Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce ‘ghost fishing’ by lost/discarded gear We found no evidence for the effects on seabird bycatch rates or populations of reducing ghost fishing. '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%2F306https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F306Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:18:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce bycatch by employing seasonal or area closures We found no evidence for the effects on seabird populations or bycatch rates of seasonal or area closures. '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%2F307https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F307Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:19:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance at nest sites Six studies (two replicated and controlled, two before-and-after and two small studies) from across the world found increased numbers of breeders, higher reproductive success or lower levels of disturbance in waders and terns following the start of access restrictions or the erection of signs near nesting areas. One Canadian study involved the use of multiple interventions. A before-and-after study from the USA found that a colony of black-crowned night herons Nycticorax nycticorax was successfully relocated to an area with no public access. One small study from Europe and one replicated and controlled study from Antarctica found no effect of access restrictions on the reproductive success of eagles or penguins, respectively.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F309https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F309Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:56:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set minimum distances for approaching birds (buffer zones) We captured no evidence for the effects on bird populations of setting minimum distances for approaching birds. '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%2F310https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F310Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:15:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide paths to limit the extent of disturbanceA before-and-after study from the UK found that two species of wader nested closer to a path, or at higher densities near the path, following resurfacing, which resulted in far fewer people leaving the path.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F311https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F311Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:34:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce visitor group size We found no intervention-based studies examining the effects of reducing visitor numbers on bird populations. However, a single, replicated study in forests in Spain in 2004 (Remacha et al. 2011) found that fewer birds, but not fewer species, were observed as visitor number increased. This effect was largely due to decreases in collared dove Streptopelia decaocto presence and serin Serinus serinus abundance. Remacha, C., Perez-Tris, J. & Antonio Delgado, J. (2011) Reducing visitors’ group size increases the number of birds during educational activities: Implications for management of nature-based recreation,Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 1564–1568. '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%2F312https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F312Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:36:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use voluntary agreements with local people to reduce disturbanceA before-and-after trial in the USA found significantly lower disturbance rates following the establishment of a voluntary waterfowl avoidance area (VWAA), despite an overall increase in boat traffic.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F313https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F313Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:06:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Start educational programmes for personal watercraft ownersA before-and-after trial in the USA found that rates of disturbance by personal watercraft decreased and reproductive success of common terns Sterna hirundo increased following a series of educational programmes aimed at recreational boat users.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F314https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F314Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:11:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Habituate birds to human visitorsA replicated, controlled study from Australia found that bridled terns Sterna anaethetus in heavily disturbed had similar or higher reproductive success compared with less-disturbed sites, possibly suggesting that habituation had occurred.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F315https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F315Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:18:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use nest covers to reduce the impact of research on predation of ground-nesting seabirdsA before-and-after study in Canada found that protecting Caspian tern Sterna caspia nests after researchers disturbed parents from them significantly increased hatching success. This was due to a reduction in predation by ring-billed gulls Larus delawarensis.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F316https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F316Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:26:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning on deciduous forests Of four studies found, one paired sites study from the USA found that bird species richness was similar in burned and unburned aspen forests, although there were significant changes in the relative abundances of some species. A replicated, controlled study in the USA found no evidence for changes in community composition in oak and hickory forests following burning. A replicated controlled trial from the USA found no differences in wood thrush nest survival in burned compared to unburned areas. Another replicated controlled trial from the USA found a reduction in the number of black-chinned hummingbird nests following fuel reduction treatments that included burning.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F317https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F317Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:53:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning on pine forests Two studies of the 28 captured (all from the USA) found higher bird species richness in sites with prescribed burning, tree thinning and mid- or understorey control or just burning and tree thinning, compared to control sites. Five studies found no differences in species richness or community composition between sites with prescribed burning; prescribed burning, tree thinning and mid- or understorey control; or prescribed burning and tree thinning only, compared to control sites, or those with other management. Eight studies found that some species or guilds (such as open habitat species) were more abundant or more likely to be found in burned areas of pine forest than control areas. One study found that the responses of Henslow’s sparrows to burning varied considerably with geography and habitat. Three studies found that some species were more abundant in thinned and burned stands, compared to controls or other management. Three studies found that overall bird densities or abundances of red-cockaded woodpeckers were higher in open pine forests with prescribed burning, tree thinning and mid- or understorey control, compared with control areas or those thinned but not burned. One found differences were more marked in spring. A study found that a red-cockaded woodpecker population increased following the start of intensive management consisting of prescribed burning and other interventions. Ten studies found that total bird densities or those of some species was the same or lower in sites with prescribed burning compared to control sites, or those with other management. Five studies investigated several interventions at once. Generally, closed-forest species and ground nesters appeared to be adversely affected by burning. Three studies found higher productivities or survival of species in burned or burned and thinned areas, compared to control areas or those burned less recently. Seven studies found no differences in productivity, behaviour or survival (including of artificial nests) in burned areas or burned and thinned areas, compared to controls. One study found that northern bobwhite chicks had lower foraging success in burned areas, compared to other management regimes, whilst another found that different predators were dominant under different management. The three studies that investigated it found that burning season did not appear to affect the effects of burning.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F318https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F318Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:02:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning on Australian sclerophyll forest Two of three studies from Australia found no differences in bird species richness in burned sites compared to unburned areas. Three studies found differences in species assemblages in burned and unburned areas, with some species lost and others gained from areas after fire.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F319https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F319Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:44:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning on savannas A replicated and controlled study from Kenya, of five studies captured, found that burned areas of savanna tended to have more birds and more species than control or grazed areas. However, the authors note that differences were not present during drought years and burned sites showed significant annual variation, unlike grazed sites. A replicated and controlled study from Australia found that the effects of burning on bird abundances depended on burn season, and habitat type. Two replicated studies in the USA found that some open country species were more common in burned areas than unburned, whilst other species were less so. A small study from the USA found that two eastern bluebird Sialia sialis successfully raised chicks after the habitat around their nest boxes was subject to a prescribed burn.