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 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 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: Put up signs to warn people about not feeding primates One review in Japan found that aggressive interactions between Japanese macaques and humans declined after prohibiting tourists from feeding of monkeys. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1507https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1507Wed, 18 Oct 2017 14:47:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness amongst the general public We found no studies that evaluated the effects of raising awareness amongst the general public 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%2F1717https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1717Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:02:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Purchase fishing permits and/or vessels from fishers We found no studies that evaluated the effects of purchasing fishing permits and/or vessels from fishers 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%2F2114https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2114Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:44:16 +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: Publish data on ranger performance to motivate increased anti-poacher efforts One study evaluated the effects on poaching incidents of publishing data on ranger performance to motivate increased anti-poacher efforts. This study was in Ghana. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in Ghana found that when data were publishing on staff performance, poaching incidents decreased on these sites and on sites from which performance data were not published. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human behaviour change (1 study): A replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in Ghana found that publishing data on staff performance lead to an increase in anti-poaching patrols. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2426https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2426Mon, 01 Jun 2020 14:50:54 +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 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: Put up signs to discourage firesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on marsh/swamp vegetation or human behaviour, of putting up signs to discourage fires in or near these 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%2F3081https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3081Fri, 02 Apr 2021 16:59:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Put up signs to discourage litteringWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation or human behaviour, of putting up signs to discourage littering in/near 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%2F3165https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3165Tue, 06 Apr 2021 13:16:24 +0100Collected 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: freshwater wetlands Two studies evaluated the effects – on trees/shrubs typical of freshwater wetlands – of pruning their roots before planting. Both studies were in the USA. One study was in a laboratory. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE   VEGETATION STRUCTURE   OTHER Survival (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in created wetlands in the USA reported that root-pruned red maple Acer rubrum seedlings had a higher survival rate than unpruned seedlings, 1–2 years after planting. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in a laboratory in the USA found that root-pruned and unpruned Nuttall oak Quercus nuttallii seedlings had similar survival rates, 108 days after planting. Growth (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in a laboratory in the USA found that root-pruned and unpruned Nuttall oak Quercus nuttallii seedlings grew in height by a similar amount over the first 108 days after planting. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3357https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3357Sun, 11 Apr 2021 17:24:04 +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: Put out wildfires We found no studies that evaluated the effects of putting out wildfires 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%2F3659https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3659Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:48:31 +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: Purchase fishing permits from fishers to limit vessel or fisher numbers We found no studies that evaluated the effects of purchasing fishing permits from fishers to limit vessel or fisher numbers 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%2F3818https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3818Fri, 27 May 2022 08:43:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Purchase fishing vessels from fishers to limit vessel numbers We found no studies that evaluated the effects of purchasing fishing vessels from fishers to limit vessel numbers 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%2F3819https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3819Fri, 27 May 2022 08:45:56 +0100Collected 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
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust