Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Bury or isolate power lines to reduce incidental bird mortalityA single before-and-after trial in Spain showed a dramatic increase in the survival of juvenile Spanish imperial eagles Aquila adalberti following the burial or isolation of power lines. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F262https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F262Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:31:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Can nest protection increase nest abandonment? A replicated before-and-after study from the USA found that nest abandonment increased after nest exclosures were installed. Two replicated studies in Sweden and the USA found small levels of abandonment, or non-significant increases in abandonment following nest exclosure installation. A meta-analysis from the USA found that some designs of nest exclosures were more likely to lead to abandonment than others. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F401https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F401Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:41:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Can nest protection increase predation of adults and chicks? Three replicated and controlled studies from North America and Sweden found higher levels of predation on adult birds with nest exclosures, one study from Sweden found that predation was no higher. A replicated and controlled study from Alaska found that long-tailed jaegers Stercorarius longicaudus learned to associate exclosures with birds, targeting adult western sandpipers Calidris mauri and quickly predating chicks when exclosures were removed. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F403https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F403Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:45:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Can supplementary feeding increase predation or parasitism? A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that providing seeds in predictable areas did not increase predation on seven species of songbird. A replicated and controlled trial in Spain found higher levels of potentially dangerous gut microflora when fed on livestock carrion, compared to those fed on wild rabbits. A replicated study in Spain found higher levels of predation on artificial nests close to carcasses provided for vultures. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F554https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F554Sat, 22 Sep 2012 20:37:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Can captive breeding have deleterious effects on individual fitness? Three studies of wild populations, wild and captive populations and museum specimens, one replicated, found evidence for potentially deleterious physiological or genetic changes due to captive breeding. These studies did not investigate fitness. A study of a wild Mauritius kestrel, Falco punctatus, population derived totally from captive individuals found high inbreeding and a loss of genetic diversity, but this was caused more by the very low population size (four wild birds) than by captivity per se. The museum-based study found reduced relative brain volume in captive wildfowl, compared with wild birds, whilst a comparison of wild and captive populations of white-headed ducks Oxyura leucocephala found lower genetic diversity in captive populations. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F599https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F599Sat, 13 Oct 2012 16:00:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Captive breeding frogs Thirty-three studies investigated the success of breeding frogs in captivity. Twenty-three of 33 studies, three of which were reviews and 30 replicated studies, across the world found that amphibians produced egg in captivity, in four cases by captive-bred females. Seven found mixed results, with some species of frogs or 17–50% of captive populations reproducing successfully in captivity, but with other species difficult to maintain or raise to adults. One found that frogs did not breed successfully in captivity and another that all breeding frogs died. Seventeen of the studies found that captive-bred frogs were raised successfully to hatching, tadpoles, froglets or adults in captivity. One found that froglet survival was low and another that three species were not successfully raised to adulthood. Four replicated studies (including one small study) in,Canada, Fiji, Hong Kong and Italy found that 30–88% of eggs hatched or survival to metamorphosis was 75%, as froglets was 17–51% or to adults was 50–90% in captivity. One review and four replicated studies (including two small studies) in Germany, Italy and the USA found that reproductive success of frogs in captivity depended on temperature or a simulated wet and dry season, but not on whether frogs were housed in high or low maintenance facilities. Three replicated studies (including one small study) in Germany, Australia and Canada found that egg or tadpole development in captivity was affected by parental care, density or temperature. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F835https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F835Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:25:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Captive breeding harlequin toads (Atelopus species) One review and three of five replicated studies (including one small study) in Colombia, Ecuador, Germany and the USA found that harlequin toads reproduced in captivity. One found that eggs were only produced in captivity by simulating a dry and wet season and one found that successful breeding was difficult. One found that captive-bred harlequin toads were raised successfully to metamorphosis in captivity. Two found that most toads died before or after hatching. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F836https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F836Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:54:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Build fences to keep humans out We found no evidence for the effects of building fences to keep humans out 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%2F1503https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1503Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:01:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Captive breeding and reintroduction of primates into the wild: born and reared in cages One before-and-after study in Brazil found that most reintroduced golden lion tamarins that were born and reared in cages, alongside other interventions, did not survive over seven years or had a higher mortality than wild-born tamarins. One controlled study in French Guiana found that more squirrel monkeys which were born and reared in cages, alongside other interventions, died or were returned to captivity post-reintroduction compared to wild-born monkeys. One controlled study in Madagascar found that the diet of reintroduced black-and-white ruffed lemurs which were born and reared in cages, alongside other interventions, did not overlap with that of wild lemurs. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1594https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1594Fri, 20 Oct 2017 14:33:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Captive breeding and reintroduction of primates into the wild: limited free-ranging experience One controlled study in Madagascar found that the diet of reintroduced black-and-white ruffed lemurs with limited free-ranging experience, alongside other interventions, overlapped with that of wild lemurs. One before-and-after study in Madagascar found that most reintroduced black-and-white ruffed lemurs with limited free-ranging experience, alongside other interventions, died over five years. One before-and-after and site comparison and one before-and-after study in the Republic of Congo and Gabon found that most reintroduced western lowland gorillas with limited free-ranging experience, alongside other interventions, survived over a period of between nine months and four years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1595https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1595Fri, 20 Oct 2017 14:36:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Captive breeding and reintroduction of primates into the wild: born and raised in a free-ranging environment One before-and-after study in Brazil found that only two out of three reintroduced black lion tamarins survived over four months, despite being raised in a free-ranging environment, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Madagascar found that the diet of reintroduced black-and-white ruffed lemurs that were born and raised in a free-ranging environment alongside other interventions, overlapped with that of wild lemurs. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1596https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1596Fri, 20 Oct 2017 14:44:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Burn shrublands to reduce impacts of pollutants One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that prescribed burning to reduce the impact of nitrogen deposition did not alter the shoot length of common heather or the number of purple moor grass seedlings compared to mowing. A controlled study in the UK found that burning to reduce the concentration of pollutants in a heathland affected by nitrogen pollution did not alter the cover or shoot length of heather relative to areas that were mowed. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1670https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1670Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:17:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Burn leaf litter We found no studies that evaluated the effects of burning leaf litter on shrublands. '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%2F1690https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1690Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:39:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Build fire breaks We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of building fire breaks. ‘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%2F1766https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1766Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:40:17 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Bury upper layer of peat/soil (without planting) We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of burying the upper layer of peat or soil (without planting afterwards). ‘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%2F1810https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1810Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:31:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Bury upper layer of peat/soil (before planting) We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of burying the upper layer of peat or soil before planting peatland plants. ‘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%2F1836https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1836Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:54:31 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Bury pipelines instead of surface laying and rock dumping We found no studies that evaluated the effects of burying pipelines instead of surface laying and rock dumping 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%2F2056https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2056Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:33:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Bury drill cuttings in the seabed rather than leaving them on the seabed surface We found no studies that evaluated the effects of burying drill cuttings in the seabed rather than leaving them on the seabed surface 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%2F2066https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2066Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:49:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Bury cables and pipelines in the seabed rather than laying them on the seabed We found no studies that evaluated the effects of burying cables and pipelines in the seabed rather than laying them on the seabed 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%2F2082https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2082Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:48:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Bury electricity cables to reduce electromagnetic fields We found no studies that evaluated the effects of burying electricity cables to reduce electromagnetic fields 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%2F2207https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2207Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:19:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Burn at specific time of year Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of burning at a specific time of year. One study was in Australia, and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that carrying out prescribed burns in autumn did not increase small mammal abundances or biomass relative to burning in summer. Survival (1 study): A randomized, replicated, controlled study in Australia found that in forest burned early in the dry season, northern brown bandicoot survival rate declined less than in forests burned late in the dry season. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2416https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2416Mon, 01 Jun 2020 09:39:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Build fire breaksWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on marsh/swamp vegetation, of building fire breaks to protect these habitats. ‘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%2F3080https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3080Fri, 02 Apr 2021 16:58:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Bury surface soil/sedimentWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of burying surface soil/sediment to restore/create 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%2F3225https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3225Fri, 09 Apr 2021 14:03:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Bury surface soil/sediment (before planting)We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of burying surface soil/sediment before planting emergent marsh/swamp plants. ‘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%2F3291https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3291Sat, 10 Apr 2021 20:05:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Burn vegetation before seeding/planting We found no studies that evaluated the effects of burning vegetation before seeding/planting on grassland vegetation. ‘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%2F3417https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3417Fri, 25 Jun 2021 16:16:14 +0100