Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create open patches or strips in permanent grasslandA randomised, replicated and controlled study from the UK found that more Eurasian skylarks used fields with open strips in, but that variations in skylark numbers were too great to draw conclusions from this finding.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F239https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F239Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:38:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create open patches or strips in permanent grassland Two studies (both randomized, replicated and controlled) investigated the effects of creating open strips in permanent grassland. One trial from the UK found that more Eurasian skylarks used fields containing open strips, but variations in skylark numbers were too great to draw conclusions from this finding. One trial from Scotland found insect numbers in grassy headlands initially dropped when strips were cleared.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F563https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F563Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:19:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create microclimate and microhabitat refuges Studies investigating the effects of creating refuges are discussed in ‘Habitat restoration and creation’ and ‘Biological resource use – Leave coarse woody debris in forests’.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F809https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F809Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:04:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or restore bat foraging habitat in urban areas Three studies evaluated the effects of creating or restoring bat foraging habitat in urban areas on bat populations. One study in each of the UK and USA evaluated green roofs and one study in the USA evaluated restored forest fragments. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in the USA found no difference in species richness over green roofs and conventional unvegetated roofs. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One site comparison study in the USA found higher bat activity (relative abundance) in two of seven restored forest fragments in urban areas than in two unrestored forest fragments. One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in the UK found greater bat activity over ‘biodiverse’ green roofs than conventional unvegetated roofs, but not over ‘sedum’ green roofs. One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in the USA found greater bat activity for three of five bat species over green roofs than over conventional unvegetated roofs. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F954https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F954Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:44:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create managed paths/signs to contain disturbance We found no evidence for the effects of creating managed paths/signs to contain disturbance 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%2F1170https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1170Thu, 19 May 2016 09:40:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create natural habitat islands within agricultural land We found no evidence for the effects of creating natural habitat islands within agricultural land 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%2F1425https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1425Tue, 17 Oct 2017 09:30:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create mounds or hollows (before planting) Three studies evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of creating peat mounds or hollows before planting peatland plants. Two studies were in bogs. One was in a tropical peat swamp. Growth (1 study): One controlled study in a peat swamp in Thailand reported that trees planted into mounds of peat grew thicker stems than trees planted at ground level. Cover (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after studies in bogs in Canada found that roughening the peat surface (by harrowing, ploughing, creating vehicle tracks or adding peat blocks) did not significantly affect cover of planted Sphagnum moss after 1–3 growing seasons. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1834https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1834Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:53:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or maintain small dams to provide foraging and drinking habitat for bats One study evaluated the effects of maintaining small dams as foraging and drinking habitat for bats on bat populations. The study was in Portugal. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Portugal found that reservoirs created using small dams had greater activity (relative abundance) of four bat species than the streams feeding into them. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1997https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1997Wed, 05 Dec 2018 14:43:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create new unlit commuting routes using planting We found no studies that evaluated the effects of creating new unlit bat commuting routes using planting 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%2F2034https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2034Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:26:40 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or maintain corridors between habitat patches Four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of creating or maintaining corridors between habitat patches. One study was in each of Canada, the USA, Norway and the Czech Republic. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): Four studies (three replicated) in Canada, the USA, Norway and the Czech Republic found that corridors between habitat patches were used by small mammals. Additionally, North American deermice moved further through corridors with increased corridor width and connectivity and root voles moved further in corridors of intermediate width. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2576https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2576Wed, 10 Jun 2020 11:20:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create mounds or hollows: freshwater marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of creating mounds or hollows 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%2F3217https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3217Fri, 09 Apr 2021 12:52:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create mounds or hollows: brackish/salt marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of creating mounds or hollows 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%2F3218https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3218Fri, 09 Apr 2021 12:52:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create mounds or hollows: freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of creating mounds or hollows 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%2F3219https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3219Fri, 09 Apr 2021 12:53:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create mounds or hollows: brackish/saline swamps One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of creating mounds or hollows in brackish/saline swamps. The study was in Indonesia. