Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Move fish-eating birds to reduce conflict with fishermenA single before-and-after study in the USA found that Caspian tern Sterna caspia chicks had a lower proportion of commercial fish in their diet following the movement of the colony away from an important fishery.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F281https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F281Tue, 24 Jul 2012 12:58:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mow or cut natural grasslands Of six studies, two replicated and controlled studies from the USA found higher densities of birds or nests on mown grasslands, compared to unmanaged or burned areas. Two controlled studies from the USA, one replicated, found lower nesting or population densities of some species, on mown grasslands compared to unmown areas. Two replicated and controlled studies found no significant differences in nesting densities or community composition between mown and unmown areas. One study from the USA found that grasshopper sparrow nesting success was higher on mown areas than grazed areas of grassland. A replicated controlled study from the USA found that ducks had similar nesting success on cut and uncut areas.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F338https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F338Sat, 28 Jul 2012 15:41:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mow or cut semi-natural grasslands/pastures Of four studies captured, one, a before-and-after study from the UK, found that local wader populations increased following the annual cutting semi-natural grasslands. A replicated, controlled study from the UK found that ducks grazed at higher densities on cut areas, a second replicated study from the UK found that goose grazing densities were unaffected by cutting frequency. A replicated study from the USA found that Henslow's sparrows were more likely to be recaptured on unmown, compared with mown grasslands.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F339https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F339Sat, 28 Jul 2012 15:49:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mow or cut reedbeds Of three studies captured, one controlled study from the Netherlands found that warblers nested at lower densities in cut areas of reeds. Productivity and success did not vary between treatments. An unreplicated study from Denmark found that geese grazed at the highest densities on reedbeds cut 5–12 years previously. One replicated study investigated changing water levels in addition to cutting reeds in the UK and found that management did not affect great bittern breeding productivity but did appear to delay territory establishment.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F340https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F340Sat, 28 Jul 2012 20:15:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify turbine placement to reduce bat fatalities We found no studies that evaluated the effects of modifying turbine placement to reduce bat fatalities. ‘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%2F965https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F965Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:22:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mow shrubland to reduce impacts of pollutants One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that mowing to reduce the impact of nitrogen deposition did not alter shoot length of common heather or the number of purple moor grass seedlings. One controlled study in the UK found that mowing a heathland affected by nitrogen pollution did not alter the cover or shoot length of heather compared to areas where prescribed burning was used. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1669https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1669Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:15:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify the design of dredges Six studies examined the effects of modifying the design of dredges on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Four were in the North Atlantic Ocean (Portugal) and two were in the Irish Sea (Isle of Man).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch overall composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, study in the Irish Sea found that a new design of scallop dredge caught a similar species composition of unwanted catch to a traditional dredge. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (2 studies): One of two controlled studies in the North Atlantic Ocean and in the Irish Sea found that a new dredge design damaged or killed fewer invertebrates left in the sediment tracks following dredging. The other found no difference in total invertebrate abundance or biomass living in or on the sediment tracks following fishing with two dredge designs. Unwanted catch overall abundance (2 studies): Two controlled studies (one replicated) in the North Atlantic Ocean and the Irish Sea found that a modified or a new design of bivalve dredge caught less unwanted catch compared to traditional unmodified dredges. Unwanted catch condition (6 studies): Six controlled studies (one replicated and paired, four replicated) in the North Atlantic Ocean and the Irish Sea found that new or modified bivalve dredges damaged or killed similar proportions of unwanted catch (retained and/or escaped) compared to traditional or unmodified designs, three of which also found that they did not reduce the proportion of damaged or dead unwanted crabs (retained and/or escaped). OTHER (1 study) Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, study in the Irish Sea found that a new dredge design caught a similar amount of commercially targeted queen scallops compared to a traditional dredge. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2119https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2119Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:59:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify trawl doors to reduce sediment penetration We found no studies that evaluated the effects of modifying trawl doors to reduce sediment penetration 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%2F2128https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2128Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:24:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify the design/attachments of a shrimp/prawn W-trawl net One study examined the effects of modifying the design/attachments of a W-trawl net used in shrimp/prawn fisheries on unwanted catch of subtidal benthic invertebrate. The study was in Moreton Bay (Australia).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in Moreton Bay found that four designs of W-trawl nets used in shrimp/prawn fisheries caught less non-commercial unwanted catch of crustaceans compared to a traditional Florida Flyer trawl net. OTHERS (1 STUDY) Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in Moreton Bay found that four designs of W-trawl nets used in shrimp/prawn fisheries caught lower amounts of the commercially targeted prawn species compared to a traditional Florida Flyer trawl net. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2139https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2139Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:00:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify the design of traps Two studies examined the effects of modifying the design of traps on subtidal benthic invertebrates. One study took place in the Mediterranean Sea (Spain), and one in the South Pacific Ocean (New Zealand).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Unwanted catch abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in the Mediterranean Sea and the South Pacific Ocean found that the amount of combined unwanted catch of invertebrates and fish varied with the type of trap design used and the area. OTHER (1 STUDY) Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Mediterranean Sea found that plastic traps caught some legal-size commercially targeted lobsters while collapsible traps caught none. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2143https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2143Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:11:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify the position of traps Two studies examined the effects of modifying the position of traps on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study was in the Varangerfjord (Norway), the other in the North Atlantic Ocean (Spain).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch species richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the North Atlantic found that semi-floating traps caught fewer unwanted catch species compared to standard bottom traps. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Unwanted catch abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in the Varangerfjord and the North Atlantic found that floating or semi-floating traps caught fewer unwanted invertebrates compared to standard bottom traps. OTHER (2 STUDIES) Commercial catch abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in the Varangerfjord and the North Atlantic found that floating or semi-floating traps caught similar amounts (abundance and biomass) of commercially targeted species as standard bottom traps. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2144https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2144Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:14:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Moor aquaculture cages so they move in response to changing current direction We found no studies that evaluated the effects of mooring aquaculture cages so they move in response to changing current direction 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%2F2190https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2190Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:58:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify traps used in the control/eradication of non-native species to avoid injury of non-target mammal One study evaluated the effects of modifying traps used in the control or eradication of non-native species to avoid injury of non-target mammals. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Condition (1 study): A before-and-after study in the USA found that modifying traps used for catching non-native mammals reduced moderate but not severe injuries among incidentally captured San Nicolas Island foxes. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2535https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2535Mon, 08 Jun 2020 16:30:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify vegetation along roads to reduce collisions with mammals by enhancing visibility for drivers We found no studies that evaluated the effects of modifying vegetation along roads to reduce collisions with mammals by enhancing visibility for drivers. ‘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%2F2599https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2599Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:16:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify the roadside environment to reduce collisions by reducing attractiveness of road verges to mammals One study evaluated the effects of modifying the roadside environment to reduce collisions by reducing attractiveness of road verges to mammals. This study was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) (1 study): A replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in Canada found that draining roadside salt pools and filling them with rocks reduced the number and duration of moose visits. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2600https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2600Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:19:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify vegetation along railways to reduce collisions by reducing attractiveness to mammals Two studies evaluated the effects of modifying vegetation along railways to reduce collisions by reducing attractiveness to wildlife. Both studies were in Norway. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): Two site comparison studies in Norway found that clearing vegetation from alongside railways reduced moose-train collisions. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2603https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2603Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:34:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify the design or configuration of trawl gear (mixed measures) Nineteen studies examined the effects of modifying the design or configuration of trawl gear on marine fish populations. Seven studies were in the Clarence River estuary (Australia), three studies were in each of the Mediterranean Sea (Turkey) and North Sea (UK), two studies were in the North Pacific Ocean (USA), and one study was in each of the South Pacific Ocean, the Skagerrak and Baltic Sea (Denmark/Sweden), the Atlantic Ocean (USA) and the Coral Sea (Australia).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (19 STUDIES) Reduce unwanted catch (16 studies): Twelve of 16 replicated studies (seven paired and controlled, five controlled, and two paired) in the Clarence River estuary, South Pacific Ocean, North Pacific Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Skagerrak and Baltic Sea, Atlantic Ocean, North Sea and the Coral Sea, found that various modifications to trawl gear, including changes to the trawl wires, number of nets, codend number, footrope configuration, front trawl body panels, codend netting layers, spreading mechanism, method of weaving, knot orientation or using a new overall trawl design, resulted in reduced unwanted catches of non-target and/or discarded fish species or sizes, and of all sizes of four of seven commercial species, compared to standard unmodified trawl gear or other trawl designs. One of these also found increased catch rate of one commercial species and for another two species the effect varied with fish size. Two studies found that modified trawl gear reduced the unwanted catch of only a small proportion of the number of individual fish species caught compared to other trawl configurations, and also that unwanted fish catches varied between day/night. One study found that different trawl configurations had mixed effects on the numbers and sizes of non-target fish catch. The other study found no reduction in catches of discarded finfish between a modified and standard trawl codend. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (5 studies): Five replicated, controlled studies in the North Sea and Mediterranean Sea found that various modifications to trawl gear, including changes to the length of the extension piece, the codend strengthening bag, the method of weaving, the number of codend layers and overall design improved the size-selectivity for unwanted (non-target/discarded) fish species or sizes, and annular seabream in one of two cases, compared to unmodified standard trawl gear or other design configurations. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2704https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2704Thu, 17 Dec 2020 11:29:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify the design or configuration of trawl doors Three studies examined the effects of modifying the design or configuration of trawl doors on marine fish populations. One study was in the Tasman Sea, one in the Clarence Estuary and one in Lake Wooloweyah (all in Australia).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Reduction in unwanted catch (3 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (one paired) in the Tasman Sea, the Clarence Estuary and Lake Wooloweyah found that modified or different designs of trawl doors caught similar amounts of unwanted fish overall, compared to conventional door types. However, one study found fewer of one of five individual unwanted fish species were caught with modified doors. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2707https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2707Mon, 28 Dec 2020 15:41:41 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify the configuration of a mesh escape panel/window in a trawl net Ten studies examined the effects of modifying the configuration (position/size and increased mesh size) of a mesh escape panel/window in a trawl net on marine fish populations. Four studies were in the Baltic Sea (Sweden/Poland). Two studies were in each of the North Sea (UK), the Irish Sea (UK) and the Kattegat and Skagerrak (Northern Europe). One study was in the Atlantic Ocean (Portugal).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Baltic Sea found that modifying the position of a mesh escape panel in a trawl net had no effect on the survival rate of cod. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (9 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (5 studies): Three of five replicated, paired studies (one controlled) in the Irish Sea, Atlantic Ocean and Kattegat-Skagerrak found that modifying the position or mesh size of a mesh escape panel/window in a trawl net reduced the unwanted catches of whiting in one of two cases, haddock and whiting, and boarfish, but caught similar amounts of horse mackerel and blue whiting. The other studies found that catches of unwanted cod or other fish were not reduced. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (4 studies): Two of four replicated, controlled studies in the North Sea and Baltic Sea found that modifying the position and/or size of a mesh escape panel in a trawl net improved size-selectivity of haddock and whiting. One of these studies also found that increasing the mesh size of the panel had no effect on size-selectivity for haddock. The other two studies found that size-selectivity was similar for cod compared to standard trawls. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2717https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2717Tue, 05 Jan 2021 14:46:39 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify vessels to reduce risk of physical injury to mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects of modifying vessels to reduce risk of physical injury to 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%2F2762https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2762Tue, 02 Feb 2021 17:06:48 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify vessels to reduce noise disturbance We found no studies that evaluated the effects of modifying vessels to reduce noise disturbance 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%2F2904https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2904Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:15:34 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mow before or after seeding/planting Ten studies examined the effects of mowing before or after seeding/planting on grassland vegetation. Nine studies were in Europe and one was in China. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (5 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Hungary found that annual mowing after sowing seeds increased plant community similarity to that of natural grassland. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that cutting vegetation yearly after sowing seeds increased plant species richness compared to grazing with livestock. Characteristic plant richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Germany found that cutting vegetation three times/year after sowing seeds increased the richness of characteristic grassland species compared to cutting once/year. Sown/planted species richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that mowing after sowing seeds increased the richness of sown species. One replicated study in the UK found that cutting sown plots each year and removing cut vegetation increased sown grass and forb species richness compared to cutting and not removing cut vegetation. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (4 STUDIES) Sown/planted species abundance (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that mowing after sowing seeds increased the abundance of sown forb species. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in Germany found that mowing more frequently after sowing seeds increased the abundance of five of seven sown forb species. One replicated study in the UK found that cutting sown plots each year and removing cut vegetation reduced the cover of sown grass and forb species compared to cutting and not removing cut vegetation. Individual plant species abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Germany found that mowing after planting increased the biomass of transplanted ragged robin and birdsfoot trefoil plants at 2–3 of seven sites. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (4 STUDIES) Germination/Emergence (3 studies): One of three replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized and one paired study) in the UK, Germany and China found that mowing after sowing seeds increased the germination of four grassland plant species. One study found that mowing after sowing seeds increased the number of ragged robin and birdsfoot trefoil seedlings at 1–2 of seven sites. One study found that cutting grass after sowing seeds did not alter the emergence rate or density of seedlings. Survival (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled studies in Germany and China found that cutting grass after sowing seeds did not alter seedling survival. The other study found that cutting grass after sowing seeds did not alter seedling survival. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3419https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3419Fri, 25 Jun 2021 16:29:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify vessels to reduce or prevent injuries to reptiles from collisions Two studies evaluated the effects on reptile populations of modifying vessels to reduce or prevent injuries to reptiles from collisions. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One controlled study found that using a horizontal-fin propeller guard or a cage propeller guard did not reduce catastrophic injuries to artificial loggerhead turtle shells compared to using no guard, but that the types of injuries sustained were different. One controlled study found that using a jet drive outboard motor reduced catastrophic injuries to artificial loggerhead turtle shells compared to using a standard outboard motor. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3537https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3537Tue, 07 Dec 2021 16:07:29 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify number of hooks between floats on longlines One study evaluated the effects of modifying the number of hooks between floats on longlines on reptile populations. This study was in the Atlantic and North Pacific. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch (1 study): One replicated study in the Atlantic and North Pacific found that having fewer hooks between floats did not reduce turtle by-catch in the Pacific but had mixed effects in the Atlantic depending on the species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3580https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3580Wed, 08 Dec 2021 15:25:39 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify mesh sizes used in fishing gear We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of modifying mesh sizes used in fishing gear. ‘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%2F3608https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3608Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:40:41 +0000
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue