Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict fishing activity (types unspecified) in a marine protected area Two studies examined the effects of restricting (unspecified) fishing activity in a marine protected area on marine fish populations. One study was global and the other was in the Indian Ocean (Tanzania).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One global review reported that of 11 studies showing effects of protection from restricting fishing activity in marine reserves, one found higher fish species richness inside reserves compared to non-protected fished areas. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (1 study): One site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that survival was higher for blackspot snapper inside a marine park with unspecified fishing restrictions and low fishing intensity compared to more intensively fished areas outside. Abundance (1 study): One global review reported that 10 of 11 studies showing effects of protection from restricting fishing activity in marine reserves found higher abundance of fish inside the areas compared to areas without fishing restrictions. Condition (2 studies): One site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that blackspot snapper inside a marine park with unspecified fishing restrictions and low fishing intensity were of larger average size, reached older ages, but did not have different growth rates compared to more intensively fished areas outside the park. One global review reported that five out of 11 studies showing effects of protection from restricting fishing activity in marine reserves found fish were larger inside reserves compared to non-protected areas without fishing restrictions. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2680https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2680Fri, 27 Nov 2020 16:25:54 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Selectively avoid unwanted fish based on temperature distribution We found no studies that evaluated the effects of selectively avoiding fish by their temperature distributions on marine fish populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2685https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2685Mon, 30 Nov 2020 16:56:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce duration of fishing gear deployments Four studies examined the effects of reducing the duration of time that fishing gear is deployed in the water on marine fish populations. Two studies were in the North Sea. One study was in the Atlantic Ocean (USA) and one was in both the Barents Sea and Atlantic Ocean (Norway/USA).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)  Survival (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in the North Sea found that survival of unwanted plaice and/or sole released after capture in beam or pulse trawls was higher after shorter duration trawl deployments, but that the opposite was true for plaice captured in otter trawls, over tow durations of between one and two hours.  BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES)  Reduction of unwanted catch (1 study): One of two replicated studies (one paired and controlled) in the Barents Sea/Atlantic Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean found that catch rates of unwanted sharks caught in longline gear decreased with decreasing time the gear was deployed in the water, over durations of up to 10 hours. The other study found that shorter tow durations caught similar amounts of small haddock, but more small cod, than longer durations, in bottom trawls fished for between five minutes and one hour. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Barents Sea/Atlantic Ocean found that varying bottom trawl fishing durations between five minutes and two hours had no effect on the size-selectivity of Atlantic cod, haddock or long rough dab. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2686https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2686Mon, 30 Nov 2020 17:00:02 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce the hauling speed of a trawl net We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reducing the hauling speed of a trawl net on marine fish populations.  ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2688https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2688Wed, 02 Dec 2020 10:47:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce the duration of exposure to air of captured fish before release Three studies examined the effect of reducing the duration of exposure of fish to air on marine fish populations. One study was in each of the Bay of Biscay (Spain), Gulf of Alaska (Canada) and Coral Sea (Australia).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (1 study): One replicated study in the Bay of Biscay found that reducing air exposure before release did not increase the survival of small-spotted catshark caught during commercial trawling. Condition (1 study): One replicated study in the Gulf of Alaska found that shorter durations of air exposure before release improved the physical condition and reduced the amount of injury to discarded chum salmon caught in purse seine nets.  BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One study in the Coral Sea found that minimal exposure to air and handling resulted in improved overall behaviour after release (activity and ability to return to reef) of reef fish, compared to fish exposed to air and handling for longer duration. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2690https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2690Wed, 02 Dec 2020 14:47:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Release protected or species of concern alive after capture Six studies examined the effects of releasing protected or species of concern alive after capture on marine fish populations. Two studies were in the Atlantic Ocean (USA and Canada), and one was in each of the Coral Sea (Australia), Tasman Sea (New Zealand), Cantabrian Sea (Spain) and the Pacific Ocean (USA).