Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit shellfish dredging One study examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting shellfish dredging on marine fish populations. The study was in the North Sea (Denmark). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the North Sea reported that 10 years after mussel dredging ceased in an area closed to all towed fishing gears there was no change in species richness of bottom-dwelling fish compared to before and to open areas. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the North Sea, reported that ceasing mussel dredging in an area closed to all towed gears had no effect on the abundance of bottom-dwelling fish after 10 years, and compared to open areas. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIESCollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2668https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2668Thu, 19 Nov 2020 15:42:05 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit mobile midwater (pelagic) fishing gears One study examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting fishing with towed (mobile) midwater fishing gears on marine fish populations. The study was in the Norwegian Sea (Norway). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Condition (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the Norwegian Sea found that in the five years after drift netting was prohibited in an area, the weights of young salmon returning to rivers were higher than before, and weights of older salmon were similar or lower. Abundance (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the Norwegian Sea found that in the five years after the use of drift nets was prohibited, there were more young salmon returning to rivers than before, and similar numbers of older multi-returning salmon. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2669https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2669Thu, 19 Nov 2020 16:06:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit all non-towed (static) fishing gear One study examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting all non-towed (static) fishing gears on marine fish populations. The study was in the Coral Sea (Australia).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Coral Sea found that in areas closed to non-towed fishing gears overall shark abundance was higher when sampled with longlines but not gillnets compared to areas where commercial gillnets were permitted. Condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Coral Sea found that in areas closed to non-towed fishing gears shark length was greater for two of five species/groups, similar for two and dependent on sampling gear for one species, compared to areas where commercial gillnets were permitted. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2670https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2670Thu, 19 Nov 2020 16:10:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit line fishing One study examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting line fishing in an area on marine fish populations. The study was in the Indian Ocean (South Africa). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)  Abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that prohibiting offshore line fishing and all other boat-based fishing in a zone of a marine protected area resulted in higher abundances of four of four fish species over-exploited by line fishing, compared to two zones where boat-based line and spear fishing was permitted. Condition (1 study): One site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that in a zone of a marine protected area closed to offshore line fishing and all other boat-based fishing for two to seven years, four of four fish species over-exploited by line fishing were larger, compared to two zones where boat-based line and spear fishing was permitted. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2671https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2671Thu, 19 Nov 2020 16:41:12 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit customary fishing (indigenous fishing for cultural and community needs) One study examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting customary fishing in an area, on marine fish populations. The study was in the Bismark Sea (Papua New Guinea). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the Bismark Sea found a higher abundance of only one of seven fish species in an area closed to customary fishing for eight years, compared to an area open to customary fishing. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One site comparison study in the Bismark Sea found that in an area closed to customary fishing for eight years, six of seven fish species had a lower flight response distance compared to an area open to customary fishing, making them more vulnerable to capture with spear guns. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2675https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2675Fri, 27 Nov 2020 15:46:26 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish territorial fishing use rights One study examined the effects of establishing territorial fishing use rights in an area on marine fish populations. The study was in the Pacific Ocean (Tonga). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Reduction of fishing effort (1 study): One study in the Pacific Ocean found that there was no decrease in overall fishing effort in an area with new territorial fishing use rights and a co-management system, in the five years after implementation. Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One study in the Pacific Ocean found that in an area with new territorial fishing use rights and a co-management system, total fish catch rates did not increase and catch rates of three of six individual fish groups decreased in the first five years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2677https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2677Fri, 27 Nov 2020 15:51:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Allow only small-scale, traditional (artisanal) fishing One study examined the effects of allowing only small-scale traditional (artisanal) fishing in an area on marine fish populations. The study was in the Adriatic Sea (Italy). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the Adriatic Sea found that a marine protected area zone allowing only artisanal fishing activity for three years had higher overall commercial catch rates of five of seven species compared to unprotected areas openly fished. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2678https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2678Fri, 27 Nov 2020 16:09:39 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Allow periodic fishing only One study examined the effects of allowing fishing only periodically in an area on marine fish populations. The study was in the Coral Sea (Vanuatu). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the Coral Sea found that protected areas fished only for short periods over an 18 month to six-year period, had greater biomass than openly fished areas and similar fish biomass as areas permanently closed to fishing for six years. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the Coral Sea found that protected areas only fished for short periods over an 18 month to six year period, had higher fish catch rates than openly fished areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2679https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2679Fri, 27 Nov 2020 16:20:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change the towing speed of a trawl net One study examined the effect of changing the towing speed of a trawl net on catch of marine fish. The study was in the North Sea (Norway).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (1 study): One replicated, paired study in the North Sea found that changing the towing speed of a bottom trawl net did not increase the size selectivity of small cod and haddock. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2687https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2687Wed, 02 Dec 2020 10:42:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use artificial light on fishing gear Two studies examined the effects of using artificial light on fishing gear on marine fish populations. One study was in the Pacific Ocean (USA) and one in the Barents Sea (Norway).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Pacific Ocean found that shrimp trawl nets with artificial lights caught fewer unwanted fish when they were fitted to the fishing line, but not to a size-sorting grid, compared to a conventional trawl. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Barents Sea found that size-selectivity of long rough dab, Atlantic cod, haddock and redfish was not improved by the presence of LED lights on a size-sorting grid. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2695https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2695Wed, 02 Dec 2020 17:04:07 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change the size of the main body of a trawl net One study examined the effects of changing the size of the main body of a trawl net to reduce unwanted catch on marine fish populations. The study was in the North Sea (Norway). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (1 study): One replicated study in the North Sea found that reducing the size of the main body of a trawl net did not improve the size-selection of cod and haddock. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2705https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2705Thu, 17 Dec 2020 12:05:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: 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: Use a separator trawl Two studies examined the effect of using a separator trawl on marine fish populations. One study was in the North Sea (UK) and the other in the Atlantic Ocean (Portugal).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (2 studies): One replicated, randomized study in the North Sea found that a separator trawl separated unwanted cod from target fish species into the lower codend, where a larger mesh size allowed more unwanted smaller cod to escape capture. One replicated study in the Atlantic Ocean found that a separator trawl fitted with a square-mesh escape panel caught less of one of two unwanted fish species in a crustacean fishery. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2711https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2711Tue, 29 Dec 2020 16:27:31 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use netting of contrasting colour in a trawl net One study examined the effect of using netting of contrasting colour in a trawl net on marine fish populations. The study was in the Baltic Sea (Denmark).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Reduction of unwanted catch (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Baltic Sea found that a trawl codend with contrasting black netting used in conjunction with a square mesh escape panel caught a similar amount of undersized cod as a conventional codend. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Baltic Sea found that two designs of contrasting netting colour in trawl codends with square mesh escape windows did not improve the size-selectivity of cod compared to conventional codend netting colour. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2718https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2718Tue, 05 Jan 2021 15:46:48 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit rigid (as opposed to mesh) escape panels/windows to a trawl net One study examined the effects of fitting rigid escape windows/panels to trawls for fish escape on marine fish populations. The study was in the Baltic Sea.  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Reduction of unwanted catch (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Baltic Sea found that fitting rigid escape windows in a section of trawl net reduced the catch of unwanted flatfish compared to a trawl net without escape windows. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2719https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2719Tue, 05 Jan 2021 15:50:35 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit mesh escape panels/windows to a trawl net and use square mesh instead of diamond mesh codend One study examined the effects of fitting mesh escape panels to a trawl net and using a square mesh instead of a diamond mesh codend on marine fish populations. The study was in the English Channel (UK).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Reduction of unwanted catch (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the English Channel found that using a trawl net with square mesh escape panels and a square mesh codend reduced the numbers of discarded finfish compared to a diamond mesh codend with no panels. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2724https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2724Thu, 21 Jan 2021 16:56:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use an alternative method to commercially harvest plankton One study examined the effect of using an alternative method to commercially harvest plankton on marine fish populations. The study was in the Norwegian Sea (Norway).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Reduction of unwanted catch (1 study): One controlled study in the Norwegian Sea found that the amount of unwanted fish larvae and eggs in fine-mesh catches of zooplankton were reduced after deployment of a bubble-plume harvester, compared to without deployment. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2731https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2731Thu, 28 Jan 2021 11:41:59 +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 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 +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