Install barriers at wild fisheries

How is the evidence assessed?

Study locations

Key messages

  • One study evaluated the effects on freshwater mammals of installing a barrier at a wild fishery. The study was in the Puntledge River (Canada).





  • Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): One randomized, controlled study in the Puntledge River found that installing a ‘cork line’ barrier did not deter harbour seals from feeding on salmon released from a hatchery.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A controlled study in 1996 at a site in the Puntledge River, British Columbia, Canada (Yurk & Trites 2000) found that installing a ‘cork line’ barrier did not reduce the number of harbour seals Phoca vitulina feeding on migrating juvenile salmon Oncorhynchus spp. under a bridge. Results are not based on assessments of statistical significance. Average numbers of seals feeding on juvenile salmon under the bridge were similar with a ‘cork line’ barrier installed (2–3 seals/30 minutes) and without (2 seals/30 minutes). Seals were observed ‘playing’ with the barrier. In April 1996, a ‘cork line’ (a 60-m rope with cork floats attached at 1 m intervals) was strung across a river below a bridge for an average of 3 h during each of two nights. Juvenile salmon were released from a hatchery. Two observers counted seals feeding on salmon using a red-filtered spotlight every 30 minutes from 2100–0300 h during each of two nights with the barrier and one randomly selected night without.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Berthinussen, A., Smith, R.K. and Sutherland, W.J. (2021) Marine and Freshwater Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions. Conservation Evidence Series Synopses. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Marine and Freshwater Mammal Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Marine and Freshwater Mammal Conservation
Marine and Freshwater Mammal Conservation

Marine and Freshwater Mammal Conservation - Published 2021

Marine and Freshwater Mammal Synopsis

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