Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gobies: Biological control using native predators No evidence was captured on the deliberate introduction of a native predator to biologically control gobies. '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%2F1061https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1061Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:11:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gobies: Biological control of beneficial species No evidence was found for reducing or controlling goby population size by reducing the population of co-occurring beneficial species. '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%2F1062https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1062Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:13:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gobies: Application of a biocide No evidence was captured on the use of biocide to control populations of the round goby or the tubenose goby. '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%2F1063https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1063Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:14:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gobies: Habitat manipulation No evidence was captured on the use of habitat manipulation to control invasive goby 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%2F1064https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1064Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:15:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gobies: Draining invaded waterbodies No evidence was captured for use of draining waterbodies to reduce the population size of invasive gobies. '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%2F1065https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1065Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:17:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gobies: Netting No evidence was captured on the use of seine netting to control goby 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%2F1066https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1066Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:18:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gobies: Changing pH No evidence was captured on the use of pH alteration to control goby 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%2F1073https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1073Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:28:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gammarids: Biological control using predatory fish No evidence was captured for the use of predatory fish to control Ponto-Caspian gammarids. '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%2F1087https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1087Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:23:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gammarids: Control movement of gammarids A replicated, controlled laboratory study in the USA found that movements of invasive freshwater shrimp slowed down or stopped when they were placed in water that had been exposed to different species of predatory fish, compared to those not exposed to fish. A replicated laboratory study in the UK found carbonating the water stunned invasive killer shrimp. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1088https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1088Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:28:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gammarids: Exposure to parasites A replicated, laboratory study in Canada found that an introduced parasitic mould reduced populations of an invasive shrimp. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1089https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1089Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:30:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gammarids: Exposure to disease-causing organisms No evidence was captured for the use of disease-causing organisms to control Ponto-Caspian gammarids. '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%2F1090https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1090Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:31:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gammarids: Change salinity of the waterOne of two replicated laboratory studies (one controlled) in Canada and the UK found that increasing the salinity level of water killed the majority of invasive shrimp within five hours. One found that increased salinity did not kill invasive killer shrimp.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1091https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1091Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:36:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gammarids: Change water temperature A controlled laboratory study from the UK1 found that heating water to >36°C killed all shrimps after 15 minutes exposure and at >43°C all shrimps died immediately. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1092https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1092Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:38:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gammarids: Change water pH A controlled laboratory study from the UK found that lowering the pH of water did not kill invasive killer shrimp. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1093https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1093Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:41:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gammarids: Dewater (dry out) the habitat A replicated, controlled laboratory study from Poland found that lowering water levels in sand killed three species of invasive freshwater shrimp, although one species required water content levels of 4% and below before it was killed. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1094https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1094Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:44:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gammarids: Add chemicals to the water A controlled laboratory study in the UK found that iodine solution, acetic acid, Virkon S and sodium hypochlorite added to freshwater killed invasive killer shrimp, but were considered impractical for field application. Methanol, citric acid, urea, hydrogen peroxide and sucrose did not kill invasive killer shrimp when added to freshwater. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1095https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1095Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:48:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gammarids: Cleaning equipment No evidence was captured for the cleaning of equipment to control Ponto-Caspian gammarids. '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%2F1096https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1096Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:49:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gammarids: Exchanging ballast water No evidence was captured for exchanging ballast water to control Ponto-Caspian gammarids. '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%2F1097https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1097Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:51:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Parrot’s feather: Use of lightproof barriers We found no evidence on the use of lightproof barriers to control parrot’s feather. '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%2F1576https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1576Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:32:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Parrot’s feather: Water level drawdown One replicated, randomized, controlled laboratory study in the USA found that water removal to expose plants to drying during the summer led to lower survival of parrot’s feather plants than exposing plants to drying during the winter. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1585https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1585Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:07:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Parrot’s feather: Use of salt We found no evidence on the impact of using salt on the control of parrot's feather. '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%2F1605https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1605Fri, 20 Oct 2017 15:18:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Parrot’s feather: Use of herbicides - diquat Two laboratory studies (including a replicated, randomized, controlled study) in the USA found that diquat reduced the growth of parrot’s feather. One replicated, randomized, controlled field study in Portugal found that growth was not reduced after the application of diquat. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1680https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1680Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:11:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Parrot’s feather: Use of herbicides - endohall Two replicated, controlled laboratory studies in New Zealand and the USA found that endothall reduced the growth of parrot’s feather. One replicated, randomized, controlled field study in New Zealand found that parrot’s feather plants treated with endohall presented lower cover soon after herbicide application but cover later increased to levels similar to pre-treatment. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1681https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1681Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:16:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Parrot’s feather: Use of herbicides - triclopyr Two replicated, controlled laboratory studies in New Zealand and the USA reported reduced growth of parrot’s feather following treatment with triclopyr. One replicated, before-and-after and one replicated, controlled field study in New Zealand found that cover was reduced after treatment with triclopyr. However, one of the studies noted that cover later increased to levels close to pre-treatment. One replicated, controlled laboratory study in New Zealand found that the application of triclopyr led to a greater reduction in cover than the application of glyphosate. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1689https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1689Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:03:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Parrot’s feather: Use of herbicides - other herbicides One replicated, controlled laboratory study in New Zealand found that the application of dichlobenil reduced the growth of parrot’s feather. Two replicated, randomized, controlled field studies in Portugal and New Zealand found that the application of dichlobenil reduced cover less than the combined application of the herbicides 2,4-D and MCPA eight days after treatment but not 45 days after treatment and that plants treated with dichlobenil presented lower vegetation cover soon after herbicide application but cover later increased to levels close to pre-treatment. Three laboratory studies (including two replicated, controlled studies and one randomized, controlled study) in the USA found that the herbicides imazamox and imazapyr reduced the growth of parrot’s feather. One replicated, randomized, controlled field study in Portugal and one replicated, controlled, laboratory study in the USA reported reduced parrot’s feather biomass after treatment with glyphosate. One replicated, randomized, controlled field study in Portugal found that the application of gluphosinate-ammonium reduced the biomass of parrot’s feather. Three replicated, controlled laboratory studies in New Zealand and the USA found that treatment with fluridone, clopyralid and copper chelate did not reduce growth of parrot’s feather. One replicated, controlled laboratory study in the USA found that the application of flumioxazin reduced the growth of parrot’s feather. One replicated, randomized, controlled laboratory study in the USA found that the application of florpyrauxifen-benzyl reduced the growth of parrot’s feather. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1699https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1699Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:11:47 +0100