Providing evidence to improve practice
Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Adopt certification One replicated, site comparison study in Ethiopia found that the risk of deforestation was lower in certified than uncertified forests. One controlled, before-and-after trial in Gabon found that when logging intensity was taken into account although tree damage did not differ, changes in above-ground biomass were smaller in certified than in uncertified forests.  Collected Evidencehttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1150http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1150Tue, 17 May 2016 16:23:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Individual Study: Assessing rainforest restoration: the value of buffer strips for the recovery of rainforest remnants in Australia's Wet TropicsIndividual Studyhttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5579http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5579Wed, 18 May 2016 13:14:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Individual Study: A seeding experiment for testing tree-community recruitment under variable environments: Implications for forest regeneration and conservation in Mediterranean habitatsIndividual Studyhttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5583http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5583Wed, 18 May 2016 13:14:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Individual Study: Are conservation strategies effective in avoiding the deforestation of the Colombian Guyana Shield?Individual Studyhttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5586http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5586Wed, 18 May 2016 13:14:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Adopt community-based management to protect forests Two studies from Ethiopia and Nepal (including one replicated, before-and-after, site comparison) found that forest cover increased more in community-managed forests than in forests not managed by local communities. One replicated, site comparison study in Colombia found that deforestation rates in community-managed forests did not differ from deforestation rates in forests that were not managed by local communities, or in uninhabited national parks.  Collected Evidencehttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1152http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1152Wed, 18 May 2016 14:58:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Adopt ecotourism We found no evidence for the effects of adopting ecotourism 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 Evidencehttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1173http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1173Thu, 19 May 2016 09:46:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Adopt continuous cover forestry We found no evidence for the effects of adopting continuous cover forestry 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 Evidencehttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1179http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1179Thu, 19 May 2016 10:33:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Adopt conservation grazing of woodland We captured no evidence for the effects of adopting conservation grazing of woodland. '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 Evidencehttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1192http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1192Thu, 19 May 2016 11:53:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Adopt protected species legislation (impact on forest management) We found no evidence of the effects of adopting protected species legislation 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 Evidencehttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1201http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1201Thu, 19 May 2016 13:21:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Individual Study: A comparison of the effects of different shelterwood harvest methods on the survival and growth of acorn-origin oak seedlingsIndividual Studyhttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5619http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5619Mon, 23 May 2016 12:40:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Individual Study: Assessing the effects of seasonal grazing on holm oak regeneration: Implications for the conservation of Mediterranean dehesasIndividual Studyhttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5631http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5631Mon, 23 May 2016 12:40:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Individual Study: A comparison of herbicide and mulch mat treatments for reducing grass, herb, and shrub competition in the BC interior Douglas-fir zone—ten-year resultsIndividual Studyhttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5690http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5690Mon, 23 May 2016 12:41:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Individual Study: Alternative silvicultural practices with variable retention to improve understory plant diversity conservation in southern Patagonian forestsIndividual Studyhttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5738http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5738Mon, 23 May 2016 12:41:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Individual Study: Above-and belowground responses to tree thinning depend on the treatment of tree debrisIndividual Studyhttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5779http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5779Mon, 23 May 2016 12:42:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Individual Study: Aspen canopy removal and root trenching effects on understory vegetationIndividual Studyhttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5800http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5800Mon, 23 May 2016 12:42:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Individual Study: Above-ground production in cleared and thinned stands of semiarid tropical woodland, BrazilIndividual Studyhttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5816http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Findividual-study%2F5816Mon, 23 May 2016 12:42:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add lime to the soil to increase fertility One replicated, randomized controlled study in the USA found that adding lime increased vegetation cover.  Collected Evidencehttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1249http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1249Fri, 03 Jun 2016 12:48:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add organic matter One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Brazil found that leaf litter addition increased species richness of young trees. One replicated, controlled study in Costa Rica found leaf litter addition decreased young tree density in artificial forest gaps. Both studies found no effect of litter addition on the density of tree regenerations under intact forest canopy. One replicated, controlled study in Portugal found that adding plant material to the soil surface increased total plant cover. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found mixed effects on cover depending on understory plant group.  Collected Evidencehttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1250http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1250Fri, 03 Jun 2016 12:51:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add organic matter after tree planting Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the USA found that adding leaf litter or wood-chips before restoration planting increased seedling biomass, but decreased seedling emergence and survival.  Collected Evidencehttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1258http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1258Mon, 06 Jun 2016 10:36:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add lime to the soil after tree planting One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the USA found that adding lime before restoration planting decreased the survival of pine seedlings. The other study found no effect of adding lime on planted oak seedling growth.  Collected Evidencehttp%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1259http%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1259Mon, 06 Jun 2016 10:42:49 +0100