Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify bat hibernacula environments to increase survival of bats infected with white-nose syndrome One study evaluated the effects of modifying hibernacula environments to increase the survival of bats infected with white-nose syndrome. The study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that a greater number of little brown bats infected with the white-nose syndrome fungus survived in hibernation chambers at 4°C than at 10° BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that little brown bats infected with the white-nose syndrome fungus stayed in hibernation for longer in hibernation chambers at 4°C than at 10° Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1013https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1013Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:48:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mechanically remove understory vegetation to reduce wildfires We found no evidence for the effects of mechanically removing understory vegetation to reduce wildfires. '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%2F1219https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1219Fri, 20 May 2016 14:42:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mechanically/manually remove invasive plants One replicated, controlled study in Hawaii found that removal of invasive grass species increased understory plant biomass. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found no effect of invasive shrub removal on understory plant diversity. One replicated, controlled study in Ghana found that removal of invasive weed species increased tree seedling height. One replicated, controlled study in Hawaii found no effect of invasive plant removal on growth rate of native species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1228https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1228Mon, 23 May 2016 10:45:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mechanically remove understory vegetation after tree planting Five studies (including three replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Canada, the USA, France, Panama and Sweden found no effect of controlling understory vegetation on the emergence, survival, growth rate or frost damage in planted seedlings. However, one found removing competing herbs increased seedling biomass. One replicated, controlled study in Canada found that removal of sheep laurel shrubs increased the growth rate and height of planted black spruce seedlings. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1256https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1256Mon, 06 Jun 2016 09:06:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Minimize ground vibrations caused by open cast mining activities We found no evidence for the effects of minimizing ground vibrations caused by open cast mining activities 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%2F1451https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1451Tue, 17 Oct 2017 12:53:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Minimize road lighting to reduce insect attraction We found no studies that evaluated the effects of minimizing road lighting to reduce insect attraction 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%2F1969https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1969Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:13:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Minimize alterations to caves for tourism We found no studies that evaluated the effects of minimizing alterations to caves for tourism 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%2F1993https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1993Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:48:48 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Minimize noise levels within caves One study evaluated the effects of minimizing noise levels within caves on bat populations. The study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One controlled study in the USA found that experimental cave tours with groups that did not talk resulted in fewer bat flights than when groups did talk, but talking did not have an effect on the number of bat movements. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1995https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1995Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:52:09 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify bats roosts to reduce negative impacts of one bat species on another We found no studies that evaluated the effects of modifying bat roosts to reduce negative impacts of one bat species on another on bat 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%2F2288https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2288Wed, 20 Nov 2019 16:36:13 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify culverts to make them more accessible to mammals One study evaluated the effects of modifying culverts to make them more accessible to mammals. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that modified culverts (with a dry walkway, open-air central section and enlarged entrances) were used more by bobcats to make crossings than were unmodified culverts. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2522https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2522Mon, 08 Jun 2020 10:38:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify a bottom trawl to raise parts of the gear off the seabed during fishing Two studies examined the effects of modifying a bottom trawl to raise parts of the gear off the seabed during fishing on marine fish populations. One study was in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia) and one was in the Atlantic Ocean (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (2 studies): Two replicated studies (one randomized and both controlled) in the Gulf of Carpentaria and the Atlantic Ocean found that bottom trawls with parts of the gear raised off the seabed caught fewer unwanted sharks, other elasmobranchs and fish and fewer of three of seven unwanted fish species compared to conventional trawls. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2708https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2708Mon, 28 Dec 2020 15:51:05 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify design or arrangement of tickler chains/chain mats in a bottom trawl Two studies examined the effects of modifying the design or arrangement of tickler chains in a bottom trawl on marine fish populations. One was in the North Sea (Netherlands/UK) and one was in the Atlantic Ocean (Scotland). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (2 studies): One of two replicated, paired, controlled studies in the North Sea and Atlantic Ocean found that removing the tickler chain from a trawl reduced catches of non-commercial target skates/rays and sharks, and individuals were larger, compared to trawling with the chain. The study also found that catches of commercial target species were typically unaffected. The other study found that two modified tickler chain arrangements did not reduce discarded fish catch compared to a standard arrangement. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2709https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2709Mon, 28 Dec 2020 15:58:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify aquaculture gear We found no studies that evaluated the effects of modifying aquaculture gear 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%2F2742https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2742Tue, 02 Feb 2021 15:42:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify anti-predator nets around aquaculture systems We found no studies that evaluated the effects of modifying anti-predator nets around aquaculture systems 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%2F2743https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2743Tue, 02 Feb 2021 16:22:41 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Minimize food waste at aquaculture systems We found no studies that evaluated the effects of minimizing food waste at aquaculture systems 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%2F2744https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2744Tue, 02 Feb 2021 16:41:13 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify design of underwater turbines We found no studies that evaluated the effects of modifying the design of underwater turbines 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%2F2747https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2747Tue, 02 Feb 2021 16:46:52 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify fishing pots and traps to exclude mammals Six studies evaluated the effects on marine mammals of modifying fishing pots and traps to exclude mammals. Two studies were in the North Sea (UK, Sweden) and one study was in each of the Indian River Lagoon (USA), the Gulf of Finland (Finland), the Bothnian Sea (Finland), the Indian Ocean (Australia) and the Baltic Sea (Sweden). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (6 STUDIES) Reduction in entanglements/unwanted catch (2 studies): Two controlled studies (including one replicated study) in the Indian Ocean, and the Baltic Sea and North Sea found that installing steel rods on lobster pots or metal frames on fishing pots reduced the number of Australian sea lion pups or grey seals and harbour seals that entered or became trapped in pots. Human wildlife conflict (4 studies): Two controlled studies (including one replicated study) in the Bothnian Sea and the North Sea found that installing wire grids or steel bars on fishing trap-nets or bag-nets, along with strengthened netting or other modifications to prevent seal access, reduced damage to salmon catches by seals. One controlled study in the Indian River Lagoon found that one of two methods of securing crab pot doors with a bungee cord reduced the number of common bottlenose dolphin interactions. One controlled study in the Gulf of Finland found that installing wire grids on trap-nets, along with strengthened netting, resulted in higher catches of undamaged salmon but not whitefish, likely due to reduced seal predation. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2822https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2822Fri, 05 Feb 2021 15:35:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify crop farming practices in watershed to reduce pollution: freshwater marshes One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation in freshwater marshes, of modifying crop farming practices in the watershed to reduce pollution. The study was in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA reported that freshwater marshes being restored by abandoning cropland in the watershed (along with removing topsoil from the marshes) contained a different overall plant community, after 1–12 years, to both natural and degraded marshes nearby. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): The same study reported that freshwater marshes being restored by abandoning cropland in the watershed (along with removing topsoil from the marshes) contained fewer wetland plant species, after 1–12 years, than nearby natural marshes. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3166https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3166Tue, 06 Apr 2021 13:17:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify crop farming practices in watershed to reduce pollution: brackish/salt marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation in brackish/salt marshes, of modifying crop farming practices in the watershed to reduce pollution. ‘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%2F3167https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3167Tue, 06 Apr 2021 13:18:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify crop farming practices in watershed to reduce pollution: freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation in freshwater swamps, of modifying crop farming practices in the watershed to reduce pollution. ‘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%2F3168https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3168Tue, 06 Apr 2021 13:18:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify crop farming practices in watershed to reduce pollution: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, vegetation in brackish/saline swamps, of modifying crop farming practices in the watershed to reduce pollution. ‘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%2F3169https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3169Tue, 06 Apr 2021 13:18:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify aquaculture practices in watershed to reduce pollutionWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation in marshes or swamps, of modifying aquacultural practices in the watershed to reduce pollution. ‘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%2F3172https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3172Tue, 06 Apr 2021 13:39:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify fishing gear to reduce reptile mortality in the event of unwanted catch One study evaluated the effects on reptile populations of using modified gear to reduce reptile mortality in the event of unwanted catch. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated study in the USA found that few diamondback terrapins died in crab pots fitted with mesh chimneys. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3622https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3622Thu, 09 Dec 2021 13:34:36 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify dams or water impoundments to enable wildlife movements One study evaluated the effects on reptile populations of modifying dams or water impoundments to enable wildlife movements. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One study in the USA found that an eel ladder was used by common watersnakes in five of eight years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3668https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3668Fri, 10 Dec 2021 11:24:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Minimize road lighting to reduce insect attraction We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of minimizing road lighting to reduce insect attraction. ‘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%2F3852https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3852Tue, 05 Jul 2022 11:34:54 +0100