Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Tree pollarding and tree surgery We found no evidence for the effects of tree pollarding and tree surgery on bird populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F186https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F186Sun, 10 Jun 2012 13:01:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat wetlands with herbicideThree of four studies, one replicated and controlled, found that numbers of terns, American coot and waders were found at higher densities on wetland areas sprayed with herbicide, compared to unsprayed areas. However, one study found that wader numbers were not as high as on ploughed areas. One replicated and controlled study found that songbird densities were lower on sprayed than unsprayed areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F347https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F347Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:26:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat amphibians with chytridiomycosis in the wild or pre-release One before-and-after study in Mallorca found that treating wild midwife toads with fungicide, along with pond drying, reduced infection levels but did not eradicate chytridiomycosis. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F767https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F767Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:18:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat sick/injured animals Two before-and-after studies in Brazil found that most reintroduced golden lion tamarins died despite being treated when sick or injured, alongside other interventions. One study in Brazil found that one out of four reintroduced black lion tamarins died after being release despite receiving treatment, alongside other interventions. One review on reintroduced lar gibbons in Thailand found that their population declined by 6% seventeen months after release despite having medical treatment available when sick or injured, alongside other interventions. One study in Malaysia found that 98% of translocated orangutans, some of which received treatment for injuries along with other interventions, survived capture and subsequent release. One controlled study, also in Malaysia, found that a population of reintroduced orangutans decreased by 33% over 33 years despite receiving treatment when sick or injured, alongside other interventions. Four studies, including two before-and-after studies, in Liberia, the Republic of Congo and The Gambia found that most reintroduced chimpanzees that were treated when sick, alongside other interventions, survived for at least 1-5 years and in one case the population increased. One study in Senegal found that a young chimpanzee was reunited with its mother after being treated for injuries, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Uganda found that treatment for mange, alongside other interventions, cured some infected mountain gorillas. One study in Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo and one before-and-after, site comparison study in the Republic of Congo and Gabon found that most western lowland gorillas treated when sick or injured, alongside other interventions, survived over 4–41 years. Two before-and-after studies in South Africa and Indonesia found that most reintroduced or translocated primates that were treated when sick, alongside other interventions, survived over six months. However, two before-and-after studies in Madagascar and Kenya found that most reintroduced or translocated primates did not survived over five years or their population size decreased despite treated when sick, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1550https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1550Thu, 19 Oct 2017 18:35:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat bat hibernacula environments to reduce the white-nose syndrome pathogen reservoir We found no studies that evaluated the effects of treating hibernacula environments to reduce the white-nose syndrome pathogen reservoir 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%2F2007https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2007Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:37:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat bats for infection with white-nose syndrome Two studies evaluated the effects of treating bats with a probiotic bacterium to reduce white-nose syndrome infection. One study was in Canada and one in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One randomized, controlled study in Canada found that treating little brown bats with a probiotic bacterium at the time of infection with white-nose syndrome (but not 21 days prior) increased survival within cages in a laboratory. One randomized, controlled study in the USA found that treating little brown bats with a probiotic bacterium within a mine increased survival for free-flying bats, but not caged bats. Condition (2 studies): One randomized, controlled study in Canada found that little brown bats caged in a laboratory and treated with a probiotic bacterium at the time of infection with white-nose syndrome had reduced symptoms of the disease, but bats treated 21 days prior to infection had worse symptoms. One randomized, controlled study in the USA found that little brown bats kept within cages in a mine and treated with a probiotic bacterium had a similar severity of white-nose syndrome to untreated bats. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2008https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2008Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:40:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat ballast water before exchange We found no studies that evaluated the effects of treating ballast water before exchange 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%2F2165https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2165Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:15:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant/translocate ‘bioremediating’ species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of transplanting and/or translocating bioremediating species 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%2F2175https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2175Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:25:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat wastewater from intensive livestock holdings We found no studies that evaluated the effects of treating wastewater from intensive livestock holdings 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%2F2199https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2199Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:10:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant/release climate change-resistant captive-bred or hatchery-reared individuals to re-establish or boost native populations We found no studies that evaluated the effects of transplanting/releasing mate change-resistant captive-bred or hatchery-reared individuals 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%2F2218https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2218Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:36:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant/release captive-bred or hatchery-reared species - Transplant/release crustaceans Five studies examined the effects of transplanting or releasing hatchery-reared crustacean species on their wild populations. Four examined lobsters in the North Sea (Germany, Norway, UK), and one examined prawns in the Swan-Canning Estuary (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Crustacean abundance (1 study): One study in the Swan-Canning Estuary found that after releasing hatchery-reared prawn larvae into the wild, the abundance of egg-bearing female prawns increased. Crustacean reproductive success (3 studies): Two studies (one controlled) in the North Sea found that after their release, recaptured hatchery-reared female lobsters carried eggs, and the number, size and developmental stage of eggs were similar to that of wild females. One study in the Swan-Canning Estuary found that after releasing hatchery-reared prawn larvae into the wild the overall population fecundity (egg production/area) increased. Crustacean survival (2 studies): Two studies in the North Sea found that 50–84% and 32–39% of hatchery-reared lobsters survived in the wild after release, up to eight and up to five years, respectively. Crustacean condition (4 studies): Two studies in the North Sea found that hatchery-reared lobsters grew in the wild after release. One controlled study in the North Sea found that after release into the wild, hatchery-reared female lobsters had similar growth rates as wild females. One study in the North Sea found that after releasing hatchery-reared lobsters, no recaptured lobsters displayed signs of “Black Spot” disease, and 95% had developed a crusher-claw. One study in the Swan-Canning Estuary found that after releasing hatchery-reared prawn larvae into the wild, the size of egg-bearing female prawns increased. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Crustacean movement (1 study): One controlled study in the North Sea found that after release into the wild, hatchery-reared female lobsters had similar movement patterns as wild females. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2266https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2266Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:11:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant/release captive-bred or hatchery-reared species - Transplant/release molluscs Eight studies examined the effects of transplanting or releasing hatchery-reared mollusc species on their wild populations. One examined abalone in the North Pacific Ocean (Canada), one examined clams off the Strait of Singapore (Singapore), one examined oysters in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA), and four examined scallops in the North Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Mollusc abundance (2 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that after transplanting hatchery-reared scallops, abundance of juvenile scallops typically increased, but not that of adult scallops. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the North Atlantic Ocean, found that after releasing hatchery-reared oyster larvae, more spat initially settled using a direct technique compared to a traditional remote technique, and equal number of spat settled on cleaned and natural oyster shells. Mollusc reproductive success (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that after transplanting hatchery-reared scallops, larval recruitment increased across all areas studied. Mollusc survival (5 studies): One replicated study in the Strait of Singapore found that, after transplantation in the field, aquarium-reared clams had a high survival rate. One replicated, controlled study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that after transplanting hatchery-reared scallops, the number of transplanted scallops surviving decreased regardless of the methods used, and maximum mortalities was reported to be 0–1.5%. One replicated, controlled study in the North Pacific Ocean found that transplanting hatchery-reared abalone into the wild reduced survivorship compared to non-transplanted hatchery-reared abalone kept in tanks. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the North Atlantic Ocean found that after releasing hatchery-reared oyster larvae, 61% of the settled spat survived the winter, and settled spat survived equally on cleaned and natural oyster shells. Mollusc condition (3 studies): Two replicated studies in the Strait of Singapore and the North Atlantic Ocean found after transplantation in the wild, aquarium-reared clams and hatchery-reared scallops increased in weight and/or grew. Scallops grew in both free-planted plots and suspended bags but grew more in free-planted plots. One replicated, before-and-after study in the Gulf of Mexico found that after transplanting hatchery-reared scallops, wild populations had not become genetically more similar to hatchery-reared scallops. One replicated, controlled study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that after transplanting hatchery-reared scallops, free-planted scallops developed less shell biofouling than suspended scallops. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2267https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2267Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:16:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant/release captive-bred or hatchery-reared species in predator exclusion cages One study examined the effects of transplanting or releasing hatchery-reared species in predator exclusion cages on their wild populations. The study was in the North Pacific Ocean (Canada). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled study the North Pacific Ocean found that hatchery-reared abalone transplanted in predator exclusion cages had similar survivorship following release compared to those transplanted directly onto the seabed. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2268https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2268Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:32:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat mammals to reduce conflict caused by disease transmission to humans One study evaluated the effects of treating mammals to reduce conflict caused by disease transmission to humans. This study was in Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A controlled, before-and-after study in Germany found that following a worming programme, proportions of red foxes infested with small fox tapeworm fell. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2342https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2342Thu, 21 May 2020 17:23:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat disease in wild mammals Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of treating disease in the wild. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Condition (2 studies): A replicated study in Germany found that medical treatment of mouflons against foot rot disease healed most infected animals. A before-and-after study in the USA found that management which included vaccination of Yellowstone bison did not reduce prevalence of brucellosis. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Uptake (1 study): A study in the USA found that a molasses-based bait was readily consumed by white-tailed deer, including when it contained a dose of a disease vaccination. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2581https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2581Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:45:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat ballast water before release We found no studies that evaluated the effects of treating ballast water before release, 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%2F2854https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2854Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:01:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat disease in wild marine and freshwater mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects of treating disease in wild marine and freshwater mammals. ‘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%2F2860https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2860Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:19:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat wastewater from intensive livestock holdings We found no studies that evaluated the effects of treating wastewater from intensive livestock holdings 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%2F2880https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2880Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:44:53 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant wetland soil before/after planting trees/shrubs: freshwater wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of transplanting wetland soil to freshwater wetlands planted with trees/shrubs. ‘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%2F3322https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3322Sun, 11 Apr 2021 12:33:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transplant wetland soil before/after planting trees/shrubs: brackish/saline wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of transplanting wetland soil to brackish/saline wetlands planted with trees/shrubs. ‘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%2F3323https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3323Sun, 11 Apr 2021 12:34:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat seeds of non-woody plants with chemicals before sowing: freshwater wetlands Six studies evaluated the effects – on emergent, non-woody plants typical of freshwater wetlands – of treating their seeds with chemicals before sowing. All six studies were in greenhouses or laboratories in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY VEGETATION ABUNDANCE VEGETATION STRUCTURE OTHER Germination/emergence (6 studies): Of six replicated, controlled studies in greenhouses or laboratories in the USA, five identified chemicals that sometimes increased, and did not significantly reduce, the germination rate of herb seeds: potassium nitrate, nitric acid and bleach. The effect of these chemicals depended on factors such as the age of the seeds, the species and other pre-sowing treatments. Two of the studies identified chemicals that never had a significant effect on the germination rate of herb seeds: a plant hormone and sulfuric acid. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3380https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3380Mon, 12 Apr 2021 08:30:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat seeds of non-woody plants with chemicals before sowing: brackish/saline wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects – on emergent, non-woody plants typical of brackish/saline wetlands – of treating their seeds with chemicals before sowing. ‘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%2F3381https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3381Mon, 12 Apr 2021 08:30:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat tree/shrub seeds with chemicals before sowing: freshwater wetlands Two studies evaluated the effects – on trees/shrubs typical of freshwater wetlands – of treating their seeds with chemicals before sowing. Both studies were in one laboratory in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY VEGETATION ABUNDANCE VEGETATION STRUCTURE OTHER Germination/emergence (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in a laboratory in the USA found that soaking baldcypress Taxodium distichum seeds in weak sodium hydroxide increased their germination rate. One of the studies found that soaking in ethyl alcohol and/or hydrochloric acid reduced the germination rate. One of the studies found that soaking in stronger sodium hydroxide, or hydrogen peroxide and ethyl alcohol, had no significant effect on the germination rate. Growth (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in a laboratory in the USA found that soaking baldcypress Taxodium distichum seeds in chemicals before sowing typically had no significant effect on the height of surviving seedlings, 30 days after germination. Soaking in ethyl alcohol, however, reduced seedling height. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3382https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3382Mon, 12 Apr 2021 08:30:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat tree/shrub seeds with chemicals before sowing: brackish/saline wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects – on trees/shrubs typical of brackish/saline wetlands – of treating their seeds with chemicals before sowing. ‘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%2F3383https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3383Mon, 12 Apr 2021 08:31:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat wastewater from intensive livestock holdings We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of treating wastewater from intensive livestock holdings. ‘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%2F3588https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3588Wed, 08 Dec 2021 15:53:47 +0000