Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 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 - 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: 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 +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