Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use lion dung to deter domestic cats We found no evidence for the effects of lion dung application on the use of gardens by cats or on cat predation. '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%2F413https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F413Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:19:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use mass-emergence devices to increase natural enemy populationsParasitism: One randomised, replicated, controlled study in Switzerland found higher parasitism at one site but no effect at another site when mass-emergence devices were used in urban areas. Pest damage: The same study found no effect on pest damage to horse chestnut treesCollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F775https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F775Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:35:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use low intensity lighting Three studies evaluated the effects of using low intensity lighting on bat populations. The three studies were in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that activity (relative abundance) of lesser horseshoe bats, but not myotis bats, was higher along hedges with medium or low intensity lighting than hedges with high intensity lighting. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that activity of myotis bats, but not common pipistrelles, was higher along treelined roads with street lights dimmed to an intensity of 25% than roads with streetlights dimmed to 50% or left undimmed. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)         Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that more soprano pipistrelles emerged from two roosts when the intensity of red lights was reduced by placing filters over them. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1018https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1018Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:58:34 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use mammal-safe timber treatments in roof spaces We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using mammal-safe timber treatments in roof spaces on bat 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%2F1022https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1022Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:04:01 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use mechanical thinning before or after planting Five of six studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Brazil, Canada, Finland, France and the USA found that thinning trees after planting increased survival and size of the planted trees. One study found it decreased their density. One study found that the effects of thinning on the size and survival rate of planted trees varied between species. One replicated study in the USA found that the survival rate of red oak seedlings increased with the size of the thinned area.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1261https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1261Mon, 06 Jun 2016 11:04:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use loud-speakers to broadcast sounds of potential threats (e.g. barking dogs, explosions, gunshots) We found no evidence for the effects of using loud-speakers to broadcast sounds of potential threats to crop-raiding primates on primate 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%2F1446https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1446Tue, 17 Oct 2017 11:24:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use loud-speakers to broadcast primate alarm calls We found no evidence for the effects of using loud-speakers to broadcast primate alarm calls to crop-raiding primates on primate 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%2F1447https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1447Tue, 17 Oct 2017 11:35:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use low impact harvesting techniques (for wild biological resources) We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of using low impact harvesting techniques (for wild biological resources). ‘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%2F1745https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1745Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:27:41 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use low impact vehicles for harvesting (wild biological resources) We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of using specialized low impact vehicles for harvesting (wild biological resources). ‘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%2F1746https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1746Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:28:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use lower water pressure during hydraulic dredging We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using lower water pressure during hydraulic dredging 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%2F2120https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2120Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:02:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use livestock fences that are permeable to wildlife Two studies evaluated the effects on target mammals of using livestock fences that are permeable to wildlife. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): A study in the USA found that wild ungulates crossed a triangular cross-section fence with varying success rates. A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that fences with a lowered top wire were crossed more by elk than were conventional fences. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2409https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2409Fri, 29 May 2020 12:28:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use loud noises to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Three studies evaluated the effects of using loud noises to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (3 studies): Three replicated studies (including two controlled studies), in the USA and Mexico, found that loud noises at least temporarily deterred sheep predation or food consumption by coyotes and (combined with visual deterrents) deterred livestock predation by large predators. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2435https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2435Tue, 02 Jun 2020 09:12:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use loud noises to deter crop damage (e.g. banger sticks, drums, tins, iron sheets) by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Ten studies evaluated the effects of using loud noises to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Three studies were in the USA, two were in Zimbabwe and Kenya and one each was in the UK, Namibia, and India. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (10 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (10 studies): Five of six studies (including two controlled, one replicated and two before-and-after studies), in the USA, Namibia, Kenya and India, found that loud noises activated when an animal was in the vicinity reduced or partially reduced crop damage or crop visits by white-tailed deer, black-tailed deer (when combined with using electric shock collars) and elephants. The other study found that using loud noises (along with chili fences and chili smoke) did not reduce crop-raiding by African elephants. Three studies (including two controlled studies), in the UK and the USA, found that regularly sounding loud noises did not repel European rabbits or white-tailed deer. Two replicated studies, in Zimbabwe, found that, from among a range of deterrents, African elephants were repelled faster from crop fields when scared by firecrackers or by a combination of deterrents that included drums. