Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Clean birds following oil spills Three studies from South Africa and Australia found high survival of rehabilitated penguins and plovers or similar survival to un-oiled birds. However a large study from the USA and Canada found that rehabilitated common guillemots Uria aalge had significantly lower survival than untreated birds. Three studies from South Africa and Australia found that rehabilitated birds bred, with one finding that rehabilitated birds had similar breeding success to un-oiled birds. However, this study found that birds rehabilitated after a second spill were less likely to breed, whilst two other studies found that rehabilitated birds had lower success than un-oiled birds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F448https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F448Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:12:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Construct artificial reefs One controlled study in the Red Sea found no difference in sediment carbon at artificial reef sites adjacent to or away from fish farms. Another publication from the same controlled study reports that the artificial reefs at both sites were colonised with various species with the potential to remove organic compounds from fish farm effluents. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F934https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F934Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:01:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit shipping Three studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting shipping on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. All studies were in the North Sea (Belgium, Germany, Netherlands). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (1 study): One site comparison study in the North Sea found that areas closed to shipping developed different overall invertebrate community compositions compared to areas where shipping occurred. Overall species richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in the North Sea found that areas closed to shipping did not develop different overall invertebrate species richness and diversity compared to areas where shipping occurred. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (2 studies): Two site comparison studies (one before-and-after) in the North Sea found that areas closed to shipping had similar overall invertebrate abundance and biomass compared to areas where shipping occurred. Overall abundance (2 studies): Two site comparison studies (one before-and-after) in the North Sea found that areas closed to shipping had similar overall invertebrate abundance and biomass compared to areas where shipping occurred. OTHER (2 STUDIES) Overall community energy flow (1 study): One before-after, site comparison study in the North Sea found that after closing an area to shipping, invertebrate community energy flow did not change, but it increased in nearby areas where shipping occurred. Species energy flow (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the North Sea found that closing an area to shipping had mixed effects on species-level energy flow. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2086https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2086Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:54:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit all types of fishing Thirty studies examined the effects of prohibiting all types of fishing in marine protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Four studies were systematic reviews of marine reserves (New Zealand and across the world). Two studies were in the North Atlantic Ocean (Bahamas). Five were in the South Pacific Ocean (New Zealand, French Polynesia). Three were in the North Pacific Ocean (USA). Seven were in the Tasman Sea (New Zealand, Australia). One was in the Florida Keys (USA). One was in the Coral Sea (Australia). Three were in the Mediterranean Sea (Italy, Spain). One was in the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea (UK). Two were in the Firth of Clyde (UK). One was in the Foveaux Straight (New Zealand). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Overall community composition (3 studies): Three site comparison studies (one replicated and paired, one replicated, one paired) in the Mediterranean Sea, the Tasman Sea, and the Firth of Clyde found that marine protected areas that had been prohibiting all fishing for five to 16 years depending on the study, had similar combined algae, invertebrate and fish community composition, similar combined mollusc and echinoderm community composition, and similar overall community composition of large invertebrates but different composition of small sessile invertebrates, compared to fished areas. Overall species richness/diversity (5 studies): One global systematic review, and three site comparison studies (one replicated and paired, one replicated, one paired) in the Mediterranean Sea, the Tasman Sea, and the Firth of Clyde found that marine protected areas that had been prohibiting all fishing for five to 16 years depending on the study, had similar overall invertebrate species richness/diversity, similar combined algae, invertebrate and fish species richness, and similar combined mollusc and echinoderm species richness, compared to fished areas. One site comparison study in the Tasman Sea found inside a marine protected area prohibiting all mobile fishing that macroinvertebrate species richness remained stable over the 15 years after its designation and enforcement, but decreased at fished sites. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (4 studies): Two systematic reviews of marine protected areas across the world prohibiting all fishing found that they had greater overall invertebrate abundance and biomass compared to fished areas. Two site comparison studies (one before-and-after, one replicated) in the Tasman Sea found that inside marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing, overall invertebrate abundance did not change over the 15 years after their designation and enforcement and that it did not change in fished areas either, and that all areas had similar combined mollusc and echinoderm abundance after 16 years. Overall condition (1 study): One global systematic review found that in marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing, invertebrates were bigger compared to fished areas. Crustacean abundance (17 studies): Two reviews (one global and systematic, one of New Zealand areas) found that marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing had more lobsters compared to marine protected areas only partially prohibiting fishing and unrestricted fished areas. Eleven of 15 site comparison studies (including replicated, randomized, paired, before-and-after) in the North Atlantic Ocean, the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea, the Firth of Clyde, the Mediterranean Sea, the North Pacific Ocean, the Florida Keys, the South Pacific Ocean, the Tasman Sea, and the Coral Sea found that inside marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing, the abundances and/or biomasses of lobsters and mud crabs were higher compared to areas where seasonal or unrestricted fishing was allowed, after four to 33 years depending on the study. Four found that they had mixed effects on the abundances of lobster, and crab species, after one to seven years depending on the study. Two found that they had similar abundance of lobsters compared to fished areas after either five to seven years or after approximately 30 years. Crustacean reproductive success (4 studies): Two site comparison studies (one replicated, randomized) in the Florida Keys and the Firth of Clyde found that marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing and harvesting had similar population sex ratios of lobsters compared to where seasonal fishing or all fishing was allowed, after four to seven years depending on the study. Two replicated, site comparison studies (one randomized) in the Tasman Sea and the Mediterranean Sea found that marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing had greater lobster egg production potential compared to commercial fishing exclusion zones and fully fished areas, after either 15 years or 21 to 25 years. One site comparison study in the Firth of Clyde found that marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing had more female lobsters with eggs than fished areas, after four to seven years. Crustacean condition (8 studies): One review of studies in New Zealand, and five of seven site comparison studies (four replicated, one replicated and randomized) in the North Atlantic Ocean, the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea, the Firth of Clyde, the Florida Keys, the South Pacific Ocean, the Coral Sea, and the Tasman Sea, found that marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing had bigger lobsters and crabs compared to seasonally fished or fully fished areas, after four to seven years depending on the study. Three found mixed effects on lobsters and crabs depending on species, sex, and locations, after one to seven years depending on the study. Crustacean population structure (2 studies): Two replicated site comparison studies (one randomized) in the Tasman Sea and the Mediterranean Sea found that marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing had different population size structures of lobsters compared to commercial fishing exclusion zones (only for females) and compared to fished areas, after either 15 years or 21 to 25 years. Echinoderm abundance (3 studies): Two of three site comparison studies (two replicated, one paired) in the North Pacific Ocean, the South Pacific Ocean, and the North Pacific Ocean, found that marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing had similar abundance of Kina sea urchins after more than 10 years, and sea cucumbers after eight years to fished areas, and a third found higher abundance of red sea urchins after approximately 30 years. One also found that the effects on abundance of red sea urchins depended on the age of the protected area and the size of the urchins. Echinoderm condition (1 study): One paired, site comparison study in the South Pacific Ocean found that marine protected areas that had been prohibiting all fishing for over 10 years had heavier Kina sea urchins compared to fished areas. Mollusc abundance (10 studies): Four of 10 site comparison studies (including replicated before-and-after, and site comparison) in the North Atlantic Ocean, the North Pacific Ocean the South Pacific Ocean, the Tasman Sea, and the Foveaux Straight found that inside a marine reserve prohibiting all fishing, abundances/biomass of giant clams, adult queen conch, Cook’s turban snails, rock scallops and green abalone were higher compared to a fished area, after eight to 36 years depending on the study. Six found similar abundances of scallop species, pink abalone, juvenile queen conch, and top shell species, after five to 36 years depending on the study. Three found lower abundances of star limpets after 23 to 25 years and blacklip abalone after 15 to 16 years. One found that the effects of marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing on the abundance of mussel species compared to a commercial fishing exclusion zone varied with the age and location of the protected areas. Mollusc reproductive success (1 study): One site comparison study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that inside a marine protected area that had been prohibiting all fishing for 33 to 36 years, abundance of queen conch larvae was higher compared to an unprotected fished area. Mollusc condition (1 study): One site comparison study in the North Pacific Ocean found that in marine protected areas that had been prohibiting all fishing pink abalone were bigger five to 23 years after their designation, compared to fished site. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2224https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2224Tue, 22 Oct 2019 14:04:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit commercial fishing Three studies examined the effects of prohibiting commercial fishing in marine protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrates. Two studies were in the South Pacific Ocean (New Zealand), and one in the Caribbean Sea (Mexico). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Crustacean abundance (2 studies): Two replicated studies (one before-and-after, one site comparison) in the South Pacific Ocean found that after implementing a marine park prohibiting commercial fishing but allowing the recreational harvest of lobsters, lobster abundance inside the park did not increase over the 12 years after implementation, and abundance was similar inside the park and outside where fishing occurred. Crustacean condition (3 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in the South Pacific Ocean found that over the 12 years after implementing a marine park prohibiting commercial fishing but allowing the recreational harvest of lobsters, the biomass of legal-size lobsters inside the park did not increase. One of two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the South Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea found bigger lobsters in an area closed to commercial fishing for an unspecified amount of time compared to a fished area. The second study found that 10 years after implementing a marine park prohibiting commercial fishing but allowing the recreational harvest of lobsters, lobster size was similar inside the park and outside where fishing occurred. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Crustacean behaviour (1 study): One site comparison study in the Caribbean Sea found that 80% of the lobster population occurring in a protected area (year of designation unspecified) where commercial fishing was prohibited remained in the unfished area, and thus remained protected. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2225https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2225Tue, 22 Oct 2019 14:59:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit bottom trawling Three studies examined the effects of prohibiting bottom trawling in marine protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrates. Two studies were in the South Pacific Ocean (Australia) and one in the Coral Sea (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): One of two replicated, site comparison studies in the South Pacific Ocean found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling had different invertebrate community composition compared to trawled seamounts and to never-trawled seamounts after four to nine years. The second study found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling had different invertebrate community composition compared to shallow unprotected seamounts (heavily trawled) after two years, but not compared to deep unprotected seamounts (lightly trawled). Overall diversity/species richness (3 studies): One of two replicated, site comparison studies in the South Pacific Ocean found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling had similar invertebrate species richness and diversity to trawled seamounts and never-trawled seamounts after four to nine years. The second study found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling had more invertebrate species compared to shallow unprotected seamounts (heavily trawled) after two years, but not compared to deep unprotected seamounts (lightly trawled). One randomized, replicated, site comparison study in the Coral Sea found similar combined invertebrate and fish species richness in areas closed to trawling and adjacent fished areas, after seven to eight years. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (3 studies): One of two replicated, site comparison studies in the South Pacific Ocean found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling had lower invertebrate biomass compared to trawled seamounts and never-trawled seamounts after four to nine years. The second study found that seamounts within a protected area closed to trawling had higher invertebrate biomass compared to shallow unprotected seamounts (heavily trawled) after two years, but not compared to deep unprotected seamounts (lightly trawled). One randomized, replicated, site comparison study in the Coral Sea found similar invertebrate and fish biomass in areas closed to trawling and adjacent fished areas, after seven to eight years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2226https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2226Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:03:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and install physical barriers to prevent trawling One study examined the effects of installing physical barriers to prevent trawling in a protected area on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in the South China Sea (Hong Kong). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Worm community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the South China Sea found that sites in a protected area where physical barriers were installed to prevent trawling had a different community composition of nematode worms compared to nearby unprotected fished sites, after up to two years. Worm species richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the South China Sea found that sites in a protected area where physical barriers were installed to prevent trawling had similar diversity and species richness of nematode worms to nearby unprotected fished sites, after up to two years. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the South China Sea found that sites in a protected area where physical barriers were installed to prevent trawling had fewer small invertebrates compared to nearby unprotected fished sites, after up to two years. Worm abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the South China Sea found that sites in a protected area where physical barriers were installed to prevent trawling had fewer nematode worms compared to nearby unprotected fished sites, after up to two years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2227https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2227Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:05:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit dredging One study examined the effects of prohibiting dredging in marine protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the Firth of Lorn (UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall community composition (1 study): One paired, replicated, site comparison study in the Firth of Lorn found that sites inside a protected area that had been prohibiting dredging for approximately 2.5 years had different combined invertebrate and fish community composition compared to unprotected dredged sites. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One paired, replicated, site comparison study in the Firth of Lorn found that sites inside a protected area that had been prohibiting dredging for approximately 2.5 years typically had greater combined cover of bryozoans and hydroids (combined) compared to unprotected dredged sites. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2228https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2228Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:06:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit all towed (mobile) fishing gear Two studies examined the effects of prohibiting all towed gear in marine protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study was in the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea (UK), the other in the English Channel (UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall community composition (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the English Channel found that, over the three years after closing a marine protected area to all towed gears, the community composition of reef-indicative invertebrate species became different to that of unprotected fished sites. Overall diversity/species richness (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the English Channel found that, over the three years after closing a marine protected area to all towed gears, the number of reef-indicative invertebrate species remained similar to unprotected fished sites. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the English Channel found that, over the three years after closing a marine protected area to all towed gears, the abundance of reef-indicative invertebrate species became greater than at unprotected fished sites. Crustacean abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea found that a marine protected area closed to all towed gear (only allowing potting) for 33 to 36 years had mixed effects on the abundances of lobsters and crabs depending on species. Crustacean condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea found that a marine protected area closed to all towed gear (only allowing potting) for 33 to 36 years had mixed effects on the sizes of lobsters and crabs depending on species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2229https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2229Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:09:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and only allow hook and line fishing One study examined the effects of allowing only hook and line fishing in marine protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in the Skagerrak (Norway). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Crustacean abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the Skagerrak found that sites inside a protected area only allowing hook and line fishing had greater increases in lobster abundance over the four years after the area was designated compared to unprotected fully fished sites. Crustacean condition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the Skagerrak found that sites inside a protected area only allowing hook and line fishing had greater increases in lobster size over the four years after the area was designated compared to unprotected fully fished sites. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2233https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2233Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:41:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and introduce some fishing restrictions (types unspecified) Four studies examined the effects of introducing unspecified types of fishing restrictions in marine protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Two studies were in the Indian Ocean (Seychelles, South Africa), one was a global systematic review, and one was in the Mediterranean Sea (Italy). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): One of two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea found that a marine protected area with unspecified fishing restrictions (year of designation unspecified) had a different combined invertebrate and algae community composition, while the other (time since designation unspecified) found similar compositions compared to fished areas. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that a marine protected area with unspecified fishing restrictions had similar invertebrate abundance compared to unprotected fished areas (time since designation unspecified). Bryozoan abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that a marine protected area with unspecified fishing restrictions (year of designation unspecified) had similar abundance of bryozoans compared to fished areas. Crustacean abundance (1 study): One global systematic review found that marine protected areas with unspecified fishing restrictions had more lobsters compared to fished areas. Echinoderm abundance (2 studies): One of two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Indian Ocean found that marine protected areas with unspecified fishing restrictions had more sea cucumbers after more than 20 years but the other found fewer sea lilies (year of designation unspecified) compared to fished areas. Hydrozoan abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that a marine protected area with unspecified fishing restrictions (year of designation unspecified) had more hydrozoans compared to fished areas. Mollusc abundance (1 study): One global systematic review found that marine protected areas with unspecified fishing restrictions had more scallops compared to fished areas. Sponge abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that a marine protected area with unspecified fishing restrictions (year of designation unspecified) had more sponges compared to fished areas. Tunicate abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that a marine protected area closed to fishing with unspecified fishing restrictions (year of designation unspecified) had similar abundance of ascidians/sea squirts (tunicates) compared to fished areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2239https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2239Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:34:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit aquaculture activity One study examined the effects of prohibiting aquaculture activity in a protected area on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in Tapong Bay lagoon (Taiwan). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Crustacean abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in Tapong Bay lagoon found that two and a half years after removing oyster aquaculture in a marine protected area, the biomasses of amphipods and shrimps had decreased, and that the biomass of crabs had not changed. Mollusc abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in Tapong Bay lagoon found that two and a half years after removing oyster aquaculture in a marine protected area, the biomasses of gastropods and bivalves had decreased. Worm abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in Tapong Bay lagoon found that two and a half years after removing oyster aquaculture in a marine protected area, the biomass of polychaete worms had stayed the same. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2240https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2240Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:37:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create artificial reefs Twelve studies examined the effects of creating artificial reefs on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Three studies were in the Mediterranean Sea (Italy); three were in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA, Portugal, France); one in the Firth of Lorn (UK); two in the North Pacific Ocean (USA); one in the English Channel (UK), one in the Gulf of Mexico (USA); and one in the Yellow Sea (China). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Overall community composition (3 studies): Two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the English Channel and North Atlantic Ocean found that invertebrate communities growing on artificial reefs were different to that of natural reefs. One replicated study the North Pacific Ocean found that invertebrate community composition changed over time on an artificial reef. Overall richness/diversity (6 studies): Two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Mediterranean Sea and North Atlantic Ocean found that invertebrate species richness and/or diversity on the artificial reef or in the sediments inside and adjacent to the reef area were lower compared to on natural reefs or in nearby natural sediments. One replicated, site comparison study in the Gulf of Mexico found that artificial breakwaters had more species of nekton compared to adjacent mudflats. One site comparison study in English Channel recorded 263 taxa on the artificial reef, including at least nine not recorded on nearby natural reefs but excluding at least 39 recorded on natural reefs. One replicated study in the North Pacific Ocean found a 49% increase in species richness over five years on an artificial reef. One study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that artificial reefs hosted at least five species of large mobile invertebrates. Mollusc richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that mollusc species richness and diversity were lower on artificial reefs compared to natural reefs. Worm community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the North Pacific Ocean found that polychaete worm community composition was similar at one of two artificial reefs compared to a natural reef. Worm richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the North Pacific Ocean found that polychaete worm species richness and diversity were similar at one of two artificial reefs compared to a natural reef, but lower at the second artificial reef. POPULATION RESPONSE (12 STUDIES) Overall abundance (10 studies): One of two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Mediterranean Sea found that abundance of invertebrates in the sediment was lower at the reef sites than in nearby natural sediments, but increased in the sediments directly adjacent to the reefs, while the other study found that abundance was similar in the sediments inside and directly adjacent to the artificial reef area, but lower than in nearby natural sediments. Of five site comparison studies (four replicated) in the North Pacific Ocean, the North Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico and the Yellow Sea, one found that invertebrate biomass was higher on the artificial reef than in adjacent natural sediments, two that invertebrate abundance and biomass and nekton abundance were similar on artificial reefs and natural habitats (reef; mudflat), and two found mixed effects on abundances of invertebrates. One site comparison study in the English Channel reported that the abundances of some species were lower on the artificial reef compared to natural reefs. One replicated study in the North Pacific Ocean reported an 86% increase in invertebrate abundance growing on an artificial reef over five years. One study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that two of five species at one artificial reef, and three of seven at another, were recorded during >50% of dives. Overall condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Yellow Sea found mixed effects of creating an artificial reef on the sizes of mobile invertebrates. Mollusc abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that mollusc abundance was lower on artificial reefs compared to natural reefs. Crustacean abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison in the Firth of Lorn found that abundances of edible crabs and velvet swimming crabs were typically higher on artificial than natural reefs. OTHER (1 STUDY) Biological production (1 study): One site comparison study in North Atlantic Ocean found that secondary production was higher from invertebrates growing on an artificial reef than from invertebrates in adjacent natural sediments. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2258https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2258Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:26:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create artificial reefs of different 3-D structure and material used Eight studies examined the effects of creating artificial reefs of different typology on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study was in the English Channel (UK), three in the Mediterranean Sea (Israel, Italy), one in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA), one in the Firth of Lorn (UK), one in the North Pacific Ocean (USA), and one in the Gulf of Mexico (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Overall community composition (3 studies): One controlled study in the English Channel found that artificial reef modules made of scrap tyres developed a similar sessile invertebrate community composition as traditional artificial concrete modules. Two controlled studies (one replicated) in the Mediterranean Sea found that pyramids reefs made of “sea-friendly” concrete developed different invertebrate community compositions compared to reefs of either traditional concrete plinth-pole structures or bundles of traditional concrete tubes. Overall richness/diversity (5 studies): Four controlled studies (three replicated) in the Mediterranean Sea, the North Pacific Ocean, and the Gulf of Mexico found no differences in overall invertebrate richness/diversity or combined mobile invertebrate and fish richness between reef structure and/or material. One controlled study in the Mediterranean Sea found that invertebrate species richness was lower on “sea-friendly” pyramid reefs compared to bundle reefs of traditional concrete. POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Overall abundance (5 studies): Four controlled studies (three replicated) in the English Channel, the Mediterranean Sea, the North Pacific Ocean, and the Gulf of Mexico found no differences in overall invertebrate abundances or combined mobile invertebrate and fish abundance between reef structure and/or material. One controlled study in the Mediterranean Sea found that “sea-friendly” concrete pyramids had lower abundance compared to plinth-pole structures after two years, but higher after three. Crustacean abundance (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that artificial reefs made of limestone boulders, gravel concrete aggregate, or tyre-concrete aggregate had similar abundance of spiny lobsters. One replicated, controlled study in the Firth of Lorn found that the complexity of artificial reef modules had mixed effects on the abundance of edible crab and velvet swimming crab. Mollusc abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Gulf of Mexico found that breakwaters made of bags of oyster shells recruited more oysters and ribbed mussels compared to “ReefBall” breakwaters. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2259https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2259Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:39:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit the harvesting of scallops Three studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting the harvesting of scallops on their populations. One study was in the South Atlantic Ocean (Argentina), one in the English Channel (UK) and one in the Irish Sea (UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Scallop abundance (3 studies): Two of three site comparison studies (one replicated, one before-and-after) in the South Atlantic Ocean, the English Channel, and the Irish Sea found that in areas where scallop harvesting had stopped scallop abundance was similar, and one found that scallop biomass was higher, compared to harvested areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2277https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2277Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:53:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit mobile midwater (pelagic) fishing gears One study examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting fishing with towed (mobile) midwater fishing gears on marine fish populations. The study was in the Norwegian Sea (Norway). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Condition (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the Norwegian Sea found that in the five years after drift netting was prohibited in an area, the weights of young salmon returning to rivers were higher than before, and weights of older salmon were similar or lower. Abundance (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the Norwegian Sea found that in the five years after the use of drift nets was prohibited, there were more young salmon returning to rivers than before, and similar numbers of older multi-returning salmon. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2669https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2669Thu, 19 Nov 2020 16:06:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit spearfishing Five studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting spearfishing in an area on marine fish populations. Two studies were in the Mediterranean Sea (France, Corsica). One study was in each of the Tasman Sea (Australia) and the Indian Ocean (South Africa). One study was a review of marine reserves around the world. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): Two of three site comparison studies in the Mediterranean Sea, the Tasman Sea and the Indian Ocean found that prohibiting spearfishing, and line fishing, in protected areas increased the abundances of European seabass and gilthead seabream (years unknown) and of coral reef fish species, compared to protected and unprotected fished areas, after two to seven years. The other study found that fish densities differed between spearfished and non-spearfished areas after 10–12 years, and was affected by depth and/or fish size. A review of reef marine reserves around the world reported that two non-spearfished reserves in the northwestern Atlantic had more snappers and grunts after two years in one, and higher densities of reef fish, including snappers and grunts after 20 years in the other, compared to nearby fished reefs. Condition (3 studies): Two site comparison studies in the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean found that prohibiting spearfishing (and linefishing) in marine protected areas resulted in larger European seabass and coral reef fish species, compared to protected and unprotected fished areas, after two to seven years. A review of global reef marine reserves reported that reef fish were larger in one reserve in the northwestern Atlantic that had banned spearfishing for 20 years, compared to nearby fished reefs. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, site-comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that prohibiting spearfishing in specific zones of a marine reserve resulted in higher commercial and recreational fishery catches of targeted common dentex compared to zones that allowed spearfishing and areas outside the reserve after one to three years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2672https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2672Fri, 20 Nov 2020 09:32:23 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control human activity in a marine protected area with a zonation system of restrictions Eight studies examined the effects of controlling human activity in a marine protected area with a zonation system of restrictions on marine fish populations. Three studies were in the Indian Ocean (South Africa), two were in the Coral Sea (Australia), and one was in each of the Southern Atlantic Ocean (South Africa), the Ligurian Sea (Italy) and the Philippine Sea (Philippines). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in the Philippine Sea found a higher number of fish species in the no-fishing/no access zone of a multi-zoned marine protected area compared to two partially fished zones and unprotected fished areas 10 to 15 years after implementation. POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Condition (4 studies): Two of four site comparison studies in the southern Atlantic Ocean, Ligurian Sea, Indian Ocean and the Coral Sea found that controlling human activity in marine protected areas with a zonation system of restrictions resulted in larger average lengths of steentjies and three seabream species three years after implementation compared to unprotected fished areas, and lengths were largest within a no-take zone than a partially fished zone. Two other studies found larger sizes of four of four coral reef fish in a zone where nearly all fishing is prohibited compared to an adjacent zone with fewer fishing restrictions two to seven years after protection, and of two of six fish feeding groups in no-entry zones compared to both no-take and fished zones protected between 10 and 20 years. Abundance (6 studies): Two of four site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Ligurian Sea, Philippine Sea and the Coral Sea found that controlling human activity in protected areas with a zonation system of restrictions resulted in a greater biomass and/or abundance of fish species after 3–15 years compared to unprotected areas outside, and between the zones fish abundance varied with the level of restriction and between individual fish groups and sizes. The other two studies found higher density, biomass, and abundance of fish in non-fished zones (no-entry and no-take) compared to fished zones inside areas protected for 10 to 27 years depending on region, but the effect varied between fish feeding groups, zone protection level and reef region. One site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found higher abundances of four of four reef fish species in a zone where nearly all fishing is prohibited, compared to an adjacent zone with fewer fishing restrictions. One site comparison study in the Southern Atlantic Ocean found that steentjies in a protected zone closed to fishing but open to other recreational activities had a different age and sex structure to a fished multipurpose zone, and both were different to a distant unprotected fished site with low steentjie exploitation. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): Two site comparison studies in the Indian Ocean found that in marine protected areas with zonation systems of activity controls, most of the individuals of the reef fish species tagged and released inside the protected areas were recaptured again at almost the same locations over the following nine or four years, and mainly in the zones where all or nearly all fishing was prohibited for up to 20 years, indicating increased protection from fishing. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2674https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2674Fri, 20 Nov 2020 16:38:07 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deploy fishing gear at selected depths to avoid unwanted species Five studies examined the effect of deploying fishing gear at selected depths to avoid unwanted species on marine fish populations. Three studies were in the Atlantic Ocean (Florida, Brazil, Canary Islands), and one study was in each of the Pacific Ocean (Hawaii) and the Tasman Sea (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (5 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (5 studies): Four of five replicated studies (three controlled, one paired and controlled) in the Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean and the Tasman Sea found that deploying fishing gear (longlines, handlines and traps) at selected depths, including above the seabed instead of on it, reduced the unwanted catches of five of 17 fish species, three of eight shark/ray species, non-commercially targeted fish species and Harrison’s dogfish, compared to depths usually fished. The other study found that different shark species were hooked at different depths in the water column during bottom-set longlining deployments.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2683https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2683Mon, 30 Nov 2020 16:26:13 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deploy fishing gear at selected times (day/night) to avoid unwanted species Two studies examined the effect of deploying fishing gear at selected times on marine fish populations. Both studies were in the South Pacific Ocean (Lake Wooloweyah, Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies in the South Pacific Ocean found that trawling for prawns during the day reduced the overall catch of unwanted fish by number, but not weight, compared to usual night trawling, and the effect differed by species. The other study found that powered handlining in the day avoided catches of Harrison’s dogfish at shallower, but not deeper seamounts, compared to the night. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2684https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2684Mon, 30 Nov 2020 16:40:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change the towing speed of a trawl net One study examined the effect of changing the towing speed of a trawl net on catch of marine fish. The study was in the North Sea (Norway). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (1 study): One replicated, paired study in the North Sea found that changing the towing speed of a bottom trawl net did not increase the size selectivity of small cod and haddock. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2687https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2687Wed, 02 Dec 2020 10:42:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change the size of the main body of a trawl net One study examined the effects of changing the size of the main body of a trawl net to reduce unwanted catch on marine fish populations. The study was in the North Sea (Norway). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (1 study): One replicated study in the North Sea found that reducing the size of the main body of a trawl net did not improve the size-selection of cod and haddock. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2705https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2705Thu, 17 Dec 2020 12:05:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Decrease the circumference or diameter of the codend of a trawl net Thirteen studies examined the effects of decreasing the circumference or diameter of a trawl codend on marine fish populations. Four studies were in the Tasman Sea (Australia) and three studies were in the North Sea (UK, Norway). Two studies were in the Adriatic Sea (Italy) and two were in the Baltic Sea (Denmark/ Germany). One study and one review were in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean (Northern Europe). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (13 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (6 studies): Two of six replicated, controlled studies (three paired, and one randomized and paired) in the Tasman Sea, Adriatic Sea and Northeast Atlantic Ocean found that bottom trawl nets of smaller circumferences reduced discarded catch of fish in three of five cases and of total discarded catch (fish and invertebrates) in one of two areas, but not overall, compared to standard trawls. Two studies found that reduced circumference codends reduced non-target or discarded fish catch in three of 12 cases and for one of four species. The two other studies found that discarded fish catch was not reduced in smaller circumference codends. Improve size-selectivity of fishing gear (8 studies): Four of eight replicated, controlled studies (one paired) in the North Sea, Adriatic Sea and Baltic Sea, and one review in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean, found that decreasing the circumference or diameter of the codend of trawl gear (bottom trawls and seines) improved the size-selectivity of haddock, Atlantic cod, whiting and European hake and red mullet, compared to larger circumferences/diameters. One also found the effect was the same across two codend mesh sizes, and one also found the effect was greater in diamond mesh with the netting orientation turned by 90° compared to standard diamond mesh. Two studies found that a decrease in codend circumference/diameter improved size-selectivity of haddock and saithe in one of two cases, and of one of three fish species. The other study found that a smaller circumference codend reduced size-selectivity of the gear for one of three fish species and was similar for the other two. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2706https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2706Thu, 17 Dec 2020 14:51:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deploy fishing gear at different depths One study evaluated the effects on marine mammals of deploying fishing gear at different depths. The study was in the Arafura Sea (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Reduction in entanglements/unwanted catch (1 study): One controlled study in the Arafura Sea found that fishing nets deployed 4.5 m below the water surface had fewer entanglements of dolphins than surface nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2793https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2793Thu, 04 Feb 2021 16:33:47 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deploy fishing gear at different depths Three studies evaluated the effects of deploying fishing gear at different depths on reptile populations. One study was in each of Canada, off the coast of Mexico and the Atlantic. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired study in Canada found that no turtles died in floated nets, but some died in submerged nets. Condition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired study in Canada found that turtles caught in floated nets were less at risk of drowning than those caught in submerged nets. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Unwanted catch (3 studies): Two of three studies (including two replicated studies) in Canada, Mexico and the Atlantic found that bottom-set fishing nets with fewer buoys caught fewer sea turtles than standard nets or that fewer loggerhead turtles were caught when longline hooks were set below 22 m deep, but the number of leatherback turtles caught was unaffected by hook depth. The other study found that floated and submerged nets caught a similar number of turtle species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3547https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3547Wed, 08 Dec 2021 09:29:51 +0000