Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Floating pennywort: Biological control using co-evolved, host specific herbivores A replicated laboratory and field study in South America found that the South American weevil caused more feeding lesions on floating pennywort than on any other plant species, but field results found that the weevil did not reduce floating pennywort biomass. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1123https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1123Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:27:21 +0100Collected 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: Biological control using fungal-based herbicides No evidence was captured on biological control of floating pennywort 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%2F1125https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1125Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:29:58 +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 +0100