Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install barrier fencing along roads Seven of eight studies (including one replicated and two controlled studies) in Germany, Canada and the USA found that barrier fencing with culverts decreased amphibian road deaths, or decreased deaths provided that the fence length and material were effective. One found that low numbers of amphibians were diverted by barriers during breeding migrations. One replicated study in the USA found that barriers at least 0.6 m high were required to prevent green frogs and leopard frogs climbing over. Two studies in the Netherlands and USA found that treefrogs and 10% of common toads climbed over barrier fencing during breeding migrations. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F756https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F756Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:23:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install culverts or tunnels as road crossings Thirty-two studies investigated the effectiveness of installing culverts or tunnels as road crossings for amphibians. Six of seven studies (including three replicated studies) in Canada, Germany, Italy, Hungary and the USA found that installing culverts or tunnels significantly decreased amphibian road deaths; in one study this was the case only when barrier fencing was also installed. One found no effect on road deaths. Fifteen of 24 studies (including one review and 17 replicated studies) in Australia, Canada, Europe and the USA found that culverts/tunnels were used by amphibians, by 15–85% of amphibians or 3–15 species, or that 23–100% of culverts or tunnels were used by amphibians or used in 12 of 14 studies reviewed. The majority of culverts/tunnels had barrier fencing to guide amphibians to entrances. Four found mixed effects depending on species, or for toads depending on the site or culvert type. Five found that culverts were used by less than 10% of amphibians or were not used. The use of culverts/tunnels was affected by diameter in three of six studies, with wider culverts used more, length in one of two studies, with long culverts avoided, lighting in all three studies, with mixed effects, substrate in three of six studies, with natural substrates used more, presence of water in two of three studies, with mixed effects, entrance location in one and tunnel climate in one study. Six studies (including one replicated, controlled study) in Canada, Spain, the Netherlands and USA investigated the use of culverts with flowing water and found that they were used by amphibians, or rarely used by salamanders or not used, and were used more or the same amount as dry culverts. Certain culvert designs were not suitable for amphibians; one-way tunnels with vertical entry chutes resulted in high mortality of common toads and condensation deposits from steel culverts had very high metal concentrations. One study found that thousands of amphibians were still killed on the road.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F884https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F884Mon, 16 Sep 2013 12:20:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install bat gantries or bat bridges as road/railway crossing structures for bats Three studies evaluated the effects of installing bat gantries as road crossing structures for bats. Two studies were in the UK and one in France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES)      Use (3 studies): Two replicated studies (including one site comparison) in the UK found that fewer bats used bat gantries than crossed the road below at traffic height, and one bat gantry was not used at all. One replicated study in France found that a temporary bat gantry was used by three bat species/species groups, but almost half of crossing bats flew over the road at other locations. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F978https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F978Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:12:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install billboards to raise primate conservation awareness We found no evidence for the effects of installing billboards to raise primate conservation awareness 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%2F1566https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1566Fri, 20 Oct 2017 10:28:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install boardwalks/paths to prevent trampling We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of installing boardwalks to prevent trampling. ‘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%2F1753https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1753Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:32:35 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install electric fencing to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Eleven studies evaluated the effects of installing electric fencing to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Six studies were in the USA (and a further one was presumed to be in the USA) and one each was in Canada, South Africa, Brazil and Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (11 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (11 studies): Six out of 10 randomized and/or controlled or before-and-after studies (including eight replicated studies), in the USA (and a further one presumed to be in the USA), Canada, Brazil and Spain, found that electric fences reduced or prevented entry to livestock enclosures or predation of livestock by carnivores. Two studies found that some designs of electric fencing prevented coyotes from entering enclosures and killing or wounding lambs. The other two studies found electric fencing did not reduce livestock predation or prevent fence crossings by carnivores. A before-and-after study in South Africa found that electrifying a fence reduced digging of burrows under the fence that black-backed jackals could pass through. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2417https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2417Mon, 01 Jun 2020 10:09:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install electric fencing to protect crops from mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Eleven studies evaluated the effects of installing electric fencing to protect crops from mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Three studies were in Japan, three were in the USA, two were in the UK and one each was in Namibia, India and Guinea-Bissau. KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (11 studies) Human-wildlife conflict (11 studies): Nine of 11 studies (including three before-and-after studies and three controlled studies), in the USA, the UK, Japan, Namibia, India and Guinea-Bissau, found that electric fences deterred crossings by mammals, ranging in size from European rabbits to elephants. Two studies had mixed results, with some fence designs deterring elephants and black bears. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2439https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2439Tue, 02 Jun 2020 09:46:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install automatically closing gates at field entrances to prevent mammals entering to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects on mammal movements of installing automatically closing gates at field entrances to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in USA. KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated, controlled study, in the USA found that vehicle-activated bump gates prevented white-tailed deer from entering enclosures. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2441https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2441Tue, 02 Jun 2020 10:22:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install barrier fencing along roads Twelve studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing barrier fencing along roads. Eight studies were in the USA, one each was in Canada, Germany and Brazil and one spanned the USA, Canada and Sweden. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Survival (9 studies): Three controlled studies, in the USA, Germany and Brazil, found that roadside fencing or equivalent barrier systems reduced the numbers of mammals, including wildcats and coypu, killed by vehicles on roads. Two before-and-after studies, in the USA, found that roadside fencing with one-way gates to allow escape from the road, reduced the number of collisions between vehicles and deer. A study in the USA found that a 2.7-m-high fence did not reduce road-kills of white-tailed deer compared to a 2.2-m-high fence. A controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that barrier fencing with designated crossing points did not significantly reduce road deaths of mule deer. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Canada found that electric fences, (along with an underpass beneath one highway), reduced moose-vehicle collisions. A review of fencing studies from USA, Canada and Sweden, found that longer fencing along roadsides led to a greater reduction of collisions between large mammals and cars than did shorter fence sections. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Behaviour change (5 studies): A controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that 2.3-m-high fencing in good condition prevented most white-tailed deer accessing a highway. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Canada found that electric fences reduced moose access to highways. Three studies (two replicated), in the USA, found that higher fences (2.4–2.7 m) prevented more white-tailed deer from entering highways than did fences that were 2.2 m high, 1.2 m high with outriggers or 1.2–1.8 m high. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2567https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2567Tue, 09 Jun 2020 14:55:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install barrier fencing and underpasses along roads Fifty-five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing barrier fencing and underpasses along roads. Twenty-seven were in the USA, nine were in Canada, seven were in Australia, two each were in Spain, Portugal, the UK and Sweden, one each was in Denmark, Germany and Croatia and one was a review covering Australia, Europe and North America. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (15 STUDIES) Survival (15 studies): Eleven of 15 studies (including 12 before-and-after studies and two site comparisons), in the USA, Australia, Sweden and Canada, found that installing underpasses and associated roadside barrier fencing reduced collisions between vehicles and mammals. Three studies found that the roadkill rate was not reduced and one study found that vehicle-mammal collisions continued to occur after installation. BEHAVIOUR (52 STUDIES) Use (52 studies): Seventeen of 18 studies (including 10 before-and-after studies) in the USA, Canada and Sweden, which reported exclusively on ungulates, found that underpasses installed along with roadside barrier fencing were used by a range of ungulate species. These were mule deer, mountain goat, pronghorn, white-tailed deer, elk, moose and Florida Key deer. The other study found that underpasses were not used by moose whilst one of the studies that did report use by ungulates further reported that they were not used by white-tailed deer. Further observations from these studies included that elk preferred more open, shorter underpasses to those that were enclosed or longer, underpass use was not affected by traffic levels and that mule deer used underpasses less than they used overpasses. Thirty-four studies (including four before-and-after studies, seven replicated studies, three site comparisons and two reviews), in the USA, Canada, Australia, Spain, Portugal, the UK, Denmark, Germany, Croatia and across multiple continents, that either studied mammals other than ungulates or multiple species including ungulates, found that underpasses in areas with roadside fencing were used by mammals. Among these studies, one found that small culverts were used by mice and voles more than were larger underpasses, one found that bandicoots used underpasses less after they were lengthened and one found that culverts were used by grizzly bears less often than were overpasses. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2571https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2571Wed, 10 Jun 2020 08:35:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install barrier fencing along railways One study evaluated the effects on mammals of installing barrier fencing along railways. This study was in Norway. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A before-and-after study in Norway found that fencing eliminated moose collisions with trains, except at the fence end. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2590https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2590Thu, 11 Jun 2020 09:13:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install crossings over/under pipelines Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing crossings over/under pipelines. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): A study in USA found that buried pipeline sections were used more frequently than their availability as crossing points by caribou. A study in USA found that pipeline sections elevated specifically to permit mammal crossings underneath were not used by moose or caribou more than were other elevated sections. A controlled study in Canada found that a range of large mammal species used wildlife crossings over pipelines. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2627https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2627Fri, 12 Jun 2020 11:14:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install barrier fencing along waterways We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of installing barrier fencing along waterways. ‘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%2F2636https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2636Fri, 12 Jun 2020 13:05:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install diversion or return systems on cooling water intake structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of installing diversion or return systems on cooling water intake structures 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%2F2750https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2750Tue, 02 Feb 2021 16:50:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install barriers at wild fisheries One study evaluated the effects on freshwater mammals of installing a barrier at a wild fishery. The study was in the Puntledge River (Canada). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): One randomized, controlled study in the Puntledge River found that installing a ‘cork line’ barrier did not deter harbour seals from feeding on salmon released from a hatchery. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2824https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2824Fri, 05 Feb 2021 15:52:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install bypass channels in dams We found no studies that evaluated the effects of installing bypass channels in dams 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%2F2848https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2848Fri, 05 Feb 2021 16:37:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install boardwalks/paths to prevent tramplingWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of installing boardwalks or paths to prevent trampling in 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%2F3024https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3024Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:43:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install barriers along roads/railways Seven studies evaluated the effects of installing barriers along roads/railways on reptile populations. Six studies were in the USA and one was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Survival (3 studies): One before-and-after study in the USA found that following installation of a barrier fence, along with creating artificial nest mounds on the non-road side of the fence, and actively moving turtles off the road, fewer turtles were found dead on the road. One before-and-after study in the USA found that following installation of a roadside barrier with nest boxes along with a warning sign, fewer female diamondback terrapins were killed while crossing the road compared to before installation. One study in Canada found that dead snakes were found in the vicinity of a barrier fence up to 11 years after it was installed. BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): One controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that following installation of a roadside barrier with nest boxes, fewer diamond-backed terrapin crossed the road compared to before installation. One replicated study in the USA found that after installing barriers, diamondback terrapins laid more nests on the marsh-side of the fence than on the road-side. The study also found that terrapins were less likely to breach barriers with smaller gaps at the bottom. One replicated study in the USA found that desert tortoises were effectively blocked by a concrete barrier. One replicated study in the USA found that taller fences were better at excluding painted and snapping turtles than lower ones. Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated study in the USA found that desert tortoises interacted less with solid compared to non-solid barriers. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3500https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3500Mon, 06 Dec 2021 16:31:54 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install barriers and crossing structures along roads/railways Sixteen studies evaluated the effects of installing barriers and crossing structures along roads/railways on reptile populations. Five studies were in the USA, three were in each of Spain, Australia and Canada and one was in each of France and South Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Survival (8 studies): Four of seven studies (including one randomized, controlled, before-and-after study and one review) in the USA, Australia, Canada and South Africa found that installing fencing and crossing structures did not reduce road mortalities of reptiles, and in one case the percentage of mortalities may have increased. Two studies found that areas with fencing and crossing structures had fewer road mortalities of turtles and overall reptiles. One study found that reptile road mortalities still occurred in in areas with roadside barrier walls and culverts. One replicated, before-and-after study in Canada found that following installation of tunnels and guide fencing, along with signs for motorists, there were fewer road mortalities of eastern massasauga rattlesnakes. BEHAVIOUR (12 STUDIES) Use (12 studies): Six studies (including two replicated studies and one review) in Spain, France, the USA and Australia found that crossing structures with fencing that were not specifically designed for wildlife were used by lizards, snakes, tortoises, turtles and alligators and ophidians. One study also found that the addition of fencing around crossing structures did not affect the number of reptile crossings. Three studies (including one replicated and one before-and-after study and one review) in the USA and Spain found that wildlife crossing structures with fencing were used by gopher tortoises and 12 snake species, American alligators and lacertid lizards. One study also found that an American alligator did not use the wildlife crossing structure. Two before-and-after studies (including one controlled study) in Canada found mixed effects of installing roadside fencing and culverts on road use by turtles and snakes. One replicated study in Spain found that use of different crossing structures depended on species group. One replicated study in Australia found that reptiles used wildlife underpasses or culverts for only 1% of road crossings. One replicated, before-and-after study in Canada found that following installation of tunnels and guide fencing, along with signs for motorists, fewer eastern massasauga rattlesnakes were found crossing the road. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3507https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3507Tue, 07 Dec 2021 10:03:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install crossings over/under pipelines We found no studies that evaluated the effects of installing crossings over/under pipelines 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%2F3528https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3528Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:34:14 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install escape devices on fishing gear: Sea turtles One study evaluated the effects of installing escape devices on fishing gear on sea turtle populations. This study was in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch (1 Study): One randomized, paired, controlled study in the Gulf of Carpentaria found that trawl nets with escape devices caught a similar number of sea turtles compared to unmodified nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3601https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3601Wed, 08 Dec 2021 17:09:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install escape devices on fishing gear: Tortoises, terrapins, side-necked & softshell turtles Three studies evaluated the effects of installing escape devices on fishing gear on tortoise, terrapin, side-necked & softshell turtle populations. One study was in each of Australia, the USA and Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the USA found that a lower percentage of turtles died in hoop nets with escape devices than in unmodified nets. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Unwanted catch (3 Studies): One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that most short-necked turtles escaped from a carp trap with an escape ring. One replicated, randomized, controlled, paired study in the USA found that hoop nets with escape devices caught fewer turtles than unmodified nets. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in Canada found that more painted turtles escaped from fyke nets with an escape device than from unmodified nets after being placed in the net. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3602https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3602Thu, 09 Dec 2021 09:55:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install escape devices on fishing gear: Snakes & lizards Three studies evaluated the effects of installing escape devices on fishing gear on snake and lizard populations. All three studies were in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Unwanted catch (3 Studies): One of two paired, controlled studies (including one randomized and one replicated study) in the Gulf of Carpentaria found that trawl nets with escape devices caught a similar number of sea snakes compared to unmodified nets. The other study found that trawl nets with an escape device caught fewer sea snakes compared to unmodified nets. One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Gulf of Carpentaria found that the placement of escape devices trawl nets affected the number of sea snakes caught compared to unmodified nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3603https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3603Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:08:51 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install escape devices on fishing gear: Crocodilians We found no studies that evaluated the effects of installing escape devices on fishing gear on crocodilian 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%2F3604https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3604Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:16:43 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install artificial dams in streams to raise water levels One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of installing artificial dams in streams to raise water levels. 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 USA found that installing artificial dams in streams did not increase the survival of Appalachian brown butterfly eggs, caterpillars or pupae. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3954https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3954Sat, 13 Aug 2022 15:22:51 +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