Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enforce legislation to protect birds against persecution Two before-and-after studies have evaluated effects of legislative protection on bird species in Europe. Both found that legislation protects bird populations. One found increased population levels of raptors in Scotland, following protective legislation. One found increased survival of kestrels in Denmark stricter protection, but not necessarily population-level responses. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F101https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F101Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:55:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Employ local people as ‘biomonitors’A single replicated study in Venezuela found that poaching of parrot nestlings was significantly lower following the employment of five young men as ‘biomonitors’.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F275https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F275Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:15:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Employ grazing in natural grasslands Five of 12 studies from the USA and Canada, four replicated, found that some species studied were found at higher densities on grazed than ungrazed sites. Eight studies from the USA, Canada and France, six replicated, found that some or all species studied were found at lower densities on grazed sites compared to ungrazed sites or those under other management, or that there were no differences. Two controlled studies from the USA and Canada, one replicated, found that duck nesting success was higher on grazed than ungrazed sites. Two studies from the USA found that songbird nesting success was lower on grazed than ungrazed sites. Three replicated and controlled (one randomised) studies from the USA and Canada found that grazing had little or no effect on nesting success in a variety of species.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F348https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F348Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:35:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Employ grazing in artificial grasslands/pastures Of ten studies captured, one replicated, controlled study from the USA found lower species richness in grazed areas than ungrazed. Another replicated, controlled study from the USA found no consistent differences in community composition between grazed and ungrazed areas. A small study from Canada found an increase in duck populations following the start of grazing amongst other interventions. Five studies from the UK and USA, four replicated, found higher use of, or higher nesting densities in, grazed areas compared to ungrazed. Seven studies from the UK, Canada and the USA, five replicated, found no differences in use or nesting densities, or lower abundances of birds on grazed, compared with ungrazed areas. One found that several species appeared to be excluded by grazing. Three studies from the UK, USA and Canada, two replicated, found that nesting success or productivity was similar, or lower, on grazed sites compared with ungrazed.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F349https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F349Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:59:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Employ grazing in non-grassland habitats One of eight studies, a replicated, controlled study on savannas in Kenya found more bird species on grazed site, compared with unmanaged sites. These differences were not present during drought years. A before-and-after study from the Netherlands found the number of species in a mixed habitat wetland site declined after the number of grazing animals increased. Three studies (two replicated) from a variety of habitats in Sweden, the Netherlands and Kenya found that the overall number of birds, or the densities of some species were higher in grazed than ungrazed sites, or increased after the introduction of grazing. The Kenyan study found differences were not present in drought years. Four studies from several habitats in Europe and Kenya found that some species were found at lower densities, or not found at all, on grazed sites compared to ungrazed sites or those under different management. Five studies from several habitats from across the world found no differences in the abundances or densities of some or all species between grazed sites and those that were ungrazed or under different management. Two replicated studies from the UK found that productivity of northern lapwing and grey partridge was lower in grazed sites compared to ungrazed. One study examined several interventions at the same time. A replicated study from the UK found that songbirds and invertebrate-eating species were more common on rough-grazed habitats than intensive pasture, but that crows were less so.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F350https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F350Sun, 29 Jul 2012 15:22:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encourage foraging waterfowlOne controlled, replicated experiment from the USA found increased straw decomposition when ducks were allowed to forage. SOIL TYPE COVERED: Silty clay  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F711https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F711Wed, 29 May 2013 09:20:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encourage aquatic plant growth as refuge against fish predation We found no evidence for the effects of encouraging aquatic plant growth as refuge against fish predation 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%2F796https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F796Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:40:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encourage leaf litter development in new planting We found no evidence for the effect of encouraging leaf litter development in new planting on forests. '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%2F1204https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1204Thu, 19 May 2016 13:32:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encourage use of traditional hunting methods rather than using guns We found no evidence for the effects of encouraging the use of traditional hunting methods rather than using guns 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%2F1469https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1469Tue, 17 Oct 2017 14:29:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Employ hunters in the conservation sector to reduce their impact We found no evidence for the effects of employing hunters in the conservation sector to reduce their impact 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%2F1484https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1484Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:18:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encapsulate planted moss fragments in beads/gel We found no studies that evaluated the effects of encapsulating moss fragments on their performance, relative to loose moss fragments, when introduced 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%2F1838https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1838Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:55:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Engage farmers and landowners to manage land for bats One study evaluated the effects of engaging farmers and landowners to manage land for bats on bat populations. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One study in the UK found that during a five-year project to engage farmers and landowners to manage land for bats, the overall population of greater horseshoe bats at four maternity roosts in the area increased (but see summary below). BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Change in human behaviour (1 study): One study in the UK found that a landowner engagement project resulted in 77 bat-related management agreements covering approximately 6,536 ha of land. