Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove tree canopy to reduce pond shading One before-and-after study in Denmark found that translocated garlic toads established breeding populations following pond restoration that included canopy removal. One before-and-after study in the USA found that canopy removal did not increase hatching success of spotted salamanders.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F758https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F758Wed, 14 Aug 2013 14:36:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove the chytrid fungus from ponds One before-and-after study in Mallorca found that pond drying and fungicidal treatment of resident midwife toads reduced levels of infection but did not eradicate chytridiomycosis.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F766https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F766Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:11:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove specific aquatic plantsTwo studies investigating the effects of removing specific aquatic plants are discussed in ‘Threat: Invasive alien and other problematic species – Control invasive plants’.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F815https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F815Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:10:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove turbine lighting to reduce bat and insect attraction We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing turbine lighting to reduce bat and insect attraction 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%2F969https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F969Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:15:27 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove trees/crops to restore shrubland structure We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing trees/crops to restore shrubland structure 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%2F1683https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1683Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:22:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove trees, leaf litter and topsoil We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing trees, leaf litter and soil surface 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%2F1684https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1684Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:23:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove upper layer of peat/soil (without planting) Ten studies evaluated the effects of removing the upper layer of peat or soil (without planting afterwards) on peatland vegetation. Nine studies were in fens or fen meadows and one was in an unspecified peatland. Plant community composition (6 studies): Five studies (including one replicated, randomized, paired, controlled) in a peatland in the USA and fens or fen meadows in the Netherlands and Poland reported that plots stripped of topsoil developed plant communities with a different composition to those in unstripped peatlands. In one study, the effect of stripping was not separated from the effect of rewetting. Two studies in fen meadows in Germany and Poland reported that the depth of soil stripping affected plant community development. Characteristic plants (5 studies): Four studies in fen meadows in Germany and the Netherlands, and a peatland in the USA, reported that stripping soil increased cover of wetland-characteristic or peatland-characteristic plants plants after 4–13 years. In the Netherlands, the effect of stripping was not separated from the effect of rewetting. One replicated site comparison study in fens in Belgium and the Netherlands found that stripping soil increased fen-characteristic plant richness. Herb cover (4 studies): Three studies (including one replicated, paired, controlled) in fens or fen meadows in Germany, the UK and Poland found that stripping soil increased cover of rushes, reeds or sedges after 2–6 years. However, one controlled study in a fen meadow in the Netherlands reported that stripping soil had no effect on sedge or bentgrass cover after five years. Two controlled studies in a fen meadow in the Netherlands and a fen in the UK found that stripping soil reduced purple moor grass cover for 2–5 years. Vegetation structure (3 studies): Two studies in fens or fen meadows in the Netherlands and Belgium found that stripping soil reduced vegetation biomass (total or herbs) for up to 18 years. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a peatland in the USA found that stripping soil had no effect on vegetation biomass after four years. Overall plant richness/diversity (6 studies): Three studies (including one replicated, paired, controlled) in fens or fen meadows in the UK, Belgium and the Netherlands reported that stripping soil increased total plant species richness over 2–18 years. In one study, the effect of stripping was not separated from the effect of rewetting. One replicated, controlled study in a fen in Poland found that stripping soil had no effect on plant species richness after three years. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a peatland in the USA found that stripping soil increased plant species richness and diversity, after four years, in one field but decreased it in another. One replicated study in a fen meadow in Poland reported that plant species richness increased over time, after stripping soil. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1809https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1809Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:31:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove upper layer of peat/soil (before planting) We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of removing the upper layer of peat or soil before planting peatland plants. ‘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%2F1835https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1835Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:54:13 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove vegetation that could compete with planted peatland vegetation One study evaluated the effects of removing competing plants to aid planted peatland vegetation. The study was in a bog. Survival (1 study): One controlled study in a bog in the UK reported that some Sphagnum moss survived when sown (in gel beads) into a plot where purple moor grass had previously been cut, but no moss survived in a plot where grass had not been cut. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1840https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1840Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:55:34 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove utility and service lines after decommissioning We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing utility and service lines after decommissioning 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%2F2084https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2084Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:50:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove understorey vegetation in forest Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of removing understorey vegetation in forest. All three studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies (two also before-and-after), in the USA, found that compared to prescribed burning, mechanically removing understorey vegetation growth in forests did not increase abundances of white-footed mice, shrews or four rodent species. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2482https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2482Thu, 04 Jun 2020 11:27:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove trees and shrubs to recreate open areas of land Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of removing trees and shrubs to recreate open areas of land. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A controlled study in the USA found that where Ashe juniper trees were removed, there were higher abundances of three rodent species. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A before-and-after, site comparison study in the USA found that removing trees increased use of areas by Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2483https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2483Thu, 04 Jun 2020 11:42:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove topsoil that has had fertilizer added to mimic low nutrient soil We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of removing topsoil that has had fertilizer added to mimic low nutrient soil. '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%2F2544https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2544Tue, 09 Jun 2020 09:01:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove vegetation by hand/machine Twenty studies evaluated the effects on mammals of removing vegetation by hand or machine. Eleven studies were in the USA, and one each was in Canada, South Africa, Israel, Norway, Portugal, France, Spain, the Netherlands and Thailand. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A site comparison study in the USA found that mechanically clearing trees within woodland reduced small mammal diversity. POPULATION RESPONSE (12 STUDIES) Abundance (11 studies): Eight of 11 site comparison or controlled studies (nine of which were replicated), in the USA, Israel, Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands, found that clearing woody vegetation or herbaceous and grassland vegetation benefitted target mammals. Population or density increases were recorded for small mammals, European rabbits and Stephens’ kangaroo rat while black-tailed prairie dog and California ground squirrel colonies were larger or denser and Utah prairie dog colonies established better than in uncleared areas. Two studies found mixed results of clearing woody vegetation, with hazel dormouse abundance declining, then increasing and small mammal abundance increasing, then declining in both cleared and uncleared plots alike. One study found no effect of scrub clearance from sand dunes on habitat specialist small mammals. Survival (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that mechanical disturbance of woody vegetation within forest (combined with reseeding, follow-up herbicide application and further seeding) increased overwinter survival of mule deer fawns. BEHAVIOUR (8 STUDIES) Use (8 studies): Four of seven studies (of which six were site comparisons or controlled), in the USA, Canada, Norway, France and Thailand, found that areas cleared of woody vegetation or herbaceous and grassland vegetation were utilized more by mule deer, reindeer, mouflon and gaur. One study found that clearing woody vegetation promoted increased use by white-tailed deer in some but not all plots, one found that it did not increase use by mule deer and one found that carrying out a second clearance on previously cleared plots did not increase use by white-tailed deer. A before-and-after study in South Africa found that clearing woody vegetation from shrubland increased wildebeest and zebra abundance following subsequent burning but not when carried out without burning whilst other mammals did not show consistent responses. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2550https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2550Tue, 09 Jun 2020 10:10:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove surface soil/sediment: freshwater marshes Six studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of removing surface soil/sediment to restore or create freshwater marshes. Four studies were in the USA. One study was in the Netherlands. One study was in Japan. VEGETATION COMMUNITY                              Community composition (3 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in the USA reported that freshwater marshes being restored by removing excess soil/sediment (along with other interventions) typically contained a different overall plant community, after 1–12 years, to both degraded and natural marshes nearby. One replicated study of dune slacks in the Netherlands simply reported changes in the overall plant community composition over four years after stripping topsoil (along with other interventions). Overall richness/diversity (4 studies): One replicated, site comparison study of dune slacks in the Netherlands reported that overall plant species richness was greater in restored slacks (topsoil stripped five years previously, along with other interventions) than in mature unmanaged slacks. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA reported that freshwater marshes being restored by removing topsoil (along with other interventions) contained fewer wetland plant species, after 1–12 years, than nearby natural marshes. Two studies (including one site comparison) in freshwater marshes in the USA and Japan reported that the effect of removing topsoil on overall plant species richness depended on the amount removed. Characteristic plant richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study of a floodplain marsh in Japan found that where stripped plots were colonized by plants within two growing seasons, they contained more wetland-characteristic species than an adjacent unstripped area. One replicated study of dune slacks in the Netherlands simply reported the number of characteristic plant species present over five years after stripping topsoil (along with other interventions). VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (3 studies): Three studies (two replicated) in the Netherlands, the USA and Japan simply quantified the overall abundance of vegetation that colonized – within five years – freshwater wetlands stripped of topsoil (sometimes along with other interventions). Characteristic plant abundance (2 studies): Two studies (one replicated) in freshwater marshes in the USA and Japan simply quantified the abundance of wetland-characteristic plant species that colonized – within five years – areas stripped of topsoil. Individual species abundance (5 studies): Five studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species. For example, one replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that pothole wetlands restored by removing excess sediment (sometimes along with planting herbs) had lower hybrid cattail Typha x glauca cover than unrestored wetlands after 2–7 years, and similar hybrid cattail cover to nearby natural wetlands. One replicated study of dune slacks in the Netherlands simply quantified the cover of individual species present over five years after stripping topsoil (along with other interventions). Only two species had >1% cover in any slack. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Overall structure (1 study): One study in a freshwater marsh in the USA reported that the effect of removing topsoil on the abundance of tall vegetation depended on the amount removed. Visual obstruction (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study of pothole wetlands in the USA found that the effect of removing excess sediment (sometimes along with planting herbs) on horizontal vegetation cover, 2–7 years later, depended on the elevation/vegetation zone. Height (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA reported that sedge tussocks were shorter in a wet meadow restored by removing excess sediment (along with other interventions, including planting sedges) than in nearby natural meadows, after 11–14 years. Diameter/perimeter/area (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA reported that sedge tussocks had a smaller perimeter in a wet meadow restored by removing excess sediment (along with other interventions, including planting sedges) than in natural meadows, after 11–14 years. Basal area (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA reported that the basal area of sedge tussocks was smaller in a wet meadow restored by removing excess sediment (along with other interventions, including planting sedges) than in nearby natural meadows, after 11–14 years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3221https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3221Fri, 09 Apr 2021 13:07:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove surface soil/sediment: brackish/salt marshes One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of removing surface soil/sediment to restore or create brackish/salt marshes. The study was in the Netherlands. VEGETATION COMMUNITY                              Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One study in the Netherlands reported that 23 plant species colonized over two years after stripping topsoil from coastal farmland. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Individual species abundance (1 study): One study in the Netherlands reported the frequency of plant species that colonized over two years after stripping topsoil from coastal farmland. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3222https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3222Fri, 09 Apr 2021 13:08:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove surface soil/sediment: freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of removing surface soil/sediment to restore or create 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%2F3223https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3223Fri, 09 Apr 2021 13:08:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove surface soil/sediment: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of removing surface soil/sediment to restore or create 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%2F3224https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3224Fri, 09 Apr 2021 13:08:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove surface soil/sediment (before planting)We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of removing surface soil/sediment before planting emergent marsh/swamp plants.   ‘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%2F3290https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3290Sat, 10 Apr 2021 20:04:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove vegetation that could compete with planted non-woody plants: freshwater wetlands Three studies evaluated the effects, on emergent non-woody vegetation planted in freshwater wetlands, of removing competing plants. All three studies were in the USA. Two studies used the same experimental wet basins but planted different species. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Herb abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in wet meadows in the USA found removing an invasive species with herbicide before sowing mixed grass and forb seeds increased the total biomass of sown species after 1–2 growing seasons, but that burning to remove the invasive species had no significant effect on sown species biomass. Individual species abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in wet basins in the USA found that the effect of weeding to remove competitors on lake sedge Carex lacustris biomass and density, in the three years after planting, depended on the year and water level. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (2 studies): Two replicated, paired, controlled studies in wet basins in the USA examined the effect of weeding to remove competitors on the height of planted sedges. One of the studies found that weeding had no significant effect on the height of planted tussock sedge Carex stricta in three of three years. The other study found that weeding reduced the average height of lake sedge Carex lacustris in the first year after planting, but had no significant effect in the following two years. OTHER Survival (2 studies): Two replicated, paired, controlled studies in wet basins in the USA examined the effect of weeding to remove competitors on the survival of planted sedges Carex spp. Both studies found that weeding had no significant effect on sedge survival in at least two of three years. One of the studies found that weeding affected tussock sedge Carex stricta survival in the second year after planting, but that the direction of the effect depended on plot elevation. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3332https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3332Sun, 11 Apr 2021 14:05:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove vegetation that could compete with planted non-woody plants: brackish/saline wetlands One study evaluated the effects, on emergent non-woody vegetation planted in brackish/saline wetlands, of removing competing plants. The study was in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE   VEGETATION STRUCTURE   OTHER Germination/emergence (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in an estuarine salt marsh in the USA found that thinning cover of the dominant plant before sowing dwarf saltwort Salicornia bigelovii seeds had no significant effect on saltwort seedling density, over the following two months. Survival (1 study): The same study found that thinning the dominant plant increased the survival rate of dwarf saltwort Salicornia bigelovii transplants over the first six months after planting. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3333https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3333Sun, 11 Apr 2021 14:08:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove vegetation that could compete with planted trees/shrubs: brackish/saline wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on trees/shrubs planted in brackish/saline wetlands, of removing competing plants.   ‘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%2F3335https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3335Sun, 11 Apr 2021 14:09:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove topsoil or turf before seeding/planting Six studies examined the effects of removing topsoil or turf before seeding/planting on grassland vegetation. Three studies were in the UK, two studies were in the USA and one was in France. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (3 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in France found that removing topsoil before sowing seeds increased plant community similarity to that of intact steppe. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in France found that removing topsoil before sowing seeds increased plant species richness. Sown/planted species richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that removing topsoil before sowing seeds increased the species richness of sown plants. Grass richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that removing turf before sowing seeds increased grass species richness in most cases compared to disturbing the soil before sowing. Forb richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that removing turf before sowing seeds increased forb species richness in most cases compared to disturbing the soil before sowing. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in France found that removing topsoil before sowing seeds did not alter overall vegetation cover. Sown/planted species abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that removing topsoil before planting seedlings led to higher cover of planted species. Individual species abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that removing topsoil before planting seedlings led to lower cover of common knapweed. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (one paired and one randomized) in the USA found that removing topsoil before planting California oatgrass or sowing and planting purple needlegrass increased the survival of seedlings and plants. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3415https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3415Fri, 25 Jun 2021 16:09:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove vegetation before seeding/planting Two studies examined the effects of removing vegetation before seeding/planting on grassland vegetation. One study was in each of the UK and Belgium. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (0 STUDIES) VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (0 STUDIES) VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Germination/Emergence (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies in the UK and Belgium found that removing vegetation before sowing seeds increased the germination rate of sown species. The other study found that removing vegetation, along with removing leaf litter, before sowing seeds increased the number of seedlings for one of three species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3416https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3416Fri, 25 Jun 2021 16:14:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove tree canopy to reduce pond or waterway shading One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of removing tree canopy to reduce pond or waterway shading. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)   POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the USA1 found that removing trees to reduce stream shading reduced the survival of Appalachian brown caterpillars and pupae, but did not affect egg survival. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3952https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3952Sat, 13 Aug 2022 15:22:29 +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
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue