Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Coppice trees Of three studies, one, a before-and-after study in the UK found that a population of European nightjars increased following a series of management interventions, including the coppicing of some birch trees. Two before-and-after studies from the UK and the USA found that the use of coppices by some bird species declined over time. The UK study also found that overall species richness decreased with age, but that some species were more abundant in older stands.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F329https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F329Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:58:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cover the ground with plastic mats after restoration planting One replicated study in Canada found that covering the ground with plastic mats after restoration planting decreased the cover of herbecous plants and grasses.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1239https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1239Fri, 03 Jun 2016 09:35:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cover the ground using techniques other than plastic mats after restoration planting One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that covering the ground with mulch after planting increased total plant cover.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1240https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1240Fri, 03 Jun 2016 09:38:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cover the ground with straw after tree planting One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the Czech Republic found that covering the ground with straw, but not bark or fleece, increased the growth rate of planted trees and shrubs.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1266https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1266Fri, 10 Jun 2016 08:44:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Biological control using fungal-based herbicides We found no evidence for the effects of biological control using specific, non-selective or native herbivores on Crassula helmsii. '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%2F1276https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1276Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:52:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Biological control using herbivores We found no evidence for the effects of biological control using specific, non-selective or native herbivores on Crassula helmsii. '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%2F1277https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1277Tue, 05 Jul 2016 16:21:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Physical control using manual/mechanical control or dredging We found no evidence for the effects of physical control, using manual or mechanical control or dredging, on Crassula helmsii. '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%2F1278https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1278Tue, 05 Jul 2016 16:27:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Chemical control using herbicides Seven studies (including one replicated and controlled study) in the UK, found that applying glyphosate reduced Crassula helmsii. In one before-and-after study at a single site glyphosate applied in combination with diquat reduced C. helmsii by 98%. Another before-and-after study at a single site found that covering C. helmsii with carpet before treating with glyphosate resulted in an 80% reduction in the plant. Three out of four studies (including one controlled study) in the UK found that applying diquat or diquat alginate reduced cover or eradicated submerged C. helmsii. One before-and-after study at a single site found that applying both diquat and glyphosate reduced C. helmsii by 98%. One small, before-and-after trial found no effect of diquat or diquat alginate on cover of C. helmsii. One out of two studies (including one replicated, controlled study) in the UK, found that treating submerged C. helmsii with dichlobenil in container trials led to partial reduction in its biomass. One small before-and-after field study found no effect of dichlobenil on C. helmsii. One replicated, controlled container trial in the UK found that treatment with terbutryne partially reduced biomass of submerged C. helmsii. The same study found reductions in emergent C. helmsii following treatment with asulam, 2,4-D amine and dalapon. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1279https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1279Tue, 05 Jul 2016 16:29:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Use flame-throwers to control plants We found no evidence on the use of flame-throwers to control Crassula helmsii. '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%2F1291https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1291Tue, 12 Jul 2016 09:26:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Use dyes to reduce light levels One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that applying aquatic dye, along with other treatments, did not reduce coverage of Crassula helmsii. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1293https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1293Tue, 12 Jul 2016 09:32:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Alter environmental conditions to control plants No evidence was captured on altering environmental conditions to control Crassula helmsii by using shading, increasing turbidity, re-shaping or re-profiling banks of waterbodies or dredging. '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%2F1296https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1296Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:38:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Plant other species to suppress growth We found no evidence for the effects of using other plant species to control growth of Crassula helmsii. '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%2F1299https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1299Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:42:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Use grazing to control plants One of two replicated, controlled studies in the UK found that excluding grazing reduced the abundance and coverage of Crassula helmsii. The other study found no difference in cover of C. helmsii between ungrazed and grazed plots. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1301https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1301Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:48:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Dry out waterbodies to control plants We found no evidence for the effects of draining waterbodies on Crassula helmsii. '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%2F1303https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1303Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:51:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Bury plants We found no evidence on the use of burying with soil alone to control Crassula helmsii. '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%2F1305https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1305Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:53:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Surround with wire mesh We found no evidence that surrounding Crassula helmsii with wire mesh reduced its rate of spread. '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%2F1307https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1307Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:54:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Decontamination to prevent further spread One controlled, replicated container study in the UK found that submerging Crassula helmsii in hot water led to higher mortality than drying out plant fragments or a control.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1308https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1308Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:57:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Public education No evidence was captured on the impact of education programmes on control of Crassula helmsii. '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%2F1311https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1311Tue, 12 Jul 2016 11:01:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Use a combination of control measures One before-and-after study at a single pond in the UK found covering Crassula helmsii with carpet, followed by treatment with the herbicide glyphosate, killed 80% of the plant. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1313https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1313Tue, 12 Jul 2016 11:04:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cover peatland with organic mulch (without planting) Two studies evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of covering a peatland with organic mulch (without planting). Both studies were in bogs (but in one study, being restored as a fen). Vegetation cover (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in Canada found that covering bare peat with straw mulch did not affect cover of fen-characteristic plants. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in Australia reported that plots mulched with straw had similar Sphagnum moss cover to unmulched plots. Characteristic plants (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in Canada found that covering bare peat with straw mulch increased the number of fen characteristic plants present, but did not affect their cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1813https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1813Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:38:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cover peatland with something other than mulch (without planting) Two studies evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of covering a peatland with something other than mulch (without planting). Both studies were in bogs. Vegetation cover (2 studies): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in Germany reported that covering bare peat with fleece or fibre mats did not affect the number of seedlings of five herb/shrub species. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in bogs in Australia reported that recently-burned plots shaded with plastic mesh developed greater cover of native plants, forbs and Sphagnum moss than unshaded plots. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1814https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1814Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:39:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cover peatland with organic mulch (after planting) Twelve studies evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of adding organic mulch after planting peatland plants. Nine studies were in bogs (one being restored as a fen). Two studies were in fens. One was in a tropical peat swamp. Germination (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in Germany found that mulching after sowing seeds increased germination rates for two species (a grass and a shrub), but had no effect on three other herb species. Survival (3 studies): Two replicated, paired, controlled studies in a fen in Sweden and a bog in the USA reported that mulching increased survival of planted vegetation (mosses or sedges). One replicated, paired, controlled study in Indonesia reported that mulching with oil palm fruits reduced survival of planted peat swamp tree seedlings. Growth (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a fen in the USA reported that mulching increased growth of transplanted sedges. Cover (9 studies): Six studies (including four replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after) in bogs in Canada and the USA and a fen in Sweden found that mulching after planting increased vegetation cover (specifically total vegetation, total mosses/bryophytes, Sphagnum mosses or vascular plants after 1–3 growing seasons). Three replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after studies in degraded bogs in Canada found that mulching after planting had no effect on vegetation cover (Sphagnum mosses or fen-characteristic plants). Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1828https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1828Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:51:42 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cover peatland with something other than mulch (after planting) Eight studies evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of adding covers (other than mulch) after planting peatland plants. Five studies involved bog plants, two involved fen plants and one involved peat swamp plants. Two of the studies were in greenhouses or nurseries. Germination (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in Germany reported mixed effects of fleece and fibre mats on germination of sown herb and shrub seeds (positive or no effect, depending on species). Survival (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies examined the effect, on plant survival, of covering planted areas. One study in a fen in Sweden reported that shading with plastic mesh increased survival of planted mosses. One study in a nursery in Indonesia reported that shading with plastic mesh typically had no effect on survival of peat swamp tree species, but increased survival of some. Growth (3 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after studies examined the effect, on plant growth, of covering planted areas. One study in a greenhouse in Switzerland found that covering planted Sphagnum mosses with transparent plastic sheets or shading mesh increased their growth. One study in a fen in Sweden found that shading with plastic mesh reduced growth of planted fen mosses. One study in a nursery in Indonesia reported that seedlings shaded with plastic mesh grew taller and thinner than unshaded seedlings. Cover (4 studies): Two replicated, paired studies in a fen in Sweden and a bog in Australia reported that shading plots with plastic mesh increased cover of planted mosses. One study in a bog in Canada found that covering sown plots with plastic mesh, not transparent plastic sheets, increased the number of Sphagnum moss shoots. Another study in a bog in Canada reported that shading sown plots with plastic mesh had no effect on cover of vegetation overall, vascular plants, Sphagnum or other moss. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1829https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1829Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:51:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Coppice woodland We found no studies that evaluated the effects of coppicing woodland 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%2F1987https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1987Wed, 05 Dec 2018 11:04:54 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Coppice woodland Ten studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of coppicing woodland. Eight studies were in the UK and one was in each of France and Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Community composition (3 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in the UK and France found that coppiced woodland of different ages supported different communities of moths and butterflies. One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that coppiced woodland contained more unique species of macro-moth than mature forest. Richness/diversity (4 studies): One of two replicated, site comparison studies in the UK found that coppiced woodland had a greater species richness of butterflies than unmanaged woodland. The other study found that coppiced woodland had a lower species richness of macro-moths than mature forest, and there was no change in species richness with the age of coppice. One of two replicated, site comparison studies in the UK and France found that woodland coppiced two years ago had a greater species richness of butterflies than woodland coppiced >15 years ago. The other study found that the species richness of moths was similar in woodland coppiced 1–4, 5–8 and 12–20 years ago. POPULATION RESPONSE (10 STUDIES) Abundance (9 studies): Two of four site comparison studies (including three replicated studies and one before-and-after study) in the UK found that coppiced woodland (in one case also legally protected) had a higher abundance of butterflies generally, and of heath fritillary specifically, than unmanaged woodland. One study found that pearl-bordered fritillary and small pearl-bordered fritillary populations were more likely to persist for up to 20 years in coppiced woodland (or woodland with young plantations) than in mature conifer woodland. The fourth study found that the abundance of macro-moths was lower in coppiced woodland than in mature forest, and there was no change in abundance with the age of coppice. Three of four replicated, site comparison studies (including one before-and-after study) in the UK, France and Germany found that the abundance of butterflies generally, heath fritillary specifically, and eastern eggar moth and scarce fritillary caterpillar webs, was higher in woodland coppiced two, two–four, five–seven or 12–15 years ago than in woodland coppiced 5–11 or >15 years ago. The fourth study reported that the abundance of moths was similar in woodland coppiced 1–4, 5–8 and 12–20 years ago. One before-and-after study in the UK reported that after coppicing, along with scrub control, tree felling and grazing, high brown fritillary and small pearl-bordered fritillary abundance increased. Reproductive success (1 study): One before-and-after study in the UK reported that pearl-bordered fritillaries released into coppiced woodland bred at least once. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3939https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3939Sat, 13 Aug 2022 14:56:58 +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