Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce erosion to increase seedling survival We found no evidence for the effect of reducing erosion on planted trees. '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%2F1155https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1155Wed, 18 May 2016 15:25:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness amongst the general public through campaigns and public information We found no evidence for the effect of raising awareness amongst the general public through campaigns and public information 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%2F1157https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1157Wed, 18 May 2016 15:35:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide education programmes about forests We found no evidence for the effect of providing education programmes about forests 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%2F1158https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1158Wed, 18 May 2016 15:35:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore wood pastures (e.g. introducing grazing) One replicated paired study in Sweden found that partial harvesting in abandoned wood pastures increased tree seedling density, survival and growth. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1164https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1164Wed, 18 May 2016 15:51:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent damage from strong winds We found no evidence of the effects of preventing damage from strong winds 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%2F1165https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1165Thu, 19 May 2016 08:14:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove nitrogen and phosphorus using harvested products We found no evidence of the effects of removing nitrogen and phosphorus using harvested 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%2F1166https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1166Thu, 19 May 2016 08:54:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide legal protection of forests from development We found no evidence for the effects of providing legal protection of forests from development. '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%2F1169https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1169Thu, 19 May 2016 09:37:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Re-route paths, control access or close paths We found no evidence for the effects of re-routing paths, controlling access or closing paths 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%2F1171https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1171Thu, 19 May 2016 09:43:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide financial incentives not to graze We found no evidence for the effects of providing financial incentives not to graze 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%2F1177https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1177Thu, 19 May 2016 10:30:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide fuel efficient stoves We found no evidence for the effects of providing fuel efficient stoves 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%2F1183https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1183Thu, 19 May 2016 10:41:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide paraffin stoves We found no evidence for the effects of providing paraffin stoves 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%2F1184https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1184Thu, 19 May 2016 11:40:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Recharge groundwater to restore wetland forest We found no evidence for the effects of recharging groundwater to restore wetland forest. '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%2F1185https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1185Thu, 19 May 2016 11:43:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reintroduce large herbivores We captured no evidence for the effects of reintroducing large herbivores 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%2F1188https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1188Thu, 19 May 2016 11:47:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pollard trees (top cutting or top pruning) We captured no evidence for the effects of tree pollarding 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%2F1189https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1189Thu, 19 May 2016 11:49:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain fallen trees We captured no evidence for the effects of retaining fallen trees 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%2F1193https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1193Thu, 19 May 2016 11:54:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore woodland herbaceous plants using transplants and nursery plugs We found no evidence for the effect of using transplants and nursery plugs 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%2F1203https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1203Thu, 19 May 2016 13:29:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent livestock grazing in forests Two of three studies (including one replicated, controlled study) in Brazil, UK and Costa Rica found that preventing livestock grazing increased survival, species richness and diversity of understory plants. One study found mixed effects. One site comparison study in Israel found that preventing cattle grazing increased the density of oak seedlings and saplings. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1206https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1206Thu, 19 May 2016 14:09:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce the intensity of livestock grazing in forests One replicated study in the UK found that reducing grazing intensity increased the number of tree saplings. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Greece found that reducing grazing intensity increased understory biomass. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1207https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1207Thu, 19 May 2016 14:24:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Shorten livestock grazing period or control grazing season in forests One replicated, controlled study in Spain found that shortening the livestock grazing period increased the abundance and size of regenerating oak trees. One paired-sites study in Australia found no effect of shortening the livestock grazing period on native plant species richness. One replicated study in the UK found that the number of tree seedlings was higher following summer compared to winter grazing. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1208https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1208Thu, 19 May 2016 14:33:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove woody debris after timber harvest One of six studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in the USA and France found that woody debris removal increased understory vegetation cover. Three studies found no effect or mixed effects on cover. Four of the studies found no effect or mixed effects on understory vegetation species richness and diversity and two found no effect of woody debris removal on coverand species diversity of trees. Six studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Canada, Ethiopia, Spain and the USA examined the effect of woody debris removal on young trees. One study found that debris removal increased young tree density, another study found that it decreased young tree density, and three studies found mixed effects or no effect on young tree density. One found no effect of woody-debris removal on young tree survival. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1213https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1213Fri, 20 May 2016 13:32:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Sow tree seeds after wildfire Three studies (including one replicated, randomized, controlled study) in the USA examined the effect of sowing herbaceous plant seeds in burnt forest areas. One found it decreased the number and cover of native species and one found it decreased the density of tree seedlings. All three found no effect of seeding on total plant cover or species richness. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1236https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1236Fri, 03 Jun 2016 08:34:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove burned trees One replicated, controlled study in Israel1 found that removing burned trees increased total plant species richness. One replicated, controlled study in Spain2 found that removal increased the cover and species richness of some plant species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1237https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1237Fri, 03 Jun 2016 08:52:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Sow tree seeds One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in Brazil found that sowing tree seeds increased the density and species richness of new trees. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1244https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1244Fri, 03 Jun 2016 11:02:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or disturb leaf litter to enhance germination One replicated, controlled study in Costa Rica found that leaf litter removal decreased the density of new tree seedlings. One replicated, controlled study in Poland found leaf litter removal increased understory plant species richness but decreased their cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1246https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1246Fri, 03 Jun 2016 11:07:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prepare the ground before tree planting Six of seven studies (including five replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Canada and Sweden found that ground preparation treatments increased the survival and growth rate of planted trees. One study found no effect of creating mounds on frost damage of planted Norway spruce seedlings. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1263https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1263Mon, 06 Jun 2016 14:23:39 +0100