Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control mink A systematic review found seven studies demonstrating that trapping appears to be an effective method of reducing American mink populations, but firm conclusions could not be made due to limitations in experimental design. A large-scale trapping programme in the UK demonstrated that American mink have been successfully eradicated over a large area and this may have been associated with some localized water vole expansions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F107https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F107Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:02:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control mammalian predators on islands for wildfowlA before-and-after study from Alaska found that cackling geese Branta hutchinsii returned to a total of eight nesting islands between the 1970s and 1991, following the removal of Arctic foxes Alopex lugopus from the islands.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F374https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F374Tue, 07 Aug 2012 15:47:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control mammalian predators on islands for seabirds We found 16 before-and-after studies, one paired sites study and one literature review from around the world, all describing positive seabird responses to the removal or control of mammalian predators (mainly rats Rattus spp. and feral cats Felis catus) from islands. Of these 18 studies, seven found either large population increases or recolonisations following predator eradication or control. Two of these found only partial population increases or recolonisations: a study from Alaska. Twelve studies found increases in reproductive success and survival or decreases in predation and mortality following predator control. In one case there was also a small population increase. Rats and mice Mus musculus were controlled in twelve studies, mostly examining burrow-nesting seabirds; cats in eight, mostly on ground or cliff-nesting seabirds; and other species in two. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F375https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F375Tue, 07 Aug 2012 15:57:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control mammalian predators on islands for railsTwo before-and-after studies from Australia and the Galapagos Islands found increases in survival or population density of rails on islands following the removal of feral pigs Sus scrofa. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F377https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F377Wed, 08 Aug 2012 13:42:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control mammalian predators on islands for waders A controlled before-and-after study in New Zealand found that the Chatham Island oystercatcher Haematopus chathamensis population increased following the removal of feral cats Felis catus and other species. A second controlled before-and-after study in Alaska, USA, found small increases in black oystercatcher Haematopus bachmani breeding populations on two islands, but the overall population only increased on one, declining on the other. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F378https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F378Wed, 08 Aug 2012 13:46:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control mammalian predators on islands for raptorsA study in Mauritius found that numbers of Mauritius kestrel Falco punctatus may have increased following the trapping of predators near nests. However, the authors do not provide any data to support this observation. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F379https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F379Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:14:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control mammalian predators on islands for pigeonsTwo before-and-after trials on Mauritius found that fewer pink pigeon Columba mayeri nests were predated and more chicks were fledged following systematic and intensive rat control. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F380https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F380Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:19:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control mammalian predators on islands for songbirds Two before-and-after trials in the Seychelles and Cook Islands describe population increases in magpie robins and monarch flycatchers following cat and rat control. A before-and-after study from New Zealand found that the population of South Island robins Petroica australis australis was almost identical before and after rat control. Two studies found higher reproductive success in monarch flycatchers and shrikes in areas with rodent control, compared to areas without control. However, this was climate dependent in shrikes. A before-and-after study from Hawaii found lower predation on artificial nests after intensive rodent control. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F382https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F382Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:43:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control predators not on islandsA single replicated and randomised, paired sites study from the UK found that plots with predator control had increased density and fledgling success of breeding birds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F384https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F384Wed, 08 Aug 2012 15:17:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control predators not on islands for gamebirds Four controlled studies in Europe found increased populations or productivity of grouse and partridges on sites with predator removal. One study tested multiple interventions simultaneously. A fifth replicated UK study found no increase in grouse densities or reproductive success on sites with gamekeepers, compared to those without. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F387https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F387Wed, 08 Aug 2012 17:25:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control predators not on islands for railsA single study from the USA found more California clapper rails Rallus longirostris obsoletus on sites with higher numbers of foxes removed. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F388https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F388Wed, 08 Aug 2012 17:35:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control predators not on islands for cranesA single trial from the USA found that greater sandhill cranes Grus canadensis tabida had higher hatching and fledging success in years with predator control, compared to years without control. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F389https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F389Wed, 08 Aug 2012 17:37:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control predators not on islands for parrotsA replicated, controlled trial in New Zealand found increased kaka Nestor meridionalis nesting success and lower predation at sites with mammal predator removal than at unmanaged sites. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F391https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F391Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:05:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control or remove habitat-altering mammals Four studies from the Azores and Australia found that seabird populations increased following the eradication of European rabbits Oryctolagus cuniculus or other species, although in three studies there were several other interventions used as well. Two studies from Australia and the Madeira archipelago, Portugal, found that seabird populations’ productivities increased following rabbit and house mouse Mus musculus eradications, with several other interventions used in the Australian study. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F431https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F431Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:21:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control medium-sized herbivores We found no evidence of the effects of controlling medium-sized herbivores on forests. '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%2F1200https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1200Thu, 19 May 2016 13:17:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control populations of wild herbivores We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of controlling populations of wild herbivores. ‘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%2F1861https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1861Tue, 12 Dec 2017 14:17:42 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control non-native/problematic plants to restore habitat We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of controlling invasive or problematic plants to restore habitat. '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%2F2530https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2530Mon, 08 Jun 2020 16:20:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control non-native prey species to reduce populations and impacts of non-native predators We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of controlling non-native prey species to reduce populations and impacts of non-native predators. '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%2F2532https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2532Mon, 08 Jun 2020 16:23:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control populations of wild vertebrates: freshwater marshes Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of controlling populations of wild vertebrates in freshwater marshes. Both studies were in the USA. In one study, the problematic animals were mammals and in the other study they were birds. VEGETATION COMMUNITY VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study of marshy vegetation in the USA reported that over two years of trapping and shooting feral swine Sus scrofa, overall vegetation cover increased. Characteristic plant abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in the USA reported that over two years of trapping and shooting feral swine Sus scrofa, cover of two plant species characteristic of target seepage slope vegetation increased. Herb abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study of marshy vegetation in the USA reported that over two years of trapping and shooting feral swine Sus scrofa, total forb cover increased. Individual species abundance (2 studies): One paired, controlled, before-and-after study in freshwater marshes in the USA reported that killing and scaring Canada geese Branta canadensis reduced their impacts on the density of wild rice Zizania aquatica: its density became similar in plots open to geese and plots fenced to exclude geese. One before-and-after study of marshy vegetation in the USA reported mixed responses of individual plant species to two years of trapping and shooting feral swine Sus scrofa. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (1 study): One paired, controlled, before-and-after study in freshwater marshes in the USA reported that killing and scaring Canada geese Branta canadensis reduced their impacts on the height of wild rice Zizania aquatica: its height became similar in plots open to geese and plots fenced to exclude geese. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3136https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3136Mon, 05 Apr 2021 14:09:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control populations of wild vertebrates: brackish/salt marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of controlling populations of wild vertebrates 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%2F3137https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3137Mon, 05 Apr 2021 14:10:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control populations of wild vertebrates: freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of controlling populations of wild vertebrates in freshwater 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%2F3138https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3138Mon, 05 Apr 2021 14:10:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control populations of wild vertebrates: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of controlling populations of wild vertebrates 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%2F3139https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3139Mon, 05 Apr 2021 14:10:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control populations of wild invertebratesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of controlling populations of wild invertebrates 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%2F3141https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3141Mon, 05 Apr 2021 14:25:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control or remove non-native or nuisance species on intertidal artificial structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of controlling or removing non-native or nuisance species on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. This means we did not find any studies that directly evaluated this intervention during our literature 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%2F3439https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3439Wed, 18 Aug 2021 15:12:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control or remove non-native or nuisance species on subtidal artificial structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of controlling or removing non-native or nuisance species on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. This means we did not find any studies that directly evaluated this intervention during our literature 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%2F3441https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3441Fri, 20 Aug 2021 10:02:25 +0100