Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude bumblebee nest predators such as badgers and mink We have captured no evidence demonstrating the effects of excluding mammalian predators from natural bumblebee nesting areas. '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%2F45https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F45Thu, 20 May 2010 01:35:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude ants from solitary bee nesting sitesOne replicated controlled trial showed that excluding ants from solitary nests of the endemic Australian bee Exonuera nigrescens increased production of offspring. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F46https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F46Thu, 20 May 2010 06:43:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude introduced European earwigs from nest sitesIn California, USA, a replicated controlled trial showed that numbers of introduced European earwigs Forficula auricularia resting in solitary bee nest boxes can be reduced using a sticky barrier Tanglefoot. This treatment increased the use of the boxes by native bees. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F44https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F44Thu, 20 May 2010 10:20:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude livestock from semi-natural habitat (including woodland) Seven studies (including four replicated controlled trials of which one also randomized, and a review) from Ireland, Poland and the UK looked at the effects of excluding livestock from semi-natural habitats. Three studies (including one replicated controlled and randomized study) from Ireland and the UK found that excluding livestock benefited plants and invertebrates. Three studies (one replicated controlled and one replicated paired sites comparison) from Ireland and the UK found that excluding grazing did not benefit plants or birds. Two studies (one replicated and controlled, one review) from Poland and the UK found that the impact of excluding grazing as a tool in habitat restoration was neutral or mixed. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F150https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F150Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:15:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude grazers from semi-natural habitats Two replicated (one controlled) studies from the USA found higher species richnesses on sites with grazers excluded; a replicated and controlled study from Argentina found lower species richness in ungrazed sites and a study from the USA found no difference. Seven studies from the USA (three controlled, two replicated) found that overall bird abundance, or the abundances of some species were higher in sites with grazers excluded; seven studies from the USA and Argentina found that overall abundance or the abundances of some species were lower on sites without grazers, or did not differ between treatments. Three studies from the USA investigated productivity and found it higher in sites with grazers excluded. In one study this difference was only found on improved, not unimproved pastures. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F236https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F236Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:59:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude or control ‘reservoir species’ to reduce parasite burdens A literature review found no compelling evidence that culling mountain hares Lepus timidus (a carrier of the ticks that carry louping ill virus) increased red grouse Lagopus lagopus scoticus populations. A controlled before-and-after study from the UK did find that there was a significant increase in chick production on grouse moors with hare culling, compared to control sites but no change in population density. A comment on this paper argued that the controls used in it were not adequate. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F435https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F435Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:02:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude domestic animals or wild hogs by fencing Three replicated, site comparison studies in the USA found that excluding livestock from streams or ponds did not increase numbers of amphibian species or overall abundance, but did increase larval abundance and abundance of green frog metamorphs. Two studies found that the abundance of green frogs and/or American toads was higher with grazing. One randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that excluding cattle from ponds did not increase numbers of eggs or larval survival of Columbia spotted frogs. One before-and-after study in the UK found that pond restoration that included livestock exclusion increased pond use by breeding natterjack toads. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F746https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F746Wed, 17 Jul 2013 10:35:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude fish with barriers One controlled study in Mexico found that excluding fish using a barrier increased weight gain of axolotls. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F829https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F829Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:59:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude ants that protect pestsParasitism: One of two replicated, controlled studies (one also randomised) from Japan and the USA found greater parasitism of pests by natural enemies when ants were excluded from trees. The other study found greater parasitism at one site but no effect at another. Natural enemies: Five studies (including four randomised, replicated, controlled trials) from Japan, Switzerland and the USA found effects varied between natural enemy species and groups, sampling dates, sites, crop varieties and ground cover types beneath trees. Pests: Three of seven studies (including four randomised, replicated, controlled trials) found fewer pests and another found fewer pests at times of peak abundance only. One study found mixed effects depending on date and other actions taken simultaneously (predator attractant and ground cover treatments). One study found no effect. Damage and tree growth: One study found no effect on damage to tree foliage but one study found greater tree growth. Ants: Six studies found that glue or pesticide barriers reduced ant numbers in tree or vine canopies. One study found that citrus oil barriers had no effect. Crops studied were cherimoyas, cherry, grape, grapefruit, orange, pecan and satsuma mandarin.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F886https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F886Wed, 18 Sep 2013 16:13:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Excavate pools (without planting) Two studies evaluated the effects of excavating pools (without planting) on peatland vegetation. Both studies were based on the same experimental set-up in bogs in Canada. Plant community composition (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in bogs in Canada reported that excavated pools were colonized by peatland vegetation over 4–6 years, but contained different plant communities to natural pools. In particular, cattail was more common in created pools. Vegetation cover (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in bogs in Canada reported that after four years, created pools had less cover than natural pools of Sphagnum moss, herbs and shrubs. Overall plant richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in bogs in Canada reported that after six years, created pools contained a similar number of plant species to natural pools. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1806https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1806Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:30:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude bats from roosts during building work One study evaluated the effects of excluding bats from roosts during building work on bat populations. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK found that excluding bats from roosts within buildings did not change roost switching frequency, core foraging areas or foraging preferences of soprano pipistrelle colonies. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1930https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1930Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:28:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude bats from roosts prior to mine reclamation We found no studies that evaluated the effects of excluding bats from roosts prior to mine reclamation 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%2F1961https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1961Tue, 04 Dec 2018 16:21:01 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude domestic and feral cats from bat roosts and roost entrances We found no studies that evaluated the effects of excluding domestic and feral cats from bat roosts and roost entrances 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%2F2001https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2001Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:27:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish temporary fisheries closures Six studies examined the effects of establishing temporary fisheries closures on subtidal benthic invertebrates. One study was in the English Channel (UK), one in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel (Australia), one in the North Pacific Ocean (USA), two in the Mozambique Channel (Madagascar), and one in the North Sea (UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall species richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the English Channel found that sites seasonally closed to towed-gear fishing did not have greater invertebrate species richness than sites where towed-fishing occurred year-round. Mollusc community composition (1 study): One replicated, before-and after study in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel found that temporarily reopening an area previously closed to all fishing for 12 years only to recreational fishing led to changes in scallop species community composition over four fishing seasons. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the English Channel found that sites seasonally closed to towed-gear fishing did not have a greater invertebrate biomass than sites where towed-fishing occurred year-round. Crustacean abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the North Sea found that reopening a site to fishing following a temporary 20-month closure led to lower total abundance but similar marketable abundance of European lobsters compared to a continuously-fished site after a month. Mollusc abundance (5 studies): One replicated, site comparison study English Channel found that sites seasonally closed to towed gear did not have higher abundance of great scallops than sites where towed-fishing occurred year-round. Two before-and after, site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Mozambique Channel found that temporarily closing an area to reef octopus fishing did not increase octopus abundance/biomass compared to before closure and to continuously fished areas. Two replicated, before-and after studies in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel and the North Pacific Ocean found that temporarily reopening an area previously closed to all fishing to recreational fishing only led to a decline in scallop abundance after four fishing seasons and in red abalone after three years. Mollusc condition (3 studies): One replicated, before-and after study in the North Pacific Ocean found that temporarily reopening an area previously closed to fishing led to a decline in the size of red abalone after three years. Two before-and after, site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Mozambique Channel found that temporarily closing an area to reef octopus fishing increased the weight of octopus compared to before closure and to continuously fished areas, but one also found that this effect did not last once fishing resumed. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2098https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2098Tue, 22 Oct 2019 08:34:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish territorial user rights for fisheries One study examined the effects of establishing territorial user rights for fisheries on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in the South Pacific Ocean (Chile). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Mollusc reproductive success (1 study): One site comparison study in South Pacific Ocean found that an area with territorial user rights for fisheries had larger-sized and more numerous egg capsules, and more larvae of the Chilean abalone up to 21 months after establishing fishing restrictions compared to an open-access area. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2104https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2104Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:32:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish size limitations for the capture of recreational species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of establishing size limitations for the capture of recreational species 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%2F2274https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2274Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:49:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish wild flower areas on farmland Four studies evaluated the effects of establishing wild flower areas on farmland on small mammals. Two studies were in Switzerland, one in the UK and one in Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): Three of four site comparison studies (including three replicated studies), in Switzerland, the UK and Germany, found that sown wildflower areas contained more wood mice, small mammals and common hamsters compared to grass and clover set-aside, grasslands, crop and uncultivated margins, agricultural areas and crop fields. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2359https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2359Tue, 26 May 2020 14:55:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude livestock from semi-natural habitat (including woodland) Nine studies evaluated the effects of excluding livestock from semi-natural habitat on mammals. Six studies were in the USA, two were in Spain and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in the USA found more small mammal species on areas from which livestock were excluded. POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Abundance (9 studies): Four out of eight studies (including four site comparisons and four controlled studies), in the USA and Spain, found that excluding grazing livestock led to higher abundances of mule deer, small mammals and, when combined with provision of water, of European rabbits. One study found higher densities of some but not all small mammals species when livestock were excluded and the other three studies found that grazing exclusion did not lead to higher abundances of black-tailed hares, California ground squirrel burrows or of five small mammal species. A site comparison study in Australia found more small mammals where cattle were excluded compared to high intensity cattle-grazing but not compared to medium or low cattle-grazing intensities. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2407https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2407Thu, 28 May 2020 13:13:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish temporary fishery closures Five studies examined the effects of establishing temporary fishery closures on marine fish populations. Two studies were in the North Atlantic Ocean (Canada, UK) and one study was in each of the North Sea (UK), the Philippine Sea (Palau) and the Mediterranean Sea (Spain). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Atlantic Ocean found no increase in the biomass of the spawning stock of cod following a temporary fishery closure compared to fished areas over nine years. Survival (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Atlantic Ocean found no change in the survival of cod following a temporary fishery closure compared to fished areas over nine years. Condition (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Atlantic Ocean found no change in the length composition of cod following a temporary fishery closure, compared to fished areas over nine years. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A study in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean reported that over five years tagged adult cod spent nearly a third of time inside a seasonally closed cod spawning area during implementation, and were thus given increased protection from any gears targeting bottom-dwelling fish during the spawning period. OTHER (4 STUDIES) Reduction of fishing effort (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the North Sea found that fixed temporary closures had little effect on fishing effort for cod, but real-time area closures reduced the annual amount of cod caught (retained and discarded). Commercial catch abundance (3 studies): One of two replicated (one controlled, one before-and-after) studies in the Philippine Sea and Mediterranean Sea found that during a temporary closure of a grouper fishery, spear fisher catch numbers of other fish groups (herbivores) increased, indicating they were being targeted more compared to the open season. The other study found that in targeted fisheries over 10 years, catch rates of red mullet and total catch (fish and invertebrates combined), but not European hake, increased after temporary closures, compared to before. One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Atlantic Ocean found no change over nine years in cod catches following a temporary fishery closure compared to fished areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2664https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2664Wed, 18 Nov 2020 16:03:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish territorial fishing use rights One study examined the effects of establishing territorial fishing use rights in an area on marine fish populations. The study was in the Pacific Ocean (Tonga). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Reduction of fishing effort (1 study): One study in the Pacific Ocean found that there was no decrease in overall fishing effort in an area with new territorial fishing use rights and a co-management system, in the five years after implementation. Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One study in the Pacific Ocean found that in an area with new territorial fishing use rights and a co-management system, total fish catch rates did not increase and catch rates of three of six individual fish groups decreased in the first five years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2677https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2677Fri, 27 Nov 2020 15:51:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish riparian buffers to reduce the amount of pollutants reaching rivers and the sea We found no studies that evaluated the effects of establishing riparian buffers to reduce the amount of pollutants reaching rivers and the sea 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%2F2882https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2882Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:46:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude bats from roosts during maintenance work at road/railway bridges and culverts We found no studies that evaluated the effects of excluding bats from roosts during maintenance work at road/railway bridges and culverts 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%2F2941https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2941Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:48:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Excavate freshwater pools Seven studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation within pools or surrounding marshes/swamps, of excavating freshwater pools. Five studies were in the USA, one was in Guam and one was in Canada. Two of the studies in the USA were based on the same set of pools. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Relative abundance (2 studies): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in a freshwater marsh in Canada reported that a smaller proportion of individual plants around excavated pools were wetland-characteristic species, compared to the proportion around natural pools. The excavated pools were 1–3 years old. One replicated study in the USA reported that excavated pools became dominated by non-native plant species over eight years. Overall richness/diversity (3 studies): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in a freshwater marsh in Canada found that overall plant species richness and diversity were similar around excavated pools and natural pools, 1–3 years after excavation. Two studies involving freshwater marshes in Guam and the USA simply quantified plant species richness 12–18 months after excavation (along with other interventions). VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that excavated and natural pools had similar cover of emergent vegetation, seven years after excavation. The same was true for submerged vegetation. Characteristic plant abundance (2 studies): Two replicated studies in the USA reported the abundance of native pool-characteristic species over 3–8 years after excavating pools. One of the studies was also a site comparison and reported that these species were less abundant in the excavated pools than nearby natural pools. Shrub abundance (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that excavated and natural pools had similar cover of shrubby vegetation after seven years. One replicated study in the USA simply quantified shrub abundance over five years after excavating pools/potholes (along with other interventions). Algae/phytoplankton abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that excavated and natural pools contained a similar biomass of surface-coating algae and phytoplankton, after seven years. The same was true for phytoplankton after eight years. Individual species abundance (5 studies): Five studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species. For example, one replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that excavated and natural pools had similar cover of loosestrife Lythrum sp. seven years after excavation, but that excavated pools had greater cover of duckweed Lemna sp., cattails Typha spp. and common reed Phragmites australis. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3211https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3211Fri, 09 Apr 2021 08:47:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Excavate brackish/saline poolsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation within pools or surrounding marshes/swamps, of excavating brackish/saline pools. ‘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%2F3212https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3212Fri, 09 Apr 2021 08:48:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish temporary fishery closures Three studies evaluated the effects of establishing temporary fishery closures on reptile populations. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Brazil. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in Brazil found that areas where a fishing agreement was implemented that involved seasonal fishing restrictions along with a wider set of measures had more river turtles than areas that did not implement the agreement. Survival (2 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that during seasonal closures of shrimp trawling there were fewer lethal strandings of loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley turtles. One study in the USA found that following the re-opening of a swordfish long-line fishery with turtle catch limits in place, loggerhead turtle bycatch reached the annual catch limit in two of three years, and when the limit was reached the fishery was closed for the rest of the year. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3545https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3545Tue, 07 Dec 2021 17:27:09 +0000