Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Dye baits to reduce seabird bycatchA randomised replicated and controlled study in Hawaii found that dying bait blue significantly reduced the number of attacks from albatross on baits being set.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F293https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F293Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:57:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use shark liver oil to reduce seabird bycatch Two replicated and controlled trials found reductions in the number of seabirds following boats, or diving for baits, when shark liver oil was dripped behind the boats. Other oils had no effect. A third replicated and controlled trial in found no differences in the number of seabirds following a bait-laying boat with shark liver oil.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F297https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F297Tue, 24 Jul 2012 17:16:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use acoustic alerts on gillnets to reduce seabird bycatchA repeated, randomised and controlled trial in the USA found that sonic alerts reduced the number of common guillemots Uria aalge but not rhinoceros auklets Cerorhinca monocerata caught in gillnets.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F301https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F301Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:02:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce ‘ghost fishing’ by lost/discarded gear We found no evidence for the effects on seabird bycatch rates or populations of reducing ghost fishing. '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%2F306https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F306Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:18:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit one or more mesh escape panels/windows to trawl nets Seven studies examined the effects of adding one or more mesh escape panels/windows to trawl nets on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Six were in the North Sea (Belgium, Netherlands, UK), two in the Thames estuary (UK), one in the English Channel (UK), and one in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Overall survival (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the English Channel and the North Sea found that fitting nets with either one of seven designs of square mesh escape panels (varying mesh size and twine type) led to higher survival rates of invertebrates that escaped the nets compared to unmodified nets. Unwanted catch overall abundance (7 studies): Three of seven replicated, paired, controlled studies in the North Sea, the Thames estuary, the English Channel and the Gulf of Carpentaria  found that trawl nets fitted with one or more mesh escape panels/windows/zones reduced the unwanted catch of invertebrates compared to unmodified nets. Two found mixed effects of fitting escape panels on the unwanted catch of invertebrates and fish depending on the panel design. Two found that trawl nets fitted with escape panels  caught similar amounts of unwanted invertebrates and fish compared to unmodified nets. OTHERS (7 STUDIES) Commercially targeted catch abundance (7 studies): Three of seven replicated, paired, controlled studies in the North Sea, the Thames estuary, the English Channel and the Gulf of Carpentaria, found that trawl nets fitted with one or more mesh escape panels/windows/zones caught similar amounts of all or most commercial species to unmodified nets. Three found mixed effects of fitting escape panels on the catch of all or most commercial species depending on the species and/or panel design. One found that trawl nets fitted with escape panels reduced the catch of commercial species compared to unmodified nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2132https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2132Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:33:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or frames to trawl nets Two studies examined the effects of fitting one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or frames to trawl nets on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The studies were in the Gulf of Carpentaria and Spencer Gulf (Australia).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): Two replicated, paired, controlled studies in the Gulf of Carpentaria and in Spencer Gulf found that nets fitted with a ‘downward’-oriented grid but not an ‘upward’-oriented grid reduced the weight of small unwanted catch and that both grid orientations caught fewer unwanted large sponges, and that nets fitted with two sizes of grids reduced the number and biomass of unwanted blue swimmer crabs and giant cuttlefish caught, compared to unmodified nets. OTHER (2 STUDIES) Commercial catch abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, paired, controlled studies in the Gulf of Carpentaria and Spencer Gulf found that nets fitted with a ‘downward’-oriented grid or a small grid reduced the catch of commercially targeted prawns, compared to unmodified nets, but those fitted with an ‘upward’-oriented grid or a large grid caught similar amounts to unmodified nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2133https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2133Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:46:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit one or more mesh escape panels/windows and one or more soft, rigid or semi-rigid grids or frames to trawl nets One study examined the effects on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations of fitting one or more mesh escape panels/windows and one or more soft, rigid or semi-rigid grids or frames to trawl nets . The study was in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in Gulf of Carpentaria found that trawl nets fitted with an escape window and a grid reduced the total weight of small unwanted catch and caught fewer unwanted large sponges, compared to unmodified nets. OTHER (1 STUDY) Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in Carpentaria found that trawl nets fitted with an escape window and a grid reduced the catch of commercially targeted prawns, compared to unmodified nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2134https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2134Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:52:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or frames to trawl nets and use square mesh instead of a diamond mesh at the codend One study examined the effects of fitting one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or frames to trawl nets and using a square mesh codend on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the Gulf of St Vincent (Australia).