Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control predators to enhance bird populations and communities A meta-analysis and a systematic review both found that reproductive success increased with predator removal, but their exact findings differed. The meta-analysis found that post-breeding population size increased, whilst the systematic review found that this was true on mainlands, but not islands and that breeding populations also increased.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F371https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F371Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:58:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control non-native crayfish We found no evidence for the effects of removing or controlling non-native crayfish on amphibian 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%2F797https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F797Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:42:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control invasive cane toads We found no evidence for the effects of removing or controlling invasive cane toads on amphibian 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%2F798https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F798Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:43:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control invasive Cuban tree frogs One before-and-after study in the USA found that the abundance of squirrel tree frogs and green tree frogs increased after removal of invasive Cuban tree frogs.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F822https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F822Fri, 23 Aug 2013 10:55:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control invasive bullfrogs One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that removing American bullfrogs significantly increased a population of California red-legged frogs. One before-and-after study in the USA and Mexico found that eradicating bullfrogs from the area increased the range of leopard frogs. One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that once bullfrogs had been removed, California red-legged frogs were found out in the open twice as frequently.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F825https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F825Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:19:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control viperine snakes One before-and-after study in Mallorca found that numbers of Mallorcan midwife toad larvae increased after intensive, but not less intensive, removal of viperine snakes.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F830https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F830Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:01:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control mammals One controlled study in New Zealand found that controlling rats had no significant effect on numbers of Hochstetter’s frog. One controlled study in New Zealand found that survival of Maud Island frogs was significantly higher in a predator-proof enclosure than in the wild. One study in New Zealand found that at 58% of translocated Hamilton's frogs survived the first year within a predator-proof enclosure.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F839https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F839Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:39:17 +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: Remove plant litter to maintain or restore disturbance Two studies evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of removing plant litter to maintain or restore disturbance. One study was in fen meadow and one was in a fen. Plant community composition (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized, one paired, before-and-after) in a fen meadow in Germany and a fen in Czech Republic found that removing plant litter did not affect plant community composition. Vegetation cover (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a fen in the Czech Republic found that removing plant litter did not affect bryophyte or tall moor grass cover. Overall plant richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in a fen meadow in Germany reported that removing plant litter increased plant species richness and diversity. However, one replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a fen in the Czech Republic found that removing litter did not affect vascular plant diversity. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1760https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1760Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:35:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove pipelines and infrastructure following decommissioning We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing pipelines and infrastructure in place following decommissioning on subtidal benthic invertebrate 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%2F2060https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2060Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:42:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control predators Ten studies evaluated the effects on non-controlled mammals of removing or controlling predators. Seven studies were in North America, one was in Finland, one in Portugal and one in Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (10 STUDIES) Abundance (6 studies): Three of six studies (including three controlled, one before-and-after and one replicated, paired sites study), in Finland Portugal, Mexico and the USA, found that removing predators increased abundances of pronghorns, moose and European rabbits and Iberian hares. One of these studies also found that mule deer abundance did not increase. The other three studies found that removing predators did not increase mountain hare, caribou or desert bighorn sheep abundance. Reproductive success (2 studies): Two replicated, before-and-after studies (one also controlled), in the USA, found that predator removal was associated with increased breeding productivity of white-tailed deer and less of a productivity decline in pronghorns. However, one of these studies also found that there was no change in breeding productivity of mule deer. Survival (5 studies): Two of five before-and-after studies (including two controlled studies and one replicated study), in the USA, Canada and the USA and Canada combined, found that controlling predators did not increase survival of caribou calves, or of calf or adult female caribou. Two studies found that moose calf survival and woodland caribou calf survival increased with predator control. The other study found mixed results with increases in white-tailed deer calf survival in some but not all years with predator control. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2613https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2613Thu, 11 Jun 2020 17:19:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove plant litter: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of removing plant litter from brackish/saline 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%2F3065https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3065Fri, 02 Apr 2021 13:01:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control predators using lethal controls: Sea turtles Four studies evaluated the effects of removing or controlling predators using lethal controls on sea turtle populations. All four studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Reproductive success (4 studies): Two before-and-after studies (including one controlled study) in the USA found that on islands where raccoons and feral pigs or only feral pigs were eradicated, fewer loggerhead and loggerhead and green turtle nests were predated than before predator control began. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that controlling raccoons on short sections of a beach resulted in similar predation of loggerhead turtle nests compared to in sections of the beach with no control. One before-and-after study in the USA found that disruptions to a programme controlling raccoons and armadillos resulted in more predation of loggerhead, leatherback and green turtle nests. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3671https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3671Fri, 10 Dec 2021 11:54:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control predators using lethal controls: Tortoises, terrapins, side-necked & softshell turtles Seven studies evaluated the effects of removing or controlling predators using lethal controls on tortoise, terrapin, side-necked and softshell turtle populations. Four studies were in the USA and three were in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Reproductive success (7 studies): Six of seven studies (including four replicated, controlled studies) in Australia and the USA found that in areas with mammal or fire ant control, and in two cases with fencing, fewer tortoise, turtle and terrapin nests were predated compared to areas with no control, or before control began. Two studies also found that predation increased again a year after control or in the second year of control. The other study found that following short-term fox control, a similar number of artificial eastern long-necked turtle nests were predated by foxes compared to before control began. Survival (3 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (including one before-and-after study and one randomized study) in Australia and the USA found that in a fenced area with mammal or fire ant control, more gopher tortoise hatchlings survived for one year or at least 150 days compared to fenced areas with no control. The other study found mixed effects of fox control on survival of Murray short-necked turtles and broad-shelled turtles depending on turtle species, age and sex. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that in areas with fox control, freshwater turtles nested further from the water and nests were more spread out compared to areas with no control, or before control began. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3672https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3672Fri, 10 Dec 2021 12:10:34 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control predators using lethal controls: Snakes & lizards Twelve studies evaluated the effects of removing or controlling predators using lethal controls on snake and lizard populations. Four studies were in New Zealand, two were in each of Australia and the Galápagos, and one was in each of Indonesia, Antigua, Mexico and the Bahamas. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (12 STUDIES) Abundance (8 studies): Four of six before-and-after studies (including one replicated, controlled study) in New Zealand, Antigua, Mexico and the Bahamas found that on islands where both Pacific rats and European rabbits, Pacific rats, black rats and cats were eradicated, the abundance of lizards and Antiguan racer snakes. One study found that on an island where black rats were eradicated the number of San Salvador rock iguanas remained similar compared to before eradication. The other study found that eradicating mice had mixed effects on the abundance of lizards. One study also found that lizard abundance on an island with eradication was initially lower than on a predator free island, but after two years was similar or higher. One controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that across areas with fox and cat control or only fox control, gecko and skink numbers were similar to an area with no control, but dragon lizard numbers were lower. One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that in areas with fox control sand goanna abundance was higher and there was mixed effects on small lizard abundance compared to in areas with no control. Reproductive success (1 study): One before-and-after study in the Galápagos found that on an island where cats were eradicated the number of offspring of reintroduced Galápagos land iguanas was higher than before cat control began. Survival: (2 studies): One study in New Zealand found that survival of captive-bred Otago skinks released into an enclosure after mouse eradication was higher compared to when skinks were released in the presence of mice. One study in Indonesia reported no mortality of monitor lizards following use of poison baits to control black rats. Condition (2 studies): One of two studies in Indonesia and the Galápagos found that on an island where black rats were controlled, rodenticide was detected in the livers of lava lizards for up to 850 days after its use began. The other study reported no illness in monitor lizards following use of poison baits to control black rats. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3673https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3673Fri, 10 Dec 2021 12:27:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control predators using lethal controls: Crocodilians We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing or controlling predators using lethal controls on crocodilian 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%2F3674https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3674Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:42:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control predators using lethal controls: Tuatara One study evaluated the effects of removing or controlling predators using lethal controls on tuatara populations. This study was in New Zealand. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in New Zealand found that after eradicating Pacific rats the abundance of tuatara was higher on islands where rats were eradicated than on islands where some rats remained, and that the percentage of total tuatara that were juveniles increased. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3675https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3675Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:44:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control predators by relocating them Two studies evaluated the effects on reptile populations of removing or controlling predators by relocating them. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in the USA found that after raccoons were live trapped and relocated, the number of freshwater turtle hatchlings increased for 2–3 years, then decreased again after 3–4 years. Reproductive success (2 studies): One of two studies (including one replicated, controlled study) in the USA found that within a fenced area where predators were removed by both relocating and lethal controls, fewer gopher tortoise nests were predated than outside the fenced area where predators were not removed. The other study found that after raccoons were live trapped and relocated, predation of freshwater turtle nests decreased for 2–3 years, then increased again after 3–4 years. Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that within a fenced area where predators were removed by both relocating and lethal controls, survival of gopher tortoise hatchlings was higher than outside the fenced area where predators were not removed. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3676https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3676Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:46:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control predators using fencing and/or aerial nets Ten studies evaluated the effects on reptile populations of removing or controlling predators using fencing and/or aerial nets. Five studies were in Australia, two were in each of the USA and New Zealand and one was in Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One controlled study in Australia found mixed effects of fencing in combination with removal of invasive mammals on reptile species richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (10 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Three of four studies (including one paired sites, controlled, before-and-after study) in Australia found mixed effects of fencing or fencing and removal of invasive mammals on the abundance of reptiles. The other study found that small lizards were more abundant inside fenced areas than outside fenced areas. This study also found mixed effects of fencing on the abundance of skinks and geckos. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that in areas with fencing the abundance of reptiles increased more over time than in areas with no fencing. Reproductive success (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in the USA and Spain found that in areas with fencing in combination with predator removal, gopher tortoise nests were predated less frequently than in areas with no corrals or fencing with predator removal. The other study found mixed effects of fencing on predation of artificial western Hermann’s tortoise nests. Survival (4 studies): Two of three studies (including one replicated, randomized, controlled study) in New Zealand and the USA found that in areas with fencing in combination with predator removal, more gopher tortoise hatchlings survived for a year than in areas with no fencing or predator removal or survival of captive-bred Otago skinks released into an enclosure was higher when mice had been eradicated compared to when skinks were released in the presence of mice. The other study found that use of predator exclosure fences did not result in increased survival of McCann’s skink compared to areas without exclosures. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that in enclosures designed to exclude small mammals with additional fencing and overhead netting, a similar number of gopher tortoise hatchlings were predated by vertebrate predators compared to in unmodified enclosures. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3677https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3677Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:52:47 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control non-native reptile competitors We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing or controlling non-native reptile competitors on reptile 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%2F3696https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3696Fri, 10 Dec 2021 18:25:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control non-native/invasive plants Four studies evaluated the effects of removing or controlling non-native/invasive plants on reptile populations. Two studies were in Australia and one was in each of South Africa and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that areas where invasive Bitou bush were sprayed with herbicide had similar reptile species richness compared to unsprayed areas. POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized and two before-and-after studies) in the USA and Australia found that areas where invasive Bitou bush or para grass were controlled had a similar abundance of reptiles and combined reptiles and amphibians compared to areas with no control. One study also found that the abundance of delicate skinks was lower in areas with invasive control compared to unmanaged areas. The other study found that removing invasive non-native Sahara mustard had mixed effects on the abundance of Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizards and flat-tailed horned lizards. Reproductive success (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in South Africa found that in areas where an invasive plant was removed, nesting activity by Nile crocodiles increased more than in places with no removal. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3697https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3697Fri, 10 Dec 2021 18:27:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control invasive or problematic herbivores and seed eaters Seven studies evaluated the effects of removing or controlling invasive or problematic herbivores and seed eaters on reptile populations. Three studies were in Australia and one study was in each of Mauritius, New Zealand, the USA and the Galápagos. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two studies (one site comparison study and one controlled study) in the USA and Australia found that areas where feral horses had been removed had higher lizard and snake species richness than sites with horses. The other study found mixed effects of fencing in combination with removal of invasive mammals on reptile species richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): Four of seven studies (including four controlled studies) in Mauritius, New Zealand, the USA, Australia and the Galápagos found that controlling European rabbits, grey kangaroos or herbivores and predators, in some cases using fencing, had mixed effects on the number of sightings or abundance of different reptile species. Two studies found that when both rabbits and Pacific rats or feral goats were removed the abundance of lizards or the percentage of giant tortoises that were juveniles. The other study found that areas where feral horses had been removed had similar lizard and snake abundance compared to sites with horses. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3698https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3698Fri, 10 Dec 2021 18:35:27 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control toxic invasive amphibians (e.g. cane toads, Asian toads) We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing or controlling toxic invasive amphibians on reptile 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%2F3699https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3699Fri, 10 Dec 2021 18:52:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control non-native predators We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of removing or controlling non-native predators. ‘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%2F3884https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3884Tue, 26 Jul 2022 18:22:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control non-native or problematic plants Nine studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of removing or controlling non-native or problematic plants. Five studies were in the USA and one was in each of Poland, South Africa, Australia and Mauritius. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): Two studies (including one replicated, paired, site comparison study and one controlled study) in Mauritius and the USA found that sites where invasive plants were removed by weeding or cutting and applying herbicide (in one case along with fencing to exclude non-native pigs and deer) had a greater species richness of butterflies than untreated sites. One of these studies also found that sites where Chinese privet was removed had a similar species richness of butterflies to sites which had not been invaded. POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): Four of six studies (including three controlled studies, one before-and-after study and two site comparison studies) in Poland, South Africa, the USA and Mauritius found that sites where trees and shrubs were removed or invasive plants were cut to a similar height to native plants, or removed by weeding or cutting and applying herbicide (in one case along with fencing to exclude non-native pigs and deer), had a greater abundance of Apollo butterflies, a higher density of Fender’s blue eggs, or higher total abundance of butterflies, compared to before removal or untreated sites. One of these studies also found that sites where Chinese privet was removed had a similar abundance of butterflies to sites which had not been invaded. The fifth study found that in plots where herbicide was applied to control invasive grasses, the abundance of Columbia silvery blue eggs and caterpillars was similar to unsprayed plots. The sixth study found that, after prescribed burning, an area where bracken fern was also removed had fewer Brenton blue butterfly eggs than an area without removal. One study in Australia reported that a population of purple copper butterfly caterpillars translocated to an area where invasive plants had been removed, along with host plant translocation and other habitat management, increased in number compared to at the time of translocation. Survival (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the USA found that in plots where herbicide was applied to control invasive grasses, the survival of Columbia silvery blue eggs and caterpillars was similar to unsprayed plots. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that one herbicide commonly used to control invasive grasses reduced the survival of snowberry checkerspot caterpillars, but two other herbicides did not affect the survival of snowberry checkerspot, Edith’s checkerspot or Baltimore checkerspot caterpillars. BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): Two of three randomized, controlled studies (including two replicated, paired studies and one before-and-after study) in the USA found that sites where invasive oat-grass was cut to a similar height to native plants, or where Eastern white pine was removed, were used more by Fender’s blue and frosted elfin butterflies than untreated sites. The third study found that habitat use by Columbia silvery blue butterflies was similar in plots where herbicide was applied to control invasive grasses and in unsprayed plots. Behaviour change (1 study): One before-and-after study in Poland found that removal of trees and shrubs, in addition to the release of captive bred adults and pupae, allowed adults from two previously separated populations of Apollo butterflies to mix. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3890https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3890Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:02:05 +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