Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent spread of the small hive beetleOne replicated trial in the USA tested the effect of using mite-killing strips in commercial honey bee Apis mellifera transport packages, to reduce the spread of small hive beetle. More than half the beetles escaped the packages and were not killed by the strip. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F41https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F41Thu, 20 May 2010 04:31:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent escape of commercial bumblebees from greenhouses One small replicated trial in Canada showed that a plastic greenhouse covering that transmits ultraviolet light (so transmitted light is similar to daylight) reduced the numbers of bumblebees from managed colonies escaping through open gutter vents. One trial in Japan showed that externally mounted nets and zipped, netted entrances can keep commercial bumblebees inside greenhouses as long as they are regularly checked and maintained. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F40https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F40Thu, 20 May 2010 13:55:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent heavy usage or exclude wildfowl from aquatic habitat We found no evidence for the effects of preventing heavy usage or excluding wildfowl from aquatic habitat on amphibian 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%2F799https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F799Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:43:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent pollution from agricultural lands or sewage treatment facilities entering watercourses We found no evidence for the effects of preventing pollution from agricultural lands or sewage treatment facilities entering watercourses on amphibian 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%2F802https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F802Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:59:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent turbine blades from turning at low wind speeds ('feathering') Six studies evaluated the effects of preventing turbine blades from turning at low wind speeds on bat populations. Five studies were in the USA and one was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Survival (6 studies): Five of six studies (including five replicated, controlled studies and one before-and-after study) in the USA and Canada found that preventing turbine blades from turning at low wind speeds (‘feathering’), or feathering along with increasing the wind speed at which turbines become operational (‘cut-in speed’) resulted in fewer bat fatalities than at conventionally operated turbines. The other study found that automatically feathering turbine blades at low wind speeds did not reduce bat fatalities. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F970https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F970Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:19:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent livestock grazing in forests Two of three studies (including one replicated, controlled study) in Brazil, UK and Costa Rica found that preventing livestock grazing increased survival, species richness and diversity of understory plants. One study found mixed effects. One site comparison study in Israel found that preventing cattle grazing increased the density of oak seedlings and saplings. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1206https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1206Thu, 19 May 2016 14:09:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Primates: Hide food in containers (including boxes and bags) Two before-and-after studies in the USA and Ireland found that the addition of browse to food in boxes, baskets or tubes increased activity levels and foraging behaviours in lemurs and gibbons. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1316https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1316Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:28:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Primates: Present feeds at different crowd levels One before-and-after study in the USA found that when smaller crowds were present foraging and object use in chimpanzees increased. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1324https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1324Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:38:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Primates: Paint gum solutions on rough bark No evidence was captured for the effects of painting gum solutions on rough bark for primates. '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%2F1325https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1325Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:42:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Primates: Add gum solutions to drilled hollow feeders No evidence was captured for the effects of adding gum solutions to drilled hollow feeders for primates. '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%2F1326https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1326Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:45:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Primates: Maximise both horizontal and vertical food presentation locations One controlled study in the UK and Madagascar found that when food was hung in trees in an outdoor enclosure, less time was spent feeding on food in the indoor enclosure. One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK reported that monkeys spent longer feeding in bowls positioned at the top of an enclosure than in bowls positioned on the floor. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1328https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1328Thu, 13 Oct 2016 08:22:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Primates: Formulate diet to reflect nutritional composition of wild foods (including removal of domestic fruits) One before-and-after study in the USA found that replacing milk with fruit juice in gorilla diets led to a decrease in regurgitation and reingestion. One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK found that when lemurs were fed a fruit-free diet aggression and self-directed behaviour were lower. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1329https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1329Thu, 13 Oct 2016 08:27:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Primates: Modify ingredients/nutrient composition seasonally (not daily) to reflect natural variability No evidence was captured for the effects of modifying ingredients/nutrient composition of primate feed seasonally (not daily) to reflect natural variability. '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%2F1336https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1336Thu, 13 Oct 2016 08:41:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Primates: Change the number of feeds per day Two before-and-after studies in Japan and the USA found that when the number of feeds per day were increased the amount of time spent feeding increased in chimpanzees, but hair eating also increased in baboons. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1337https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1337Thu, 13 Oct 2016 08:44:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Primates: Change feeding times One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that when chimpanzees were fed on unpredictable schedules inactivity decreased. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1338https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1338Thu, 13 Oct 2016 08:46:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Primates: Feed individuals separately No evidence was captured for the effects of feeding individual primates separately '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%2F1342https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1342Thu, 13 Oct 2016 08:52:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Primates: Feed individuals in social groups One replicated, controlled study in the USA reported that an enrichment task took less time to complete when monkeys were in social groups than when feeding alone. One before-and-after study in Italy found that in the presence of their groupmates monkeys ate more unfamiliar foods during the first encounter. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1343https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1343Thu, 13 Oct 2016 08:56:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Primates: Feed individuals in subgroups No evidence was captured for the effects of feeding individual primates in subgroups. '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%2F1344https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1344Thu, 13 Oct 2016 08:57:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent gene contamination by alien primate species introduced by humans, through exclusion (e.g. fences) or translocation We found no evidence for the effects of preventing gene contamination by alien primate species introduced by humans, through exclusion or translocation 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%2F1536https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1536Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:41:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Preventative vaccination of habituated or wild primates One before-and-after study in Puerto Rico found that annual mortality of rhesus macaques decreased after a preventive tetanus vaccine campaign, alongside other interventions. Two before-and-after studies in the Republic of Congo found that 70% of reintroduced chimpanzees vaccinated against poliomyelitis and tetanus, alongside other interventions, survived over 3.5-5 years after release. One before-and-after study in the Republic of Congo and Gabon found that more than 80% of the reintroduced gorillas that received preventive vaccination, alongside other interventions, survived over a 10 year period. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1549https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1549Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:45:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent pollution from sewage treatment facilities from entering watercourses We found no studies that evaluated the effects of preventing pollution from sewage treatment facilities from entering watercourses 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%2F2010https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2010Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:27:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent pollution from agricultural land or forestry from entering watercourses We found no studies that evaluated the effects of preventing pollution from agriculture or forestry from entering watercourses 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%2F2015https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2015Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:41:40 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent the attachment of biofouling organisms/species in aquaculture We found no studies that evaluated the effects of preventing the attachment of biofouling organisms/species in aquaculture 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%2F2162https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2162Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:12:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent mammals accessing potential wildlife food sources or denning sites to reduce nuisance behaviour and human-wildlife conflict Two studies evaluated the effects of preventing mammals accessing potential wildlife food sources or denning sites to reduce nuisance behaviour and human-wildlife conflict. One study was in the USA and one was in Switzerland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that electric shock devices prevented American black bears from accessing or damaging bird feeders. A before-and-after study in Switzerland found that electric fencing excluded stone martens from a building. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2346https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2346Fri, 22 May 2020 13:27:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent the loss and discard of fishing gear and related debris We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of preventing the loss and discard of fishing gear and related debris. ‘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%2F3566https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3566Wed, 08 Dec 2021 14:58:04 +0000