oct 2019 08:34:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish territorial user rights for fisheries One study examined the effects of establishing territorial user rights for fisheries on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in the South Pacific Ocean (Chile).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Mollusc reproductive success (1 study): One site comparison study in South Pacific Ocean found that an area with territorial user rights for fisheries had larger-sized and more numerous egg capsules, and more larvae of the Chilean abalone up to 21 months after establishing fishing restrictions compared to an open-access area. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2104https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2104Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:32:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish pollution emergency plans We found no studies that evaluated the effects of establishing pollution emergency plans 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%2F2177https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2177Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:28:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish size limitations for the capture of recreational species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of establishing size limitations for the capture of recreational species 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%2F2274https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2274Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:49:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish wild flower areas on farmland Four studies evaluated the effects of establishing wild flower areas on farmland on small mammals. Two studies were in Switzerland, one in the UK and one in Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): Three of four site comparison studies (including three replicated studies), in Switzerland, the UK and Germany, found that sown wildflower areas contained more wood mice, small mammals and common hamsters compared to grass and clover set-aside, grasslands, crop and uncultivated margins, agricultural areas and crop fields. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2359https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2359Tue, 26 May 2020 14:55:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish long-term cover on erodible cropland One study evaluated the effects on mammals of establishing long-term cover on erodible cropland. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the USA, found that establishing long-term cover on erodible cropland did not increase the abundance of eastern cottontails. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2402https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2402Thu, 28 May 2020 11:16:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish riparian buffers We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of establishing riparian buffers. ‘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%2F2541https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2541Mon, 08 Jun 2020 17:51:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish populations isolated from disease One study evaluated the effects on mammals of establishing populations isolated from disease. The study was in sub-Saharan Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Condition (1 study): A site comparison study throughout sub-Saharan Africa found that fencing reduced prevalence of canine distemper but not of rabies, coronavirus or canine parvovirus in African wild dogs. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2588https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2588Wed, 10 Jun 2020 17:12:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish long-term fishery closures Five studies examined the effects of establishing long-term fishery closures in an area on marine fish populations. One study was in each of the Norwegian Sea (Norway), the North Sea (UK), the Gulf of Maine (USA), the Bismark Sea (Papua New Guinea) and the Kattegat (Sweden/Denmark). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Condition (2 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in the Norwegian Sea found that in the five years after the long-term closure of a commercial coastal fishery, the weights of young salmon returning to rivers were higher than before, and weights of older salmon were similar or lower. One site comparison study in the Gulf of Maine found that there were smaller, but similar condition monkfish inside an area closed year-round to groundfish fishing for six to seven years than an area open to all fishing. Abundance (4 studies): Two site comparison studies in the Gulf of Maine and Bismark Sea found a higher abundance of only one of seven fish species and lower abundance of monkfish in areas closed to groundfish (bottom-dwelling) fisheries for six to eight years, compared to open areas. One of two replicated, before-and-after studies (one controlled) in the Norwegian Sea and North Sea found that there were more young salmon and similar numbers of older salmon returning to rivers than before, in the five years after the long-term closure of a commercial coastal fishery. The other study found that lesser sandeel biomass and density peaked but there was no overall increase in the three years after a long-term fishery closure compared to before. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One site comparison study in the Bismark Sea found that in an area closed to customary fishing for eight years, six of seven fish species had a lower flight response distance compared to an area open to customary fishing, making them more vulnerable to capture with spear guns. OTHER (3 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the Kattegat found that a combination of long-term fishery closures and areas limited to specific gears reduced unwanted catch of cod compared to before. Reduction of fishing effort (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the North Sea found that long-term closure of a commercial fishery reduced overall fishing effort for lesser sandeel. Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the North Sea found that annual sandeel catch rates were varied after the indefinite closure of the commercial fishery in an area. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2655https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2655Thu, 12 Nov 2020 14:53:37 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish temporary fishery closures Five studies examined the effects of establishing temporary fishery closures on marine fish populations. Two studies were in the North Atlantic Ocean (Canada, UK) and one study was in each of the North Sea (UK), the Philippine Sea (Palau) and the Mediterranean Sea (Spain).