Providing evidence to improve practice

The journal, Conservation Evidence

Our online journal publishes research, monitoring results and case studies on the effects of conservation interventions. All papers include some monitoring of the effects of the intervention and are written by, or in partnership with, those who did the conservation work. It includes interventions such as habitat creation, habitat restoration, translocations, reintroductions, invasive species control, and education or integrated conservation development programmes, from anywhere around the world.

A volume is created each year with peer-reviewed papers published throughout the year. We now accept Short Communications as well as standard papers.

Special issues contain new papers on a specific topic.

Virtual collections collate papers published in the journal on specific topics such as management of particular groups of species.

To search for papers on a specific topic within the journal select 'Advanced search' on the Home page, enter your keyword(s) and within the Source box type: "conservation evidence".

Latest papers

The value of tourism for gaur Bos gaurus in the Khao Phang Ma reforestation area at the edge of Khao Yai – Dong Phaya Yen World Heritage Site decreased when a large number of gaurs moved away from the watching area of the former grassland in the middle of the secondary forest. A major cause appeared to be an increase in the number and size of pioneer trees Macaranga siamensis that overshadowed their food patches. We constructed a 5.7 ha pilot plot where 407 pioneer trees were cut down in an attempt to attract gaurs back to the area. Since tree cutting was a controversial practice, especially with the local people, we engaged with, and were supported by, a local non-governmental organization throughout the process. We monitored the density of gaurs using the total counts of dung piles. The estimated density of gaurs was significantly higher in the pilot plot compared with an adjacent control plot (8.62 individuals/km2/day versus 3.95 individuals/km2/day), demonstrating a positive impact of tree felling in attracting this species back to an area.


Coppicing is a commonly used management intervention to increase structural diversity in woodlands, but coppiced trees are vulnerable to browsing by deer. We investigated the effect of coppicing hazel stools at different heights on the survival of trees, and also the species richness of the ground flora. Plots were cut at experimental heights of 0.7 m and 0.8 m, with plots cut at 1.2 m and ground level as controls. All the stools cut at 1.2 m were alive five years after cutting. In the plots cut at 0.7 and 0.8 m, some shoots were eaten by deer but less than 10% of stools died. Less than 5% of stools in the plot cut at ground level survived.  After 7–8 years, coppicing at 0.7 m and 0.8 m supported a higher species richness of angiosperm ground flora than either of the control heights. We conclude that high-level coppicing offers a cost-effective opportunity to achieve a rotation frequency that increases tree survival and supports a diverse coppice-woodland angiosperm flora.