Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Revert arable land to permanent grassland All five studies looking at the effects of reverting arable land to grassland found no clear benefit to birds. The studies monitored birds or grey partridges in the UK and wading birds in Denmark (4). They included three replicated controlled trials. One of the studies, a controlled before-and-after study from the UK, showed that grey partridge numbers fell significantly following the reversion of arable fields to grassland. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F210https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F210Sun, 15 Jul 2012 18:00:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Scare birds from fish farms One before-and-after study from Israel found that the population of pygmy cormorants in the area increased after birds were scared away from fish farms, possibly due to lower persecution. One of two studies that examined fish stocks found that fewer fish were taken from a farm when heron distress calls were played. The other study, a literature review, found no evidence for the effects of scaring birds on fish stocks. Two 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. Ten of eleven studies from across the world, three controlled, found evidence that playing distress calls or using other acoustic deterrents (some with flashes of light) reduced the number of birds at fish farms, or changed bird behaviours. One of these involved underwater broadcasting. One study found effects were only temporary and five found that birds became habituated to noises. Four studies, one replicated and controlled, two before-and-after, found that acoustic deterrents were not effective in scaring birds. Five of seven studies, one controlled, found evidence that visual deterrents (including inflatable ‘Scarey Man’ scarecrows) reduced the number of birds at fish farms. Three found evidence for habituation to deterrents and three studies found no evidence that visual deterrents were effective. Two studies examined other deterrents, finding that trained raptors were effective but that the effects of helicopters and ultra-light aircraft were either inconclusive or very temporary. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F244https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F244Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:00:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Scare or otherwise deter birds from airports Two replicated studies in the UK and USA found that fewer birds (mainly gulls Larus spp.) used areas of long grass at airports. However, no data were provided on the effect of long grass on strike rates or mortality of birds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F261https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F261Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:26:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Scare fish-eating birds from areas to reduce conflictStudies investigating scaring birds from fishing areas are discussed in ‘Threat: Agriculture – Aquaculture’. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F282https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F282Tue, 24 Jul 2012 13:00:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Revegetate gravel pits We found no evidence for the effects of gravel pit revegetation on bird populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested 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%2F370https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F370Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:49:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Run research project and ensure permanent human presence at site Two before-and-after studies in Rwanda, Uganda and Congo found that numbers of mountain gorillas increased over 5-41 years while gorillas were continuously monitored by researchers, alongside other interventions. One review on mountain gorillas in Uganda found that no gorilla was killed over one year while gorillas were continuously monitored by researchers, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Brazil found that most reintroduced golden lion tamarins did not survive over seven years post-release despite being permanently monitored by researchers, alongside other interventions, yet tamarins reproduced succesfully. One before-and-after study in Belize found that numbers of black howler monkeys increased by 138% over 13 years after being permanently monitored by researchers, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in the Republic of Congo found that most reintroduced chimpanzees permanently monitored by researchers, alongside other interventions, survived over 3.5 years. One before-and-after study in Kenya found ‘problem’ olive baboon troops still survived over 17 years post-translocation while being permanently monitored by researchers, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1511https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1511Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:51:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Run tourist projects and ensure permanent human presence at site Three studies, including two before-and-after studies and one controlled study in Rwanda, Uganda and the Republic of Congo found that numbers of mountain gorillas increased after touristic projects were initiated, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after and site comparison study in Rwanda found that the number of immature mountain gorillas increased by 22% and the number of snares declined by 30% after a tourism project was initiated, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Kenya found that numbers of Tana River red colobus and crested mangabeys decreased despite implementing a tourism project, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Belize found that numbers of black howler monkeys increased by 138% over 13 years after a tourism project was implemented, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after, replicated study in China found that implementing an intensive tourism project for Tibetan macaques that included food provisioning and range restrictions, increased their stress levels compared to previous periods, with infant mortality reaching 100% in some years. One before-and-after study in Madagascar found that after implementing a tourism project the population size and/or body size and group size declined for two lemur species but the number of individuals increased for one other lemur species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1512https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1512Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:55:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Rotovate to control grass One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that rotovating did not alter the presence of heather compared to mowing or cutting. The same study found that wavy hair grass presence was not altered by rotovating, relative to areas that were mown or cut. