Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Floating pennywort: Biological control using native herbivores No evidence was captured on biological control of floating pennywort using native herbivores. '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%2F1124https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1124Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:28:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Floating pennywort: Physical removal A study in Western Australia found that following a two-week program of physical removal of floating pennywort, the rate of growth exceeded the rate of removal. A study in the UK, found that removal using a mechanical digger and monthly picking by hand greatly reduced the cover of floating pennywort but did not completely eradicate it. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1126https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1126Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:33:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Floating pennywort: Chemical control using herbicides A controlled, replicated study in the UK found that the herbicide 2,4-D amine applied at 4.2 kg/ha achieved near to 100% mortality, compared with the herbicide glyphosate applied at 2.2 kg active ingredient/ha (without an adjuvant) which achieved negligible mortality. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1127https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1127Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:36:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Floating pennywort: Combination treatment using herbicides and physical removal A before-and-after study in Western Australia found that a combination of cutting followed by glyphosate chemical treatment, removed floating pennywort. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1128https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1128Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:39:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Floating pennywort: Use of hydrogen peroxide A controlled, replicated pilot study in The Netherlands, found that hydrogen peroxide sprayed on potted floating pennywort plants resulted in curling and transparency of the leaves when applied at the highest tested concentration (30%), but this was still not sufficient to kill the plant. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1129https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1129Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:41:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Floating pennywort: Use of liquid nitrogen No evidence was captured on the use of liquid nitrogen for control of floating pennywort. '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%2F1130https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1130Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:43:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Floating pennywort: Flame treatment A controlled, replicated, pilot experiment in 2010 in The Netherlands, found that flame treatments of 1, 2 or 3 seconds had a significantly negative and progressive impact on floating pennywort, and a 3 second repeat treatment after 11 days proved fatal. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1131https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1131Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:46:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Floating pennywort: Excavation of banks No evidence was captured on the effects of excavation of banks using a sod-cutter or ‘turf-cutter’ to remove floating pennywort. '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%2F1132https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1132Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:46:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Floating pennywort: Environmental control (e.g. shading, reduced flow, reduction of rooting depth, or dredging) No evidence was captured on the potential for environmental control of floating pennywort using shading, increased flow, reduction of rooting depth to below 1 metre, or dredging. '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%2F1133https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1133Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:48:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Floating pennywort: Public education No evidence was captured on the impact of education programmes on control of floating pennywort. '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%2F1134https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1134Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:49:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Parrot’s feather: Mechanical harvesting and cutting We found no evidence on the use of manual harvesting 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%2F1568https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1568Fri, 20 Oct 2017 11:31:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Parrot’s feather: Mechanical excavation We found no evidence on the use of mechanical excavation 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%2F1570https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1570Fri, 20 Oct 2017 11:44:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Parrot’s feather: Removal using water jets We found no evidence on the use of water jets 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%2F1572https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1572Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:26:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Parrot’s feather: Suction dredging and diver-assisted suction removal We found no evidence on the use of suction dredging and diver-assisted suction removal 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%2F1573https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1573Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:27:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Parrot’s feather: Manual harvesting (hand-weeding) We found no evidence on the effects of manual 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%2F1575https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1575Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:31:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Parrot’s feather: Dye application We found no evidence on the use of dye treatments 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%2F1587https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1587Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:10:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Parrot’s feather: Biological control using fungal-based herbicides We found no evidence for the effects of biological control of parrot’s feather using fungal-based herbicides. '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%2F1598https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1598Fri, 20 Oct 2017 14:56:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Parrot’s feather: Biological control using herbivores One replicated, controlled laboratory study in Portugal found that grass carp did not reduce biomass or cover of parrot’s feather. Two replicated, randomized field studies in Argentina and the USA found that stocking with grass carp reduced the biomass or abundance of parrot’s feather. One field study in South Africa reported reduced growth of parrot’s feather following the release a South American leaf-feeding Lysathia. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1599https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1599Fri, 20 Oct 2017 14:58:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Parrot’s feather: Biological control using plant pathogens One study in South Africa found that parrot’s feather plants survived after being treated with a strain of the bacterium Xanthomonas campestris. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1601https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1601Fri, 20 Oct 2017 15:05:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Parrot’s feather: Decontamination / preventing further spread We found no evidence on the effects of decontamination to prevent further spread 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%2F1602https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1602Fri, 20 Oct 2017 15:09:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Parrot’s feather: Public education We found no evidence on the impact of education programmes 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%2F1603https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1603Fri, 20 Oct 2017 15:11:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Parrot’s feather: Reduction of trade through legislation and codes of conduct One randomized, before-and-after trial in the Netherlands reported that the implementation of a code of conduct reduced the trade of aquatic plants banned from sale (group that included parrot’s feather Myriophyllum aquaticum). One study in the USA found that parrot’s feather plants were still traded despite a state-wise trade ban. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1604https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1604Fri, 20 Oct 2017 15:14:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Parrot’s feather: Use of herbicides - 2,4-D Three laboratory studies (including two replicated, controlled studies and one randomized, controlled study) in the USA and Brazil found that the herbicide 2,4-D reduced the growth of parrot’s feather. One replicated, controlled laboratory study in Brazil found that 2,4-D led to a greater reduction in growth of parrot’s feather than the herbicides diquat, glyphosate or imazapyr. One replicated, randomized, controlled field study in Portugal found that 2,4-D amine reduced the biomass of parrot’s feather. One randomized, controlled field study in Portugal found that the combined application of 2,4-D and MCPA completely eliminated parrot’s feather. One randomized, controlled laboratory study in the USA found that the combined application of 2,4-D and carfentrazone-ethyl led to a higher reduction in the cover of parrot’s feather than the application of the herbicide dichlobenil eight days after treatment but not 45 days after treatment. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1606https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1606Fri, 20 Oct 2017 16:31:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Parrot’s feather: Use of herbicides - carfentrazone-ethyl Five laboratory studies (including one replicated, controlled, before-and-after study) in the USA found that carfentrazone-ethyl reduced growth in parrot’s feather. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1676https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1676Mon, 23 Oct 2017 08:54:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Parrot’s feather: Multiple integrated measures We found no evidence on the use of multiple integrated measures 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%2F1709https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1709Mon, 23 Oct 2017 13:15:16 +0100