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1936https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1936Mon, 03 Dec 2018 13:15:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enforce regulations to prevent trafficking and trade of bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of enforcing regulations to prevent trafficking and trade of 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%2F1971https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1971Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:20:02 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encourage online vendors to remove bat specimens for sale We found no studies that evaluated the effects of encouraging online vendors to remove bat specimens for sale 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%2F1978https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1978Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:26:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encourage natural regeneration in former plantations We found no studies that evaluated the effects of encouraging natural regeneration in former plantations 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%2F1988https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1988Wed, 05 Dec 2018 11:06:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encourage community-based participation in land management Two studies evaluated the effects of encouraging community-based participation in management of mammals to reduce mammal persecution. One study was in Pakistan and one was in India. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A study in Pakistan found that involving local communities with park management was associated with an increasing population of Himalayan brown bears. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human behaviour change (1 study): A study in Namibia found that fewer farmers who engaged in community-based management of land, through membership of a conservancy, removed large carnivores from their land than did non-conservancy members. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2395https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2395Thu, 28 May 2020 10:25:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encourage habitat protection of privately-owned land We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of encouraging habitat protection of privately-owned land. ‘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%2F2560https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2560Tue, 09 Jun 2020 12:36:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enforce port controls We found no studies that evaluated the effects of enforcing port controls on marine fish 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%2F2766https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2766Wed, 03 Feb 2021 10:03:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enforce legislation to prevent the trafficking and trade of marine and freshwater mammal products We found no studies that evaluated the effects of enforcing legislation to prevent the trafficking and trade of marine and freshwater mammal products. ‘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%2F2781https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2781Thu, 04 Feb 2021 16:16:18 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enforce legislation to control illegal fishing using gear or methods that are harmful to mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects of enforcing legislation to control illegal fishing using gear or methods that are harmful to mammals 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%2F2832https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2832Fri, 05 Feb 2021 16:05:50 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enforce existing legislation for habitat protection We found no studies that evaluated the effects of enforcing existing legislation for habitat protection 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%2F2916https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2916Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:30:18 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enforce regulations to prevent trafficking and trade of reptiles We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of enforcing regulations to prevent trafficking and trade of reptiles. ‘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%2F3540https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3540Tue, 07 Dec 2021 16:50:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enforce compliance to lighting regulations We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of enforcing compliance to lighting regulations. ‘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%2F3597https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3597Wed, 08 Dec 2021 16:28:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enforce gear and vessel restrictions (e.g. cap engine power, ban gears) We found no studies that evaluated the effects of enforcing gear and vessel restrictions (e.g. cap engine power, ban gears) on marine fish 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%2F3830https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3830Mon, 30 May 2022 08:47:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encourage natural regeneration in former plantations or logged forest Four studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of encouraging natural regeneration in former plantations or logged forest. One study was in each of Côte d’Ivoire, Japan, Ghana and Uganda. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Community composition (3 studies): One site comparison study in Côte d’Ivoire found that rarer species of fruit-feeding butterfly were more frequently caught in a naturally regenerating forest than in a forest still managed by thinning. One replicated, site comparison study in Japan found that the moth community was different between naturally regenerating forests of different ages. One site comparison study in Ghana found that a naturally regenerating forest had a butterfly community more similar to forest replanted nine years ago than a primary forest or a clear-cut area. Richness/diversity (4 studies): One site comparison study in Côte d’Ivoire found that a naturally regenerating forest had a similar species richness and diversity of fruit-feeding butterflies to a forest still managed by thinning. One replicated, site comparison study in Japan found that naturally regenerating forests had a greater species richness of moths than plantations. One site comparison study in Ghana found that a naturally regenerating forest had lower butterfly species richness than a primary forest, but similar richness to a clear-cut area and a nine-year old replanted forest, and lower community diversity than a primary forest and a clear-cut area. One replicated, site comparison study in Uganda found that naturally regenerating forests had a similar species richness of butterflies to pristine forests, but richness was highest 12–25 years after felling. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One site comparison study in Côte d’Ivoire found that a naturally regenerating forest had a similar abundance of fruit-feeding butterflies to a forest still managed by thinning. One replicated, site comparison study in Japan found that naturally regenerating forests had a greater abundance of moths than plantations. One replicated, site comparison study in Uganda found that naturally regenerating forests had a similar abundance of butterflies to pristine forests, but abundance was highest 12–25 years after felling. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3876https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3876Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:06:44 +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