Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change mowing regime One before-and-after study in Australia found that restoration that included reduced mowing increased numbers of frog species.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F783https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F783Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:49:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change effluent treatments of domestic and urban waste water One study evaluated the effects of different sewage treatments on the activity of foraging bats. The study was in the UK. We found no studies that evaluated the effects of changing effluent treatments of domestic and urban waste water discharged into rivers on bat populations. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found higher activity (relative abundance) of foraging bats over filter bed sewage treatment works than over active sludge systems. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1014https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1014Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:50:17 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change effluent treatments used in agriculture and forestry We found no studies that evaluated the effects of changing the effluent treatments used in agriculture and forestry 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%2F1016https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1016Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:52:07 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Certify farms and market their products as ‘primate friendly’ We found no evidence for the effects of certifying farms and marketing their products as ‘primate friendly’ to sell at a premium 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%2F1434https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1434Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:19:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Certify mines and market their products as ‘primate friendly’ (e.g. ape-friendly cellular phones) We found no evidence for the effects of certifying mines and marketing their products as ‘primate friendly’ 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%2F1454https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1454Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:00:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Certify forest concessions and market their products as ‘primate friendly’ We found no evidence for the effects of certifying forest concessions and marketing their products as ‘primate friendly’ 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%2F1500https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1500Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:55:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit oil and gas drilling We found no studies that evaluated the effects of ceasing or prohibiting oil and gas drilling 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%2F2061https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2061Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:43:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit the deposit of drill cuttings on the seabed We found no studies that evaluated the effects of ceasing or prohibiting the deposit of drill cuttings 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%2F2062https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2062Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:45:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit shipping  Three studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting shipping on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. All studies were in the North Sea (Belgium, Germany, Netherlands).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (1 study): One site comparison study in the North Sea found that areas closed to shipping developed different overall invertebrate community compositions compared to areas where shipping occurred. Overall species richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in the North Sea found that areas closed to shipping did not develop different overall invertebrate species richness and diversity compared to areas where shipping occurred. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (2 studies): Two site comparison studies (one before-and-after) in the North Sea found that areas closed to shipping had similar overall invertebrate abundance and biomass compared to areas where shipping occurred. Overall abundance (2 studies): Two site comparison studies (one before-and-after) in the North Sea found that areas closed to shipping had similar overall invertebrate abundance and biomass compared to areas where shipping occurred. OTHER (2 STUDIES) Overall community energy flow (1 study): One before-after, site comparison study in the North Sea found that after closing an area to shipping, invertebrate community energy flow did not change, but it increased in nearby areas where shipping occurred. Species energy flow (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the North Sea found that closing an area to shipping had mixed effects on species-level energy flow.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2086https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2086Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:54:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit static fishing gear We found no studies that evaluated the effects of ceasing or prohibiting static fishing gear 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%2F2103https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2103Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:29:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit the harvesting of scallops Three studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting the harvesting of scallops on their populations. One study was in the South Atlantic Ocean (Argentina), one in the English Channel (UK) and one in the Irish Sea (UK).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Scallop abundance (3 studies): Two of three site comparison studies (one replicated, one before-and-after) in the South Atlantic Ocean, the English Channel, and the Irish Sea found that in areas where scallop harvesting had stopped scallop abundance was similar, and one found that scallop biomass was higher, compared to harvested areas.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2277https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2277Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:53:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit the harvest of conch We found no studies that evaluated the effects of ceasing or prohibiting the harvest of conch on their 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%2F2278https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2278Wed, 23 Oct 2019 13:35:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit the harvest of sea urchins We found no studies that evaluated the effects ceasing or prohibiting the harvest of sea urchins on their 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%2F2279https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2279Wed, 23 Oct 2019 13:36:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease/reduce payments to cull mammals One study evaluated the effects of ceasing or reducing payments to cull mammals. This study was in Sweden and Norway. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A before-and-after study in Sweden and Norway found that fewer brown bears were reported killed after the removal of financial hunting incentives. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2349https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2349Tue, 26 May 2020 08:24:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change mowing regime (e.g. timing, frequency, height) We found no studies that evaluated the effects of changing mowing regime (e.g. timing, frequency, height) on mammals. ‘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%2F2399https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2399Thu, 28 May 2020 10:56:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit shellfish dredging One study examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting shellfish dredging on marine fish populations. The study was in the North Sea (Denmark). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the North Sea reported that 10 years after mussel dredging ceased in an area closed to all towed fishing gears there was no change in species richness of bottom-dwelling fish compared to before and to open areas. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the North Sea, reported that ceasing mussel dredging in an area closed to all towed gears had no effect on the abundance of bottom-dwelling fish after 10 years, and compared to open areas. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIESCollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2668https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2668Thu, 19 Nov 2020 15:42:05 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit mobile midwater (pelagic) fishing gears One study examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting fishing with towed (mobile) midwater fishing gears on marine fish populations. The study was in the Norwegian Sea (Norway). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Condition (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the Norwegian Sea found that in the five years after drift netting was prohibited in an area, the weights of young salmon returning to rivers were higher than before, and weights of older salmon were similar or lower. Abundance (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the Norwegian Sea found that in the five years after the use of drift nets was prohibited, there were more young salmon returning to rivers than before, and similar numbers of older multi-returning salmon. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2669https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2669Thu, 19 Nov 2020 16:06:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit spearfishing Five studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting spearfishing in an area on marine fish populations. Two studies were in the Mediterranean Sea (France, Corsica). One study was in each of the Tasman Sea (Australia) and the Indian Ocean (South Africa). One study was a review of marine reserves around the world. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): Two of three site comparison studies in the Mediterranean Sea, the Tasman Sea and the Indian Ocean found that prohibiting spearfishing, and line fishing, in protected areas increased the abundances of European seabass and gilthead seabream (years unknown) and of coral reef fish species, compared to protected and unprotected fished areas, after two to seven years. The other study found that fish densities differed between spearfished and non-spearfished areas after 10–12 years, and was affected by depth and/or fish size. A review of reef marine reserves around the world reported that two non-spearfished reserves in the northwestern Atlantic had more snappers and grunts after two years in one, and higher densities of reef fish, including snappers and grunts after 20 years in the other, compared to nearby fished reefs. Condition (3 studies): Two site comparison studies in the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean found that prohibiting spearfishing (and linefishing) in marine protected areas resulted in larger European seabass and coral reef fish species, compared to protected and unprotected fished areas, after two to seven years. A review of global reef marine reserves reported that reef fish were larger in one reserve in the northwestern Atlantic that had banned spearfishing for 20 years, compared to nearby fished reefs. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY)  Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, site-comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that prohibiting spearfishing in specific zones of a marine reserve resulted in higher commercial and recreational fishery catches of targeted common dentex compared to zones that allowed spearfishing and areas outside the reserve after one to three years.    Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2672https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2672Fri, 20 Nov 2020 09:32:23 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit mobile fishing gears that catch bottom (demersal) species and are dragged across the seafloor Ten studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting mobile fishing gears that catch bottom (demersal) species and are dragged across the seafloor on marine fish populations. Two studies were in each of the North Atlantic Ocean (Canada, Portugal), the Indian Ocean (Tasmania, Kenya) and the Mediterranean Sea. One study was in each of the North Sea (Denmark), the Arafura Sea (Australia), the Coral Sea (Australia) and the Gulf of Mexico (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)  Richness/diversity (3 studies): Two of three site comparison studies (one replicated and randomized, and one before-and-after) in the North Sea, Indian Ocean and Gulf of Mexico found that the number of fish species, the fish assemblage and overall species richness and diversity (fish and invertebrates combined) varied between areas with different exposures to bottom trawling, and was also dependent on bottom depth and habitat type. The other study reported no effect of closing an area to all towed bottom fishing gears on the species richness of bottom-dwelling fish after 10 years and compared to areas open to trawling.  POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Two of three replicated studies (one controlled and before-and-after, and two site comparison) and one of two before-and-after studies (one site comparison) in the North Sea, Arafura Sea, North Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea found that ceasing or prohibiting fishing with towed bottom gears resulted in higher total fish biomass after 15 years, higher biomass of adult red mullet after 14 years and increased abundances of long-snouted, but not short-snouted, seahorses after one year, compared to openly fished areas. The other two studies found that a ban on towed bottom fishing gears for five and 10 years had no effect on the abundance of bottom-dwelling fish species after closure compared to before, or the abundance and biomass of fish and invertebrate species (combined) compared to areas open to towed gears/trawling. Reproductive success (2 studies): One of two before-and-after studies (one site comparison) in the North Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea found that after the closure of an area to all bottom-towed fishing gears for 14 years, recruitment of young red mullet had increased. The other study found that an area closed to bottom trawling did not have higher recruitment of young haddock seven years after closure and compared to a trawled area. Survival (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that closing an area to bottom trawling did not increase the survival of young haddock seven years after closure, and compared to a trawled area. Condition (5 studies): One of four replicated studies (two site comparison and one randomized, site comparison) and one before-and-after study in the Arafura Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Gulf of Mexico and the Indian Ocean found that areas prohibiting bottom towed fishing gears had larger sizes of adult red mullet 14 years after closure than before. Two studies found that the effect on fish size of closing areas to towed bottom gears for 3–6 years or areas with no bottom fishing activity varied between individual fish groups and with habitat type, compared to fished areas. The other two found that areas closed to bottom trawling for five years and 15 years had no effect on the overall size of fish and invertebrate species combined or average fish weight, compared to trawled areas. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduce unwanted catch (1 study): One randomized, replicated, site comparison study in the Coral Sea found no reduction in the biomass of non-commercial unwanted catch (fish and invertebrate discard) or in the number of ‘common’ and ‘rare’ discard species in areas closed to trawling for seven years compared to trawled areas. Catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the Indian Ocean found that areas prohibiting beach and all other seine nets for 3–6 years found overall fish catch rates were higher, and catch rates of individual fish groups were variable, compared to unrestricted areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2673https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2673Fri, 20 Nov 2020 12:12:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit the disposal of mining waste (tailings) at sea or in rivers We found no studies that evaluated the effects of ceasing or prohibiting the disposal of mining waste (tailings) at sea or in rivers 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%2F2873https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2873Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:38:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit the disposal of drill cuttings at sea or in rivers We found no studies that evaluated the effects of ceasing or prohibiting the disposal of drill cuttings at sea or in rivers 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%2F2874https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2874Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:40:05 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit the disposal of mining waste (tailings) at sea or in rivers We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of ceasing or prohibiting the disposal of mining waste (tailings) at sea or in rivers. ‘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%2F3592https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3592Wed, 08 Dec 2021 16:21:52 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit the disposal of drill cuttings at sea or in rivers We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of ceasing or prohibiting the disposal of drill cuttings at sea or in rivers. ‘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%2F3593https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3593Wed, 08 Dec 2021 16:22:48 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change hook baiting technique One study evaluated the effects of changing the hook baiting technique on reptile populations. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One study in the USA found that captive loggerhead turtles were more likely to attempt to swallow thread-baited than single-baited hooks. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3616https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3616Thu, 09 Dec 2021 13:24:48 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change mowing regime on grassland Three studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of changing mowing regimes on grassland. Two studies were in the USA and one was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)   POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in the UK found that mowing coastal grassland in August reduced the abundance of Fisher’s estuarine moth caterpillars, whereas mowing in November or leaving sites unmown did not reduce abundance. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that prairies managed by haying had a higher abundance of prairie specialist butterflies, but a lower abundance of generalist and migrant butterflies, than prairies managed by burning, and the abundance of prairie specialists was higher in the first year after haying than in the second year. One replicated, paired, controlled study in the USA found that the abundance of Karner blue butterflies on oak savannas managed by mowing was similar to unmanaged savannas or savannas managed by burning. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3945https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3945Sat, 13 Aug 2022 14:58:36 +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