Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Distribute poison bait for predator control using dispensersA controlled study in New Zealand found that survival of South Island robins Petroica australis australis was higher when brodifacoum was dispensed from bait feeders compared to where bait was scattered.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F157https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F157Tue, 15 May 2012 12:37:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Disturb birds at roosts One controlled study from the USA investigated the effects of harassment on fish predation, and found there were fewer double-crested cormorants Phalacrocorax auritus on, and fewer fish were taken from, fish ponds near roosts which were harassed, compared with undisturbed roosts. A review found that there was a reduction in the number of cormorants foraging near roosts after night-time disturbance. Four studies, two replicated, from the USA and Israel, found that cormorants moved away from roosts where they were disturbed at night. One study found that this effect was only temporary.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F245https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F245Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:42:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Disturb birds using foot patrolsTwo replicated studies from Belgium and Australia found that using foot patrols to disturb birds from fish farms did not reduce the number of birds present or fish consumption.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F249https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F249Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:05:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Do birds take bait designed for pest control?Two studies, one randomised, replicated and controlled, from New Zealand and Australia found no evidence that birds took bait meant for pest control.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F395https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F395Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:47:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Divert bats to safe crossing points over or under roads/railways with plantings or fencing One study evaluated the effects of diverting bats using an artificial hedgerow on bat populations. The study was in Switzerland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)      Use (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in Switzerland found that up to one fifth of lesser horseshoe bats within a colony flew along an artificial hedgerow to commute. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F981https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F981Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:16:34 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Disturb vegetation One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that vegetation disturbance did not increase the abundance or species richness of specialist plants but increased the abundance of generalist plants. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1727https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1727Thu, 23 Nov 2017 11:47:54 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Disturb topsoil A controlled study in a former pine plantation in South Africa found that digging soil did not alter vegetation cover or the density of native plants. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that soil disturbance increased the abundance or species richness of specialist and generalist plant species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1728https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1728Thu, 23 Nov 2017 11:49:36 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Divert/replace polluted water source(s) Three studies evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of diverting or replacing polluted water source(s). Two studies were in bogs and one was in a fen. Characteristic plants (1 study): One study in a fen in the Netherlands found that after a nutrient-enriched water source was replaced (along with other interventions to reduce pollution), cover of mosses characteristic of low nutrient levels increased. Vegetation cover (2 studies): Two studies (one before-and-after) in bogs in the UK and Japan reported that after polluting water sources were diverted (sometimes along with other interventions), Sphagnum moss cover increased. Both studies reported mixed effects on herb cover, depending on species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1779https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1779Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:14:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Disturb peatland surface to encourage growth of desirable plants (without planting) Two studies evaluated the effects of disturbing the peat surface (without planting) on peatland vegetation. Both studies were in fens. Plant community composition (2 studies): Two replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after studies (one also randomized) in fens in Germany and Sweden reported that soil disturbance affected development of the plant community over 2–3 years. In Germany, disturbed plots developed greater cover of weedy species from the seed bank than undisturbed plots. In Sweden, the community in disturbed and undisturbed plots became less similar over time.  Characteristic plants (2 studies): The same two studies reported that wetland- or fen-characteristic plant species colonized plots that had been disrturbed (along with other interventions). The study in Germany noted that peat-forming species did not colonize the fen. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1811https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1811Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:31:40 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Divert shipping routes We found no studies that evaluated the effects of diverting shipping routes 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%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2087https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2087Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:59:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Divert shipping routes We found no studies that evaluated the effects of diverting shipping routes on marine and freshwater mammal populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2754https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2754Tue, 02 Feb 2021 16:57:34 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Divert/block/stop saltwater inputsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of diverting/blocking/stopping saltwater inputs to marshes or swamps.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3042https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3042Thu, 01 Apr 2021 15:15:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Divert/block/stop freshwater inputsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of diverting/blocking/stopping excessive freshwater inputs to marshes or swamps.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3043https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3043Thu, 01 Apr 2021 15:18:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Divert/block/stop polluted water inputsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on marsh or swamp vegetation, of diverting/blocking/stopping polluted water inputs.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3143https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3143Mon, 05 Apr 2021 15:12:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Disturb soil/sediment surface: freshwater marshes Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of disturbing the surface of freshwater marshes. Both studies were in the USA – in the same region but different sites. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in rewetted marshes in the USA found that ploughed plots contained a plant community characteristic of wetter conditions than unploughed plots after one growing season – but not after two. Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in rewetted marshes in the USA found that ploughed plots typically contained more wetland plant species than unploughed plots after one growing season – but not after two. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in rewetted marshes in the USA found that ploughed plots had greater cover of wetland plants than unploughed plots after one growing season – but not after two. Individual species abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in rewetted marshes in the USA found that ploughed plots had much greater cover of cattails Typha than unploughed plots after two growing seasons. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3226https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3226Fri, 09 Apr 2021 14:04:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Disturb soil/sediment surface: brackish/salt marshes One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of disturbing the surface of brackish/salt marshes. The study was in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study of brackish/salt marshes in the USA reported that marshes disked every spring for at least six years (and drawn down during spring/autumn) shared only 24–34% of plant species with marshes that were not disked (or drawn down). Overall richness/diversity (1 study): The same study found that overall plant species richness and diversity were similar in managed marshes (disked every spring and drawn down during spring/autumn, for at least six years) and unmanaged marshes (neither disked nor drawn down). VEGETATION ABUNDANCE   VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3227https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3227Fri, 09 Apr 2021 14:04:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Disturb soil/sediment surface: freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of disturbing the surface of freshwater swamps.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3228https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3228Fri, 09 Apr 2021 14:04:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Disturb soil/sediment surface: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of disturbing the surface of brackish/saline swamps.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3229https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3229Fri, 09 Apr 2021 14:04:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Disturb soil/sediment surface before planting non-woody plants: freshwater wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of disturbing the surface of freshwater wetlands before planting emergent, non-woody plants.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3292https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3292Sun, 11 Apr 2021 07:56:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Disturb soil/sediment surface before planting non-woody plants: brackish/saline wetlands Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of disturbing the surface of brackish/saline wetlands before planting emergent, non-woody plants. Both studies were in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Individual plant abundance (1 study): One study quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species. The replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a salt marsh in the USA found that tilling sediment before planting California cordgrass Spartina foliosa had no significant effect on its biomass or density after two growing seasons, but did reduce its biomass after one growing season. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a salt marsh in the USA found that tilling sediment before planting California cordgrass Spartina foliosa had no significant effect on its height after 1–2 growing seasons. Individual plant size (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study on estuarine sediment in the USA found that the average size of planted salt marsh plants was similar, after 1–2 years, in tilled and untilled plots. Size was reported as an index incorporating plant height and lateral extent. OTHER Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study on estuarine sediment in the USA found that survival rates of planted salt marsh plants were similar, over 1–2 years, in tilled and untilled plots. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3293https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3293Sun, 11 Apr 2021 07:56:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Disturb soil/sediment surface before planting trees/shrubs: freshwater wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of disturbing the surface of freshwater wetlands before planting trees/shrubs.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3294https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3294Sun, 11 Apr 2021 07:57:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Disturb soil/sediment surface before planting trees/shrubs: brackish/saline wetlands One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of disturbing the surface of brackish/saline wetlands before planting trees/shrubs. The study was in Australia. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE   VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (1 study): One replicated, controlled study on an estuarine mudflat in Australia found that ploughing the substrate before planting grey mangrove Avicennia marina propagules had no significant effect on their height after two growing seasons. OTHER Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled study on an estuarine mudflat in Australia found that ploughing the substrate before planting grey mangrove propagules had no significant effect on their survival over two growing seasons. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3295https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3295Sun, 11 Apr 2021 07:57:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Disturb soil before seeding/planting Seven studies examined the effects of disturbing soil before seeding/planting on grassland vegetation. Five studies were in Europe and one study was in each of the USA and China. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (3 STUDIES) Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies in the UK and Germany found that disturbing soil before sowing seeds increased plant and seedling species richness. The other study found no change in plant species richness or diversity. Grass richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that rotovating soil before sowing seeds increased grass species richness in most cases compared to harrowing before sowing. Forb richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that rotovating soil before sowing seeds increased forb species richness in most cases compared to harrowing before sowing. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that disturbing soil before sowing seeds did not alter total plant biomass. Forb abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the USA found that disturbing soil before sowing forb seeds increased the cover of forb species. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (5 STUDIES) Germination/Emergence (5 studies): Four of five replicated, controlled studies (three of which were randomized and paired) in the USA, Germany, China and Spain found that disturbing soil before sowing seeds increased plant emergence in most cases compared to sowing alone. The other study found no change in seed germination. Survival (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies (one of which was randomized and paired) in China and Spain found that disturbing soil before sowing seeds increased the survival of seedlings. The other study found that ploughing to disturb soil followed by planting did not alter the survival of planted species. Growth (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the USA found that disturbing soil before planting forb seedlings had no effect on seedling growth. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3413https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3413Fri, 25 Jun 2021 15:51:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Diversify ground vegetation and canopy structure in the habitat around woody crops Two studies evaluated the effects of diversifying ground vegetation and canopy structure in the habitat around woody crops on reptile populations. One study was in Puerto Rico and the other was in Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in Spain found that olive groves with natural ground cover had higher reptile species richness and diversity than those with bare ground, but groves planted with a single species as ground cover had similar richness and diversity as those with bare ground. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Puerto Rico found that two of three lizard species were less abundant in shade-grown coffee plantations than in sun-grown plantations. One replicated, paired, site comparison study in Spain found that olive groves with ground cover had more reptiles than groves with bare ground. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3526https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3526Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:18:17 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Disturb soil/sediment surface Two studies evaluated the effects of disturbing the soil/sediment surface on reptile populations. One study was in Sweden and the other was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Sweden found that after sand patches were created by soil scarification within clearings created by tree felling, sand lizards colonized, abundance then declined, but then increased once more, larger clearings were created. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One randomized study in the USA found that tilled areas were used more frequently by Blanding’s turtles for nesting than mown or weeded areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3717https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3717Mon, 13 Dec 2021 15:28:14 +0000
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