Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Bury or isolate power lines to reduce incidental bird mortalityA single before-and-after trial in Spain showed a dramatic increase in the survival of juvenile Spanish imperial eagles Aquila adalberti following the burial or isolation of power lines.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F262https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F262Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:31:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Build bird-perches to enhance natural seed dispersal One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Brazil found that building perches for birds increased species richness and abundance of new tree seedlings.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1245https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1245Fri, 03 Jun 2016 11:06:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Build fences to keep humans out We found no evidence for the effects of building fences to keep humans out 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%2F1503https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1503Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:01:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Burn shrublands to reduce impacts of pollutants One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that prescribed burning to reduce the impact of nitrogen deposition did not alter the shoot length of common heather or the number of purple moor grass seedlings compared to mowing. A controlled study in the UK found that burning to reduce the concentration of pollutants in a heathland affected by nitrogen pollution did not alter the cover or shoot length of heather relative to areas that were mowed. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1670https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1670Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:17:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Burn leaf litter We found no studies that evaluated the effects of burning leaf litter on shrublands. '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%2F1690https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1690Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:39:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Build bird perches to encourage colonisation by plants One replicated, controlled study in South Africa found that building artificial bird perches increased the number of seeds at two sites, but no shrubs became established at either of these sites. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1702https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1702Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:24:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Build fire breaks We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of building fire breaks. ‘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%2F1766https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1766Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:40:17 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Build barriers to protect peatlands from the sea We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of building barriers to protect peatlands from seawater damage. ‘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%2F1794https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1794Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:19:42 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Build artificial bird perches to encourage seed dispersal One study evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of building artificial bird perches. The study was in a tropical peat swamp. Vegetation cover (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in a peat swamp forest in Indonesia found that artificial bird perches had no significant effect on seedling abundance. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1817https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1817Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:44:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Bury upper layer of peat/soil (before planting) We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of burying the upper layer of peat or soil before planting peatland plants. ‘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%2F1836https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1836Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:54:31 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Bury pipelines instead of surface laying and rock dumping We found no studies that evaluated the effects of burying pipelines instead of surface laying and rock dumping 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%2F2056https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2056Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:33:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Bury drill cuttings in the seabed rather than leaving them on the seabed surface  We found no studies that evaluated the effects of burying drill cuttings in the seabed rather than leaving them on the seabed surface 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%2F2066https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2066Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:49:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Bury cables and pipelines in the seabed rather than laying them on the seabed We found no studies that evaluated the effects of burying cables and pipelines in the seabed rather than laying them on the seabed 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%2F2082https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2082Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:48:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Bury electricity cables to reduce electromagnetic fields We found no studies that evaluated the effects of burying electricity cables to reduce electromagnetic fields 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%2F2207https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2207Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:19:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Burn at specific time of year Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of burning at a specific time of year. One study was in Australia, and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that carrying out prescribed burns in autumn did not increase small mammal abundances or biomass relative to burning in summer. Survival (1 study): A randomized, replicated, controlled study in Australia found that in forest burned early in the dry season, northern brown bandicoot survival rate declined less than in forests burned late in the dry season. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2416https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2416Mon, 01 Jun 2020 09:39:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Build fences around protected areas Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of building fences around protected areas. One study was in Kenya and one was in Mozambique. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A before-and-after study in Kenya found that after a fence was built around a protected area, mammal species richness initially increased in both study sites, but subsequently declined at one of the sites. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): A paired sites study in Mozambique found that inside a fenced sanctuary there were more mammal scats than outside the sanctuary. A before-and-after study in Kenya found that after a fence was built around a protected area, mammal abundance initially increased in both study sites, but it subsequently declined at one of the sites. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2561https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2561Tue, 09 Jun 2020 12:38:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Build barriers to protect littoral areas from boat wakesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of building barriers to protect littoral marshes or swamps from boat wakes.   ‘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%2F3021https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3021Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:41:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Build fire breaksWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on marsh/swamp vegetation, of building fire breaks to protect these habitats.   ‘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%2F3080https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3080Fri, 02 Apr 2021 16:58:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Build barriers to protect littoral freshwater marshes from rising water levels and severe weatherWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of building barriers to protect littoral freshwater marshes from rising water levels and severe weather.   ‘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%2F3181https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3181Tue, 06 Apr 2021 16:13:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Build barriers to protect littoral brackish/salt marshes from rising water levels and severe weather Five studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of building barriers to protect littoral brackish/salt marshes from rising water levels and severe weather. Three studies were in the USA, one was in Italy and one was in the Netherlands. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (3 studies): Two controlled studies (one also replicated, randomized, paired) in Italy and the USA found that protecting salt marshes with offshore structures had no significant effect on the seaward limit of emergent vegetation, after 17–27 months. It was similar, or retreated at a similar rate, in protected and unprotected marshes. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the USA found that brackish marshes protected with oyster shell reefs receded less, over one year, than unprotected marshes. Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Netherlands reported that marshes protected with low sea walls had a similar overall plant community composition to nearby natural salt marshes, 15–22 years after the walls were built. Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): One controlled study in Italy reported that a salt marsh protected with an offshore fence contained more plant species, after 17 months, than an unfenced marsh. One replicated, site comparison study in the Netherlands recorded 85 plant and algal species across two salt marshes that had developed behind low sea walls, over 15–22 years, compared to 155 species recorded across multiple natural marshes in the region. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (2 studies): Two controlled studies (one also replicated, randomized, paired) in Italy and the USA found that brackish/salt marshes protected with offshore structures contained a similar total amount of vegetation to unprotected marshes. This was true for cover and biomass. Individual species abundance (2 studies): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the USA found that salt marshes protected with offshore breakwaters (and planted with cordgrasses Spartina spp.) typically contained less smooth cordgrass S. alterniflora, after 2–3 growing seasons, than nearby natural marshes. One replicated, site comparison study in the Netherlands reported that in marshes protected with low sea walls for 15–22 years and nearby natural salt marshes, the same plant species were the most frequent. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the USA found that salt marshes protected with offshore breakwaters (and planted with cordgrasses Spartina spp.) contained shorter smooth cordgrass S. alterniflora plants, after 2–3 growing seasons, than nearby natural marshes. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3182https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3182Tue, 06 Apr 2021 16:13:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Build barriers to protect littoral freshwater swamps from rising water levels and severe weatherWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of building barriers to protect littoral freshwater swamps from rising water levels and severe weather.   ‘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%2F3183https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3183Tue, 06 Apr 2021 16:13:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Build barriers to protect littoral brackish/saline swamps from rising water levels and severe weatherWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of building barriers to protect littoral brackish/saline swamps from rising water levels and severe weather.   ‘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%2F3184https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3184Tue, 06 Apr 2021 16:14:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Bury surface soil/sedimentWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of burying surface soil/sediment to restore/create 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%2F3225https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3225Fri, 09 Apr 2021 14:03:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Bury surface soil/sediment (before planting)We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of burying surface soil/sediment before planting emergent marsh/swamp plants.   ‘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%2F3291https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3291Sat, 10 Apr 2021 20:05:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Burn vegetation before seeding/planting We found no studies that evaluated the effects of burning vegetation before seeding/planting on grassland vegetation. ‘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%2F3417https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3417Fri, 25 Jun 2021 16:16:14 +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