Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use mixed stocking A replicated, controlled study in the UK found more spiders, harvestmen and pseudoscorpions on sheep-grazed grassland than on mixed livestock-grazed grassland when suction sampling, but not when pitfall-trapping. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F93https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F93Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:35:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use mixed stocking We found no evidence on the effects of mixed stocking 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%2F232https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F232Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:51:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use mirrors to deter nest predators We found no evidence for the effects of mirrors on nest predation rates. '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%2F407https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F407Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:09:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use microlites to help birds migrateA review of northern bald ibis Geronticus eremita conservation found that a group of birds followed a microlite from Austria to Italy but none made the return journey. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F640https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F640Sun, 14 Oct 2012 23:58:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use mixed pastureWeeds: Two of two studies (both randomised, replicated trials, one also controlled) from the USA found reduced weeds in mixed compared to monoculture pasture. Pests: Five studies from North America measured pests including four randomised, replicated, controlled tests. One study found fewer pests and two studies found reductions in some pest groups or in some pasture mixes. One study found no effect and another found more pests, although the effect was potentially inseparable from grazing treatments. Crop mortality: One randomised, replicated study from the USA found no effect on forage crop mortality caused by nematodes.Yield: Two of five studies (including two randomised, replicated, controlled tests) from North America found increased forage crop yields and two studies found mixed effects depending on the crop type and year. One study found no effect. Crops studied were alfalfa, bird’s-foot trefoil, chicory, cicer milkvetch, clovers, fescues, oats, ryegrass, other grasses, other legumes, rapeseed and turnip.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F721https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F721Thu, 30 May 2013 11:59:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use mass-emergence devices to increase natural enemy populationsParasitism: One randomised, replicated, controlled study in Switzerland found higher parasitism at one site but no effect at another site when mass-emergence devices were used in urban areas. Pest damage: The same study found no effect on pest damage to horse chestnut treesCollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F775https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F775Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:35:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use mammal-safe timber treatments in roof spaces We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using mammal-safe timber treatments in roof spaces 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%2F1022https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1022Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:04:01 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use mechanical thinning before or after planting Five of six studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Brazil, Canada, Finland, France and the USA found that thinning trees after planting increased survival and size of the planted trees. One study found it decreased their density. One study found that the effects of thinning on the size and survival rate of planted trees varied between species. One replicated study in the USA found that the survival rate of red oak seedlings increased with the size of the thinned area. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1261https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1261Mon, 06 Jun 2016 11:04:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use moorings which reduce or avoid contact with the seabed (eco- moorings) We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using moorings which reduce or avoid contact with the seabed (eco-moorings) 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%2F2092https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2092Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:21:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use lower water pressure during hydraulic dredging We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using lower water pressure during hydraulic dredging 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%2F2120https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2120Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:02:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use more than one net on otter trawls We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using more than one net on otter trawls 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%2F2124https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2124Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:17:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use mobile phone communications to warn farmers of problematic mammals (e.g. elephants) We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using mobile phone communications to warn farmers of problematic mammals (e.g. elephants). ‘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%2F2452https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2452Tue, 02 Jun 2020 10:59:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use methods to trace the source of catch We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using methods to trace the sources of catches 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%2F2771https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2771Wed, 03 Feb 2021 11:18:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use methods to dampen underwater noise emissions (e.g. bubble curtains, screens) One study evaluated the effects on marine mammals of using bubble curtains or screens to dampen underwater noise emissions. The study was in the North Sea (Germany). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the North Sea found that using bubble curtains or screens during pile driving resulted in harbour porpoise detections within 15 km decreasing less compared to before pile driving than at sites without bubble curtains or screens. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2901https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2901Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:11:37 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use methods to reduce sediment disturbance during dredging (e.g. curtains, screens) We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using methods to reduce sediment disturbance during dredging, 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%2F2906https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2906Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:17:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use low-impact methods to harvest vegetation: freshwater marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of using supposedly low-impact methods to harvest vegetation in freshwater marshes. ‘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%2F3009https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3009Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:09:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use low-impact methods to harvest vegetation: brackish/salt marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation of using supposedly low-impact methods to harvest vegetation in brackish/salt marshes. ‘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%2F3010https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3010Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:10:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use low-impact methods to harvest vegetation: freshwater swamps One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of using supposedly low-impact methods to harvest vegetation in freshwater swamps. The study was in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One controlled study in a freshwater swamp in the USA reported that after seven years, a plot where logs had been extracted by helicopter only contained fewer plant species than a plot where logs had been extracted by helicopter and ground vehicles. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One controlled study in a freshwater swamp in the USA reported that after seven years, a plot where logs had been extracted by helicopter only contained less overall plant biomass than a plot where logs had been extracted by helicopter and ground vehicles. This was also true for the overstory and ground layers separately. However, overstory tree density did not significantly differ between helicopter-extracted and vehicle-extracted plots. Individual species abundance (1 study): The same study found that the abundance of some individual plant species – particularly swamp ash Fraxinus caroliniana and water tupelo Nyssa aquatica – significantly differed between helicopter-extracted and vehicle-extracted plots. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (1 study): One controlled study in a freshwater swamp in the USA found that after seven years, the average height of the overstory was similar in a plot where logs had been extracted by helicopter only and a plot where logs had been extracted by helicopter and ground vehicles. Diameter, perimeter, area (1 study): The same study found that after seven years, the average stem diameter of overstory trees was similar in helicopter-extracted and vehicle-extracted plots. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3011https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3011Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:10:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use low-impact methods to harvest vegetation: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of using supposedly low-impact methods to harvest vegetation in brackish/saline swamps. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3012https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3012Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:10:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use low-impact methods to hunt/collect animalsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of using supposedly low-impact methods to hunt/collect animals 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%2F3017https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3017Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:25:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use marketing strategies to increase the value of marshes or swamps One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation or human behaviour, of using marketing strategies to increase the value of marshes or swamps. The study was in Vietnam. VEGETATION COMMUNITY VEGETATION ABUNDANCE VEGETATION STRUCTURE OTHER Human behaviour (1 study): One before-and-after study in Vietnam reported that helping local people to sell handicrafts made from marsh plants in tourist markets (along with training to improve the quality of those products) increased their income. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3393https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3393Mon, 12 Apr 2021 12:09:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use lower profile gillnets with longer/no tie-downs We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of using lower profile gillnets with longer/no tie-downs. ‘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%2F3609https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3609Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:42:43 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use low intensity lighting One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using low intensity lighting. This study was in Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in Germany found that fewer moths were attracted to low intensity lights (which also emitted a narrower range of yellow light with little UV) than to higher intensity lights (which also emitted broader spectra and included UV). Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3902https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3902Tue, 09 Aug 2022 15:09:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use mixed stocking Three studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of grazing with mixed livestock. All three studies were in the UK and compared grazing with sheep and cattle to sheep only. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that grassland plots grazed at low intensity with sheep and cattle had fewer moth species than plots grazed at low intensity with sheep only. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two of three replicated studies (including two randomized, controlled studies and one paired, site comparison study) in the UK found that grassland plots grazed at low intensity with sheep and cattle had a similar abundance of moth caterpillars and small invertebrates including caterpillars to plots grazed at low intensity with sheep only. One of these studies found that in plots grazed at high intensity, the abundance of small invertebrates including caterpillars was lower in plots with sheep and cattle than in sheep only plots. The other study found that grassland plots grazed at low intensity with sheep and cattle had a lower abundance of adult moths than plots grazed at low intensity with sheep only. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3964https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3964Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:38:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use motor bar mowers rather than rotary mowers Two studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using motor bar mowers rather than rotary mowers. Both studies were in Switzerland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Switzerland found that farms managed with more in-field agri-environment scheme options, including using bar mowers instead of rotary mowers, had a similar species richness of butterflies to farms with fewer agri-environment scheme options. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Switzerland found that farms managed with more in-field agri-environment scheme options, including using bar mowers instead of rotary mowers, had a similar abundance of butterflies to farms with fewer agri-environment scheme options. Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in Switzerland1 found that fewer large white caterpillars were killed when meadows were harvested using a hand-pushed bar mower than with a tractor-pulled rotary mower. Condition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in Switzerland found that fewer wax model caterpillars were damaged when meadows were harvested using a hand-pushed bar mower than with a tractor-pulled rotary mower. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3969https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3969Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:39:04 +0100