Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain riparian buffer strips during timber harvest Twelve studies investigated the effectiveness of retaining buffer strips during timber harvest for amphibians. Six replicated and/or controlled studies in Canada and the USA compared amphibian numbers following clearcutting with or without riparian buffer strips. Five found mixed effects on abundance depending on species and buffer width. One found that amphibian abundance was significantly higher with buffers. Eleven studies, including 10 replicated and/or controlled studies in Canada and the USA and one meta-analysis, compared amphibian numbers in forest with riparian buffers retained during harvest to unharvested forest. Six found mixed effects depending on species or volume of existing downed wood. Four found that abundance and species composition were similar to unharvested forest. Two found that numbers of species and abundance were lower than in unharvested forest. Two of four replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled, before-and-after study) in Canada and the USA found that numbers of amphibian species and abundance were greater in wider riparian buffer strips. Two found that there was no difference in abundance in buffers of different widths.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F747https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F747Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:42:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain veteran and standing dead trees as roosting sites for bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining veteran and standing dead trees 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%2F993https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F993Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:34:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain residual tree patches in logged areas Three studies evaluated the effects of retaining residual tree patches in logged areas on bat populations. The three studies were in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in Canada found no difference in bat activity (relative abundance) along the edges of residual tree patches and the edges of clearcut blocks. One replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that the activity of smaller bat species was higher along the edge of residual tree patches than in the centre of clearcut blocks, but the activity of larger bat species did not differ. One replicated, controlled study in Canada found that residual tree patches had similar activity of little brown bats and northern long-eared bats and lower activity of silver-haired bats compared to clearcut forest patches. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F995https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F995Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:39:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/create habitat corridors in developed areas We found no studies that evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation, in habitat patches or within corridors, of maintaining or creating habitat corridors in developed areas. ‘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%2F1720https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1720Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:22:51 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/create habitat corridors in farmed areas One study evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation, in habitat patches or within corridors, of retaining or creating habitat corridors in farmed areas.This study was in a tropical peat swamp. Vegetation structure (1 study): One study in Indonesia found that a peat swamp forest corridor contained 5,819 trees/ha. This included 331 large trees/ha, 1,360 saplings/ha and 4,128 seedlings/ha.   Overall plant richness/diversity (1 study): The same study recorded 18–29 tree species in the peat swamp forest corridor (the number of species depending on the size class). Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1730https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1730Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:09:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/create habitat corridors in areas of energy production or mining We found no studies that evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation, in habitat patches or within corridors, of retaining/creating habitat corridors in areas of energy production or mining. ‘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%2F1739https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1739Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:23:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/create habitat corridors across service corridors We found no studies that evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation, in habitat patches or within corridors, of retaining/creating habitat corridors across service corridors. ‘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%2F1742https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1742Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:25:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain unmown field margins One study evaluated the effects of retaining unmown field margins on bats populations. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in the UK found that pipistrelle activity (relative abundance) did not differ between unmown field margins managed for wildlife on agri-environment scheme farms and field margins on conventional farms. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1940https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1940Mon, 03 Dec 2018 13:21:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain riparian buffers in logged areas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining riparian buffers in logged areas on bat 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%2F1985https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1985Wed, 05 Dec 2018 10:59:37 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain remnant habitat patches We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining remnant habitat patches 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%2F2030https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2030Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:21:27 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain wetlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining wetlands 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%2F2032https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2032Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:23:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain riparian buffers on agricultural land One study evaluated the effects of retaining riparian buffers on agricultural land on bat populations. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in the UK found that pipistrelle activity (relative abundance) did not differ along waterways with buffers of vegetation on agri-environment scheme farms and waterways on conventional farms. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2284https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2284Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:05:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain wildlife corridors in residential areas One study evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining wildlife corridors in residential areas. This study was in Botswana. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated study in Botswana found that retained wildlife corridors in residential areas were used by 19 mammal species, including African elephants. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2354https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2354Tue, 26 May 2020 11:35:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/maintain road verges as small mammal habitat We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining or maintaining road verges as small mammal habitat. ‘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%2F2604https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2604Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:49:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain undisturbed patches during thinning operations Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining undisturbed patches during thinning operations. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): Two randomized, replicated, controlled studies (one also before-and-after) in the USA found that snowshoe hares and tassel-eared squirrels used retained undisturbed forest patches more than thinned areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2640https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2640Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:37:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain understorey vegetation within plantations One study evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining understorey vegetation within plantations. This study was in Chile. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Chile found that areas with retained understorey vegetation had more species of medium-sized mammal, compared to areas cleared of understorey vegetation. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Chile found that areas with retained understorey vegetation had more visits from medium-sized mammals, compared to areas cleared of understorey vegetation. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2645https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2645Fri, 12 Jun 2020 16:19:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain wildlife corridors in logged areas Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining wildlife corridors in logged areas. One study was in Australia and one was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): A replicated study in Australia found that corridors of trees, retained after harvesting, supported seven species of arboreal marsupial. A replicated, controlled study in Canada found that lines of woody debris through clearcut areas that were connected to adjacent forest were not used more by red-backed voles than were isolated lines of woody debris. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2651https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2651Sat, 13 Jun 2020 18:33:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain riparian buffer strips during timber harvest We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining riparian buffer strips during timber harvesting. ‘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%2F2652https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2652Sat, 13 Jun 2020 18:34:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/create habitat linkages in developed areasWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on marsh/swamp vegetation, of retaining or creating habitat linkages in developed areas.   ‘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%2F2947https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2947Mon, 01 Mar 2021 16:14:48 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/create habitat linkages in farmed areasWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on marsh/swamp vegetation, of retaining or creating habitat linkages in farmed areas.   ‘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%2F2950https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2950Mon, 22 Mar 2021 13:40:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/create habitat linkages in areas of energy production or miningWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on marsh/swamp vegetation, of retaining or creating habitat linkages in areas of energy production or mining.   ‘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%2F2986https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2986Thu, 25 Mar 2021 20:18:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/create habitat linkages across service corridorsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on marsh/swamp vegetation, of retaining or creating habitat linkages across transportation or service corridors.   ‘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%2F2996https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2996Mon, 29 Mar 2021 12:33:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/maintain road verges as habitat We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining/maintaining road verges as habitat on reptile populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3505https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3505Tue, 07 Dec 2021 09:57:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain riparian buffer strips during timber harvest We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining riparian buffer strips during timber harvest on reptile populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3630https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3630Thu, 09 Dec 2021 14:28:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain riparian buffer strips during timber harvest We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of retaining riparian buffer strips during timber harvest. ‘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%2F3872https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3872Mon, 18 Jul 2022 15:53:34 +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