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2460https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2460Tue, 02 Jun 2020 11:34:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use methods to trace the source of catch We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using methods to trace the sources of catches on marine fish 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%2F2771https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2771Wed, 03 Feb 2021 11:18:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use methods to dampen underwater noise emissions (e.g. bubble curtains, screens) One study evaluated the effects on marine mammals of using bubble curtains or screens to dampen underwater noise emissions. The study was in the North Sea (Germany). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the North Sea found that using bubble curtains or screens during pile driving resulted in harbour porpoise detections within 15 km decreasing less compared to before pile driving than at sites without bubble curtains or screens. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2901https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2901Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:11:37 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use methods to reduce sediment disturbance during dredging (e.g. curtains, screens) We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using methods to reduce sediment disturbance during dredging, on marine and freshwater mammal 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%2F2906https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2906Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:17:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use low-impact methods to harvest vegetation: freshwater marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of using supposedly low-impact methods to harvest vegetation in freshwater marshes.   ‘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%2F3009https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3009Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:09:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use low-impact methods to harvest vegetation: brackish/salt marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation of using supposedly low-impact methods to harvest vegetation in brackish/salt marshes.   ‘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%2F3010https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3010Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:10:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use low-impact methods to harvest vegetation: freshwater swamps One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of using supposedly low-impact methods to harvest vegetation in freshwater swamps. The study was in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One controlled study in a freshwater swamp in the USA reported that after seven years, a plot where logs had been extracted by helicopter only contained fewer plant species than a plot where logs had been extracted by helicopter and ground vehicles. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One controlled study in a freshwater swamp in the USA reported that after seven years, a plot where logs had been extracted by helicopter only contained less overall plant biomass than a plot where logs had been extracted by helicopter and ground vehicles. This was also true for the overstory and ground layers separately. However, overstory tree density did not significantly differ between helicopter-extracted and vehicle-extracted plots. Individual species abundance (1 study): The same study found that the abundance of some individual plant species – particularly swamp ash Fraxinus caroliniana and water tupelo Nyssa aquatica – significantly differed between helicopter-extracted and vehicle-extracted plots. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (1 study): One controlled study in a freshwater swamp in the USA found that after seven years, the average height of the overstory was similar in a plot where logs had been extracted by helicopter only and a plot where logs had been extracted by helicopter and ground vehicles. Diameter, perimeter, area (1 study): The same study found that after seven years, the average stem diameter of overstory trees was similar in helicopter-extracted and vehicle-extracted plots. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3011https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3011Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:10:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use low-impact methods to harvest vegetation: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of using supposedly low-impact methods to harvest vegetation in 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%2F3012https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3012Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:10:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use low-impact methods to hunt/collect animalsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of using supposedly low-impact methods to hunt/collect animals in marshes or 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%2F3017https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3017Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:25:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use marketing strategies to increase the value of marshes or swamps One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation or human behaviour, of using marketing strategies to increase the value of marshes or swamps. The study was in Vietnam. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE   VEGETATION STRUCTURE   OTHER Human behaviour (1 study): One before-and-after study in Vietnam reported that helping local people to sell handicrafts made from marsh plants in tourist markets (along with training to improve the quality of those products) increased their income. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3393https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3393Mon, 12 Apr 2021 12:09:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use lower profile gillnets with longer/no tie-downs We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of using lower profile gillnets with longer/no tie-downs. ‘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%2F3609https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3609Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:42:43 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use low intensity lighting Four studies evaluated the effects of using low intensity lighting on reptile populations. Three studies were in the USA1-3 and one was in Malaysia4. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Behaviour change (4 studies): One replicated, controlled study in the USA1 found that reducing the intensity of light sources did not improve loggerhead turtle hatchling seaward orientation. One replicated, site comparison study in Malaysia4 found that green turtle hatchlings in low and moderate ambient artificial light took more direct crawl routes to the sea than hatchlings released in high ambient artificial light. One replicated, controlled study in the USA3 found that in laboratory trials, loggerhead and green turtle hatchlings showed reduced preference for lower intensity light sources. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA2 found mixed effects of embedding streetlights in the road on seaward orientation of loggerhead turtle hatchlings compared to overhead lighting depending on shading by shrubs and weather and lunar phase. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3623https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3623Thu, 09 Dec 2021 13:34:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use low intensity lighting One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using low intensity lighting. This study was in Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in Germany found that fewer moths were attracted to low intensity lights (which also emitted a narrower range of yellow light with little UV) than to higher intensity lights (which also emitted broader spectra and included UV). Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3902https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3902Tue, 09 Aug 2022 15:09:27 +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