Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase areas of rough grassland for bumblebee nestingOne replicated controlled trial on lowland farms in Scotland showed that grassy field margins attracted nest-searching queen bumblebees in spring at higher densities than cropped field margins, managed or unmanaged grasslands or hedgerows. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F12https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F12Thu, 20 May 2010 18:37:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase ‘on-the-ground’ protection to reduce unsustainable levels of exploitation Two before-and-after studies from Central America and Europe found increases in recruitment and population levels following either stricter anti-poaching measures or stricter protection and the stationing a warden on an island. However, the Central American study found that recruitment increases were only maintained for as long as the intensive effort was continued. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F272https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F272Thu, 19 Jul 2012 17:38:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Incorporate parasitism rates when setting thresholds for insecticide usePest damage: One controlled study from New Zealand found using parasitism rates to inform spraying decisions resulted in acceptable levels of crop damage from pests. Effects on natural enemy populations were not monitored. The crop studied was tomato.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F726https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F726Thu, 30 May 2013 13:19:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Incorporate plant remains into the soil that produce weed-controlling chemicalsWeeds: Six studies (including six randomised, replicated, controlled tests) from Asia, Europe and North America examined the effect of allelopathic plant remains on weeds by comparing amended soils with weeded controls. Three studies found a reduction in weed growth, and three found effects varied between years, weed groups, or the type of weeding method in controls.Four studies from Asia and North America examined the effect on weeds by comparing amended soils with unweeded controls. Two studies found a reduction in weed growth, but one found that residues applied too far in advance of crop planting had the reverse effect. Two studies found that effects varied between trials, weed species or the type of residue used.Two studies, including one randomised, replicated, controlled laboratory study, found that the decrease in weeds did not last beyond a few days or weeks after residue incorporation. Pests: One randomised, replicated, controlled study in the Philippines found mixed effects on pests. Crop growth: Two of three studies found crop growth was inhibited by allelopathic plant remains, but this could be minimised by changing the timing of application. One study found effects varied between years. Yield: Three randomised, replicated, controlled studies compared yields in amended plots with weeded controls and found positive, negative and mixed effects. Three studies compared amended plots with unweeded controls, two found positive effects on yield and one found mixed effects (depending on the crop). Profit: One study found that amending soils increased profit compared to unweeded controls, but not compared to weeded controls. Crops studied were beans, cotton, maize, rice and wheat.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F728https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F728Thu, 30 May 2013 13:50:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Incorporate leys into crop rotationOne replicated study from Denmark showed that reducing the extent of grass pasture in leys reduced the undesirable uptake of nitrogen by grasses, therefore requiring lower rates of fertilizer for subsequent crops. SOIL TYPE COVERED: sandy-loam. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F900https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F900Tue, 01 Oct 2013 11:32:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Impose restrictions on cave visits Four studies evaluated the effects of imposing restrictions on cave visits on bat populations. One study was in each of the USA, Canada, Madagascar, and Turkey. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two before-and-after studies in Canada and Turkey found that bat populations within caves increased after restrictions on cave visitors were imposed. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Behaviour change (2 studies): One study in the USA found that reducing the number of people within cave tour groups did not have a significant effect on the number of take-offs, landings or overall activity (bat movements) of a cave myotis colony roosting within the cave. One study in Madagascar found that increasing visitor approach distances, along with avoiding direct illumination of bats, reduced the alertness and number of take-offs of Madagascan rousettes during experimental cave tours. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1002https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1002Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:17:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Impose noise limits in proximity to bat roosts and habitats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of imposing noise limits in proximity to bat roosts and habitats 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%2F1021https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1021Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:01:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Improve soil quality after tree planting (excluding applying fertilizer) One of two randomized, replicated, controlled studies in Australia found that different soil enhancers had mixed effects on tree seedling survival and height, but no effect on tree seedling health. The other found that combinations of soil enhancers did not increase seedling survival, height, diameter or health. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1153https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1153Wed, 18 May 2016 15:12:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Incorporate existing trees or woods into the landscape of new developments We found no evidence for the effects of incorporating existing trees or woods into the landscape of new developments on forests. '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%2F1175https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1175Thu, 19 May 2016 10:24:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement speed limits in particular areas (e.g. with high primate densities) to reduce vehicle collisions with primates We found no evidence for the effects of implementing speed limits in particular areas to reduce vehicle collisions with 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%2F1458https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1458Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:30:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Impose fines for breaking the speed limit or colliding with primates We found no evidence for the effects of imposing fines for breaking the speed limit or colliding with 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%2F1460https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1460Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:37:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement sustainable harvesting of primates (e.g. with permits, resource access agreements) We found no evidence for the effects of implementing sustainable harvesting of 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%2F1468https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1468Tue, 17 Oct 2017 14:27:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Incorporate forested corridors or buffers into logged areas We found no evidence for the effects of incorporating forested corridors or buffers into logged areas 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%2F1495https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1495Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:47:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Improve connectivity between areas of shrubland to allow species movements and habitat shifts in response to climate change We found no studies that evaluated the effects of improving connectivity between areas of shrubland to allow species movements in response to climate change 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%2F1673https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1673Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:20:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase ‘on-the-ground’ protection (e.g. rangers) One study evaluated the effects on peatland habitats of increasing ‘on-the-ground’ protection. The study was in tropical peat swamps. Behaviour change (1 study): One before-and-after study in a peat swamp forest in Indonesia reported that the number of illegal sawmills decreased over two years of anti-logging patrols. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1800https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1800Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:27:48 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Import spat and/or eggs to aquaculture facilities rather than juveniles and adults to reduce the risk of introducing hitchhiking species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of importing spat and/or eggs to aquaculture facilities rather than juveniles and adults to reduce the risk of introducing hitchhiking species 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%2F2160https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2160Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:11:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Improve fish food and pellets to reduce aquaculture waste production We found no studies that evaluated the effects of improving fish food and pellets to reduce aquaculture waste production 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%2F2192https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2192Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:02:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Incentivise species protection through licensed trophy hunting One study evaluated the effects on mammals of incentivising species protection through licensed trophy hunting. This study was in Nepal. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A study in Nepal found that after trophy hunting started, bharal abundance increased, though the sex ratio of this species, and of Himalayan tahr, became skewed towards females. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2610https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2610Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:42:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Include fishers in management groups for marine protected areas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of including fishers in management fora for marine protected areas on marine fish 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%2F2809https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2809Fri, 05 Feb 2021 10:00:36 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Improve methods for locating fishing gear We found no studies that evaluated the effects of improving methods for locating fishing gear on marine and freshwater mammal 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%2F2889https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2889Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:51:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase ‘on-the-ground’ protection (e.g. rangers) for marshes or swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation or human behaviour, of increasing ‘on-the-ground’ protection for 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%2F3388https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3388Mon, 12 Apr 2021 11:51:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Improve treatment standards of sewage and wastewater We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of improving treatment standards of sewage and wastewater. ‘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%2F3569https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3569Wed, 08 Dec 2021 15:08:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Impose noise limits in proximity to reptile habitats and routes We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of imposing noise limits in proximity to reptile habitats and routes. ‘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%2F3639https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3639Thu, 09 Dec 2021 15:06:52 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement vessel decommissioning schemes We found no studies that evaluated the effects of implementing vessel decommissioning schemes on marine fish 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%2F3821https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3821Fri, 27 May 2022 08:48:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase biosecurity checks We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of increasing biosecurity checks. ‘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%2F3887https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3887Tue, 26 Jul 2022 18:26:23 +0100