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1648https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1648Sun, 22 Oct 2017 13:42:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Rewet peatland (raise water table) Thirty-six studies evaluated the effects of rewetting (without planting) on peatland vegetation. Fifteen studies were in bogs (two being restored as fens). Fifteen studies were in fens or fen meadows (two were naturally forested). Six studies were in general or unspecified peatlands. Some studies were based on the same experimental set-up or sites as each other: two studies in Germany, three studies in Sweden, two studies in west Finland and two studies in south Finland. Plant community composition (13 studies): Six before-and-after studies (four also replicated) in peatlands in Finland, Hungary, Sweden, Poland and Germany reported changes in the overall plant community composition following rewetting. Typically, drier grassland communities were replaced by more wetland- or peatland-characteristic communities. One replicated, paired, controlled study in a bog in the Czech Republic found that rewetted plots developed a different plant community to drained plots. Three site comparison studies in Finland and Canada reported that rewetted peatlands contained a different plant community to natural peatlands. Three replicated studies in peatlands in the UK and fens in Germany reported that rewetting typically had no effect, or insignificant effects, on the plant community. Characteristic plants (11 studies): Five studies (including one replicated site comparison) in peatlands in Canada, the UK, China and Poland reported that rewetting (sometimes along with other interventions) increased the abundance of wetland- or peatland-characteristic plants. Two replicated site comparison studies in fens or fen meadows in central Europe found that rewetting reduced the number of fen-characteristic plant species. Two studies (one replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after) in fens in Sweden reported that rewetting had no effect on cover of fen-characteristic plants. Two before-and-after studies in fens in the USA and New Zealand reported that upland plant cover decreased following rewetting. Moss cover (19 studies): Twelve studies (five replicated, two also paired and controlled) in the UK, Ireland, Germany, Sweden, Latvia, Canada and Spain reported that rewetting bogs, fens or other peatlands (sometimes along with other interventions) increased Sphagnum moss cover or abundance. Three of these studies reported mixed responses by species. Two additional replicated studies, in bogs in Latvia and forested fens in Finland, reported that rewetting had no effect on Sphagnum cover. Five studies (one paired, controlled, before-and-after) in Finland, Sweden and Canada reported that rewetting bogs or fens had no effect on cover of non-Sphagnum mosses (or mosses/lichens). However, two controlled studies in bogs in Ireland and the UK reported that rewetting reduced cover of non-Sphagnum mosses or bryophytes. One site comparison study in Finland reported that a rewetted peatland had similar moss cover (Sphagnum and total) to a natural peatland, but another site comparison study in Canada reported that a rewetted bog had lower moss cover (Sphagnum and other) than nearby target peatlands. Herb cover (25 studies): Twenty-one studies (including four replicated, paired, controlled) reported that rewetting (sometimes along with other interventions) increased cover of at least one group of herbs. These studies were in bogs, fens or other peatlands in the UK, Finland, Ireland, the Czech Republic, the USA, the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, China, Latvia, Poland, Canada and Spain. Specifically, rewetting increased other/total sedge cover in 13 of 15 studies, increased cottongrass cover in eight of nine studies, and increased reed/rush cover in five of seven studies. Three of four before-and-after studies in peatlands in the UK and Sweden reported that rewetting reduced purple moor grass cover; the other study reported no effect. One replicated site comparison study in forested fens in Finland reported that rewetting had no effect on total herb cover. Two site comparison studies in Europe reported greater herb cover in rewetted than natural peatlands (overall and sedges/rushes, but not forbs). Tree/shrub cover (13 studies): Ten studies (including two paired and controlled) in peatlands in Finland, the UK, Germany, Latvia and Canada reported that rewetting typically reduced (seven studies) or had no effect (six studies) on tree and/or shrub cover. Two before-and-after studies in fens in Sweden and Germany reported that rewetting increased tree/shrub cover. One before-and-after study in a bog in the UK reported mixed effects of rewetting on different tree/shrub species. Overall vegetation cover (4 studies): Of four before-and-after studies (three also controlled) that examined the effect of rewetting on overall vegetation cover, two in bogs in Ireland and Sweden reported that rewetting increased it. One study in a fen in New Zealand reported that rewetting reduced vegetation cover. One study in a peatland in Finland reported no effect. Overall plant richness/diversity (14 studies): Six studies (including one replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after) in Sweden, Germany and the UK reported that rewetting increased total plant species richness or diversity in bogs, fens or other peatlands. However, five studies found no effect: in bogs in the Czech Republic and Latvia, fens in Sweden and Germany, and forested fens in Finland. One study in fen meadows in the Netherlands found scale-dependent effects. One paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a peatland in Finland reported that rewetting reduced plant diversity. Of four studies that compared rewetted and natural peatlands, two in Finland and Germany reported lower species richness in rewetted peatlands, one in Sweden found higher species richness in rewetted fens, and one in Europe found similar richness in rewetted and natural fens. Growth (1 study): One replicated site comparison study in forested fens in Finland found that rewetting increased Sphagnum moss growth to natural levels. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1756https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1756Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:33:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Rewet peat to prevent wild fires We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of rewetting peat to prevent wild fires. ‘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%2F1765https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1765Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:39:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Roughen peat surface to create microclimates (without planting) We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of roughening the peat surface to create microclimates (without planting afterwards). ‘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%2F1808https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1808Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:30:48 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Rewet peatland (before/after planting) We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of rewetting (by raising the water table) areas planted with peatland 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%2F1831https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1831Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:52:27 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Scare or otherwise deter mammals from human-occupied areas to reduce human-wildlife conflict Ten studies evaluated the effects of scaring or otherwise deterring mammals from residential areas to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Six studies were in the USA, three were in Canada and one was in Tanzania. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (10 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (10 studies): Two of four studies (including one randomized and controlled study) in the USA, found that a range of noise and pain deterrents did not prevent black bears from returning to urban areas or other human-occupied sites. The other two studies found that such actions did deter them from seeking food at human-occupied sites. Two of three studies, in the USA and Canada, found that chasing nuisance black bears with dogs and chasing elk with people or dogs caused them to stay away longer or remain further from human occupied areas. The other study found that attempts to scare coyotes did not cause them to avoid human occupied areas. A before-and-after study in Canada found that an electric fence prevented polar bear entry to a compound. A study in Canada found that chemical and acoustic repellents did not deter polar bears from baits in most cases. A replicated study in Tanzania found that drones caused African savanna elephants to quickly leave residential areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2347https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2347Fri, 22 May 2020 14:14:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/provide migration corridors We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining or providing migration corridors. ‘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%2F2551https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2551Tue, 09 Jun 2020 10:34:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Selectively avoid unwanted fish based on temperature distribution We found no studies that evaluated the effects of selectively avoiding fish by their temperature distributions 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%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2685https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2685Mon, 30 Nov 2020 16:56:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set catch limits or quotas for non-targeted commercial catch Two studies examined the effects of setting catch limits or quotas for non-targeted commercial fish species on marine fish populations. One review was in the North Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and one study was in the Pacific Ocean (Canada). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (2 studies): One review in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans found that setting catch limits or quotas for non-commercially targeted fish reduced unwanted catch in two of three cases. One before-and-after study in the Pacific Ocean found that catch limits for non-target commercial species reduced the amount of unwanted halibut, but a previous quota system based on the whole catch (individual transferrable quotas) did not. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2693https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2693Wed, 02 Dec 2020 16:15:52 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Rotate the orientation of diamond mesh in a trawl net Six studies examined the effects of rotating the orientation of diamond mesh in a trawl net on marine fish populations. Three studies were in the Baltic Sea (Denmark), and one study was in each of the Kattegat and Skagerrak (northern Europe), the Aegean Sea (Turkey) and the North Sea (Belgium/UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (6 STUDIES) Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (6 studies): One review study in the Kattegat and Skagerrak and four of five replicated, controlled studies (one paired) in the Baltic Sea, Aegean Sea, and North Sea found that turning the orientation of diamond mesh in trawl codends by 90° resulted in better size selection of cod, red mullet and common pandora, and round-bodied fish species, but not of plaice, annular sea bream, and flatfish species, compared to standard orientation of diamond mesh in trawl codends. The other study found that turned mesh instead of standard diamond mesh trawl codends did not improve the size selectivity of cod, plaice and flounder. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2715https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2715Fri, 01 Jan 2021 16:13:18 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set a minimum landing size for commercially fished species Five studies examined the effects of setting a minimum landing size for commercially fished species on marine fish populations. One study was a global review and one study was in each of the Tasman Sea (Australia), the Baltic Sea (Northern Europe), the Ionian Sea (Greece) and the Northwest Atlantic Ocean (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Reproductive success (2 studies): One global review reported that one of five swordfish fisheries showed an increase in swordfish recruitment after the setting of recommended minimum landing sizes and catch limits, with recruitment in the other fisheries either highly variable or unable to be assessed. One replicated study in the Ionian Sea reported that, despite established minimum sizes, most fish landed in commercial catches were immature, and thus had never spawned. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (3 studies): One of three before-and-after studies (one replicated) in the Atlantic Ocean, Tasman Sea and Baltic Sea found that following an increase in the set minimum landing size and mesh size of gill nets the catches of the youngest southern flounder were reduced. The other two found that increasing the minimum landing size did not reduce the catches of discarded dusky flathead and Atlantic cod3, and discarding of flathead increased in one of three cases. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2735https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2735Tue, 02 Feb 2021 14:28:08 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set a maximum landing size for commercially fished species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of setting a maximum landing size for commercially fished 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%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2736https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2736Tue, 02 Feb 2021 14:40:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set and enforce vessel speed limits Two studies evaluated the effects on marine and freshwater mammals of setting and enforcing vessel speed limits. One study was in the Indian River estuarine system (USA) and the other in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One before-and-after study in the Indian River estuarine system found similar numbers of manatee deaths before and after vessel speed limits were set in ‘zones’, but fewer deaths were recorded after speed limits were set and enforced in all areas. One before-and-after study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that setting vessel speed limits during specific periods in key habitats resulted in fewer North Atlantic right whale deaths caused by collisions. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2777https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2777Thu, 04 Feb 2021 15:48:43 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reunite abandoned marine and freshwater mammal young with parents One study evaluated the effects of reuniting abandoned marine and freshwater mammal young with parents. The study was in the North Pacific Ocean (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Reproductive success (1 study): One review in the North Pacific Ocean found that after reuniting Hawaiian monk seal pups with their mothers, along with at least seven other interventions to enhance survival, more than a quarter of the seals reproduced. Survival (1 study): One review in the North Pacific Ocean found that after reuniting Hawaiian monk seal pups with their mothers, along with at least seven other interventions to enhance survival, more than a quarter of the seals survived. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2927https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2927Tue, 09 Feb 2021 11:06:36 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/restore/create vegetation around freshwater marshes Four studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation in freshwater marshes, of retaining/restoring/creating vegetation around them. Three studies were in the USA and one was in China. Two studies were largely based on the same sites. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (2 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in the USA reported that freshwater marshes surrounded by restored upland vegetation contained a different overall plant community, after 1–20 years, to nearby marshes surrounded by natural vegetation. One of the studies also reported differences between marshes in restored vs degraded catchments. Overall richness/diversity (3 studies): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the USA found that marshes surrounded by restored upland vegetation had greater overall plant species richness than marshes within cropland, and similar richness to marshes within natural grassland. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA reported that freshwater marshes surrounded by restored upland vegetation contained fewer wetland plant species, after 1–20 years, than nearby marshes surrounded by natural vegetation. One before-and-after study of a lakeshore marsh in China reported that after revegetating a polluted input river (along with planting directly into the marsh), overall plant species richness increased. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the USA found that marshes surrounded by restored upland vegetation contained more plant biomass than marshes within cropland, but also more plant biomass than marshes within natural grassland. Characteristic plant abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the USA found that marshes surrounded by restored upland vegetation typically had greater cover of wetland-characteristic plants than marshes within cropland, and similar cover of these species to marshes within natural grassland. Individual species abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study of pothole wetlands the USA found that wetlands surrounded by restored upland vegetation had greater cover of hybrid cattail Typha x glauca, after 2–7 years, than nearby natural wetlands. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Visual obstruction (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study of pothole wetlands in the USA found that parts of wetlands surrounded by restored upland vegetation created more visual obstruction, after 2–7 years, than the corresponding zone of nearby natural wetlands. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3145https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3145Mon, 05 Apr 2021 15:14:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/restore/create vegetation around brackish/salt marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation in brackish/salt marshes, of retaining/restoring/creating vegetation around them. ‘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%2F3146https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3146Mon, 05 Apr 2021 15:15:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/restore/create vegetation around freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation in freshwater swamps, of retaining/restoring/creating vegetation around them. ‘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%2F3147https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3147Mon, 05 Apr 2021 15:15:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/restore/create vegetation around brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation in brackish/saline swamps, of retaining/restoring/creating vegetation around them. ‘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%2F3148https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3148Mon, 05 Apr 2021 15:15:30 +0100