The journal, Conservation Evidence
Our online journal publishes research, monitoring results and case studies on the effects of conservation interventions. All papers include some monitoring of the effects of the intervention and are written by, or in partnership with, those who did the conservation work. It includes interventions such as habitat creation, habitat restoration, translocations, reintroductions, invasive species control, and education or integrated conservation development programmes, from anywhere around the world.
Watch a brief video on our journal here.
A volume is created each year with peer-reviewed papers published throughout the year. We now accept Short Communications as well as standard papers.
Special issues contain new papers on a specific topic.
Virtual collections collate papers published in the journal on specific topics such as management of particular groups of species.
To search for papers on a specific topic within the journal select Advanced search, enter your keyword(s) and within the Source box type: "conservation evidence". This will take you to a list of actions that contain Conservation Evidence papers. In order to see the list of individual Conservation Evidence papers on the topic, please click on 'You can also search Individual Studies' at the top of this page.
Ward E. A., Meek S. K. , Gordon D. M., Cameron T. C. , Steer M. D., Smith D. J. , Miliou A. & Tsimpidis T. (2020), 17, 1-6
Seagrasses are important marine ecosystems but are vulnerable to physical damage from anthropogenic activities such as anchoring and trawling. Replanting damaged areas can represent a viable restoration strategy, yet current methods rely on the removal of plants from existing meadows and in some cases the use of non-sustainable planting materials. In this paper, we present evidence of a sustainable replanting strategy. Storm fragments of the endemic Mediterranean seagrass, neptune grass Posidonia oceanica were collected from the shore and shallow water, both the plagiotropic and orthotropic (horizontal and vertical) growth forms were then replanted using one of two biodegradable materials, coconut fibre pots or bamboo stakes, to secure them to the seafloor. Establishment of plagiotropic fragments were increased by bamboo anchorage (x̅ = 89% SE ± 0%) compared to orthotropic storm fragments (x̅ = 66.5% SE ± 6.5%). By contrast a coconut fibre method resulted in greater establishment of orthotropic fragments (x̅ = 79% SE ± 7%) compared to plagiotropic (x̅ = 51% SE ± 11%). Fragments showed some blade growth, but little shoot growth after 15 months. The fragment shoot and blade growth did not differ between the plagiotropic or orthotropic fragments replanted by bamboo stakes or coconut fibre pot. Our results suggest that the use of storm fragments and biodegradable anchoring materials constitutes a viable, non-destructive replanting technique in seagrass restoration. Furthermore success can be increased by selecting a growth-form appropriate planting method.
Nash D. J., Humphries N. & Griffiths R.A. (2020), 17, 7-11
The translocation of reptiles from development sites is a frequent but controversial intervention to resolve reptile-development conflicts. A general lack of post-translocation monitoring means that the fate of translocated reptiles is largely unknown. Here we report on the outcome of six reptile translocations carried out to mitigate the impacts of development. Through detailed post-translocation monitoring, we sought to determine whether translocated reptiles established populations within the receptor sites.
To determine the effect of translocation, we investigated six sites within the UK that had received populations of translocated slow-worm Anguis fragilis, viviparous lizard Zootoca vivipara, adder Vipera berus and / or grass snake Natrix helvetica. Identification photographs were taken of all reptiles during the translocation. Following release, between one and three years of post-translocation monitoring was undertaken; during the monitoring, identification photographs were again collected to establish whether captured individuals were part of the translocated populations.
Very few translocated individuals were encountered during the post-translocation monitoring. The mean number of translocated reptiles was 98 (SE 19.61). Of these, an average of 1.5 (SE 0.72) individuals or 1.6% of the population were captured during the monitoring. No recaptures of translocated reptiles were made at three (50%) of the study sites. The low recapture rates of translocated reptiles could be due to mortality, imperfect detection (including inaccurate identification of individuals) or post-translocation dispersal. There is some limited evidence to support each of the possible options, but post-translocation dispersal is considered to be the most likely explanation.
The study found no confirmatory evidence that mitigation-driven translocations are compensating for the losses of populations to development.