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Atlantic Ocean found no increase in the biomass of the spawning stock of cod following a temporary fishery closure compared to fished areas over nine years. Survival (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Atlantic Ocean found no change in the survival of cod following a temporary fishery closure compared to fished areas over nine years. Condition (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Atlantic Ocean found no change in the length composition of cod following a temporary fishery closure, compared to fished areas over nine years. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A study in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean reported that over five years tagged adult cod spent nearly a third of time inside a seasonally closed cod spawning area during implementation, and were thus given increased protection from any gears targeting bottom-dwelling fish during the spawning period. OTHER (4 STUDIES) Reduction of fishing effort (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the North Sea found that fixed temporary closures had little effect on fishing effort for cod, but real-time area closures reduced the annual amount of cod caught (retained and discarded). Commercial catch abundance (3 studies): One of two replicated (one controlled, one before-and-after) studies in the Philippine Sea and Mediterranean Sea found that during a temporary closure of a grouper fishery, spear fisher catch numbers of other fish groups (herbivores) increased, indicating they were being targeted more compared to the open season. The other study found that in targeted fisheries over 10 years, catch rates of red mullet and total catch (fish and invertebrates combined), but not European hake, increased after temporary closures, compared to before. One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Atlantic Ocean found no change over nine years in cod catches following a temporary fishery closure compared to fished areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2664https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2664Wed, 18 Nov 2020 16:03:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish territorial fishing use rights One study examined the effects of establishing territorial fishing use rights in an area on marine fish populations. The study was in the Pacific Ocean (Tonga). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Reduction of fishing effort (1 study): One study in the Pacific Ocean found that there was no decrease in overall fishing effort in an area with new territorial fishing use rights and a co-management system, in the five years after implementation. Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One study in the Pacific Ocean found that in an area with new territorial fishing use rights and a co-management system, total fish catch rates did not increase and catch rates of three of six individual fish groups decreased in the first five years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2677https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2677Fri, 27 Nov 2020 15:51:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish handling and release protocols in non-recreational fisheries Two studies examined the effects of establishing handling and release protocols in non-recreational fisheries on marine fish populations. One study was in the Atlantic Ocean (West Africa) and one was in the South Pacific Ocean (Australia).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One study in the Atlantic Ocean reported that tracked whale sharks released from purse seines using an enhanced protocol survived for at least 21 days, and post-release movements appeared normal. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Behaviour change (2 studies): One study in the Pacific Ocean found that after release protocols (minimal handling and air exposure), reef fish returned more quickly to a reef or the seabed after release, compared to higher stress handling and longer air exposure. One study in the Atlantic Ocean reported that the post-release movements of tracked whale sharks released from purse seines using an enhanced protocol appeared normal. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2692https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2692Wed, 02 Dec 2020 15:51:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish open and transparent reporting of fishing effort data We found no studies that evaluated the effects of establishing open and transparent fishing effort data 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%2F2770https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2770Wed, 03 Feb 2021 10:37:50 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish handling and release protocols for mammals captured by fisheries One study evaluated the effects on marine mammals of establishing handling and release protocols for mammals captured by wild fisheries. The study was in the Great Australian Bight (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One before-and-after study in the Great Australian Bight found that introducing a code of conduct for releasing dolphins trapped in nets, along with avoiding dolphins during fishing, resulted in lower mortality of short-beaked common dolphins. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2829https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2829Fri, 05 Feb 2021 16:02:48 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish pollution emergency plans We found no studies that evaluated the effects of establishing emergency pollution plans 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%2F2862https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2862Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:24:01 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish riparian buffers to reduce the amount of pollutants reaching rivers and the sea We found no studies that evaluated the effects of establishing riparian buffers to reduce the amount of pollutants reaching rivers and the sea 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%2F2882https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2882Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:46:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish fishing gear registration programmes We found no studies that evaluated the effects of establishing fishing gear registration programmes 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%2F2890https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2890Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:52:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Excavate freshwater pools Seven studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation within pools or surrounding marshes/swamps, of excavating freshwater pools. Five studies were in the USA, one was in Guam and one was in Canada. Two of the studies in the USA were based on the same set of pools. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Relative abundance (2 studies): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in a freshwater marsh in Canada reported that a smaller proportion of individual plants around excavated pools were wetland-characteristic species, compared to the proportion around natural pools. The excavated pools were 1–3 years old. One replicated study in the USA reported that excavated pools became dominated by non-native plant species over eight years. Overall richness/diversity (3 studies): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in a freshwater marsh in Canada found that overall plant species richness and diversity were similar around excavated pools and natural pools, 1–3 years after excavation. Two studies involving freshwater marshes in Guam and the USA simply quantified plant species richness 12–18 months after excavation (along with other interventions). VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that excavated and natural pools had similar cover of emergent vegetation, seven years after excavation. The same was true for submerged vegetation. Characteristic plant abundance (2 studies): Two replicated studies in the USA reported the abundance of native pool-characteristic species over 3–8 years after excavating pools. One of the studies was also a site comparison and reported that these species were less abundant in the excavated pools than nearby natural pools. Shrub abundance (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that excavated and natural pools had similar cover of shrubby vegetation after seven years. One replicated study in the USA simply quantified shrub abundance over five years after excavating pools/potholes (along with other interventions). Algae/phytoplankton abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that excavated and natural pools contained a similar biomass of surface-coating algae and phytoplankton, after seven years. The same was true for phytoplankton after eight years. Individual species abundance (5 studies): Five studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species. For example, one replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that excavated and natural pools had similar cover of loosestrife Lythrum sp. seven years after excavation, but that excavated pools had greater cover of duckweed Lemna sp., cattails Typha spp. and common reed Phragmites australis. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3211https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3211Fri, 09 Apr 2021 08:47:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Excavate brackish/saline poolsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation within pools or surrounding marshes/swamps, of excavating brackish/saline pools.   ‘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%2F3212https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3212Fri, 09 Apr 2021 08:48:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish protocols to reduce collisions We found no studies that evaluated the effects of establishing protocols to reduce collisions on reptile 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%2F3533https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3533Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:56:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish temporary fishery closures Three studies evaluated the effects of establishing temporary fishery closures on reptile populations. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Brazil. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in Brazil found that areas where a fishing agreement was implemented that involved seasonal fishing restrictions along with a wider set of measures had more river turtles than areas that did not implement the agreement.  Survival (2 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that during seasonal closures of shrimp trawling there were fewer lethal strandings of loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley turtles. One study in the USA found that following the re-opening of a swordfish long-line fishery with turtle catch limits in place, loggerhead turtle bycatch reached the annual catch limit in two of three years, and when the limit was reached the fishery was closed for the rest of the year. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3545https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3545Tue, 07 Dec 2021 17:27:09 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish handling and release procedures for accidentally captured or entangled (‘bycatch’) reptiles One study evaluated the effects on reptiles of establishing handling and release procedures for accidentally captured or entangled reptiles. This study was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Condition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Canada in a captive setting found that recovery of painted turtles after a long period of being held underwater was similar when turtles recovered out of the water or in the water. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3621https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3621Thu, 09 Dec 2021 13:31:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish move-on rules for temporary, targeted fishing restrictions or closures when a catch or unwanted catch threshold is reached Two studies examined the effects of establishing move-on rules for temporary, targeted fishing restrictions or closures when a catch or unwanted catch threshold is reached on marine fish populations. One study was in the North Atlantic Ocean and North Sea (Scotland) and one was in the North Atlantic Ocean (Scotland).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in in the North Atlantic Ocean/North Sea found that after move-on rules were established when a catch threshold limit triggered temporary fishing closures there were lower overall cod discards. Reduction of fishing effort (2 studies): Two before-and-after studies (one replicated and controlled) in the North Atlantic Ocean and North Sea found that after move-on rules were established for vessels when a catch threshold limit was reached fishing effort for cod and blue ling was reduced. Commercial catch abundance (2 studies): Two before-and-after studies (one replicated and controlled) in the North Atlantic Ocean and North Sea found that after move-on rules were established for vessels when a catch threshold limit was reached commercial landings of cod and blue ling were reduced. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3815https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3815Fri, 27 May 2022 08:36:34 +0100
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue