Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install exclusion devices on fishing gear: Tortoises, terrapins, side-necked & softshell turtles Thirteen studies evaluated the effects of installing exclusion devices on fishing gear on tortoise, terrapin, side-necked & softshell turtle populations. Ten studies were in the USA, two were in Canada and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the USA found that fewer turtles died in hoop nets with an exclusion device than in unmodified traps. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One randomized, controlled trial in the USA found mixed effects of crab pot exclusion devices on use of pots by diamondback terrapins depending on the device design. OTHER (13 STUDIES) Unwanted catch (13 studies): Eight of 13 controlled studies (including seven replicated, paired studies) in the USA, Australia and Canada found that crab pots, fyke nets, hoop nets and eel traps with exclusion devices caught fewer turtles, diamond back terrapins and short-necked turtles than unmodified gear. Two studies also found that modified gear caught smaller short-necked turtles and diamondback terrapins than unmodified gear. Three studies found mixed effects of exclusion devices on unwanted catch of turtles and diamondback terrapins depending on the device design. The other two studies found that that crab pots with wire exclusion devices or magnetized exclusion devices caught a similar number of diamondback terrapins compared to unmodified pots. One study also found that crab pots with wire exclusion devices caught larger diamondback terrapins than pots with plastic exclusion devices. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3590https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3590Wed, 08 Dec 2021 16:11:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install exclusion devices on fishing gear: Snakes & lizards One study evaluated the effects of installing exclusion devices on fishing gear on snake and lizard populations. This study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch (1 study): One replicated study off the coast of Western Australia found that exclusion grids did not prevent sea snakes from entering trawl nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3599https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3599Wed, 08 Dec 2021 16:47:50 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install escape devices on fishing gear: Sea turtles One study evaluated the effects of installing escape devices on fishing gear on sea turtle populations. This study was in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch (1 Study): One randomized, paired, controlled study in the Gulf of Carpentaria found that trawl nets with escape devices caught a similar number of sea turtles compared to unmodified nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3601https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3601Wed, 08 Dec 2021 17:09:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install escape devices on fishing gear: Snakes & lizards Three studies evaluated the effects of installing escape devices on fishing gear on snake and lizard populations. All three studies were in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Unwanted catch (3 Studies): One of two paired, controlled studies (including one randomized and one replicated study) in the Gulf of Carpentaria found that trawl nets with escape devices caught a similar number of sea snakes compared to unmodified nets. The other study found that trawl nets with an escape device caught fewer sea snakes compared to unmodified nets. One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Gulf of Carpentaria found that the placement of escape devices trawl nets affected the number of sea snakes caught compared to unmodified nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3603https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3603Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:08:51 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install exclusion and escape devices on fishing gear Six studies evaluated the effects of installing exclusion and escape devices on fishing gear on reptile populations. Two studies each were off the coast of Australia, in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia) and in the Adriatic Sea. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): Two replicated studies (including one controlled study) in the Adriatic Sea found that one or two loggerhead turtles were able to escape from a trawl net with an exclusion and escape device. OTHER (5 STUDIES) Unwanted catch (5 studies): Four studies (including two replicated, paired, controlled studies) off the coast of Australia and in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia) found that that trawl nets with an exclusion and escape device caught fewer loggerhead turtles or sea turtles and sea snakes compared to unmodified nets. One replicated study in the Adriatic Sea found that no loggerhead turtles were caught by a trawl net with an exclusion and escape device. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3605https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3605Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:22:38 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use dyed bait Two studies evaluated the effects of using dyed bait on reptile populations. One study was in Costa Rica and one was in the North Pacific. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One randomized, paired, controlled study in Costa Rica found that loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley turtles showed mixed preferences for dyed compared to non-dyed bait in captive trials. OTHER (2 STUDIES) Unwanted catch (2 studies): Two paired studies (including one randomized, controlled study) in Costa Rica and the North Pacific found that hooks with dyed bait caught a similar number of olive ridley and green turtles and loggerhead turtles compared to hooks with non-dyed bait. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3611https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3611Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:46:51 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a different bait type: Sea turtles Nine studies evaluated the effects of using a different bait type on sea turtle populations. Three studies were in each of the Atlantic and Pacific, and one was in each of the Atlantic and north Pacific, the Gulf of Garbes (Tunisia) and Italy. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): Two studies (including one replicated, controlled study) off the coast of Hawaii and in the Southern Atlantic found that the percentage of loggerhead and leatherback turtles that survived being caught by fish-baited or squid-baited hooks or fish-baited circle hooks and squid-baited J-hooks was similar. Condition (1 study): One before-and-after study off the coast of Hawaii found that fish-baited circle hooks deeply hooked fewer leatherback and hard-shell turtles compared to squid-baited J-hooks. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One controlled study in Italy found that loggerhead turtles in a captive setting were less likely to bite at fish bait than squid bait. The study also found that smaller turtles were more likely to bite at mackerel bait and larger turtles at squid bait. OTHER (8 STUDIES) Unwanted catch (8 studies): Four of five studies (including one replicated, paired, controlled study) in the North Pacific, Eastern Pacific, Atlantic and Atlantic and North Pacific found that fish-baited hooks caught fewer sea turtles or were swallowed by fewer olive ridley turtles than squid baited hooks. One study also found that fish bait in combination with larger circle hooks lead to the highest percentage of external hookings. The other study found mixed effects of using fish or squid-baited hooks on the unwanted catch of hard-shell and leatherback turtles. One replicated, controlled study in the north-western Atlantic Ocean found that fish-baited J-hooks caught fewer sea turtles compared to squid-baited hooks. The study also found that unwanted catch was more similar for fish-baited and squid-baited circle hooks. One before-and-after study off the coast of Hawaii found that fish-baited circle hooks caught fewer loggerhead and leatherback turtles compared to compared to squid-baited J-hooks. One replicated study in the Gulf of Garbes found that hooks baited with stingray caught fewer loggerhead turtles compared to fish-baited hooks. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3612https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3612Thu, 09 Dec 2021 12:02:07 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Release accidentally caught (‘bycatch’) reptiles Three studies evaluated the effects on reptile populations of releasing accidentally caught reptiles. One study was in each of the Caribbean Sea, Costa Rica and the Republic of Korea. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One replicated study in the Caribbean Sea found that from a released group of green turtles that included some accidentally caught and some head-started individuals, some survived for at least several months in the wild. One replicated study in the Republic of Korea found that green turtles caught in pound nets all survived for at least two weeks to a year after release. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One controlled study off the Pacific coast of Costa Rica found that the behaviour of longline-caught sea turtles following release was broadly similar to free-swimming turtles. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3624https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3624Thu, 09 Dec 2021 13:37:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect habitat: Sea turtles Four studies evaluated the effects of protecting habitat on sea turtle populations. One study was in each of Costa Rica, the Seychelles, Belize and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One before-and-after study in Costa Rica found that after an area was protected, there were fewer nesting female leatherback turtles than before protection. One replicated, randomized, site comparison study off the coast of Belize found that in protected areas there were more hawksbill turtles than outside. One site comparison study in the USA found that differences in the abundance of green, loggerhead and hawksbill turtles in protected and unprotected areas were mixed. Reproductive success (2 studies): One before-and-after study in Costa Rica found that after an area was protected, more leatherback turtle hatchlings were produced than before protection. One before-and-after study in the Seychelles found that nesting activity by green turtles increased following both habitat and species protection. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3662https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3662Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:56:12 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate adult or juvenile reptiles: Sea turtles Two studies evaluated the effects of translocating sea turtles on their populations. One study was global and one was in Japan. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): One global review reported that zero of four sea turtle translocations were considered successful. Reproductive success (1 study): One global review reported that zero of four sea turtle translocations found that breeding occurred. Survival (1 study): One study in Japan found that at least two of five wild-caught hawksbill turtles survived at least six months following release. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One study in Japan found that at least two of five wild-caught hawksbill turtles returned to their point of capture after release. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3706https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3706Mon, 13 Dec 2021 10:47:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Rehabilitate and release injured or accidentally caught individuals: Sea turtles Four studies evaluated the effects of rehabilitating and releasing injured or accidentally caught sea turtles on their populations. Two studies were in the USA and one was in each of the Philippines and the western Mediterranean. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Survival (4 studies): One study in the Philippines and one controlled study in the western Mediterranean found that of 79 rehabilitated sea turtles two were found dead and two alive within 1–5 months of release, and six rehabilitated loggerhead turtles survived for at least five months following release. Two studies in the USA found that around one third of stranded sea turtles and 96% of sea turtles caught in fishing gear could be rehabilitated and released. One study also found that the chance of surviving the rehabilitation process varied with species. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the western Mediterranean found that six rehabilitated loggerhead turtles showed similar behaviour to wild caught turtles across 46 of 54 comparisons. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3740https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3740Tue, 14 Dec 2021 10:23:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Release captive-bred reptiles into the wild: Sea turtles Three studies evaluated the effects of releasing captive-bred sea turtles into the wild. Two studies were in the Gulf of Mexico and one was in the Caribbean. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Reproductive success (1 study): One replicated study in the Caribbean found that eight of over 30,000 captive-bred green turtles released into the wild (around 15,000 reared to one year or more in captivity) were observed nesting and two produced clutches of >100 eggs with hatching success of 63% and 88%. Survival (3 studies): Three replicated studies in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean reported that following releases of captive-bred Kemp's ridley turtles and green turtles into the wild, 120–606 of 22,000–30,000 turtles survived for 1–19 years after release. Condition (1 study): One replicated study in the Gulf of Mexico found that captive-bred Kemp's ridley turtles released into the wild grew by 19–59 cm over 1–9 years. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3768https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3768Tue, 14 Dec 2021 17:46:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Head-start wild-caught reptiles for release: Sea turtles Seven studies evaluated the effects of head-starting wild-caught sea turtles for release. Two studies were in the Caribbean Sea and one was in each of the Torres Strait, northern Australia, the Gulf of Mexico, Japan, the USA and Thailand. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Abundance (1 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that over the course of a 37-year head-start programme, the number of kemp’s ridley nests laid on the Texas coastline increased from near zero to 119. Reproductive success (2 studies): Two studies (including one replicated, before-and-after study) in Mexico and the USA found that all 11 head-started Kemp’s ridley turtles bred in the wild following release and head-started turtles that were allowed to crawl to the sea before recapture began laying nests on their beach of origin 10–12 years after release. Survival (4 studies): One of four studies (including two replicated and two controlled studies) in the Caribbean Sea, Torres Strait near Australia, Gulf of Mexico and Japan reported that all 11 head-started Kemp’s ridley turtles survived at least 11–19 years following release. Two of the studies reported that 1–16% of sea turtles were recaptured 10–27 month or 0.5–13 months following release. The other study found that four head-started hawksbill turtles survived at least 4–9 days, and one survived at least 10 months following release. Condition (1 study): One replicated study in Thailand found mixed effects of tank depth on growth rate, size and body condition of green turtles during a head-starting programme and no effect of feed type. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (1 study): One replicated study in the Caribbean Sea reported that one head-started green turtle travelled 2,300 km from its release location, whereas other recaptures were within 1–14 km of the release site. Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated study in the Caribbean Sea found mixed effects on swimming behaviour of released head-started loggerhead turtles at 1.5 years old compared to 2.5 years old. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3775https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3775Wed, 15 Dec 2021 12:21:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit the number of fishing days One study examined the effects of limiting the number of fishing days on marine fish populations. The study was in the Mediterranean Sea (Italy). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in the Mediterranean Sea reported that in the 10 years following a decrease in overall number of days fished by a bottom trawl fleet, there was a higher biomass of thornback and brown rays. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3804https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3804Thu, 26 May 2022 14:24:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit fishing activity by vessel size and/or engine power One study examined the effects of limiting fishing activity by vessel size and/or engine power on marine fish populations. The study was in the North Sea (Northern Europe).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in the North Sea found that after vessels with a higher engine power were excluded from an area for half of each year there was a higher abundance of commercially targeted fish, but no difference in the overall abundance of non-commercially targeted fish over five years. In addition, for all fish, abundance was higher for two of eight size-groups. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3809https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3809Thu, 26 May 2022 14:53:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prohibit certain gear types Two studies examined the effects of prohibiting certain gear types on marine fish populations. One study was in the Indian Ocean (Kenya) and one was in the Kattegat (Sweden/Denmark).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that in an area where all but one gear type was prohibited there was a higher fish density compared to areas where just one gear type was prohibited and to unrestricted areas. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Reduction of unwanted catch (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the Kattegat found that a combination of areas in which non-selective gear types were prohibited and long-term fishery closures reduced unwanted catch of cod compared to before. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3810https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3810Thu, 26 May 2022 14:57:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce an overall catch limit (quota cap or total allowable catch) by fishery or fleet Nine studies examined the effects of introducing overall catch limits by fishery or fleet on marine fish populations. Three studies were worldwide, two studies were in the South Atlantic Ocean (Namibia/South Africa), two studies were in the North Sea (Northern Europe), and one study was in each of the North Sea and Atlantic Ocean (Scotland) and the North Atlantic Ocean (Canada).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Four before-and-after studies (two replicated) in the South Atlantic Ocean, the North Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea reported that following the introduction of overall catch limits for fish there was a higher abundance or biomass of hakes, Atlantic herring and Atlantic halibut, compared to before. One replicated, controlled study of fish stocks worldwide found that overfished stocks of tunas and billfishes had faster increases of biomass when managed using overall catch limits, compared to stocks with other types of control or no management. Reproductive success (1 study): A global review reported that after overall catch limits and minimum landing size were introduced there was strong recruitment of broadbill swordfish for one key stock, while recruitment for four other stocks could not be assessed due to limited data. Survival (2 studies): One before-and-after study and one replicated, controlled study in the North Atlantic Ocean and worldwide found that for fish species with overall catch limits there was a decrease or lower fishing mortality, compared either to before implementation or to stocks without catch limits and those with other controls. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the North Sea and North Atlantic Ocean found that overall catch limits did not reduce unwanted megrim catch despite a reduction in discards, however this was due to retention of more small but legal-sized megrim, previously discarded. Reduction of fishing effort (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the North Sea found that when annual total allowable catch limits were changed (increased or decreased), half of the otter trawl fleet had corresponding changes in fishing effort (increased or decreased), but there were no changes for the beam trawl fleet. Stock status (1 study): One global systematic review found that in terms of reaching biomass-based management targets fisheries with fleet-wide catch quotas were no different to fisheries managed either by catch shares or effort controls. However, along with catch share fisheries, fewer catch quota stocks were over-exploited than those with effort controls. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3811https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3811Thu, 26 May 2022 15:07:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce catch shares Two studies examined the effects of introducing catch shares on marine fish populations. Both were reviews of fisheries worldwide.   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One of two worldwide systematic reviews found that fisheries or stocks managed under catch shares were more likely to meet management target levels for biomass sustainability than those that did not meet targets. The other study found there was no difference in performance of biomass-based management targets between fisheries under catch shares, fleet-wide catch caps or fishing effort controls. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 studies) Stock status (2 studies): Two worldwide systematic reviews found that catch share fisheries had lower rates of over-exploitation compared to non-catch share fisheries, and a higher proportion of fisheries managed under catch shares either met or exceeded management target levels for rates of exploitation than those that did not meet targets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3812https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3812Fri, 27 May 2022 08:20:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set catch shares by species One study examined the effects of setting catch shares by species on marine fish populations. The study was in the Pacific Ocean (Canada).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Reduction of unwanted catch (1 study): One before-and-after study in the Pacific Ocean found that after a species-specific catch share was set (Individual Vessel Bycatch Quota) unwanted halibut catch in a multi-species fishery was reduced, whereas it was higher under a previous catch share system (Individual Transferable Quota) based on all species in the catch. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3814https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3814Fri, 27 May 2022 08:31:55 +0100Collected 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 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prohibit high grading in which only the most profitable individuals or species are landed One study examined the effects of prohibiting high grading in which only the most profitable individuals or species are landed on marine fish populations. The study was in the North Sea/North Atlantic Ocean (UK).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Commercial catch abundance/landings (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the North Sea/North Atlantic Ocean reported that a ban on high grading did not eliminate the discarding of legal-sized but unwanted common megrim Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis that were required to be landed. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3823https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3823Fri, 27 May 2022 08:55:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use technology to communicate near real-time catch information to fishers to enable avoidance of unwanted catchicate near real-time catch information to fishers to enable avoidance of unwanted catch One study examined the effects of using technology to communicate near real-time catch information to fishers to enable avoidance of unwanted catch on marine fish populations. The study was in the North Pacific and North Atlantic Oceans.   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Reduction of unwanted catch (1 study): A review in the North Pacific and North Atlantic Oceans reported that where technology was used to provide near real-time catch information to fishers there were reductions of unwanted catch or discards in two of three cases. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3826https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3826Fri, 27 May 2022 09:38:00 +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