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F320https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F320Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:58:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning on shrublands One controlled study from the USA, of eight captured, found that overall bird densities were similar between burned and unburned areas, whilst a replicated and controlled study found that species numbers and bird densities did not vary between areas burned in summer and those burned in winter. Three studies found that some species were more abundant on areas that were burned, compared to those managed differently, or not at all. Four studies found that the densities of individual species were similar or lower on burned areas compared to control areas or those under different management. A before-and-after study found that sage sparrows chose different nest sites before burning compared to after. A controlled study found no differences in greater sage grouse movement between burned and unburned areas.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F321https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F321Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:10:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning on grasslands Four studies from the USA, of 21 studies captured, found that overall species richness did not vary between burned areas, or areas burned recently, and unburned sites. One study found that community composition was also similar whilst others found that species showed individual responses. Nine studies from across the world found that at least some study species were found at higher densities or were more abundant in burned areas than in unburned areas or areas under different management. One study investigated multiple interventions at once. Fourteen studies found that at least one study species was less abundant or found at similar abundances on burned areas of grassland, compared to unburned areas or those under different management. However, four studies found that apparent responses varied depending on how soon after fires measurements were taken. Care should therefore be taken when interpreting the results of studies on prescribed burning. One study from the USA found that Florida grasshopper sparrow had significantly higher reproductive success soon after plots were burned, whilst another American study founds that dickcissel reproductive success was higher in patch-burned areas than burned and grazed areas.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F322https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F322Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:38:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning on coastal habitats Of three studies captured, one replicated, controlled, paired sites study from the USA found that there was a fall in breeding seaside sparrow numbers on a burned site in the year it was burned. The next year, numbers were higher than on an unburned site. A controlled study in Argentina found that tall-grass specialist species were lost from burned areas in the year of burning, but that some habitats recovered by the following year. A replicated controlled study from the USA found no differences in nest predation rates between burned and unburned areas for two years after burning.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F323https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F323Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:24:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fire suppression/control Two out of three before-and-after studies, from Australia and the UK, found that five species of bird (including noisy scrub-bird, the target species of one study) increased following fire suppression measures. A before-and-after study in the USA found that open habitat species declined in a pine forest site after fire exclusion, whilst mesic woodland species appeared. A before-and-after study from the UK found that five bird species declined following fire suppression.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F324https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F324Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:35:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect nest trees before burning We found no evidence for the effects of protecting nest trees of bird populations before burning. '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%2F325https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F325Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:48:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Clear or open patches in forests Of nine studies, seven from the UK and the USA found that early-successional species increased in clearcut areas or opened forests, compared to control areas, areas before management, or other management techniques. One study found that population increases only occurred in clearcuts up to 20 ha in size. Two studies report that mature-forest species declined in cut/opened areas of forest. A replicated, randomised, controlled study from the USA found no differences in species richness between clearcuts of different sizes, whilst another American study found that a mosaic of cut and uncut areas supported a variety of species. A long-term study from the USA of a landscape with opened patches found that there were no consistent differences between clearcut and controlled areas, although some species were only seen in clearcuts.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F326https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F326Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:51:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Clearcut and re-seed forests One of two replicated studies from the USA found similar bird densities in clearcut and re-seeded sites as in sites under other managements. A replicated study from the USA found that pine stands replanted with native pines held more scrub-sucessional species than stands managed with tree thinning, midstory tree removal and burning.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F327https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F327Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:11:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Thin trees within forests Of 13 studies, one from the USA which used several interventions found higher species richness in managed sites. Three studies from the USA and the UK found no differences between thinned and control sites. Seven studies from the USA and Sweden found that total bird abundance, or that of some species, were higher in thinned plots than control plots or those under different management. Four of these used other interventions as well. Five studies found that abundances were similar, or that some species were less abundant in areas with thinning. Two studies from the USA found no effect of thinning on wood thrushes, a species thought to be sensitive to it. A controlled before-and-after study found that more nests were in nest boxes in a thinned site, compared to a control site. A replicated randomised, controlled study in the USA found no differences in bird abundances between burned sites with high-retention thinning, compared to low-retention.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F328https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F328Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:16:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Coppice trees Of three studies, one, a before-and-after study in the UK found that a population of European nightjars increased following a series of management interventions, including the coppicing of some birch trees. Two before-and-after studies from the UK and the USA found that the use of coppices by some bird species declined over time. The UK study also found that overall species richness decreased with age, but that some species were more abundant in older stands.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F329https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F329Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:58:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting One before-and-after study of two from the USA found that areas under patch retention harvesting contained more birds of more species than clearcut areas, retaining similar numbers to unharvested areas. Two studies from the USA found that forest specialist species were found with greater frequency in patch retention plots than other management types. One found that habitat generalists increased on other management types, relative to patch retention areas.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F330https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F330Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:02:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use selective harvesting/logging instead of clearcutting Six studies of seven from the USA and Canada found that some species were more abundant in selective-logged forests, whilst others were less abundant, compared to both control stands and other managements. One study found that there were no consistent differences between selectively harvested and clearcut stands. A replicated study from the USA found a lower species richness of cavity-nesting birds in snags in selectively-logged stands, compared to clearcuts. A replicated study from the USA found that brood parasitism of two species by brown-headed cowbirds was higher in harvested stands compared to controls, but it was lower for two others.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F331https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F331Sat, 28 Jul 2012 13:49:15 +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