Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a different technique when laying and burying cables and pipelines We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using a different technique when laying and burying cables and pipelines on subtidal benthic invertebrate 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%2F2083https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2083Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:49:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a different type of anchor We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using a different type of anchor on subtidal benthic invertebrate 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%2F2090https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2090Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:19:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set unwanted catch quotas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of setting unwanted catch quotas on subtidal benthic invertebrate 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%2F2116https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2116Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:47:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a midwater/semi-pelagic trawl instead of bottom/demersal trawl One study examined the effects of using a semi-pelagic trawl instead of a demersal trawl on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the Indian Ocean (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, study in the Indian Ocean found that fishing with a semi-pelagic trawl did not reduce the abundance of large sessile invertebrates, which was similar to non-trawled plots, but a demersal trawl did. OTHER (1 STUDY) Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, study in the Indian Ocean found that fishing with a semi-pelagic trawl reduced the abundance of retained commercially targeted fish compared to fishing with a demersal trawl. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2118https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2118Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:49:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a pulse trawl instead of a beam trawl One study examined the effects of using a pulse trawl instead of a beam trawl on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the North Sea (Netherlands). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, study in the North Sea found that pulse trawls caught less unwanted invertebrate catch compared to traditional beam trawls, but the effects varied with species. OTHER (1 STUDY) Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, study in the North Sea found that pulse trawls reduced the volume of commercial catch by 19% compared to beam trawls. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2126https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2126Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:22:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a smaller beam trawl One study examined the effects of using a smaller beam trawl on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the North Sea (Germany and Netherlands). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the North Sea found that a smaller beam trawl caused similar mortality of invertebrates in the trawl tracks compared to a larger beam trawl. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2127https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2127Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:23:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a larger codend mesh size on trawl nets One study examined the effects of using a larger codend mesh size on trawl nets on unwanted catch of subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in the Gulf of Mexico (Mexico). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch species richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Gulf of Mexico found that trawl nets fitted with a larger mesh codend caught fewer combined species of non-commercial unwanted invertebrates and fish compared to a traditional codend. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Gulf of Mexico found that trawl nets fitted with a larger mesh codend caught lower combined biomass and abundance of non-commercial unwanted invertebrates and fish compared to a traditional codend. OTHER (1 STUDY) Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Gulf of Mexico found that trawl nets fitted with a larger mesh codend caught less biomass and abundance of commercially targeted shrimps compared to a traditional codend, but that the biomass ratios of commercially targeted to discard species was similar for both. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2135https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2135Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:53:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a square mesh instead of a diamond mesh codend on trawl nets One study examined the effects of using a square mesh instead of a diamond mesh codend on trawl nets on unwanted catch of subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in the English Channel (UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the English Channel found that a trawl net with a square mesh codend caught less non-commercial unwanted invertebrates in one of two areas, and similar amounts in the other area, compared to a standard diamond mesh codend. OTHER (1 STUDY) Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the English Channel found that a trawl net with a square mesh codend caught similar amounts of commercially targeted fish species in two areas, and that in one of two areas it caught more commercially important shellfish, compared to a standard diamond mesh codend. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2136https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2136Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:56:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a larger mesh size on trammel nets One study examined the effects of using a larger mesh size on trammel nets on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the North Atlantic Ocean (Portugal). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that using larger mesh sizes in the inner and/or outer panels of trammel nets did not affect the community composition of unwanted catch of non-commercial invertebrates (discard). POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that using larger mesh sizes in the inner and/or outer panels of trammel nets did not reduce the abundance of unwanted catch of non-commercial invertebrates (discard). Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2141https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2141Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:07:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Source spat and juveniles from areas or hatcheries not infested with diseases or non-native or problematic species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of sourcing spat and juveniles from areas or hatcheries not infested with diseases or non-native or problematic species on subtidal benthic invertebrate 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%2F2159https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2159Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:09:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat ballast water before exchange We found no studies that evaluated the effects of treating ballast water before exchange on subtidal benthic invertebrate 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%2F2165https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2165Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:15:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant/translocate ‘bioremediating’ species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of transplanting and/or translocating bioremediating species on subtidal benthic invertebrate 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%2F2175https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2175Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:25:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat wastewater from intensive livestock holdings We found no studies that evaluated the effects of treating wastewater from intensive livestock holdings on subtidal benthic invertebrate 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%2F2199https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2199Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:10:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant/release climate change-resistant captive-bred or hatchery-reared individuals to re-establish or boost native populations We found no studies that evaluated the effects of transplanting/releasing mate change-resistant captive-bred or hatchery-reared individuals on subtidal benthic invertebrate 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%2F2218https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2218Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:36:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant captive-bred or hatchery-reared individuals of habitat-forming (biogenic) species that are resistant to climate change We found no studies that evaluated the effects of transplanting captive-bred or hatchery-reared individuals of habitat-forming/biogenic species that are resistant to climate change on subtidal benthic invertebrate 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%2F2219https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2219Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:36:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant captive-bred or hatchery-reared habitat-forming (biogenic) species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of transplanting captive-bred or hatchery-reared habitat-forming species on subtidal benthic invertebrate 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%2F2244https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2244Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:42:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate habitat-forming (biogenic) species - Translocate reef- or bed-forming molluscs Two studies examined the effects of translocating habitat-forming molluscs on associated subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Both were in Strangford Lough (UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Strangford Lough found that plots with translocated mussels had different associated invertebrate communities to plots without mussels, but also to natural mussel beds. One replicated, controlled study in Strangford Lough found that translocating mussels onto scallop shells or directly onto the seabed led to similar associated invertebrate communities. Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Strangford Lough found that plots with translocated mussels had higher richness and diversity of associated invertebrates to plots without mussels, and similar to natural mussel beds. One replicated, controlled study in Strangford Lough found that translocating mussels onto scallop shells or directly onto the seabed led to similar richness and diversity of associated invertebrates. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Strangford Lough presented unclear abundance results. One replicated, controlled study in Strangford Lough found that translocating mussels onto scallop shells or directly onto the seabed led to higher abundance of associated invertebrates in one of two comparisons. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2245https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2245Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:48:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate habitat-forming (biogenic) species - Translocate reef-forming corals Two studies examined the effects of translocating habitat-forming corals on associated subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One was in Tayabas Bay (Philippines) and one in the South China Sea (Philippines). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the South China Sea found that following coral translocation associated invertebrate communities did not change and remained similar to plots without translocated corals. Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the South China Sea found that following coral translocation richness of associated invertebrates increased but also increased in plots without corals, likely due to spill-over. One replicated, controlled study in Tayabas Bay found that richness of associated invertebrates was higher in plots with translocated corals than in plots without. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the South China Sea found that following coral translocation abundance of associated invertebrates increased and became higher than in plots without translocated corals. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2246https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2246Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:52:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant/release captive-bred or hatchery-reared species - Transplant/release crustaceans Five studies examined the effects of transplanting or releasing hatchery-reared crustacean species on their wild populations. Four examined lobsters in the North Sea (Germany, Norway, UK), and one examined prawns in the Swan-Canning Estuary (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Crustacean abundance (1 study): One study in the Swan-Canning Estuary found that after releasing hatchery-reared prawn larvae into the wild, the abundance of egg-bearing female prawns increased. Crustacean reproductive success (3 studies): Two studies (one controlled) in the North Sea found that after their release, recaptured hatchery-reared female lobsters carried eggs, and the number, size and developmental stage of eggs were similar to that of wild females. One study in the Swan-Canning Estuary found that after releasing hatchery-reared prawn larvae into the wild the overall population fecundity (egg production/area) increased. Crustacean survival (2 studies): Two studies in the North Sea found that 50–84% and 32–39% of hatchery-reared lobsters survived in the wild after release, up to eight and up to five years, respectively. Crustacean condition (4 studies): Two studies in the North Sea found that hatchery-reared lobsters grew in the wild after release. One controlled study in the North Sea found that after release into the wild, hatchery-reared female lobsters had similar growth rates as wild females. One study in the North Sea found that after releasing hatchery-reared lobsters, no recaptured lobsters displayed signs of “Black Spot” disease, and 95% had developed a crusher-claw. One study in the Swan-Canning Estuary found that after releasing hatchery-reared prawn larvae into the wild, the size of egg-bearing female prawns increased. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Crustacean movement (1 study): One controlled study in the North Sea found that after release into the wild, hatchery-reared female lobsters had similar movement patterns as wild females. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2266https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2266Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:11:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant/release captive-bred or hatchery-reared species - Transplant/release molluscs Eight studies examined the effects of transplanting or releasing hatchery-reared mollusc species on their wild populations. One examined abalone in the North Pacific Ocean (Canada), one examined clams off the Strait of Singapore (Singapore), one examined oysters in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA), and four examined scallops in the North Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Mollusc abundance (2 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that after transplanting hatchery-reared scallops, abundance of juvenile scallops typically increased, but not that of adult scallops. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the North Atlantic Ocean, found that after releasing hatchery-reared oyster larvae, more spat initially settled using a direct technique compared to a traditional remote technique, and equal number of spat settled on cleaned and natural oyster shells. Mollusc reproductive success (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that after transplanting hatchery-reared scallops, larval recruitment increased across all areas studied. Mollusc survival (5 studies): One replicated study in the Strait of Singapore found that, after transplantation in the field, aquarium-reared clams had a high survival rate. One replicated, controlled study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that after transplanting hatchery-reared scallops, the number of transplanted scallops surviving decreased regardless of the methods used, and maximum mortalities was reported to be 0–1.5%. One replicated, controlled study in the North Pacific Ocean found that transplanting hatchery-reared abalone into the wild reduced survivorship compared to non-transplanted hatchery-reared abalone kept in tanks. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the North Atlantic Ocean found that after releasing hatchery-reared oyster larvae, 61% of the settled spat survived the winter, and settled spat survived equally on cleaned and natural oyster shells. Mollusc condition (3 studies): Two replicated studies in the Strait of Singapore and the North Atlantic Ocean found after transplantation in the wild, aquarium-reared clams and hatchery-reared scallops increased in weight and/or grew. Scallops grew in both free-planted plots and suspended bags but grew more in free-planted plots. One replicated, before-and-after study in the Gulf of Mexico found that after transplanting hatchery-reared scallops, wild populations had not become genetically more similar to hatchery-reared scallops. One replicated, controlled study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that after transplanting hatchery-reared scallops, free-planted scallops developed less shell biofouling than suspended scallops. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2267https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2267Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:16:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant/release captive-bred or hatchery-reared species in predator exclusion cages One study examined the effects of transplanting or releasing hatchery-reared species in predator exclusion cages on their wild populations. The study was in the North Pacific Ocean (Canada). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled study the North Pacific Ocean found that hatchery-reared abalone transplanted in predator exclusion cages had similar survivorship following release compared to those transplanted directly onto the seabed. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2268https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2268Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:32:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate species - Translocate crustaceans One study examined the effects of translocating crustacean species on their wild populations. The study took place in the Tasman Sea (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Crustacean survival (1 study): One study in the Tasman Sea found that following translocation survival of southern rock lobsters was similar to that of resident lobsters. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2269https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2269Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:36:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate species - Translocate molluscs Nine studies examined the effects of translocating mollusc species on their wild populations. Two examined scallops in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA) and one examined scallops in the Tasman Sea and South Pacific Ocean (New Zealand). One study examined conch in the Florida Keys (USA). One examined clams in the North Atlantic Ocean (Portugal). One examined abalone in the North Pacific Ocean (USA). One examined mussels in Strangford Lough (UK). Two examined mussels in the Gulf of Corinth (Greece). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Mollusc abundance (3 studies): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that translocating bay scallops increased larval recruitment into the adult population compared to before translocation. One before-and-after study in the North Pacific Ocean found that following translocation of adult pink abalone to existing patchy populations, total abalone abundance (translocated and resident) decreased to similar levels as before translocation. One replicated, site comparison study in Strangford Lough found that after translocating horse mussels, the abundance of young mussels was higher in site with translocated mussels compared to both sites without translocated mussels and natural mussel reefs. Mollusc reproductive success (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that translocating bay scallops did not increase larval production compared to before translocation. Mollusc survival (5 studies): Three replicated studies (one before-and-after and two site comparisons) in the North Atlantic Ocean and in the Tasman Sea and South Pacific Ocean, found that following translocation, scallops and clams survived. Survival of translocated New Zealand scallops was higher in areas closed to commercial fishing compared to fished areas. Two studies in the Gulf of Corinth found that Mediterranean fan mussels survived when translocated to a deep site, and had similar survival compared to naturally-occurring mussels, but did not survive when translocated to a shallow site. Mollusc condition (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that following translocation, clams had similar condition indices to clams in the source site. One study in the Gulf of Corinth found that translocated Mediterranean fan mussels had similar size-specific growth-rates compared to naturally-occurring mussels. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Mollusc behaviour (1 study): One replicated study in the Florida Keys found that translocating non-reproductive adult queen conch to aggregations of reproductive conch did not have adverse effects on the movement patterns of non-translocated resident conch, and all conch displayed similar total distance travelled, movement rates, migration patterns, home-range sizes, and sociability. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2270https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2270Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:38:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate species - Translocate worms One study examined the effects of translocating worm species on their wild populations. The study was in Scottish Lochs (UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Worm survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Scottish Lochs found that no reef-forming red tube worm survived when translocated to a new Loch, but survival was high when worms were translocated back to its source Loch. Worm condition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Scottish Lochs found that no reef-forming red tube worm survived and so no growth was recorded when translocated to a new loch, worms translocated back to its source Loch grew. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2271https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2271Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:47:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Tag species to prevent illegal fishing or harvesting One study examined the effects of tagging species to prevent illegal fishing or harvesting on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study examined the effects on the Californian abalone fishery (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOURS (1 STUDY) Behaviour-change (1 study): One before-and-after study in California found no significant reduction in non-compliance with daily quotas of abalones after introducing tagging regulations. OTHER (1 STUDY) Illegal catch (1 study): One before-and-after study in California found no significant reduction in illegal takes of abalones after introducing tagging regulations. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2275https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2275Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:50:46 +0100