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Tree/shrub abundance (1 study): One study in Indonesia simply reported the number of mangrove tree seedlings that had colonized a pile of branches placed in a disused aquaculture pond, around seven months after depositing the branches (and releasing mangrove propagules). VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3220https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3220Fri, 09 Apr 2021 12:55:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create mounds or hollows before planting non-woody plants: freshwater wetlands Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of creating mounds or hollows in freshwater wetlands before planting emergent, non-woody plants. Both studies were in the same wetland in the USA, but used different experimental set-ups. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Individual species abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled studies in a wetland in the USA found that tussock sedge Carex stricta cover was typically similar across plots, after two growing seasons, whether sedges were planted into created mounds or hollows, or planted into flat ground. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Individual plant size (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled studies in a wetland in the USA found that planting tussock sedges Carex stricta into created mounds or hollows had no significant effect on their individual biomass, after 1–2 growing seasons, when compared to planting into flat ground. OTHER Survival (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled studies in a wetland in the USA found that planting tussock sedge Carex stricta into created mounds or hollows did not improve, and typically reduced, its survival rate compared to planting into flat ground. Survival was monitored after 1–2 growing seasons. Growth (2 studies): The same studies found that planting tussock sedge Carex stricta into created mounds or hollows typically had no significant effect on its growth rate, over 1–2 growing seasons, compared to planting into flat ground. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3286https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3286Sat, 10 Apr 2021 17:34:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create mounds or hollows before planting non-woody plants: brackish/saline wetlands One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of creating mounds or hollows in brackish/saline wetlands before planting emergent, non-woody plants. The study was in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Individual species abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in an estuarine salt marsh in the USA found that amongst plots sown/planted with dwarf saltwort Salicornia bigelovii, those that had been excavated into depressions had lower cover of dominant pickleweed Salicornia virginica – over the first growing season – than plots left at ground level. VEGETATION STRUCTURE   OTHER Germination/emergence (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in an estuarine salt marsh in the USA found that there were no more (sometimes fewer) dwarf saltwort Salicornia bigelovii seedlings in excavated depressions than in level plots, two months after sowing saltwort seeds. Survival (1 study): The same study found that the survival rate of dwarf saltwort Salicornia bigelovii transplants was not greater (sometimes lower) in excavated depressions than in level plots. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3287https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3287Sat, 10 Apr 2021 17:34:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create mounds or hollows before planting trees/shrubs: freshwater wetlands Three studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of creating mounds or hollows in freshwater wetlands before planting trees/shrubs. All three studies were in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study of 10-year-old restored/created freshwater wetlands in the USA reported that adding coarse woody debris to wetlands before planting trees/shrubs affected the composition of the ground vegetation layer, but not the tree layer. Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): Two studies in freshwater wetlands in the USA reported that creating mounds or hollows before planting trees/shrubs had no clear or significant effect on plant species richness and diversity 10–12 years later. In one of the studies, the same was true for bryophyte, herb and woody plants richness separately. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE   VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in created freshwater wetlands in the USA found that the average height of white cedar Thuja occidentalis saplings typically increased more, between two and five years after planting, in created mounds than on lower (occasionally flooded) ground. OTHER                                         Survival (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in created freshwater wetlands in the USA found that white cedar Thuja occidentalis seedlings had higher survival rates when planted into created mounds than on lower (occasionally flooded) ground. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3288https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3288Sat, 10 Apr 2021 17:35:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create mounds or hollows before planting trees/shrubs: brackish/saline wetlands One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of creating mounds or hollows in brackish/saline wetlands before planting trees/shrubs. The study was in Brazil. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE   VEGETATION STRUCTURE   OTHER Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in a degraded coastal swamp in Brazil reported that planting tree seedlings into mounds had mixed effects on survival over three years, depending on the species. Growth (1 study): The same study reported that tree seedlings planted into mounds typically grew at a similar rate, over three years, to seedlings planted at ground level. Growth was measured in terms of diameter, height and canopy area. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3289https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3289Sat, 10 Apr 2021 17:35:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create natural rocky reef topography on intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of creating natural rocky reef topography on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. One study was on an open coastline and in estuaries in the UK, and one was on an open coastline in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that creating natural rocky reef topography on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that creating natural rocky reef topography on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on barnacle and mobile invertebrate abundances on structure surfaces, depending on the site. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One study in the UK reported that natural topography created on intertidal artificial structures was colonized by macroalgae and limpets, and that limpets used shaded grooves and water-retaining depressions created by the topography. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3435https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3435Fri, 13 Aug 2021 12:05:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create natural rocky reef topography on subtidal artificial structures One study examined the effects of creating natural rocky reef topography on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. The study was on an open coastline in Italy. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Italy found that creating natural rocky reef topography on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the abundance of juvenile canopy macroalgae that settled onto structure surfaces, regardless of the topography depth. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3446https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3446Fri, 20 Aug 2021 14:19:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or restore ponds Four studies evaluated the effects of creating or restoring ponds on reptile populations. Two studies were in the USA and one was in each of Austria and China. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): Four studies (including one replicated and one before-and-after study) in Austria, the USA and China reported that following the creation of ponds, in one case 30–60 years after pond creation, or restoration of a river island that included creation of ponds grass snakes and sand lizards were found on the island, and ponds were occupied by mangrove salt marsh snakaes, common snapping turtles and midland painted turtles and Chinese alligators. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3730https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3730Tue, 14 Dec 2021 09:22:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or restore rock outcrops Five studies evaluated the effects of creating or restoring rock outcrops on reptile populations. All five studies were in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in Australia found that areas restored with artificial rocks had a higher abundance of adult velvet geckos and similar numbers of juveniles compared to unrestored areas. Survival (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in Australia found that in areas restored with artificial rocks, juvenile velvet geckos had higher survival rates than in unrestored areas. BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that some restored rocky outcrops were recolonized by pink-tailed worm-lizards. One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that constructed rock outcrops were used by two snake and six lizard species at least as often as natural outcrops. Two replicated studies (including one randomized study) in Australia found that artificial rock outcrops were used by two lizard and one snake species and six lizard and two snake species. One study also found that unshaded artificial rocks were used more frequently by velvet geckos than shaded ones. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3732https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3732Tue, 14 Dec 2021 09:39:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or restore grasslands Four studies evaluated the effects of creating or restoring grasslands on reptile populations. One study was in each of South Africa, China, Australia and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in Mongolia found that areas of restored grassland had similar species richness compared to unrestored areas. One replicated, site comparison study in South Africa found that an area of restored grassland had lower species richness than natural grassland in three of four comparisons. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies (including one paired study) in Mongolia and the USA found that areas of restored grassland had higher lizard abundance than unrestored areas. The other study found that areas of restored grassland had fewer snakes than unrestored areas. One replicated, site comparison study in South Africa found that an area of restored grassland had a similar abundance of reptiles compared to two areas of natural grassland. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that some areas of restored grassland and rocky outcrops were recolonized by pink-tailed worm-lizards. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3737https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3737Tue, 14 Dec 2021 10:05:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or restore forests Six studies evaluated the effects of creating or restoring forests on reptile populations. Three studies were in the USA, two were in Australia and one was in Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): One of two replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled study) in the USA and Australia found that restored and natural riparian forest had similar reptile species richness. The other study found that restored forest areas had higher reptile species richness than remnant forest areas. One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that the type of restoration had mixed effects on reptile species richness in tropical and subtropical areas. POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Two of three replicated studies (including two controlled, before-and-after studies) in the USA and Mexico found that areas of restored forest had similar abundances of snakes and six lizard species as unrestored areas. The other study found that restoring forest stands had mixed effects on the abundance of reptiles. One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that areas with different restoration types had similar reptile abundance in tropical and subtropical areas. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that restored forest areas had higher reptile abundance than remnant forest areas. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3749https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3749Tue, 14 Dec 2021 13:15:47 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create microclimate and microhabitat refuges We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of creating microclimate and microhabitat refuges. ‘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%2F3859https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3859Tue, 05 Jul 2022 15:32:15 +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