Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude bumblebee nest predators such as badgers and mink We have captured no evidence demonstrating the effects of excluding mammalian predators from natural bumblebee nesting areas. '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%2F45https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F45Thu, 20 May 2010 01:35:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude ants from solitary bee nesting sitesOne replicated controlled trial showed that excluding ants from solitary nests of the endemic Australian bee Exonuera nigrescens increased production of offspring. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F46https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F46Thu, 20 May 2010 06:43:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude introduced European earwigs from nest sitesIn California, USA, a replicated controlled trial showed that numbers of introduced European earwigs Forficula auricularia resting in solitary bee nest boxes can be reduced using a sticky barrier Tanglefoot. This treatment increased the use of the boxes by native bees. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F44https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F44Thu, 20 May 2010 10:20:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude livestock from semi-natural habitat (including woodland) Seven studies (including four replicated controlled trials of which one also randomized, and a review) from Ireland, Poland and the UK looked at the effects of excluding livestock from semi-natural habitats. Three studies (including one replicated controlled and randomized study) from Ireland and the UK found that excluding livestock benefited plants and invertebrates. Three studies (one replicated controlled and one replicated paired sites comparison) from Ireland and the UK found that excluding grazing did not benefit plants or birds. Two studies (one replicated and controlled, one review) from Poland and the UK found that the impact of excluding grazing as a tool in habitat restoration was neutral or mixed. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F150https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F150Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:15:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude grazers from semi-natural habitats Two replicated (one controlled) studies from the USA found higher species richnesses on sites with grazers excluded; a replicated and controlled study from Argentina found lower species richness in ungrazed sites and a study from the USA found no difference. Seven studies from the USA (three controlled, two replicated) found that overall bird abundance, or the abundances of some species were higher in sites with grazers excluded; seven studies from the USA and Argentina found that overall abundance or the abundances of some species were lower on sites without grazers, or did not differ between treatments. Three studies from the USA investigated productivity and found it higher in sites with grazers excluded. In one study this difference was only found on improved, not unimproved pastures. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F236https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F236Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:59:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude or control ‘reservoir species’ to reduce parasite burdens A literature review found no compelling evidence that culling mountain hares Lepus timidus (a carrier of the ticks that carry louping ill virus) increased red grouse Lagopus lagopus scoticus populations. A controlled before-and-after study from the UK did find that there was a significant increase in chick production on grouse moors with hare culling, compared to control sites but no change in population density. A comment on this paper argued that the controls used in it were not adequate. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F435https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F435Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:02:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude domestic animals or wild hogs by fencing Three replicated, site comparison studies in the USA found that excluding livestock from streams or ponds did not increase numbers of amphibian species or overall abundance, but did increase larval abundance and abundance of green frog metamorphs. Two studies found that the abundance of green frogs and/or American toads was higher with grazing. One randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that excluding cattle from ponds did not increase numbers of eggs or larval survival of Columbia spotted frogs. One before-and-after study in the UK found that pond restoration that included livestock exclusion increased pond use by breeding natterjack toads. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F746https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F746Wed, 17 Jul 2013 10:35:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude fish with barriers One controlled study in Mexico found that excluding fish using a barrier increased weight gain of axolotls. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F829https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F829Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:59:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude ants that protect pestsParasitism: One of two replicated, controlled studies (one also randomised) from Japan and the USA found greater parasitism of pests by natural enemies when ants were excluded from trees. The other study found greater parasitism at one site but no effect at another. Natural enemies: Five studies (including four randomised, replicated, controlled trials) from Japan, Switzerland and the USA found effects varied between natural enemy species and groups, sampling dates, sites, crop varieties and ground cover types beneath trees. Pests: Three of seven studies (including four randomised, replicated, controlled trials) found fewer pests and another found fewer pests at times of peak abundance only. One study found mixed effects depending on date and other actions taken simultaneously (predator attractant and ground cover treatments). One study found no effect. Damage and tree growth: One study found no effect on damage to tree foliage but one study found greater tree growth. Ants: Six studies found that glue or pesticide barriers reduced ant numbers in tree or vine canopies. One study found that citrus oil barriers had no effect. Crops studied were cherimoyas, cherry, grape, grapefruit, orange, pecan and satsuma mandarin.