Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Augment ponds with ground water to reduce acidification We found no evidence for the effects of augmenting ponds with ground water to reduce acidification effects 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%2F803https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F803Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:00:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Automatically reduce turbine blade rotation when bat activity is high Two studies evaluated the effects of automatically reducing turbine blade rotation when bat activity is high on bat populations. One study was in Germany, and one in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): Two replicated studies (one randomized, controlled and one paired sites study) in Germany and the USA found that automatically reducing the rotation speed of wind turbine blades when bat activity is predicted to be high resulted in fewer bat fatalities for all bat species combined and for five bat species. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F971https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F971Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:34:12 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Asian clams: Drain the invaded water body No evidence was captured for the use of dewatering as a management tool for Asian clams. '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%2F1110https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1110Tue, 13 Oct 2015 14:41:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Asian clams: Exposure to parasites No evidence was captured for the use of parasite exposure to control Asian clams. '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%2F1111https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1111Tue, 13 Oct 2015 14:42:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Asian clams: Exposure to disease-causing organisms No evidence was captured for the use of exposure to disease-causing organisms for the control of Asian clams. '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%2F1112https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1112Tue, 13 Oct 2015 14:42:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Asian clams: Reduce oxygen in the water A controlled laboratory study conducted in the USA found that Asian clams were resistant to extreme very low levels of oxygen, irrespective of water temperature or length of immersion in the test conditions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1113https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1113Tue, 13 Oct 2015 14:45:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Asian clams: Change salinity of the water A controlled, replicated laboratory study conducted in the USA found that Asian clams were killed (100% mortality) when exposed to high salinities (18-34‰). Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1115https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1115Tue, 13 Oct 2015 14:50:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Asian clams: Change temperature of the water A controlled laboratory study in the USA found that temperatures of 36°C or higher killed Asian clams within or after four days. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1116https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1116Tue, 13 Oct 2015 14:53:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Asian clams: Use gas-impermeable barriers A controlled study in North America found that placing gas-impermeable barriers across the bottom of the lake (several small fabric covers or one large cover) significantly reduced the abundance of Asian clams. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1117https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1117Tue, 13 Oct 2015 14:55:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Asian clams: Clean equipment A study in Portugal found that mechanical removal and regular cleaning of industrial pipes or addition of a sand filter were effective methods of permanently removing or reducing numbers of Asian clams, respectively. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1119https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1119Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:03:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Asian clams: Mechanical removal A replicated, controlled, before-and after trial in North America found that suction dredging reduced Asian clam densities within the sediment by 96% over two weeks and that the reduction persisted for a year. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after field trial in Ireland found that three types of dredges were equally effective at removing Asian clams, resulting in a biomass reduction ranging from 74% to >95%, and an density reduction ranging from 65% to 95%. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1120https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1120Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:07:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Asian clams: Remove by hand No evidence was captured on the use of hand removal as a tool for managing Asian clams. '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%2F1121https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1121Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:08:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Asian clams: Public awareness and education No evidence was captured on the use of raising public awareness and education as tools for managing Asian clams. '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%2F1122https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1122Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:10:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid building roads in key habitat or migration routes We found no evidence for the effects of avoiding building roads in key habitat or migration routes 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%2F1461https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1461Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:38:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid slashing climbers/lianas, trees housing them, hemi-epiphytic figs, and ground vegetation We found no evidence for the effects of avoiding slashing climbers/lianas, trees housing them, hemi-epiphytic figs, and ground vegetation 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%2F1493https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1493Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:42:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid contact between wild primates and human-raised primates We found no evidence for the effects of avoiding contact between wild primates and human-raised primates 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%2F1555https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1555Thu, 19 Oct 2017 20:55:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid the use of antiparasitic drugs for livestock We found no studies that evaluated the effects of avoiding the use of antiparasitic drugs for livestock 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%2F1948https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1948Tue, 04 Dec 2018 12:16:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid planting fruit trees alongside roads/railways in areas with fruit bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of avoiding planting fruit trees alongside roads/railways in areas with fruit bats 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%2F1970https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1970Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:13:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid illumination of bat commuting routes Three studies evaluated the effects of avoiding the illumination of bat commuting routes on bat populations. Two studies were in the UK and one was in the Netherlands. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in the Netherlands found similar numbers of pond bats flying along unlit canals and canals illuminated with lamps. Two replicated, controlled studies in the UK found greater activity (relative abundance) of lesser horseshoe bats and myotis bats along unlit hedges than along hedges illuminated with street lights, but activity was similar for common and soprano pipistrelles and Nyctalus/Eptesicus species along unlit and illuminated hedges. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Behaviour change (2 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in the Netherlands found that 28–96% of pond bats changed their flight paths along canals to avoid light spill from lamps. One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that lesser horseshoe bats were active earlier along unlit hedges than along those illuminated with street lights. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2017https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2017Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:50:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid illumination of bat foraging, drinking and swarming sites Two studies evaluated the effects of avoiding the illumination of bat drinking sites on bat populations. Both studies were in Italy and one was also in Israel. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two replicated before-and-after studies (one randomized) in Italy found that unlit water troughs had greater activity (relative abundance) of five of six bat species/species groups and six of eight bat species/species groups than troughs illuminated with artificial light. One of the studies also found that unlit desert ponds in Israel had greater activity (relative abundance) of three bat species than illuminated ponds. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2018https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2018Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:52:42 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Attach an electropositive deterrent to fishing gear Nine studies examined the effect of attaching an electropositive deterrent to fishing gear on marine fish populations. Three studies were in the Atlantic Ocean (USA, Canada, Bahamas). One study was in each of the Gulf of Alaska (USA), the South Pacific Ocean (Australia) and the Tasman Sea (Australia). One study was a global systematic review and two studies were in laboratory facilities (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Behaviour change (4 studies): Three of four replicated studies (one paired and controlled, one randomized and controlled, one randomized, and one controlled) in the Atlantic Ocean, Tasman Sea, and in laboratory conditions, found that the presence of potentially deterrent materials attached near the bait reduced the frequency of feeding attempts and bait consumption of spiny dogfish, great hammerhead and draughtboard sharks compared to the absence of deterrent materials. The other study found that a potentially deterrent material did not reduce bait consumption by bonnethead and young lemon sharks compared to non-deterrents. One of the studies also found that the bait consumption behaviour of commercially valuable Pacific halibut was unaffected by deterrent materials. OTHER (5 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (5 studies): Two of four replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) in the Gulf of Alaska, the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean found that fishing gear (longlines and traps) fitted with electropositive deterrent materials caught fewer unwanted spiny dogfish, longnose skate, sharks and rays, and fewer undersized halibut, compared to standard fishing gear or gears with non-deterrent materials. The other two studies, and a global systematic review found that electropositive deterrents on fishing gear resulted in similar catches of unwanted spiny dogfish, sharks (total catch), blue shark and sharks and rays (total catch), compared to gear with no deterrents. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2696https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2696Thu, 03 Dec 2020 12:05:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Attach acoustically reflective objects to fishing gear Two studies evaluated the effects on marine mammals of attaching acoustically reflective objects to fishing gear. One study was in the Timor Sea and Arafura Sea (Australia) and one was in the Gulf of Alaska (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduction in entanglements/unwanted catch (1 study): One controlled study in the Timor Sea and Arafura Sea found that attaching metallic bead chains to fishing nets did not reduce the number of dolphin entanglements. Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): One controlled study in the Gulf of Alaska found that attaching acrylic beads next to fishing hooks did not reduce predation on fish catches by sperm whales. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2806https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2806Thu, 04 Feb 2021 17:20:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid carrying out construction work during sensitive periods We found no studies that evaluated the effects of avoiding carrying out construction work during sensitive periods on reptile 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%2F3482https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3482Fri, 03 Dec 2021 12:08:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Augment ponds with ground water to reduce acidification We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of augmenting ponds with ground water to reduce acidification. ‘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%2F3591https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3591Wed, 08 Dec 2021 16:20:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid illuminating key habitats We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of avoiding illuminating key 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%2F3598https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3598Wed, 08 Dec 2021 16:29:16 +0000