Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide training to conservationists and land managers on bee ecology and conservation We have captured no evidence for the effects of providing training on bee ecology and conservation to conservationists and land managers. '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%2F58https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F58Thu, 20 May 2010 09:03:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide training for land managers, farmers and farm advisers One study from the UK found farmers who were trained in how to implement agri-environment schemes created better quality wildlife habitat over five years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F113https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F113Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:13:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide training to conservationists and land managers on bird ecology and conservation We captured no published evidence on the effects of general awareness campaigns and public information on the state of bird 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%2F165https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F165Sat, 19 May 2012 20:12:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food to increase parental presence and so reduce brood parasitism We found no evidence on providing supplementary food to increase parental presence and so reduce boord parasitims on bird 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%2F445https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F445Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:04:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide unfertilised cereal headlands in arable fields We found no evidence describing the effects of unfertilised cereal headlands on bird 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%2F462https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F462Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:07:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food to allow the rescue of a second chickA small controlled study in Spain found that second chicks from lammergeier Gypaetus barbatus nests survived longer if nests were provided with food, allowing one chick to be rescued. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F541https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F541Sat, 15 Sep 2012 20:58:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food through the establishment of food populations One pre-1950 study in the USA found that waterfowl fed on specially-planted rye grass. Three studies from North America and Sweden found that attempts to support populations by establishing prey did not succeed. Whooping cranes Grus americana in the USA preferentially fed on scattered grains, over planted crops; attempts in Sweden to boost macroinvertebrate numbers were not successful and great horned owls Bubo virginianus in Canada did not respond to induced increases in prey populations. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F555https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F555Sat, 22 Sep 2012 20:40:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary water to increase survival or reproductive successA controlled study in Morocco found that water supplemented northern bald ibis Geronticus eremite pairs had significantly higher reproductive success than those far from water sources. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F558https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F558Sun, 23 Sep 2012 15:16:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide training to conservationists, land managers, and the building and development sector on bat ecology and conservation to reduce bat roost disturbance We found no studies that evaluated the effects of providing training to conservationists, land managers, and the building and development sector on bat ecology and conservation to reduce bat roost disturbance. ‘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%2F997https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F997Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:00:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide training to anti-poaching ranger patrols One study in Uganda found that no gorillas were killed over 21 months after game guards received training, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Rwanda found that the number of immature gorillas increased in areas where game guards received training, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in India found that a population of hoolock gibbons increased after sanctuary staff received training, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Cameroon found that no incidents of primate poaching occurred over a three year period after anti-poaching rangers were trained, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1477https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1477Tue, 17 Oct 2017 17:30:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide sustainable alternative livelihoods; establish fish- or domestic meat farms We found no evidence for the effects of providing sustainable alternative livelihoods; establish fish- or domestic meat farms 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%2F1483https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1483Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:16:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food to primates through the establishment of prey populations We found no evidence for the effects of providing supplementary food to primates through the establishment of prey populations 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%2F1529https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1529Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:17:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide woody debris in ski run area One study evaluated the effects on mammals of providing woody debris in ski run areas. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A controlled study in the USA found that placing woody debris on ski slopes did not affect overall small mammal abundance and had mixed effects on individual species abundances. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2356https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2356Tue, 26 May 2020 13:30:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food to increase reproduction/survival Twenty-four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of providing supplementary food to increase reproduction/survival. Nine studies were in the USA, two were in Canada, two were in South Africa, two were in Poland, and one each was in Sweden, the Netherlands, eSwatini, Spain, Portugal, Slovenia, Austria, Norway and Sweden and one was across North America and Europe. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (18 STUDIES) Abundance (8 studies): Four of eight studies (incuding four controlled, two site comparisons and five before-and-after studies) in the USA, Canada, South Africa, Poland and Austria found that supplementary feeding increased the abundance or density of bank voles, red squirrels, striped mice, brown hyena and black-backed jackals. One study found a temporary increased in prairie vole abundance. The other three studies found supplementary feeding not to increase abundance or density of white-footed mice, northern flying squirrels, Douglas squirrels or Eurasian otters. Reproduction (8 studies): Four of five controlled studies (three also replicated) in the USA, South Africa, Norway and Sweden, Sweden and Spain, found that supplementary food increased the proportion of striped mice that were breeding, the number of arctic fox litters and the size of prairie vole litters. However, there was no increase in the number of arctic fox cubs in each litter or the proportion of female Iberian lynx breeding. One of two replicated studies (one site comparison and one controlled), in the Netherlands and the USA, found that supplementary feeding increased the number of young wild boar produced and recruited in to the population. The other study found that the number of mule deer produced/adult female did not increase. A review of studies across North America and Europe found that supplementary feeding increased ungulate reproductive rates in five of eight relevant studies. Survival (9 studies): Four of eight studies (including seven controlled studies and two before-and-after studies) in the USA, Canada, Poland and Spain, found that supplementary feeding increased survival of mule deer, bank voles, northern flying squirrels and eastern cottontail rabbits. Five studies found no increase in survival for white-tailed deer, Douglas squirrels, mule deer, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep lambs or Iberian lynx. A review of studies across North America and Europe found that supplementary feeding increased ungulate survival in four out of seven relevant studies. Condition (4 studies): One of three studies (including two controlled and two before-and-after studies) in Poland, the USA, and Canada, found that supplementary food lead to weight gain or weight recovery in bank voles. One study found no body mass increase with supplementary feeding in northern flying squirrels and Douglas squirrels. The third study found mixed results, with supplementary feeding increasing weight gains in some cotton rats, depending on their sex, weight and the time of year. A review of studies from across North America and Europe found that different proportions of studies found supplementary feeding to improve a range of measures of ungulate condition. BEHAVIOUR (6 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): A replicated, controlled study in Sweden found that supplementary food increased occupancy of Arctic fox dens. A replicated study in Portugal found that artificial feeding stations were used by European rabbits. Behaviour (4 studies): Two of three replicated studies (two also controlled), in eSwatini, Slovenia and the USA, found that supplementary feeding led to reduced home range sizes or shorter movements of red deer and elk. The third study found home ranges and movement distances to be similar between fed and unfed multimammate mice. One replicated study in Poland found that supplementary feeding of ungulates altered brown bear behaviour. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2367https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2367Tue, 26 May 2020 16:24:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary water to increase reproduction/survival Six studies evaluated the effects on mammals of providing supplementary water to increase reproduction/survival. Two studies were in Australia and one each was in Oman, Portugal, Saudi Arabia and the USA and Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): A replicated study in the USA and Mexico found that providing supplementary water was associated with increases in desert bighorn sheep population size. A study in Oman found that a released captive-bred Arabian oryx population initially provided with supplementary water and food increased over 14 years. Reproduction (2 studies): A study in Saudi Arabia found that released captive-bred Arabian gazelles initially provided with supplementary water and food after release into a fenced area started breeding in the first year. A study in Australia found that most female released captive-reared black-footed rock-wallabies provided with supplementary water after release into a large predator-free fenced area reproduced in the first two years. Survival (2 studies): A controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that most released captive-bred hare-wallabies provided with supplementary water, along with supplementary food and predator control, survived at least two months after release into a fenced peninsula. A study in Australia found that over half of released captive-reared black-footed rock-wallabies provided with supplementary water after release into a large predator-free fenced area survived for at least two years. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated study in Portugal found that artificial waterholes were used by European rabbits and stone martens. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2396https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2396Thu, 28 May 2020 10:44:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide/increase anti-poaching patrols Seven studies evaluated the effects of providing or increasing anti-poaching patrols on mammals. Two studies were in Thailand and one each was in Brazil, Iran, Lao People's Democratic Republic, South Africa and Tajikistan. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Abundance (6 studies): Two studies, in Thailand and Iran, found more deer and small mammals and more urial sheep and Persian leopards close to ranger stations (from which anti-poaching patrols were carried out) than further from them. One of three before-and-after studies, in Brazil, Thailand and Lao People's Democratic Republic, found that ranger patrols increased mammal abundance. The other two studies found that patrols did not increase tiger abundance. A site comparison study in Tajikistan found more snow leopard, argali, and ibex where anti-poaching patrols were conducted. Survival (1 study): A study in South Africa found that anti-poaching patrols did not deter African rhinoceros poaching. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2618https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2618Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:16:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide training to vessel operators on mammal behaviour and appropriate avoidance techniques We found no studies that evaluated the effects of providing training to vessel operators on mammal behaviour and appropriate avoidance techniques. ‘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%2F2759https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2759Tue, 02 Feb 2021 17:03:34 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide training and tools for safe release of mammals captured by fisheries We found no studies that evaluated the effects of providing training and tools for the safe release of mammals captured by fisheries 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%2F2830https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2830Fri, 05 Feb 2021 16:03:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide training to wildlife control operators on least harmful ways of removing bats from their roosts We found no studies that evaluated the effects of providing training to wildlife control operators on the least harmful ways of removing bats from their roosts. ‘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%2F2945https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2945Sun, 14 Feb 2021 16:57:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prune roots of non-woody plants before planting: freshwater wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects – on emergent, non-woody plants typical of freshwater wetlands – of pruning their roots before planting. ‘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%2F3355https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3355Sun, 11 Apr 2021 17:23:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prune roots of non-woody plants before planting: brackish/saline wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects – on emergent, non-woody plants typical of brackish/saline wetlands – of pruning their roots before planting. ‘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%2F3356https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3356Sun, 11 Apr 2021 17:23:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prune roots of trees/shrubs before planting: brackish/saline wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects the effects – on trees/shrubs typical of brackish/saline wetlands – of pruning their roots before planting. ‘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%2F3358https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3358Sun, 11 Apr 2021 17:24:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide training for construction workers on the potential risks to reptiles and how to mitigate disturbance during works We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of providing training for construction workers on the potential risks to reptiles and how to mitigate disturbance during works. ‘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%2F3484https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3484Fri, 03 Dec 2021 12:12:09 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide training for local staff in species identification We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of providing training for local staff in species identification. ‘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%2F3678https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3678Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:56:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide training for land managers, farmers and farm advisers One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of providing training for land managers, farmers and farm advisers. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One study in the UK reported that 82% of landowners that received advice about applying for the Rural Priorities agri-environment scheme submitted applications, there was a 90% application success rate, and >3,000 ha of farmland were managed for the marsh fritillary. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3846https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3846Tue, 05 Jul 2022 11:24:55 +0100