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F886https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F886Wed, 18 Sep 2013 16:13:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude or remove livestock from degraded peatlands Ten studies evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of excluding or removing livestock from degraded peatlands. Seven studies were in bogs, two in fens and one in an unspecified peatland. Three studies were based on the same experimental set-up in the UK. Plant community composition (2 studies): Of two replicated, paired, controlled studies in bogs in the UK, one found that excluding sheep had no effect on the development of the plant community. The other found no effect in wetter areas of the bog, but that in drier areas excluding sheep favoured dry moorland plants. Herb cover (9 studies): Seven studies (including six replicated, paired, controlled) in bogs in the UK and Australia and fens in the USA found that excluding or removing livestock typically had no effect on cover of key herb groups. Five of five studies found that excluding livestock typically had no effect on cottongrass cover. Two of two studies reported no effect on sedge cover. However, one before-and-after study in a poor fen in Spain reported that rush cover increased after cattle were excluded (along with other interventions). One site comparison study in Chile found that excluding livestock (along with other interventions) increased overall herb cover, but one replicated, paired, controlled study in bogs in Australia found that excluding livestock had no effect on overall herb cover. Moss cover (6 studies): Five replicated, paired, controlled studies in bogs in the UK and Australia found that excluding livestock typically had no effect on Sphagnum moss cover. Responses sometimes varied between species and sites. Three of the studies in the UK also found no effect on cover of other mosses. One before-and-after study in a poor fen in Spain reported that Sphagnum moss appeared after excluding cattle (and rewetting). Tree/shrub cover (8 studies): Four replicated, paired, controlled studies in bogs in the UK and Australia found that excluding livestock had no effect on shrub cover (specifically heather or a heathland community). One replicated, paired, controlled study in a bog in the UK found that excluding sheep had no effect on heather cover in wetter areas, but increased heather cover in drier areas. Three studies (including two site comparisons) in bogs in the UK, fens in the USA and a peatland in Chile found that excluding or removing livestock increased shrub cover. Vegetation structure (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in a bog in the UK found that excluding sheep increased total vegetation, shrub and bryophyte biomass but had no effect on biomass of grass-like herbs. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1734https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1734Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:21:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Excavate pools (without planting) Two studies evaluated the effects of excavating pools (without planting) on peatland vegetation. Both studies were based on the same experimental set-up in bogs in Canada. Plant community composition (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in bogs in Canada reported that excavated pools were colonized by peatland vegetation over 4–6 years, but contained different plant communities to natural pools. In particular, cattail was more common in created pools. Vegetation cover (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in bogs in Canada reported that after four years, created pools had less cover than natural pools of Sphagnum moss, herbs and shrubs. Overall plant richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in bogs in Canada reported that after six years, created pools contained a similar number of plant species to natural pools. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1806https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1806Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:30:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude wild herbivores using physical barriers One study evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of physically excluding wild herbivores. The study was in a fen meadow. Vegetation cover (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in a fen meadow in Poland reported that the effect of boar- and deer exclusion on vascular plant and moss cover depended on other treatments applied to plots. Vegetation structure (1 study): The same study reported that the effect of boar- and deer exclusion on total vegetation biomass depended on other treatments applied to plots. Overall plant richness/diversity (1 study): The same study reported that the effect of boar- and deer exclusion on plant species richness depended on other treatments applied to plots. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1860https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1860Mon, 11 Dec 2017 15:07:26 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude bats from roosts during building work One study evaluated the effects of excluding bats from roosts during building work on bat populations. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK found that excluding bats from roosts within buildings did not change roost switching frequency, core foraging areas or foraging preferences of soprano pipistrelle colonies. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1930https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1930Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:28:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude bats from roosts prior to mine reclamation We found no studies that evaluated the effects of excluding bats from roosts prior to mine reclamation 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%2F1961https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1961Tue, 04 Dec 2018 16:21:01 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude domestic and feral cats from bat roosts and roost entrances We found no studies that evaluated the effects of excluding domestic and feral cats from bat roosts and roost entrances 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%2F2001https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2001Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:27:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude or limit number of visitors to reserves or protected areas Five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of excluding or limiting the number of visitors to reserves or protected areas. Three studies were in the USA, one was in Ecuador and one was in Thailand. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): A site comparison study in Ecuador found that a road with restricted access had a higher population of medium-sized and large mammals compared to a road with unrestricted access. Survival (1 study): A before-and-after study in the USA found that temporarily restricting visitor access resulted in fewer bears being killed to protect humans. BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): Three studies (one a before-and-after study), in the USA and Thailand, found that restricting human access to protected areas resulted in increased use of these areas by grizzly bears and leopards. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2330https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2330Thu, 21 May 2020 10:43:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude livestock from semi-natural habitat (including woodland) Nine studies evaluated the effects of excluding livestock from semi-natural habitat on mammals. Six studies were in the USA, two were in Spain and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in the USA found more small mammal species on areas from which livestock were excluded. POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Abundance (9 studies): Four out of eight studies (including four site comparisons and four controlled studies), in the USA and Spain, found that excluding grazing livestock led to higher abundances of mule deer, small mammals and, when combined with provision of water, of European rabbits. One study found higher densities of some but not all small mammals species when livestock were excluded and the other three studies found that grazing exclusion did not lead to higher abundances of black-tailed hares, California ground squirrel burrows or of five small mammal species. A site comparison study in Australia found more small mammals where cattle were excluded compared to high intensity cattle-grazing but not compared to medium or low cattle-grazing intensities. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2407https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2407Thu, 28 May 2020 13:13:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude wild mammals using ditches, moats, walls or other barricades to reduce human-wildlife conflict Two studies evaluated the effects of excluding wild mammals using ditches, moats, walls or other barricades to reduce human-wildlife conflict. One study was in Cameroon and Benin and one was in Cameroon. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): Two studies (including one before-and-after study and one site comparison), in Cameroon and Benin and in Cameroon, found that fewer livestock were predated when they were kept in enclosures, especially when these were reinforced. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2420https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2420Mon, 01 Jun 2020 13:39:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude bats from roosts during maintenance work at road/railway bridges and culverts We found no studies that evaluated the effects of excluding bats from roosts during maintenance work at road/railway bridges and culverts 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%2F2941https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2941Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:48:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude or remove livestock from historically grazed freshwater marshes Ten studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of excluding or removing livestock from historically grazed freshwater marshes. Seven studies were in the USA, two were in Morocco and one was in Australia. In all 10 studies the focal livestock included cattle (mixed with sheep in the two studies in Morocco). Two studies in the USA were based on the same experimental set-up, and the two studies in Morocco shared some study sites. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (4 studies): Two site comparison studies in Morocco and the USA reported that marshes/pools fenced to exclude livestock for 3–30 years contained a different overall plant community to grazed sites. In the USA, the precise effect depended on the time since exclusion. Two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled studies in marshes in Australia and the USA found that fencing to exclude cattle typically had no significant effect on the overall plant community composition after 1–14 years. One of the studies also found that the plant community in fenced and grazed marshes was of similar quality, relative to pristine local marshes. Relative abundance (3 studies): Of three replicated, randomized, paired, controlled studies that reported data on the relative abundance of plant groups, two studies (based on one experimental set-up) in the USA found that ephemeral pools fenced to exclude cattle for 1–10 years had similar or greater cover of grasses relative to forbs than pools that remained grazed. The other study, also in the USA, found that the relative abundance of forbs, grass-like plants and shrubs was similar in marshes fenced to exclude cattle for 1–3 years and marshes that remained grazed. Overall richness/diversity (6 studies): Four replicated studies (two also randomized, paired, controlled) in the USA, Morocco and Australia found that marshes/pools fenced to exclude cattle, for 1–30 years, typically had similar overall plant species richness to sites that remained grazed. One of the studies found that the same was true for overall plant diversity. One replicated, site comparison study of ephemeral pools in Morocco found that pools fenced to exclude livestock for >30 years had similar (in a dry year) or greater (in a wet year) plant species richness compared to pools that remained grazed. One site comparison study in the USA found that marshes fenced to exclude cattle for 3–13 years contained fewer plant species than grazed marshes, and had similar or lower plant diversity. Characteristic plant richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study of ephemeral pools in Morocco found that pools fenced to exclude livestock for >30 years contained a similar number of wetland-characteristic plant species to pools that remained grazed. Native/non-target richness/diversity (3 studies): Of three replicated, randomized, paired, controlled studies that reported data on native plant species richness, two studies (based on one experimental set-up) in the USA found that fencing ephemeral pools to exclude cattle for 1–10 years typically reduced native plant species richness. The other study, also in the USA, found that native plant species richness was similar in marshes fenced to exclude cattle for 1–3 years and marshes that remained grazed. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (3 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in the USA and Morocco found that ponds/pools fenced to exclude cattle for >10 years contained more vegetation than sites that remained grazed. This was measured in terms of emergent cover around pond margins or peak above-ground biomass in ephemeral pools. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in Australia found that marshes fenced to exclude cattle for ≤4 years contained similar above-ground vegetation biomass to marshes that remained grazed. Characteristic plant abundance (1 study): One site comparison study of ephemeral pools in Morocco found that the overall abundance of wetland-characteristic plant species was greater in pools fenced to exclude livestock for >30 years than in pools that remained grazed. Herb abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that fencing pastures to exclude cattle typically increased herb cover in wetlands along creeks, but had no significant effect on herb cover within spring wetlands. Individual species abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled studies in freshwater marshes in Australia and the USA quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species (see original papers for data). VEGETATION STRUCTURE Visual obstruction (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that ponds fenced to exclude cattle for >10 years had greater horizontal vegetation cover, around their margins, than ponds that remained grazed. Height (2 studies): Two replicated studies (one also randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after) in the USA found that fencing ponds to exclude cattle, for 1–3 or >10 years, increased the height of vegetation around their margins. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2966https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2966Thu, 25 Mar 2021 14:14:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude or remove livestock from historically grazed brackish/salt marshes Fifteen studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of excluding or removing livestock from historically grazed brackish/salt marshes. There were five studies in Germany. There were two studies in the UK, Denmark and the Netherlands. There was one study in each of the USA, Sweden, France and Argentina. Livestock were sheep, cattle, sheep and cattle, cattle and horses, or unspecified. There was overlap in the sites used in two studies. Two other studies took place in one marsh, but with different experimental set-ups. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (1 study): One controlled study of a salt marsh in Germany reported that in a plot fenced to exclude cattle for eight years, the total vegetated area was greater than in a plot that remained grazed. Community types (1 study): One site comparison study of brackish and salt marshes in Germany reported that reducing (or stopping) grazing affected the nature of transitions between vegetation types over time, but that the precise effect varied with environmental conditions. Community composition (5 studies): Three paired studies (two also replicated and controlled) in brackish/salt marshes in France, Argentina and the Netherlands reported that the effect of excluding livestock for 5–30 years on the overall plant community composition depended on plot elevation/flooding regime. In one of these studies, the effect of livestock exclusion was not separated from the effect of general legal protection. Two studies in one salt marsh in Denmark reported that excluding livestock had little effect on the identity of plant species in the community after six years. Overall richness/diversity (6 studies): Two studies (one controlled, one before-and-after) in one salt marsh in Denmark reported that excluding sheep and cattle for 6–7 years had no effect on overall plant species richness. One replicated, paired, controlled study in a salt marsh in the Netherlands reported that plots fenced to exclude cattle for seven years had lower plant species richness than areas that remained grazed. Two controlled studies (one also replicated and paired) in salt marshes in Germany found that the effect of removing sheep on overall plant species richness depended on the scale of measurement and the grazing intensity used for comparison – with inconsistent results across these studies even for similar scales and intensities. One paired, site comparison study of salt marshes in Argentina found that the effect of excluding cattle (along with legal protection) increased plant species richness at lower elevations, but did not significantly affect plant diversity at any elevation. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (4 studies): Three studies (two controlled, one before-and-after) in salt marshes in the UK and Denmark reported that excluding livestock for 2–6 years maintained or increased overall vegetation abundance (although in one study, only by a small amount). One controlled study in a salt marsh in Germany found that a paddock left ungrazed for 16–18 years had greater overall vegetation cover than lightly or heavily grazed paddocks, but lower cover than a moderately grazed paddock. Individual species abundance (11 studies): Eleven studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species. For example, five studies (four controlled, one before-and-after) on salt marshes in the UK, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands reported that excluding livestock for 2–8 years reduced (or prevented increases in) cover of saltmarsh grass Puccinellia maritima. However, two controlled studies (one also replicated and paired) on salt marshes in Denmark and Sweden reported greater saltmarsh grass cover in areas fenced to exclude livestock for 1–6 years than in areas that remained grazed. Four studies (three controlled, one before-and-after) on salt marshes in Denmark and Germany reported that excluding or removing livestock for 4–16 years increased cover of sea purslane Halimione portulacoides. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (5 studies): Five controlled studies (two also replicated and paired) in salt marshes in Sweden and Germany, and brackish wet grassland in the UK, found that ungrazed plots (livestock excluded or removed) contained taller vegetation than plots that remained grazed. Vegetation was surveyed after one month, 1–8 years or 16–22 years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2967https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2967Thu, 25 Mar 2021 14:15:09 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude or remove livestock from historically grazed freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of excluding or removing livestock from historically grazed 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%2F2968https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2968Thu, 25 Mar 2021 14:15:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude or remove livestock from historically grazed brackish/saline swamps One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of excluding or removing livestock from historically grazed brackish/saline swamps. The study was in South Africa and the focal livestock were cattle. VEGETATION COMMUNITY VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Individual species abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in South Africa reported that more grey mangrove Avicennia marina seedlings appeared in plots fenced to exclude cattle for two years, than in plots left open to cattle. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in South Africa reported that mangrove trees fenced off from cattle were taller, after two years, than trees accessible to cattle. OTHER Growth (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in South Africa found that mangrove trees fenced off from cattle grew more over two years – in height, diameter and crown volume –than trees accessible to cattle. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2969https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2969Thu, 25 Mar 2021 14:15:41 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude wild vertebrates: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically excluding wild vertebrates from brackish/saline 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%2F3135https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3135Mon, 05 Apr 2021 12:16:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude wild invertebrates using physical barriersWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically excluding wild invertebrates from 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%2F3140https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3140Mon, 05 Apr 2021 14:24:23 +0100