Collected 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: Spray water to deter birds from pondsA replicated study from Sweden found that a rotating water spray deterred birds from fish ponds, but that birds often became used to the spray.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F255https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F255Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:57:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Sowing roadside verges We captured no evidence for the effects of sowing roadside verges 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%2F260https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F260Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:21:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Start educational programmes for personal watercraft ownersA before-and-after trial in the USA found that rates of disturbance by personal watercraft decreased and reproductive success of common terns Sterna hirundo increased following a series of educational programmes aimed at recreational boat users.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F314https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F314Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:11:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Sterilize equipment when moving between amphibian sites We found no evidence for the effects of sterilizing equipment when moving between amphibian sites on the spread of disease between amphibian populations or individuals. Two randomized, replicated, controlled study in Switzerland and Sweden found that Virkon S disinfectant did not affect survival, mass or behaviour of common frog or common toad tadpoles or moor frog embryos or hatchlings. One of the studies found that bleach significantly reduced survival of common frog and common toad tadpoles.    Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F768https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F768Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:21:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Sterilize equipment to prevent ranavirus We found no evidence for the effects of sterilizing equipment to prevent ranavirus on the spread of disease between amphibian individuals or 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%2F801https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F801Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:46:02 +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: Spread clippings One randomized, controlled study in the UK found that the addition of shoots and seeds of heathland plants did not increase the abundance of mature plants for half of plant species. One randomized, controlled study in the UK found that the frequency of heather plants was not significantly different in areas where heather clippings had been spread and areas where they were not spread. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found an increase in the number of heather seedlings, but not of other heathland species. One randomized, controlled study in the UK found that the addition of shoots and seeds increased the number of seedlings for a minority of species. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in South Africa found that plant cover and the number of plant species did not differ significantly between areas where branches had been spread and those where branches had not been spread. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1701https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1701Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:16:13 +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: Stabilize peatland surface to help plants colonize One study evaluated the effects of stabilizing the peatland surface (without planting) on peatland vegetation. The study was in a bog. Vegetation cover (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in the UK found that pegging coconut fibre rolls onto almost-bare peat did not affect the development of vegetation cover (total, mosses, shrubs or cottongrasses). Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1815https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1815Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:43:30 +0000Collected 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: 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: Specify a size range of capture for commercially fished species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of specifying a size range of commercially retained fish 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%2F2737https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2737Tue, 02 Feb 2021 14:56:52 +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: Spray slurry of seed, mulch and water (‘hydroseeding’) Four studies examined the effects of spraying a slurry of seed, mulch and water (‘hydroseeding’) on grassland vegetation. Two studies were in Spain, one study was in the USA and one was in Italy. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (2 STUDIES) Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies (one of which was randomized and paired) in Spain and Italy found that hydroseeding with non-native seeds did not alter plant diversity in most cases. The other study found that hydroseeding increased plant species richness in one of two cases. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (2 studies): One of two controlled studies (one of which was replicated, randomized and paired) in Spain found that hydroseeding with non-native seeds increased overall plant cover in most cases. The other study found that hydroseeding did not alter vegetation cover. Sown/planted species abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the USA found that hydroseeding increased the abundance of half of the sown plant species compared to drill seeding. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (1 STUDY) Height (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Italy found that hydroseeding led to an increase in the height of herb species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3412https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3412Fri, 25 Jun 2021 15:42:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Sterilize equipment to prevent spread of disease We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of sterilizing equipment to prevent spread of disease. ‘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%2F3703https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3703Fri, 10 Dec 2021 19:03:54 +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
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