Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Take field corners out of management A replicated site comparison study in the UK found that taking field corners out of management was positively correlated with grey partridge overwinter survival. However it had no effect on grey partridge brood size, the ratio of young to old birds or year-on-year density changes. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F128https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F128Mon, 14 Nov 2011 21:53:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Support or maintain low intensity agricultural systems We have captured no evidence for the effects of supporting or maintaining low intensity agricultural systems on farmland wildlife. '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%2F141https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F141Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:23:08 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Support or maintain low-intensity agricultural systems We captured no evidence for the effects of supporting low-intensity agricultural systems 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%2F168https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F168Sun, 20 May 2012 13:05:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Take field corners out of managementA replicated study in the UK found that overwinter survival of grey partridge Perdix perdix was higher where field corners were taken out of management than on other sites for one of three winters. There was no relationship with the intervention and brood size, the ratio of young to old birds or density changes. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F198https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F198Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:57:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Thicken earth wire to reduce incidental bird mortalityA literature review found no evidence that thickening the earth wire had any impact on collision mortality of cranes Grus spp. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F264https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F264Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:48:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Thaw bait before setting lines to reduce seabird bycatchA single study from Australia found that lines set using thawed baits caught significantly fewer seabirds than controls. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F298https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F298Tue, 24 Jul 2012 17:24:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Sustainable management of non-timber forest products We found no evidence for the effects of sustainable management of non-timber forest products on forests. '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%2F1182https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1182Thu, 19 May 2016 10:39:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Strategically lay out the scent of a primate predator (e.g. leopard, lion) We found no evidence for the effects of strategically laying out scent of predators to deter crop-raiding primates on primate 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%2F1448https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1448Tue, 17 Oct 2017 11:50:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Strengthen/support/re-install traditions/taboos that forbid the killing of primates One site comparison in Laos found that Laotian black crested gibbons occurred at higher densities in areas where they were protected by a local hunting taboo than at sites were there was no taboo. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1479https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1479Tue, 17 Oct 2017 18:52:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Strip turf to control grass One controlled study in the UK found that cutting and removing turf increased the number of heathland plants. The same study found that the presence of a small number of heathland plants increased, and that the presence of a small number of non-heathland plants decreased. One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that presence of heather was similar in areas where turf was cut and areas that were mown or rotovated. One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that the presence of wavy hair grass was similar in areas where turf was cut and those that were mown or rotovated. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1647https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1647Sun, 22 Oct 2017 13:35:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Strip topsoil Two randomized, replicated, controlled studies in the UK found that removal of topsoil did not increase heather cover or cover of heathland species. However, one controlled study in the UK found an increase in heather cover. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that removing topsoil increased the cover of both specialist and generalist plant species, but did not increase species richness. One randomized, replicated, paired, controlled study in the UK found that removal of topsoil increased cover of annual grasses but led to a decrease in the cover of perennial grasses. One controlled study in the UK found that removal of turf reduced cover of wavy hair grass. One controlled, before-and-after trial in the UK found that stripping surface layers of soil increased the cover of gorse and sheep’s sorrel as well as the number of plant species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1685https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1685Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:26:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Strip/disturb topsoil (alongside planting/seeding) Two replicated, controlled studies in the UK found that removal of topsoil and addition seed/clippings increased cover of heathland plants or cover of heather and gorse. One controlled study in the UK found that soil disturbance using a rotovator and spreading clippings of heathland plants (alongside mowing) increased the number of heathland plants. One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that stripping the surface layers of soil and adding seed reduced the cover of perennial rye-grass. One randomized, replicated, paired, controlled study in the UK found that removal of topsoil and addition of the clippings of heathland plants did not alter the cover of annual grasses but led to a decrease in cover of perennial grasses. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1711https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1711Mon, 23 Oct 2017 13:29:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Strengthen cultural traditions that discourage bat harvesting We found no studies that evaluated the effects of strengthening cultural traditions that discourage bat harvesting on bat 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%2F1972https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1972Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:20:50 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Strengthen cultural traditions such as sacred groves that prevent timber harvesting We found no studies that evaluated the effects of strengthening cultural traditions such as sacred groves that prevent timber harvesting on bat 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%2F1989https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1989Wed, 05 Dec 2018 11:07:12 +0000Collected 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%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2275https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2275Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:50:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Temporarily hold females and offspring in fenced area to increase survival of young We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of temporarily holding females and offspring in a fenced area to increase survival of young. '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%2F2351https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2351Tue, 26 May 2020 08:45:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Sterilize predators One study evaluated the effects on potential prey mammals of sterilizing predators. This study was in the USA and Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A before-and-after study in the USA and Canada found that sterilising some wolves (combined with trapping and removing others) did not increase caribou survival. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2573https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2573Wed, 10 Jun 2020 09:59:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Sterilize non-native domestic or feral species (e.g. cats and dogs) We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of sterilizing non-native domestic or feral species (e.g. cats and dogs). '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%2F2579https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2579Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:30:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Switch off artificial lighting at wild fisheries One study evaluated the effects on freshwater mammals of switching off artificial lights at a wild fishery. The study was in the Puntledge River (Canada). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): One randomized, controlled study in the Puntledge River found that switching off artificial lights on a bridge did not deter harbour seals from feeding on salmon released from a hatchery. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2825https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2825Fri, 05 Feb 2021 15:56:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Stimulate microbial breakdown of oilWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of stimulating microbial breakdown of oil in contaminated 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%2F3178https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3178Tue, 06 Apr 2021 16:11:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Switch to land-based aquaculture systems We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of switching to land-based aquaculture systems. ‘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%2F3583https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3583Wed, 08 Dec 2021 15:28:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Temporarily move reptiles away from short-term threats Two studies evaluated the effects of temporarily moving reptiles away from short-term threats on their populations. One study was in France and one was in Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in Spain found that after temporarily relocating Hermann’s tortoises during vegetation management, a similar number were observed compared to before management began. Survival (1 study): One replicated study in France found that at least 25% of temporarily relocated and released Hermann’s tortoises survived for 4–5 years after re-release. The study also found that 5% of individuals died while in temporary captivity. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3735https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3735Tue, 14 Dec 2021 09:58:47 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Strengthen cultural traditions such as sacred groves that prevent timber harvesting We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of strengthening cultural traditions that prevent timber harvesting. ‘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%2F3866https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3866Fri, 08 Jul 2022 11:59:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Stop using herbicides on pavements and road verges Two studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of stopping the use of herbicides on pavements and road verges. One study was in the USA and the other was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the USA found that restored roadside prairies where herbicide application was restricted had a greater species richness of butterflies than verges dominated by non-native weeds and grasses with no restrictions on herbicide application. One replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that transmission lines (road verges and power lines) which were neither sprayed with herbicide nor mown had a similar species richness of butterflies to sprayed and mown transmission lines. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the USA found that restored roadside prairies where herbicide application was restricted had a greater abundance of butterflies than verges dominated by non-native weeds and grasses with no restrictions on herbicide application. One replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that transmission lines (road verges and power lines) which were neither sprayed with herbicide nor mown had a greater abundance of northern pearl crescent and pearl crescent butterflies, but similar total butterfly abundance, compared to sprayed and mown transmission lines. Survival (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the USA found that butterflies had a lower mortality risk on restored roadside prairies where herbicide application was restricted than on verges dominated by non-native grasses with no restrictions on herbicide application. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3899https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3899Tue, 09 Aug 2022 15:00:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Stop using pesticides as seed dressings and sprays in flower beds and greenspace One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of stopping the use of pesticides as seed dressings and sprays in flower beds and greenspaces. The study was in France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in France found that gardens where insecticides and herbicides were not used had a higher abundance of butterflies, but gardens where fungicides and snail pellets were not used had a lower abundance of butterflies BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3900https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3900Tue, 09 Aug 2022 15:03:07 +0100