Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legislate to oblige fishers to retain and land all catch of species managed by quotas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of legislating to oblige fishers to retain and land all catch of quota 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%2F2694https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2694Wed, 02 Dec 2020 16:24:14 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify a bottom trawl to raise parts of the gear off the seabed during fishing Two studies examined the effects of modifying a bottom trawl to raise parts of the gear off the seabed during fishing on marine fish populations. One study was in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia) and one was in the Atlantic Ocean (USA).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (2 studies): Two replicated studies (one randomized and both controlled) in the Gulf of Carpentaria and the Atlantic Ocean found that bottom trawls with parts of the gear raised off the seabed caught fewer unwanted sharks, other elasmobranchs and fish and fewer of three of seven unwanted fish species compared to conventional trawls. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2708https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2708Mon, 28 Dec 2020 15:51:05 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify design or arrangement of tickler chains/chain mats in a bottom trawl Two studies examined the effects of modifying the design or arrangement of tickler chains in a bottom trawl on marine fish populations. One was in the North Sea (Netherlands/UK) and one was in the Atlantic Ocean (Scotland).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (2 studies): One of two replicated, paired, controlled studies in the North Sea and Atlantic Ocean found that removing the tickler chain from a trawl reduced catches of non-commercial target skates/rays and sharks, and individuals were larger, compared to trawling with the chain. The study also found that catches of commercial target species were typically unaffected. The other study found that two modified tickler chain arrangements did not reduce discarded fish catch compared to a standard arrangement. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2709https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2709Mon, 28 Dec 2020 15:58:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Issue high fines and penalties for non-compliance with fisheries regulations We found no studies that evaluated the effects of issuing high fines and penalties for non-compliance with fisheries regulations 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%2F2772https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2772Wed, 03 Feb 2021 11:19:38 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: License fish buyers We found no studies that evaluated the effects of licensing fish buyers 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%2F2773https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2773Wed, 03 Feb 2021 11:25:34 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Include fishers in management groups for marine protected areas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of including fishers in management fora for marine protected areas 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%2F2809https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2809Fri, 05 Feb 2021 10:00:36 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Involve fishers in designing and trialling new gear types to encourage uptake of more selective fishing gear We found no studies that evaluated the effects of involving fishers in designing and trialling new gear types 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%2F2810https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2810Fri, 05 Feb 2021 10:02:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce economic incentives to encourage sustainable fishing We found no studies that evaluated the effects of introducing economic incentives to encourage sustainable fishing 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%2F2811https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2811Fri, 05 Feb 2021 10:03:40 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Involve stakeholders in allocation of harvest rights We found no studies that evaluated the effects of involving stakeholders in the allocation of harvest rights 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%2F2812https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2812Fri, 05 Feb 2021 10:07:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Involve fishers and stakeholders in co-management Three studies examined the effect of involving fishers and stakeholders in co-management on marine fish populations. One study was in each of the Indian Ocean, the South China Sea (Vietnam) and the Pacific Ocean (Tonga).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study the Indian Ocean found that involving fishers and stakeholders in co-management increased overall fish abundance, but abundance varied between species groups, nine years after implementation compared to before. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduction of fishing effort (1 study): One before-and-after study in the Pacific Ocean found that in the five years after implementation of a new co-management system there was no decrease in overall fishing effort in the managed area. Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in the Pacific Ocean found no increase in total fish catch rates and a decrease in catch rates of half of the six species groups individually inside an area with a new co-management system after five years. Improved compliance/reduction of illegal fishing activity (1 study): One before-and-after study in the South China Sea reported that after co-management was established in an area there was a decrease in illegal fishing using destructive fishing gears. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2910https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2910Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:20:11 +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 beam trawl width We found no studies that evaluated the effects of limiting beam trawl width 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%2F3805https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3805Thu, 26 May 2022 14:36:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit dredge width or number of dredges per vessel We found no studies that evaluated the effects of limiting dredge width or number of dredges per vessel 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%2F3806https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3806Thu, 26 May 2022 14:40:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit the number of traps or pots per vessel We found no studies that evaluated the effects of limiting the number of traps or pots per vessel 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%2F3807https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3807Thu, 26 May 2022 14:42:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit the number or length of static fishing nets in an area We found no studies that evaluated the effects of limiting the number or length of static fishing nets in an 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%2F3808https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3808Thu, 26 May 2022 14:45:45 +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: 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: Introduce fishing permit/licence or charter schemes We found no studies that evaluated the effects of introducing fishing permit/licence or charter schemes 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%2F3816https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3816Fri, 27 May 2022 08:40:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit the number of fishing permits/licences to limit vessel or fisher numbers We found no studies that evaluated the effects of limiting the number of fishing licences or permits 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%2F3817https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3817Fri, 27 May 2022 08:41:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement vessel decommissioning schemes We found no studies that evaluated the effects of implementing vessel decommissioning schemes 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%2F3821https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3821Fri, 27 May 2022 08:48:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement multi-species management strategies We found no studies that evaluated the effects of implementing multi-species management strategies 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%2F3824https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3824Fri, 27 May 2022 09:02:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement multi-year or long-term management strategies One study examined the effects of implementing multi-year or long-term management strategies on marine fish populations. The study was worldwide.   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Stock status (1 study): One worldwide study found that commercial fisheries with multi-year or long-term management plans in place, among other management and governance strategies, had stocks that were more likely to be sustainable and less likely to be in decline compared to fisheries typically without long-term objectives. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3825https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3825Fri, 27 May 2022 09:04:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce gear exchange programs We found no studies that evaluated the effects of introducing gear exchange programmes 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%2F3828https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3828Fri, 27 May 2022 09:42:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce a pause when hauling dredge gear We found no studies that evaluated the effects of introducing a pause when hauling dredge gear 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%2F3829https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3829Fri, 27 May 2022 10:36:30 +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