Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create alternative bat roosts within developments Eleven studies evaluated the effects of creating alternative bat roosts within developments on bat populations. Nine studies were in Europe and two were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (11 STUDIES) Use: (11 studies): Two replicated studies in the USA and UK found that bats did not use any of the alternative roosts provided in bat houses or a purpose-built bat wall after exclusion from buildings. Three studies (two replicated) in the USA and UK and one review in the UK found that bat boxes or bat lofts/barns were used by bats at 13–74% of development sites, and bat lofts/barns were used by maternity colonies at one of 19 development sites. Three of five before-and-after studies in Portugal, Ireland, Spain and the UK found that bat colonies used purpose-built roosts in higher or similar numbers after the original roosts were destroyed. The other two studies found that bats used purpose-built roosts in lower numbers than the original roost. One review in the UK found that new bat boxes/lofts built to replace destroyed roosts were four times less likely to be used by returning bats than roosts retained during development. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F949https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F949Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:21:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Use hot water to control plants We found no evidence on the use of hot water to control Crassula helmsii. '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%2F1275https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1275Thu, 30 Jun 2016 08:21:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Biological control using fungal-based herbicides We found no evidence for the effects of biological control using specific, non-selective or native herbivores on Crassula helmsii. '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%2F1276https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1276Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:52:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Biological control using herbivores We found no evidence for the effects of biological control using specific, non-selective or native herbivores on Crassula helmsii. '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%2F1277https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1277Tue, 05 Jul 2016 16:21:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Physical control using manual/mechanical control or dredging We found no evidence for the effects of physical control, using manual or mechanical control or dredging, on Crassula helmsii. '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%2F1278https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1278Tue, 05 Jul 2016 16:27:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Chemical control using herbicides Seven studies (including one replicated and controlled study) in the UK, found that applying glyphosate reduced Crassula helmsii. In one before-and-after study at a single site glyphosate applied in combination with diquat reduced C. helmsii by 98%. Another before-and-after study at a single site found that covering C. helmsii with carpet before treating with glyphosate resulted in an 80% reduction in the plant. Three out of four studies (including one controlled study) in the UK found that applying diquat or diquat alginate reduced cover or eradicated submerged C. helmsii. One before-and-after study at a single site found that applying both diquat and glyphosate reduced C. helmsii by 98%. One small, before-and-after trial found no effect of diquat or diquat alginate on cover of C. helmsii. One out of two studies (including one replicated, controlled study) in the UK, found that treating submerged C. helmsii with dichlobenil in container trials led to partial reduction in its biomass. One small before-and-after field study found no effect of dichlobenil on C. helmsii. One replicated, controlled container trial in the UK found that treatment with terbutryne partially reduced biomass of submerged C. helmsii. The same study found reductions in emergent C. helmsii following treatment with asulam, 2,4-D amine and dalapon. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1279https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1279Tue, 05 Jul 2016 16:29:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Use hydrogen peroxide to control plants One controlled study in the UK using tank trials found that hydrogen peroxide did not control Crassula helmsii. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1281https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1281Tue, 12 Jul 2016 08:42:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Use liquid nitrogen to kill plants We found no evidence for the effects of treating Crassula helmsii with liquid nitrogen. '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%2F1282https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1282Tue, 12 Jul 2016 08:51:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Use hot foam to control plants One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that treatment with hot foam, along with other treatments, did not reduce cover of Crassula helmsii. One before-and-after study in the UK found that applying hot foam partially destroyed C. helmsii. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1286https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1286Tue, 12 Jul 2016 08:56:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Use salt water to kill plants Two replicated, controlled container trials and two before-and-after field trials in the UK found that seawater eradicated Crassula helmsii. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1288https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1288Tue, 12 Jul 2016 09:14:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Use flame-throwers to control plants We found no evidence on the use of flame-throwers to control Crassula helmsii. '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%2F1291https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1291Tue, 12 Jul 2016 09:26:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Use dyes to reduce light levels One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that applying aquatic dye, along with other treatments, did not reduce coverage of Crassula helmsii. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1293https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1293Tue, 12 Jul 2016 09:32:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Use lightproof barriers to control plants Five before-and-after studies in the UK found that covering Crassula helmsii with black sheeting or carpet strips eradicated or severely reduced the cover of the plant. However, C. helmsii was reported to have progressively recolonized two of the sites where it had been had initially been reported as eradicated. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1294https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1294Tue, 12 Jul 2016 09:39:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Alter environmental conditions to control plants No evidence was captured on altering environmental conditions to control Crassula helmsii by using shading, increasing turbidity, re-shaping or re-profiling banks of waterbodies or dredging. '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%2F1296https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1296Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:38:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Plant other species to suppress growth We found no evidence for the effects of using other plant species to control growth of Crassula helmsii. '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%2F1299https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1299Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:42:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Use grazing to control plants One of two replicated, controlled studies in the UK found that excluding grazing reduced the abundance and coverage of Crassula helmsii. The other study found no difference in cover of C. helmsii between ungrazed and grazed plots. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1301https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1301Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:48:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Dry out waterbodies to control plants We found no evidence for the effects of draining waterbodies on Crassula helmsii. '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%2F1303https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1303Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:51:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Bury plants We found no evidence on the use of burying with soil alone to control Crassula helmsii. '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%2F1305https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1305Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:53:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Surround with wire mesh We found no evidence that surrounding Crassula helmsii with wire mesh reduced its rate of spread. '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%2F1307https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1307Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:54:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Decontamination to prevent further spread One controlled, replicated container study in the UK found that submerging Crassula helmsii in hot water led to higher mortality than drying out plant fragments or a control. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1308https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1308Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:57:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Public education No evidence was captured on the impact of education programmes on control of Crassula helmsii. '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%2F1311https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1311Tue, 12 Jul 2016 11:01:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Use a combination of control measures One before-and-after study at a single pond in the UK found covering Crassula helmsii with carpet, followed by treatment with the herbicide glyphosate, killed 80% of the plant. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1313https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1313Tue, 12 Jul 2016 11:04:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create a Marine Protected Area or set levels of legal protection where natural climate refugia occur to further promote the persistence and recovery of species facing climate change We found no studies that evaluated the effects of creating a marine protected area or setting levels of legal protection where natural climate refugia occur to further promote the persistence and recovery of species facing climate change 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%2F2222https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2222Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:39:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create 'rock pools' on intertidal artificial structures Eighteen studies examined the effects of creating ‘rock pools’ on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Ten studies were in estuaries in Australia, the UK and eastern USA, five were on open coastlines in the UK, Ireland and southeast Spain, two were in straits in the UK and Malaysia, and one was in a marina in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (17 STUDIES) Overall community composition (16 studies): Thirteen replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized, six paired sites and three site comparison studies) in Australia the UK, the USA, Spain and Malaysia, reported that rock pools created on intertidal artificial structures, along with holes in two studies, supported macroalgae, mobile invertebrate, non-mobile invertebrate and/or fish species that were absent from structure surfaces without pools or holes. One of the studies also found that pools supported different combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition to surfaces without pools. One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in Australia found mixed effects on the community composition depending on the pool depth, shore level and site. One of the studies found that created pools supported different combined macroalgae and non-mobile invertebrate communities but similar combined mobile invertebrate and fish communities to natural rock pools, while one found that combined mobile invertebrate and fish communities differed to natural pools. Two of the studies found that the pool depth did not affect the community composition, while one found that the pool angle did. One replicated study in Ireland found that the shore level and wave-exposure affected the community composition, and that wave-sheltered pools filled with sediment within two years. One replicated, randomized study in Australia found that adding short flexible habitats into pools had mixed effects on community composition depending on the species group and site. Overall richness/diversity (15 studies): Nine of 12 replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized, six paired sites and two site comparison studies) in Australia, the UK, Spain and Malaysia found that rock pools created on intertidal artificial structures, along with holes in two studies, supported higher combined macroalgae, invertebrate and/or fish species diversity and/or richness than structure surfaces without pools or holes. Three studies reported similar combined macroalgae and invertebrate or combined mobile invertebrate and fish species richness in pools and on structure surfaces. One of the studies found that combined macroalgae, invertebrate and fish species richness in created pools was similar to natural rock pools, while one reported lower combined mobile invertebrate and fish species richness in created pools. Two of the studies, along with one replicated study in Ireland, found that the shore level of pools, along with holes in one, did not affect the species richness, but in one, the functional richness (species grouped according to their role in the community) was lower in highshore pools than midshore. Three of the studies found that the pool depth had no effect on species richness, one found higher richness in tilted pools than horizontal ones, and one replicated, randomized study in Australia found that adding short flexible habitats into pools had mixed effects depending on the species group and site. One before-and-after study in Australia reported that creating pools, along with reducing the slope of a structure, increased the combined macroalgae, invertebrate and fish species richness on the structure. Fish richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled and site comparison study in Australia reported that creating rock pools on an intertidal artificial structure did not increase the fish species richness on and around the structure. POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized study in Australia found that adding short flexible habitats into rock pools created on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on macroalgae, invertebrate and fish abundance in pools, depending on the species group and site. Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in Australia found that creating rock pools on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on macroalgal abundances depending on the pool depth, shore level, species group and site. Invertebrate abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (including one with paired sites) in Australia found that creating rock pools on intertidal artificial structures, along with holes in one, had mixed effects on limpet or combined invertebrate abundances, depending on the shore level, pool depth, species group and/or site. Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled and site comparison study in Australia found that creating rock pools on an intertidal artificial structure had mixed effects on the fish abundance on and around the structure, depending on the species group and site. BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): Two studies (including one before-and-after study) in Australia reported that rock pools created on intertidal artificial structures, along with holes in one study, were used by sea slugs, urchins, octopuses, macroalgae, invertebrates and fishes. Fish behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, randomized study in Australia found that adding short flexible habitats into rock pools created on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the number of bites fishes took of pool surfaces. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3476https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3476Tue, 21 Sep 2021 17:49:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create artificial burrows Six studies evaluated the effects of creating artificial burrows on reptile populations. Five studies were in Australia and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that areas with artificial burrows had more pygmy blue tongue lizards than areas with no artificial burrows Reproductive success (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that female pygmy bluetongue lizards using artificial burrows produced larger offspring than those using natural burrows. Condition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that female pygmy bluetongue lizards using artificial burrows had better body condition than those using natural burrows. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): Three replicated studies (including one controlled study) in Australia found that artificial burrows were used by resident and translocated pygmy bluetongue lizards. One of the studies also found that pygmy bluetongue lizards preferred artificial burrows with a chamber than burrows with no chamber. One replicated study in the USA found that providing artificial burrows for translocated gopher tortoises resulted in more tortoises settling successfully in the release area. Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that translocated pygmy blue tongue lizards used artificial burrows, and supplementary food affected the amount of time they spend in bare ground areasCollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3721https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3721Mon, 13 Dec 2021 17:02:44 +0000