Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use bird exclusion devices (BEDs) such as ‘Brickle curtains’ to reduce seabird mortality when hauling longlinesA study of longliners in the South Atlantic found that fewer seabirds were caught on longlines hauled under BEDs with two booms, compared to those with a single boom.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F302https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F302Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:03:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use collar-mounted devices to reduce predation Two replicated randomised and controlled studies in the UK and Australia found that significantly fewer birds were returned by cats wearing collars with various anti-hunting devices, compared to controls. A replicated, randomised and controlled study from the UK found no significant differences between different devices. Both UK studies found that collars were easily lost.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F416https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F416Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:27:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use buffer zones to reduce the impact of invasive plant controlA study from the USA found that having buffer zones around snail kite Rostrhamus sociabilis nests, where no herbicides were sprayed, resulted in no nests being lost during a vegetation control programme.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F433https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F433Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:49:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use captive breeding to increase or maintain populations of tinamousA replicated study from Costa Rica over three years found that great tinamous Tinamus major successfully bred in captivity, with similar reproductive success to wild birds.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F588https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F588Sat, 06 Oct 2012 22:48:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use captive breeding to increase or maintain populations of seabirdsA study from Spain over five years found that a single pair of Audouin’s gulls, Larus audouinii, successfully bred in captivity.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F589https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F589Sat, 06 Oct 2012 22:52:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use captive breeding to increase or maintain populations of railsA study from an island in Australia found that Lord Howe Island woodhens Tricholimnas sylvestris successfully bred in captivity, with 66 chicks being produced over four years from three pairs of adults.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F590https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F590Sat, 06 Oct 2012 22:55:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use captive breeding to increase or maintain populations of cranesA study from Canada over 32 years found that whooping cranes Grus americana successfully bred in captivity eight years after the first eggs were removed from the wild. The authors note that young ‘downy’ chicks suffered high mortality in captivity.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F591https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F591Sat, 06 Oct 2012 22:58:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use captive breeding to increase or maintain populations of bustards We captured four studies of a houbara bustard, Chlamydotis undulata, macqueenii captive breeding programme in Saudi Arabia. The project successfully raised chicks in captivity, with 285 chicks hatched in the 7th year of the project after 232 birds were used to start the captive population. Captive birds bred earlier and appeared to lay more eggs than wild birds. Forty-six percent of captive eggs hatched and 43% of chicks survived to ten years old, although no comparison was made with wild birds.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F592https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F592Sat, 06 Oct 2012 23:13:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use captive breeding to increase or maintain populations of storks and ibises We captured a small study and a review describing the captive breeding of storks (Ciconiidae) and a study and a review describing the breeding of northern bald ibis, Geronticus eremita. Both studies on storks were from the USA. The small study found that a pair bred; the review found that only seven of 19 species had been successfully bred in captivity. A review of bald ibis conservation found that 1,150 birds had been produced in captivity from 150 founders over 20 years. However, some projects had failed, and a study from Turkey found that captive birds had lower productivity than wild birds.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F595https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F595Sat, 13 Oct 2012 14:54:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use captive breeding to increase or maintain populations of raptors Three small studies and a review from around the world all found that raptors bred successfully in captivity. Two small studies on Accipiter spp. found that wild-caught birds bred in captivity after a few years, with one pair producing 15 young over four years, whilst a study on bald eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus, captive breeding found low fertility in captive-bred eggs, but that birds still produced chicks after a year or so together. A review of Mauritius kestrel, Falco punctatus, captive breeding found that 139 independent young were raised over 12 years from 30 eggs and chicks taken from the wild (of which 13 survived). An update of the same programme found that hand-reared Mauritius kestrels were less successful if they came from captive-bred eggs, compared to wild ‘harvested’ eggs.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F596https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F596Sat, 13 Oct 2012 15:08:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use captive breeding to increase or maintain populations of pigeonsA review of a captive-breeding programme on Mauritius and in the UK found that 42 pink pigeons, Nesoenas mayeri, were successfully bred in captivity.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F597https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F597Sat, 13 Oct 2012 15:21:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use captive breeding to increase or maintain populations of songbirds A replicated study from Australia and two small studies from the USA found that three species of songbird were successfully bred in captivity. Four out of five pairs of wild-bred, hand-reared puaiohi, Myadestes palmeri, formed pairs and laid a total of 39 eggs in 1998 and a breeding population of helmeted honeyeaters, Lichenostomus melanops cassidix, was successfully established through a breeding programme. Only one pair of loggerhead shrikes, Lanius ludovicianus, formed pairs from eight wild birds caught and their first clutch died.