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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2694https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2694Wed, 02 Dec 2020 16:24:14 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify longline configuration Four studies examined the effects of modifying longline configuration on marine fish populations. One study was in each of the Norwegian Sea (Norway) and Atlantic Ocean (Brazil). Two were global reviews.  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One global review found that survival of unwanted sharks and rays at retrieval of longline gear was higher on nylon hook attachment lines instead of wire for two of three species and lower for one. One replicated, controlled study in the Atlantic Ocean found that survival of unwanted sharks caught on tuna longlines was reduced with nylon hook lines compared to wire. BEHAVIOUR RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (4 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (4 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies in the Norwegian Sea and Atlantic Ocean and one of two reviews of worldwide longline fisheries found that modifying longline configuration (increasing the lead weight on mid-water longlines to increase the sinking rate or using nylon instead of wire hook attachments) reduced the catches of unwanted sharks and/or rays compared to standard longlines. One review found that longline modifications reduced unwanted shark/ray catches in one of two cases. The other study found that modified longlines did not reduce catches of undersized haddock compared to standard longlines. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2699https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2699Wed, 09 Dec 2020 16:42:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify gillnet or entangling (trammel/tangle) net configuration Four studies examined the effects of modifying gillnet or entangling (trammel or tangle) net configuration on marine fish populations. One study was in each of the Gulf of Maine (USA), the Atlantic Ocean (USA) and the Adriatic Sea (Italy), and one study was in two estuaries in North Carolina (USA).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (4 STUDIES) Reduction in unwanted catch (4 studies): Three of four replicated studies (one controlled, two paired and controlled) in the Gulf of Maine, Atlantic Ocean, Adriatic Sea and estuaries in the USA, found that modifications to the configuration of gillnets, including reduced height, increased tension twine diameter and mesh size and orientation, reduced the unwanted catch of cod in one of two net designs, discarded fish of commercial and non-commercial species, and the discards of non-commercial, but not commercial species (fish and invertebrates), compared to conventional configurations. The other study found that gillnet modification did not typically reduce unwanted shark catches compared to unmodified gillnets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2701https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2701Fri, 11 Dec 2020 11:55:00 +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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2702https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2702Mon, 14 Dec 2020 10:32:58 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify the design or configuration of trawl doors Three studies examined the effects of modifying the design or configuration of trawl doors on marine fish populations. One study was in the Tasman Sea, one in the Clarence Estuary and one in Lake Wooloweyah (all in Australia).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Reduction in unwanted catch (3 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (one paired) in the Tasman Sea, the Clarence Estuary and Lake Wooloweyah found that modified or different designs of trawl doors caught similar amounts of unwanted fish overall, compared to conventional door types. However, one study found fewer of one of five individual unwanted fish species were caught with modified doors. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2707https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2707Mon, 28 Dec 2020 15:41:41 +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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2708https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2709https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2709Mon, 28 Dec 2020 15:58:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify the configuration of a mesh escape panel/window in a trawl net Ten studies examined the effects of modifying the configuration (position/size and increased mesh size) of a mesh escape panel/window in a trawl net on marine fish populations. Four studies were in the Baltic Sea (Sweden/Poland). Two studies were in each of the North Sea (UK), the Irish Sea (UK) and the Kattegat and Skagerrak (Northern Europe). One study was in the Atlantic Ocean (Portugal).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Baltic Sea found that modifying the position of a mesh escape panel in a trawl net had no effect on the survival rate of cod. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (9 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (5 studies): Three of five replicated, paired studies (one controlled) in the Irish Sea, Atlantic Ocean and Kattegat-Skagerrak found that modifying the position or mesh size of a mesh escape panel/window in a trawl net reduced the unwanted catches of whiting in one of two cases, haddock and whiting, and boarfish, but caught similar amounts of horse mackerel and blue whiting. The other studies found that catches of unwanted cod or other fish were not reduced. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (4 studies): Two of four replicated, controlled studies in the North Sea and Baltic Sea found that modifying the position and/or size of a mesh escape panel in a trawl net improved size-selectivity of haddock and whiting. One of these studies also found that increasing the mesh size of the panel had no effect on size-selectivity for haddock. The other two studies found that size-selectivity was similar for cod compared to standard trawls. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2717https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2717Tue, 05 Jan 2021 14:46:39 +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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2772https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2773https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2773Wed, 03 Feb 2021 11:25:34 +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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2810https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2811https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2812https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2910https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3804https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3805https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3806https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3807https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3808https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3809https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3811https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3812https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3816https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3817https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3817Fri, 27 May 2022 08:41:37 +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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3828https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3828Fri, 27 May 2022 09:42:22 +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