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Survival (6 studies): Four of six replicated studies in the Atlantic Ocean, Tasman Sea, Cantabrian Sea and the Pacific Ocean found that the majority (76–92%) of unwanted (discarded or protected) small-spotted catshark, thorny skate, pearl perch and Atlantic wolffish, but less than half of smooth skate, survived for at least 1 h–5 days after capture and/or release, and survival was reduced by hooking/capture depth injuries and longer tow durations. One study found that nearly all yelloweye rockfish survived for four days after capture and release, but canary rockfish survival decreased with increasing capture depth. The other study found that all spinetail devilrays brailed aboard from purse seine nets survived but not those brought aboard entangled in the net. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2691https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2691Wed, 02 Dec 2020 14:55:19 +0000Collected 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 the design or configuration of trawl gear (mixed measures) Nineteen studies examined the effects of modifying the design or configuration of trawl gear on marine fish populations. Seven studies were in the Clarence River estuary (Australia), three studies were in each of the Mediterranean Sea (Turkey) and North Sea (UK), two studies were in the North Pacific Ocean (USA), and one study was in each of the South Pacific Ocean, the Skagerrak and Baltic Sea (Denmark/Sweden), the Atlantic Ocean (USA) and the Coral Sea (Australia).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (19 STUDIES) Reduce unwanted catch (16 studies): Twelve of 16 replicated studies (seven paired and controlled, five controlled, and two paired) in the Clarence River estuary, South Pacific Ocean, North Pacific Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Skagerrak and Baltic Sea, Atlantic Ocean, North Sea and the Coral Sea, found that various modifications to trawl gear, including changes to the trawl wires, number of nets, codend number, footrope configuration, front trawl body panels, codend netting layers, spreading mechanism, method of weaving, knot orientation or using a new overall trawl design, resulted in reduced unwanted catches of non-target and/or discarded fish species or sizes, and of all sizes of four of seven commercial species, compared to standard unmodified trawl gear or other trawl designs. One of these also found increased catch rate of one commercial species and for another two species the effect varied with fish size. Two studies found that modified trawl gear reduced the unwanted catch of only a small proportion of the number of individual fish species caught compared to other trawl configurations, and also that unwanted fish catches varied between day/night. One study found that different trawl configurations had mixed effects on the numbers and sizes of non-target fish catch. The other study found no reduction in catches of discarded finfish between a modified and standard trawl codend. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (5 studies): Five replicated, controlled studies in the North Sea and Mediterranean Sea found that various modifications to trawl gear, including changes to the length of the extension piece, the codend strengthening bag, the method of weaving, the number of codend layers and overall design improved the size-selectivity for unwanted (non-target/discarded) fish species or sizes, and annular seabream in one of two cases, compared to unmodified standard trawl gear or other design configurations. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2704https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2704Thu, 17 Dec 2020 11:29:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Rotate the orientation of diamond mesh in a trawl net Six studies examined the effects of rotating the orientation of diamond mesh in a trawl net on marine fish populations. Three studies were in the Baltic Sea (Denmark), and one study was in each of the Kattegat and Skagerrak (northern Europe), the Aegean Sea (Turkey) and the North Sea (Belgium/UK).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (6 STUDIES) Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (6 studies): One review study in the Kattegat and Skagerrak and four of five replicated, controlled studies (one paired) in the Baltic Sea, Aegean Sea, and North Sea found that turning the orientation of diamond mesh in trawl codends by 90° resulted in better size selection of cod, red mullet and common pandora, and round-bodied fish species, but not of plaice, annular sea bream, and flatfish species, compared to standard orientation of diamond mesh in trawl codends. The other study found that turned mesh instead of standard diamond mesh trawl codends did not improve the size selectivity of cod, plaice and flounder. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2715https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2715Fri, 01 Jan 2021 16:13:18 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Release fish that are carrying eggs or live young We found no studies that evaluated the effects of releasing fish that are carrying eggs or live young on marine fish populations.  ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2733https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2733Tue, 02 Feb 2021 12:04:35 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Release males of species known to guard nests during breeding season We found no studies that evaluated the effects of releasing males that guard nests during the breeding season on marine fish populations.  ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2734https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2734Tue, 02 Feb 2021 12:09:39 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set a minimum landing size for commercially fished species Five studies examined the effects of setting a minimum landing size for commercially fished species on marine fish populations. One study was a global review and one study was in each of the Tasman Sea (Australia), the Baltic Sea (Northern Europe), the Ionian Sea (Greece) and the Northwest Atlantic Ocean (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Reproductive success (2 studies): One global review reported that one of five swordfish fisheries showed an increase in swordfish recruitment after the setting of recommended minimum landing sizes and catch limits, with recruitment in the other fisheries either highly variable or unable to be assessed. One replicated study in the Ionian Sea reported that, despite established minimum sizes, most fish landed in commercial catches were immature, and thus had never spawned. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (3 studies): One of three before-and-after studies (one replicated) in the Atlantic Ocean, Tasman Sea and Baltic Sea found that following an increase in the set minimum landing size and mesh size of gill nets the catches of the youngest southern flounder were reduced. The other two found that increasing the minimum landing size did not reduce the catches of discarded dusky flathead and Atlantic cod3, and discarding of flathead increased in one of three cases. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2735https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2735Tue, 02 Feb 2021 14:28:08 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set a maximum landing size for commercially fished species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of setting a maximum landing size for commercially fished species on marine fish populations.  ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2736https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2736Tue, 02 Feb 2021 14:40:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Specify a size range of capture for commercially fished species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of specifying a size range of commercially retained fish species on marine fish populations.  ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2737https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2737Tue, 02 Feb 2021 14:56:52 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Organise vessel monitoring systems We found no studies that evaluated the effects of organising monitoring systems on marine fish populations.  ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2739https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2739Tue, 02 Feb 2021 15:11:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Promote knowledge exchange between fishers to improve good practice We found no studies that evaluated the effects of promoting knowledge exchange between fishers to improve good practice on marine fish populations.  ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2814https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2814Fri, 05 Feb 2021 10:10:50 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect spawning fish from capture Four studies examined the effects of protecting spawning fish on marine fish populations. Two studies were in the North Atlantic Ocean (Canada, UK) and one study was in each of the Philippine Sea (Palau) and the Tasman Sea (Australia).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Atlantic Ocean found no increase in the biomass of the spawning stock of Atlantic cod in the nine years following implementation of a seasonal fishery closure to protect spawning cod, compared to fished areas. Survival (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Atlantic Ocean found no change in Atlantic cod survival in the nine years after a seasonal fishery closure to protect spawning cod was implemented, compared to fished areas. Condition (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Atlantic Ocean found no change in the length composition of Atlantic cod in the nine years following a seasonal fishery closure to protect spawning cod, compared to fished areas. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): One site comparison study and one study in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean and Tasman Sea reported that spawning and/or nursery areas closed seasonally or permanently to fishing were used by tagged adult Atlantic cod for nearly a third of time during spawning, and by school sharks less than one year old for up to 80% of time, but by school sharks between one and two years old for 18% of time, compared to areas outside. OTHER (2 STUDIES) Commercial catch abundance (2 studies): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Atlantic Ocean found no change over nine years in commercial catches of Atlantic cod following a seasonal fishery closure to protect spawning cod compared to fished areas. One replicated, controlled study in the Philippine Sea found that during seasonal closure of a grouper fishery to protect spawning individuals, the commercial catch numbers of other fish groups (herbivores) increased, indicating they were being targeted more by spear fishers compared to the open season. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2938https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2938Thu, 11 Feb 2021 16:13:52 +0000Collected 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: Set catch shares by area We found no studies that evaluated the effects of setting catch shares by area on marine fish populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3813https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3813Fri, 27 May 2022 08:29:31 +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: Purchase fishing permits from fishers to limit vessel or fisher numbers We found no studies that evaluated the effects of purchasing fishing permits from fishers to limit vessel or fisher numbers on marine fish populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3818https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3818Fri, 27 May 2022 08:43:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Purchase fishing vessels from fishers to limit vessel numbers We found no studies that evaluated the effects of purchasing fishing vessels from fishers to limit vessel numbers on marine fish populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3819https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3819Fri, 27 May 2022 08:45:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prohibit the catching and/or landing of specific fish species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of prohibiting catching and/or landing of specific species on marine fish populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3822https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3822Fri, 27 May 2022 08:51:56 +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 +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