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F598https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F598Sat, 13 Oct 2012 15:24:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use chemicals to attract natural enemiesParasitism and predation (by natural enemies): One review and two of five studies from Asia, Europe and North America found that attractive chemicals increased parasitism. Two studies, including one randomised, replicated, controlled trial, found greater parasitism for some but not all chemicals, crops, sites or years and one study found no effect. One study showed that parasites found pests more rapidly. One study found lower egg predation by natural predators. Natural enemies: Five of 13 studies from Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe and North America found more natural enemies while eight (including seven randomised, replicated, controlled trials) found positive effects varied between enemy groups, sites or study dates. Four of 13 studies (including a meta-analysis) found more natural enemies with some but not all test chemicals. Two of four studies (including a review) found higher chemical doses attracted more enemies, but one study found lower doses were more effective and one found no effect. Pests: Three of nine studies (seven randomised, replicated, controlled) from Asia, Australasia, Europe and North America found fewer pests, although the effect occurred only in the egg stage in one study. Two studies found more pests and four found no effect. Crop damage: One study found reduced damage with some chemicals but not others, and one study found no effect. Yield: One study found higher wheat yields. Crops studied were apple, banana, bean, broccoli, Chinese cabbage, cotton, cowpea, cranberry, grape, grapefruit, hop, maize, oilseed, orange, tomato, turnip and wheat.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F754https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F754Thu, 08 Aug 2013 13:40:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use brash mats during harvesting to avoid soil compaction We found no evidence for the effects of using brash mats during harvesting to avoid soil compaction 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%2F1180https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1180Thu, 19 May 2016 10:36:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use clearcutting to increase understory diversity Eight of 12 studies (including three replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Israel, spain and the USA found that clearcutting increased the cover and species richness of understory plants. Two found it decreased the density and species richness, and two found no effect or mixed effects. Three of six studies (including five replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Brazil, Canada and Spain found that clearcutting increased the density and species richness of young trees. One found it decreased new tree density and two found no effect or mixed effects depending on the tree species. Three of nine studies (including four replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Australia, Brazil4, Canada, Japan and the USA found that clearcutting decreased density, species richness and diversity of mature trees. One study found it increased trees species richness .Six studies found no effect or mixed effects on tree density, size and species richness and diversity.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1222https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1222Mon, 23 May 2016 08:58:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use collar-mounted devices on cats to reduce predation of bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using collar-mounted devices on cats to reduce predation of bats 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%2F2004https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2004Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:30:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use cables and pipelines of smaller width We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using cables and pipelines of smaller width 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%2F2081https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2081Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:48:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use collar-mounted devices to reduce predation by domestic animals Five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using collar-mounted devices to reduce predation by domestic animals. Three studies were in the UK, one was in Australia and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Survival (5 studies): Five replicated studies (including four randomized, controlled studies), in the UK, Australia and the USA, found that bells, a sonic device, and a neoprene flap (which inhibits pouncing) mounted on collars, and a brightly coloured and patterned collar all reduced the rate at which cats predated and returned home with mammals. In one of these studies, an effect was only found in autumn, and not in spring. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2332https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2332Thu, 21 May 2020 11:11:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use campaigns and public information to improve behaviour towards mammals and reduce threats Two studies evaluated the effects of using campaigns and public information to improve behaviour towards mammals and reduce threats. One study was in the USA and one was in Lao People's Democratic Republic. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human behaviour change (2 studies): A randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that displaying education signs did not reduce the percentage of garbage containers that were accessible to black bears. A controlled, before-and-after study in Lao People's Democratic Republic found that a social marketing campaign promoting a telephone hotline increased reporting of illegal hunting. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2422https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2422Mon, 01 Jun 2020 14:02:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use chili to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Seven studies evaluated the effects on elephants of using chili to deter crop damage to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Four studies were in Zimbabwe, two were in Kenya and one was in India. KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (7 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (7 studies): Five of seven studies (including four replicated and two before-and-after studies), in Zimbabwe, Kenya and India, found that chill-based deterrents (chili-spray, chili smoke, chili fences and chili extract in a projectile, in some cases along with other deterrents) repelled elephants at least initially, whist two studies found that chili smoke (and in one case chili fences) did not reduce crop raiding. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2492https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2492Thu, 04 Jun 2020 14:22:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use chemical repellents along roads or railways Five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using chemical repellents along roads or railways. Two studies were in Canada and one each was in Germany, Norway and Denmark. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): Two studies (one before-and-after, one site comparison), in Germany and Norway, found that chemical-based repellents did not reduce collisions between ungulates and road vehicles or trains. BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Behaviour change (4 studies): Two of four studies (including three replicated, controlled studies), in Germany, Canada, and Denmark, found that chemical repellents, trialled for potential to deter animals from roads, did not deter ungulates. The other two studies found mixed results with repellents temporarily deterring some ungulate species in one study and one of three deterrents deterring caribou in the other. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2615https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2615Fri, 12 Jun 2020 08:24:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use citizen surveillance to report illegal fishing We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using citizen surveillance to report illegal fishing 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%2F2741https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2741Tue, 02 Feb 2021 15:37:26 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use catch and hook protection devices on fishing gear Five studies evaluated the effects on marine mammals of using catch and hook protection devices on fishing gear. Two studies were in the South Pacific Ocean (Chile, Australia and Fiji), two were in the Indian Ocean (Seychelles, Madagascar) and one was in the Southwest Atlantic Ocean. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (5 STUDIES) Reduction in entanglements/unwanted catch (1 study): One study in the South Pacific Ocean found that using cage or chain devices on fishing hooks resulted in fewer unwanted catches of toothed whales. Human-wildlife conflict (5 studies): Two of four studies (including three controlled and one before-and-after study) in the South Pacific Ocean, the Southwest Atlantic Ocean and the Indian Ocean found that net sleeves or cage and chain devices on fishing hooks reduced damage to fish catches by sperm whales, killer whales and toothed whales. The two other studies found that attaching ‘umbrella’ or ‘spider’ devices on fishing hooks did not reduce predation and/or damage to fish catches by sperm whales or toothed whales. One controlled study in the Indian Ocean found that attaching catch protection devices made from streamers to fishing lines reduced Indo-Pacific bottlenose and spinner dolphin predation on fish bait, but only during the first two trials. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2821https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2821Fri, 05 Feb 2021 15:18:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use circle hooks instead of J-hooks Eleven studies evaluated the effects of using circle hooks instead of J-hooks on reptile populations. Five studies were in the Atlantic, three were in the Pacific and one study was in each of the Mediterranean, the Atlantic and North Pacific and the western North Atlantic, Azores, Gulf of Mexico and Ecuador. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Survival (3 studies): Two studies (including one replicated, controlled, paired study) off the coast of Hawaii and in the north-east Atlantic Ocean found that survival of loggerhead and leatherback turtles and leatherback and hard-shell sea turtles caught by circle hooks or J-hooks was similar. One review of studies in five pelagic longline fisheries found that fewer sea turtles died when circle hooks were used compared to J-hooks in four of five fisheries. Condition (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in the Mediterranean Sea and south-western Atlantic Ocean found that fewer immature loggerhead turtles and loggerhead turtles swallowed circle hooks compared to J-hooks. One before-and-after study off the coast of Hawaii found that a lower percentage of loggerhead and leatherback turtles were deeply hooked by circle hooks compared to J-hooks. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (11 STUDIES) Unwanted catch (11 studies): Seven of 10 studies (including six replicated, controlled studies) in the Pacific, Atlantic, Atlantic and North Pacific and Mediterranean and one review of studies in five pelagic longline fisheries found that circle hooks or circle hooks and tuna hooks caught fewer sea turtles than J-hooks, or that non-offset G-style circle hooks caught fewer leatherback and hard-shell sea turtles that offset J-Hooks. One of these studies also found that circle hooks caught slightly larger loggerhead turtles than J-hooks, and one also found that offset Gt-style circle hooks caught a similar number of leatherback and hard-shell sea turtles compared to offset J-hooks. One study found that circle hooks caught a similar number of leatherback, green and olive ridley turtles compared to J-hooks. One study found that fish-baited circle hooks caught fewer loggerhead and leatherback turtles than squid-baited J-hooks. The review found mixed effects of using circle hooks compared to J-hooks on unwanted catch of sea turtles depending on the fishery. The other study found mixed effects of using circle hooks or J-hooks in combination with squid or fish bait on the number of loggerhead and leatherback turtles that were caught. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3559https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3559Wed, 08 Dec 2021 14:21:43 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use catch and hook protection devices We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using catch and hook protection devices 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%2F3582https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3582Wed, 08 Dec 2021 15:27:59 +0000
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