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in Gulf of St Vincent found that trawl nets fitted with a rigid U-shaped grid and a square-oriented mesh codend reduced the catch rates of three dominant groups of unwanted invertebrate catch species, compared to unmodified nets. OTHER (1 STUDY) Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Gulf of St Vincent found that trawl nets fitted with a rigid U-shaped grid and a square-oriented mesh codend reduced the catch rates of the commercially targeted western king prawn, due to reduced catch of less valuable smaller-sized prawns, compared to unmodified nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2137https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2137Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:57:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit one or more mesh escape panels/windows to trawl nets and use a square mesh instead of a diamond mesh codend One study examined the effects of fitting one or more mesh escape panels to trawl nets and using a square mesh instead of a diamond mesh codend on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in the English Channel (UK).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the English Channel found that trawl nets fitted with two large square mesh release panels and a square mesh codend caught fewer unwanted catch of non-commercial invertebrates compared to standard trawl nets. OTHER (1 STUDY) Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the English Channel found that trawl nets fitted with two large square mesh release panels and a square mesh codend caught fewer commercial shellfish, and fewer but more valuable commercially important fish, compared to standard trawl nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2138https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2138Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:59:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify the design/attachments of a shrimp/prawn W-trawl net One study examined the effects of modifying the design/attachments of a W-trawl net used in shrimp/prawn fisheries on unwanted catch of subtidal benthic invertebrate. The study was in Moreton Bay (Australia).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in Moreton Bay found that four designs of W-trawl nets used in shrimp/prawn fisheries caught less non-commercial unwanted catch of crustaceans compared to a traditional Florida Flyer trawl net. OTHERS (1 STUDY) Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in Moreton Bay found that four designs of W-trawl nets used in shrimp/prawn fisheries caught lower amounts of the commercially targeted prawn species compared to a traditional Florida Flyer trawl net. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2139https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2139Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:00:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a larger mesh size on trammel nets One study examined the effects of using a larger mesh size on trammel nets on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the North Atlantic Ocean (Portugal).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that using larger mesh sizes in the inner and/or outer panels of trammel nets did not affect the community composition of unwanted catch of non-commercial invertebrates (discard). POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that using larger mesh sizes in the inner and/or outer panels of trammel nets did not reduce the abundance of unwanted catch of non-commercial invertebrates (discard). Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2141https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2141Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:07:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify the position of traps Two studies examined the effects of modifying the position of traps on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study was in the Varangerfjord (Norway), the other in the North Atlantic Ocean (Spain).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch species richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the North Atlantic found that semi-floating traps caught fewer unwanted catch species compared to standard bottom traps. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Unwanted catch abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in the Varangerfjord and the North Atlantic found that floating or semi-floating traps caught fewer unwanted invertebrates compared to standard bottom traps. OTHER (2 STUDIES) Commercial catch abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in the Varangerfjord and the North Atlantic found that floating or semi-floating traps caught similar amounts (abundance and biomass) of commercially targeted species as standard bottom traps. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2144https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2144Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:14:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set catch limits or quotas for non-targeted commercial catch Two studies examined the effects of setting catch limits or quotas for non-targeted commercial fish species on marine fish populations. One review was in the North Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and one study was in the Pacific Ocean (Canada).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (2 studies): One review in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans found that setting catch limits or quotas for non-commercially targeted fish reduced unwanted catch in two of three cases. One before-and-after study in the Pacific Ocean found that catch limits for non-target commercial species reduced the amount of unwanted halibut, but a previous quota system based on the whole catch (individual transferrable quotas) did not. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2693https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2693Wed, 02 Dec 2020 16:15:52 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a different bait type Eleven studies examined the effects of using different bait on marine fish populations. Two studies were global systematic reviews. Three studies were in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA, Iceland).Two studies were in the South Pacific Ocean (New Zealand). One study was in each of the Norwegian/Barents Seas (Norway), the Barents Sea (Norway), the Denmark Strait (Greenland) and the Mediterranean Sea. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One replicated study in the South Pacific Ocean and one global systematic review found that using different bait species did not reduce hooking injuries (associated with higher post-release mortality) of undersized snapper or sharks and rays, and did not increase survival of sharks and rays on gear retrieval. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (10 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (10 studies): Six of eight replicated studies (three controlled and one randomized) in the Norwegian/Barents Seas, Barents Sea, Denmark Strait, North Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea and the South Pacific Ocean, found that using a different bait type (including size, species and manufacture method) reduced the unwanted catches of undersized haddock (although in one case in only two of six comparisons), Atlantic cod and other unwanted or non-target fish catch, but unwanted catches of torsk and ling were similar, compared to standard or other bait types. Two other studies found no reduction in unwanted catches of pelagic stingray and overall unwanted fish with different bait types. Two systematic global reviews found that using different bait types did not affect the number of unwanted sharks and rays caught. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (1 study): One replicated study in the Denmark Strait found that using a different bait species increased the size-selectivity of commercially targeted Greenland halibut. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2700https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2700Thu, 10 Dec 2020 14:26:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify fishing trap/pot configuration Twenty-three studies examined the effects of modifying fishing trap or pot configuration on marine fish populations. Five studies were in the Atlantic Ocean (USA, Brazil, Canary Islands, Canada). Three studies were in each of the Bothnian Sea (Sweden), the Baltic Sea (Poland, Sweden), the Tasman Sea (Australia) and the Indian Ocean (Kenya, South Africa). One study was in each of the Kattegat (Denmark), the Mediterranean Sea (Spain), the Adriatic Sea (Italy), the Southern Ocean (Australia), the Pacific Ocean (Canada) and the Barents Sea (Norway).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Bothnian Sea found that survival of small herring escaped from a pontoon fish trap through a size-sorting grid was similar to trap-caught herring that did not pass through a grid. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (22 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (20 studies): Sixteen of 20 replicated studies (11 controlled, one randomized, paired and controlled, one randomized and controlled, two paired and controlled and one randomized) and one before-and-after study in the Atlantic Ocean, Baltic Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Southern Ocean, Tasman Sea, Adriatic Sea, Bothnian Sea, Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean, the Kattegat and the Barents Sea, found that modifications to trap configuration (various, including using a different trap type, increased mesh size and fitting an escape device) reduced the unwanted (undersized, discarded or non-commercial target) catches of fish (overall, or all of multiple study species), brown trout, black sea bass, herring, bluethroat wrasse and leatherjacket, cod, protected rockfishes, whitefish, black sea bass, American eel and winter flounder, sharks/rays and of salmon and rainbow trout in one of two cases, compared to unmodified conventional traps or traps of other designs. One of these also found that the number of unwanted species (fish and invertebrates) was lower in modified traps. Three other studies, found that trap modification or type had no effect on unwanted catches of white croaker, non-commercial fish or undersized Atlantic cod, and non-target haddock catches were increased. However, one of these also reported that traps (creels) did not catch high proportions of immature fish, unlike bottom trawls. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (4 studies): Three of four replicated studies (two controlled and one randomized, paired and controlled) in the Baltic Sea, Tasman Sea, Indian Ocean and Atlantic Ocean found that traps or pots modified with a square mesh escape window or larger mesh sizes improved the size-selectivity of Atlantic cod, black sea bass and most fish species compared to smaller mesh and/or standard gear. The other found that increasing mesh size of a trap escape panel had no effect on size-selectivity of panga. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2702https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2702Mon, 14 Dec 2020 10:32:58 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit a size-sorting escape grid (rigid or flexible) to a prawn/shrimp trawl net Thirty studies examined the effects of fitting size-sorting escape grids to prawn/shrimp trawl nets on marine fish populations. Five studies were in the North Sea (Scotland/Norway, Belgium/Netherlands, UK, Scotland), four were in the Coral Sea (Australia) and two were in each of the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia), the Indian Ocean (Australia, Mozambique), the North Atlantic Ocean (Portugal, USA), the Pacific Ocean (Chile, USA), the Skagerrak and Kattegat (northern Europe) and the South Atlantic Ocean (Brazil). One study was in each of the Tasman Sea (Australia), the Greenland Sea (Svalbard), the Bay of Biscay (France), the Gulf of Maine (USA), the Gulf of Thailand (Vietnam), the Tyrrhenian Sea (Italy), the Gulf of St Vincent (Australia), the Persian Gulf (Iran) and the Northeast Atlantic Ocean (Norway). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (30 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (30 studies): Seven of seven replicated studies (including one controlled) in the northeast Atlantic Ocean, North Sea, North Atlantic Ocean, Greenland Sea, Gulf of Thailand, Tyrrhenian Sea and the Skagerrak and Kattegat found that fitting rigid or flexible size-sorting escape grids, of various types and configurations, to prawn/shrimp trawl nets reduced unwanted fish catches (non-commercial species and discarded commercial species/sizes) by allowing the escape of unwanted sharks and the other fish species monitored. Two of two before-and-after studies in the Gulf of Maine and Pacific Ocean found that after the introduction of size-sorting escape grids to trawl nets in fisheries for shrimp, the capture of non-target and unwanted fish was reduced compared to before grids were used. Eleven of 20 replicated studies (including one controlled and 19 paired and controlled) in the Tasman Sea, Coral Sea, Gulf of Carpentaria, North Sea, Indian Ocean, Bay of Biscay, Skagerrak and Kattegat, Pacific Ocean, South Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of St Vincent and Persian Gulf found that prawn/shrimp trawls with size-sorting escape grids, of various types and configurations, had lower catches of all or all but one undersized or otherwise unwanted fish and shark/ray species monitored, and unwanted total catch (fish and invertebrates), compared to trawl nets without escape grids. Two found that escape grids reduced non-target catches of most sizes of whiting and plaice and larger sizes of total fish, but increased the retention of small cod and haddock. Three studies found a variable effect of fitting escape grids to shrimp/prawn trawl nets on unwanted fish catch compared to nets with no grids, and the effect varied with year, site and grid type. Three found that grids had no effect on the reduction of unwanted fish and catches were similar for all or most of the unwanted non-commercial and commercial fish species/groups and for the total unwanted catch (fish and invertebrates). The other study found that fewer unwanted fish of 10 of 11 species/groups were retained in a shrimp/prawn trawl net with an escape grid used in combination with a diamond mesh codend with the mesh orientation turned by 90°, compared to a conventional diamond mesh net with no grid. One replicated, randomized study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that the reduction in catch of unwanted sharks depended on the type of escape grid and shrimp/prawn trawl net used. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2721https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2721Mon, 18 Jan 2021 16:42:48 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit large, supported escape openings (such as Fisheyes, Bigeyes and radial escape sections) to trawl nets Eight studies examined the effects of fitting large, supported escape openings (such as Fisheyes, Bigeyes and radial escape sections) to trawl nets on marine fish populations. Three studies were in the northwest Atlantic Ocean (USA) and three were in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia). One study was in the north Pacific Ocean (USA) and one was in the Coral Sea (Australia).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (8 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (8 studies): Six of seven replicated studies (five paired and controlled, and one randomized, paired and controlled) in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Carpentaria, Pacific Ocean and the Coral Sea found that fitting large, supported escape openings (various designs including Fisheyes, Bigeyes and radial escape sections) to trawl nets reduced the overall catches of unwanted fish, immature red snapper and total unwanted catch (fish and invertebrates combined) compared to standard nets. The other study found that there were fewer unwanted Chinook salmon in catches with two of two designs of escape openings, but only one of the designs caught fewer widow rockfish. One replicated, paired and controlled study in the Gulf of Carpentaria found that trawl nets fitted with either large escape openings or a square mesh escape panel reduced unwanted shark catch but not unwanted ray or sawfish catches, compared to standard nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2723https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2723Wed, 20 Jan 2021 16:58:00 +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: 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 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set unwanted catch quotas One study evaluated the effects of setting unwanted catch quotas on reptile populations. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): 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%2F3549https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3549Wed, 08 Dec 2021 12:07:09 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce duration of time fishing gear is in the water Two studies evaluated the effects on reptile populations of reducing the duration of time fishing gear is in the water. One study was in the Gulf of Gabès (Tunisia) and one was in the Atlantic and North Pacific. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One randomized study in the Gulf of Gabès found that retrieving longlines immediately resulted in fewer loggerhead turtles dying compared to when line retrieval was delayed. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Unwanted catch (2 studies): One randomized study in the Gulf of Gabès and one replicated study in the Atlantic and North Pacific found that the amount of time that longlines were in the water for did not affect the number of loggerhead turtles or leatherback and loggerhead turtles caught. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3552https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3552Wed, 08 Dec 2021 12:18:02 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add lights to fishing gear Five studies evaluated the effects of adding lights to fishing gear on reptile populations. Two studies were in the Baja California peninsula (Mexico) and one was in each of Sechura Bay (Peru), the Atlantic and North Pacific and the Adriatic Sea. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One randomized, controlled, paired study in the Adriatic Sea found that no loggerhead turtles were caught and died in in gillnets with UV lights whereas some did in nets without lights. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (5 STUDIES) Unwanted catch (5 studies): Four controlled studies (including three replicated and two paired studies) in the Baja California peninsula, Sechura Bay and the Adriatic Sea found that gillnets with LED lights, light sticks or UV lights caught fewer green turtles and loggerhead turtles than nets without lights. One replicated study in the Atlantic and North Pacific found mixed effects of increasing the number of light sticks on longlines on the chance of catching loggerhead and leatherback turtles. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3554https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3554Wed, 08 Dec 2021 13:59:36 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Promote knowledge exchange between fishers to improve good practice One study evaluated the effects on reptile populations of promoting knowledge exchange between fishers to improve good practice. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One before-and-after study in the USA found that following the introduction of a tool to help facilitate knowledge exchange and the avoidance of loggerhead turtles, loggerhead turtle bycatch was similar compared to the two years before the tool was introduced. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human behaviour change (1 study): One before-and-after study in the USA found that following the introduction of a tool to help facilitate avoidance of loggerhead turtles, fishers did not spend less time fishing in the areas recommended for avoidance by the tool.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3558https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3558Wed, 08 Dec 2021 14:13:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use circle hooks instead of J-hooks Eleven studies evaluated the effects of using circle hooks instead of J-hooks on reptile populations. Five studies were in the Atlantic, three were in the Pacific and one study was in each of the Mediterranean, the Atlantic and North Pacific and the western North Atlantic, Azores, Gulf of Mexico and Ecuador. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Survival (3 studies): Two studies (including one replicated, controlled, paired study) off the coast of Hawaii and in the north-east Atlantic Ocean found that survival of loggerhead and leatherback turtles and leatherback and hard-shell sea turtles caught by circle hooks or J-hooks was similar. One review of studies in five pelagic longline fisheries found that fewer sea turtles died when circle hooks were used compared to J-hooks in four of five fisheries. Condition (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in the Mediterranean Sea and south-western Atlantic Ocean found that fewer immature loggerhead turtles and loggerhead turtles swallowed circle hooks compared to J-hooks. One before-and-after study off the coast of Hawaii found that a lower percentage of loggerhead and leatherback turtles were deeply hooked by circle hooks compared to J-hooks. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (11 STUDIES) Unwanted catch (11 studies): Seven of 10 studies (including six replicated, controlled studies) in the Pacific, Atlantic, Atlantic and North Pacific and Mediterranean and one review of studies in five pelagic longline fisheries found that circle hooks or circle hooks and tuna hooks caught fewer sea turtles than J-hooks, or that non-offset G-style circle hooks caught fewer leatherback and hard-shell sea turtles that offset J-Hooks. One of these studies also found that circle hooks caught slightly larger loggerhead turtles than J-hooks, and one also found that offset Gt-style circle hooks caught a similar number of leatherback and hard-shell sea turtles compared to offset J-hooks. One study found that circle hooks caught a similar number of leatherback, green and olive ridley turtles compared to J-hooks. One study found that fish-baited circle hooks caught fewer loggerhead and leatherback turtles than squid-baited J-hooks. The review found mixed effects of using circle hooks compared to J-hooks on unwanted catch of sea turtles depending on the fishery. The other study found mixed effects of using circle hooks or J-hooks in combination with squid or fish bait on the number of loggerhead and leatherback turtles that were caught. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3559https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3559Wed, 08 Dec 2021 14:21:43 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify number of hooks between floats on longlines One study evaluated the effects of modifying the number of hooks between floats on longlines on reptile populations. This study was in the Atlantic and North Pacific. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch (1 study): One replicated study in the Atlantic and North Pacific found that having fewer hooks between floats did not reduce turtle by-catch in the Pacific but had mixed effects in the Atlantic depending on the species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3580https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3580Wed, 08 Dec 2021 15:25:39 +0000
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

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

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

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

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

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

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

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

This website uses Cookies

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

Accept & continue