Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict herbicide, fungicide and pesticide use on and around ponds on golf courses We found no evidence for the effects of restricting herbicide, fungicide or pesticide use on or around ponds on golf courses on amphibian 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%2F787https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F787Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:28:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain buffer zones around core habitat One before-and-after study in Australia found that grassland restoration that included leaving unmown buffers around ponds increased numbers of frog species. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that retaining buffers along ridge tops within harvested forest increased Red Hills salamander abundance, body condition and genetic diversity. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that retaining unmown buffers around ponds had mixed effects on tadpole survival and mass depending on species and site. One replicated study in the USA found that 30 m buffer zones around wetlands were not sufficient to protect marbled salamanders. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F850https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F850Thu, 05 Sep 2013 14:26:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain a buffer between turbines and habitat features used by bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining a buffer between turbines and habitat features used by bats 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%2F966https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F966Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:23:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict human access to bat caves to reduce the spread of the white-nose syndrome pathogen We found no studies that evaluated the effects of restricting human access to bat caves to reduce the spread of the white-nose syndrome pathogen 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%2F1010https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1010Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:45:48 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict timing of lighting One study evaluated the effects of restricting the timing of lighting on bat populations. The study was in France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in France found that turning off streetlights for part of the night resulted in mixed results for activity (relative abundance), depending on bat species, when compared with leaving streetlights switched on all night. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1019https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1019Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:59:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict timing of timber treatment application One study evaluated the effects of restricting the timing of timber treatment application on bat populations. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled laboratory study in the UK found that treating timber with lindane and pentachlorophenol 14 months prior to exposure by bats increased survival but did not prevent death. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1023https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1023Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:05:39 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict the number of people that are allowed access to site We found no evidence for the effects of restricting the number of people that are allowed access to the site on primate 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%2F1504https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1504Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:04:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict vehicle use on peatlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of restricting vehicle use on peatlands. ‘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%2F1749https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1749Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:31:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict pedestrian access to peatlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of restricting pedestrian access to peatlands. ‘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%2F1751https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1751Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:31:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain access points for bats following mine closures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining access points for bats following mine closures 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%2F1962https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1962Tue, 04 Dec 2018 16:24:17 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict the collection of bat specimens for research We found no studies that evaluated the effects of restricting the collection of bat specimens for research 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%2F1980https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1980Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:28:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain bat access points to caves We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining bat access points to caves 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%2F1990https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1990Wed, 05 Dec 2018 11:13:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain buffer zones around core habitat We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining buffer zones around core habitat 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%2F2028https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2028Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:18:23 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict the use of tributyltin or other toxic antifouling coatings Four studies examined the effects of restricting the use of tributyltin as an antifouling coating on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study was located in the English Channel (UK), two in the River Crouch estuary (UK), and one in Otsuchi Bay (Japan). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the River Crouch estuary found that after restricting the use of tributyltin, invertebrate community composition changed, but that changes varied with locations. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the River Crouch estuary found that after restricting the use of tributyltin, overall invertebrate species richness and diversity increased. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Molluscs condition (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the English Channel found that after restricting the use of tributyltin, there was a decrease in its concentration in dogwhelks and the penis length of female dogwhelks. Crustacean condition (1 study): One study in Otsuchi Bay found that after restricting the use of tributyltin its concentration decreased in skeleton shrimps. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2214https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2214Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:30:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict use of rodent poisons on farmland with high secondary poisoning risk We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of restricting use of rodent poisons on farmland that have secondary poisoning risks. ‘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%2F2391https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2391Thu, 28 May 2020 09:34:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain buffer zones around core habitat We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining buffer zones around core 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%2F2562https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2562Tue, 09 Jun 2020 12:46:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict fishing activity (types unspecified) in a marine protected area Two studies examined the effects of restricting (unspecified) fishing activity in a marine protected area on marine fish populations. One study was global and the other was in the Indian Ocean (Tanzania). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One global review reported that of 11 studies showing effects of protection from restricting fishing activity in marine reserves, one found higher fish species richness inside reserves compared to non-protected fished areas. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (1 study): One site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that survival was higher for blackspot snapper inside a marine park with unspecified fishing restrictions and low fishing intensity compared to more intensively fished areas outside. Abundance (1 study): One global review reported that 10 of 11 studies showing effects of protection from restricting fishing activity in marine reserves found higher abundance of fish inside the areas compared to areas without fishing restrictions. Condition (2 studies): One site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that blackspot snapper inside a marine park with unspecified fishing restrictions and low fishing intensity were of larger average size, reached older ages, but did not have different growth rates compared to more intensively fished areas outside the park. One global review reported that five out of 11 studies showing effects of protection from restricting fishing activity in marine reserves found fish were larger inside reserves compared to non-protected areas without fishing restrictions. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2680https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2680Fri, 27 Nov 2020 16:25:54 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict vehicle useWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of restricting vehicle use in or near 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%2F3019https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3019Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:39:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict pedestrian accessWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of restricting pedestrian access to 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%2F3022https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3022Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:42:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain buffer zones around core habitat We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining buffer zones around core 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%2F3664https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3664Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:59:26 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain buffer zones around core habitat We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of retaining buffer zones around core habitat. ‘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%2F3833https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3833Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:06:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict recreational activities to particular areas We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of restricting recreational activities to particular 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%2F3850https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3850Tue, 05 Jul 2022 11:31:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict the sale of problem species in garden centres and pet shops We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of restricting the sale of problem species in garden centres and pet shops. ‘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%2F3888https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3888Tue, 26 Jul 2022 18:27:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict timing of lighting to conserve areas with natural light regimes We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of restricting the timing of lighting to conserve areas with natural light regimes. ‘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%2F3901https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3901Tue, 09 Aug 2022 15:04:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict use of polarized light We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of restricting the use of polarized light. ‘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%2F3903https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3903Tue, 09 Aug 2022 15:10:48 +0100