Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Practise wildlife gardening A site comparison study in one city in the UK found more species of bumblebee in domestic city gardens with lower intensity of management, a measure reflecting the tidiness of the garden and the use of garden pesticides. Solitary bees were not affected by this measure. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2Tue, 18 May 2010 07:40:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent spread of the small hive beetleOne replicated trial in the USA tested the effect of using mite-killing strips in commercial honey bee Apis mellifera transport packages, to reduce the spread of small hive beetle. More than half the beetles escaped the packages and were not killed by the strip. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F41https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F41Thu, 20 May 2010 04:31:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent escape of commercial bumblebees from greenhouses One small replicated trial in Canada showed that a plastic greenhouse covering that transmits ultraviolet light (so transmitted light is similar to daylight) reduced the numbers of bumblebees from managed colonies escaping through open gutter vents. One trial in Japan showed that externally mounted nets and zipped, netted entrances can keep commercial bumblebees inside greenhouses as long as they are regularly checked and maintained. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F40https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F40Thu, 20 May 2010 13:55:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Practice integrated farm management We found no intervention-based evidence on the effects of practicing integrated farm management on bird 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%2F169https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F169Sun, 20 May 2012 13:06:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent heavy usage or exclude wildfowl from aquatic habitat We found no evidence for the effects of preventing heavy usage or excluding wildfowl from aquatic habitat 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%2F799https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F799Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:43:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent pollution from agricultural lands or sewage treatment facilities entering watercourses We found no evidence for the effects of preventing pollution from agricultural lands or sewage treatment facilities entering watercourses 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%2F802https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F802Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:59:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent turbine blades from turning at low wind speeds ('feathering') Six studies evaluated the effects of preventing turbine blades from turning at low wind speeds on bat populations. Five studies were in the USA and one was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Survival (6 studies): Five of six studies (including five replicated, controlled studies and one before-and-after study) in the USA and Canada found that preventing turbine blades from turning at low wind speeds (‘feathering’), or feathering along with increasing the wind speed at which turbines become operational (‘cut-in speed’) resulted in fewer bat fatalities than at conventionally operated turbines. The other study found that automatically feathering turbine blades at low wind speeds did not reduce bat fatalities. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F970https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F970Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:19:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gobies: Using a combination of netting and electrofishing No evidence was captured on the use of a combination of electrofishing and gill netting to control goby 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%2F1068https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1068Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:20:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gobies: UV radiation No evidence was captured on the use of UV radiation to control goby 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%2F1071https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1071Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:24:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent damage from strong winds We found no evidence of the effects of preventing damage from strong winds 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%2F1165https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1165Thu, 19 May 2016 08:14:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent livestock grazing in forests Two of three studies (including one replicated, controlled study) in Brazil, UK and Costa Rica found that preventing livestock grazing increased survival, species richness and diversity of understory plants. One study found mixed effects. One site comparison study in Israel found that preventing cattle grazing increased the density of oak seedlings and saplings. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1206https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1206Thu, 19 May 2016 14:09:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prepare the ground before tree planting Six of seven studies (including five replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Canada and Sweden found that ground preparation treatments increased the survival and growth rate of planted trees. One study found no effect of creating mounds on frost damage of planted Norway spruce seedlings. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1263https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1263Mon, 06 Jun 2016 14:23:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Primates: Add gum solutions to drilled hollow feeders No evidence was captured for the effects of adding gum solutions to drilled hollow feeders for primates. '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%2F1326https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1326Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:45:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Primates: Change feeding times One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that when chimpanzees were fed on unpredictable schedules inactivity decreased. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1338https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1338Thu, 13 Oct 2016 08:46:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent gene contamination by alien primate species introduced by humans, through exclusion (e.g. fences) or translocation We found no evidence for the effects of preventing gene contamination by alien primate species introduced by humans, through exclusion or translocation 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%2F1536https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1536Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:41:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Preventative vaccination of habituated or wild primates One before-and-after study in Puerto Rico found that annual mortality of rhesus macaques decreased after a preventive tetanus vaccine campaign, alongside other interventions. Two before-and-after studies in the Republic of Congo found that 70% of reintroduced chimpanzees vaccinated against poliomyelitis and tetanus, alongside other interventions, survived over 3.5-5 years after release. One before-and-after study in the Republic of Congo and Gabon found that more than 80% of the reintroduced gorillas that received preventive vaccination, alongside other interventions, survived over a 10 year period. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1549https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1549Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:45:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent culling of bats around fruit orchards We found no studies that evaluated the effects of preventing culling of bats around fruit orchards 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%2F1952https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1952Tue, 04 Dec 2018 12:21:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent pollution from sewage treatment facilities from entering watercourses We found no studies that evaluated the effects of preventing pollution from sewage treatment facilities from entering watercourses 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%2F2010https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2010Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:27:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent pollution from agricultural land or forestry from entering watercourses We found no studies that evaluated the effects of preventing pollution from agriculture or forestry from entering watercourses 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%2F2015https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2015Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:41:40 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent the attachment of biofouling organisms/species in aquaculture We found no studies that evaluated the effects of preventing the attachment of biofouling organisms/species in aquaculture 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%2F2162https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2162Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:12:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent mammals accessing potential wildlife food sources or denning sites to reduce nuisance behaviour and human-wildlife conflict Two studies evaluated the effects of preventing mammals accessing potential wildlife food sources or denning sites to reduce nuisance behaviour and human-wildlife conflict. One study was in the USA and one was in Switzerland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that electric shock devices prevented American black bears from accessing or damaging bird feeders. A before-and-after study in Switzerland found that electric fencing excluded stone martens from a building. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2346https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2346Fri, 22 May 2020 13:27:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Preserve genetic material for use in future captive breeding programs Two studies evaluated the effects of preserving genetic material for use in future captive breeding programs. One study was in Mexico and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): A study in Mexico found that a series of non-traditional techniques, combined with natural mating, produced five aoudad embryos that could be cryogenically preserved. A study in USA, found that artificial insemination using preserved genetic material increased genetic diversity and lowered inbreeding in a captive black‐footed ferret population. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2475https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2475Thu, 04 Jun 2020 10:06:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent access to livestock water feeders One study evaluated the effects of preventing access to livestock water feeders on reptile populations. This study was in Morocco. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in Morocco found that covering water feeder openings with wire mesh resulted in fewer combined reptiles and amphibians being trapped compared to water feeders without mesh covers. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3521https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3521Tue, 07 Dec 2021 14:55:09 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent the loss and discard of fishing gear and related debris We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of preventing the loss and discard of fishing gear and related debris. ‘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%2F3566https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3566Wed, 08 Dec 2021 14:58:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Practise ‘wildlife gardening’ Four studies evaluated the effects of practising wildlife gardening on butterflies and moths. Two were in the UK and one was in each of France and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the USA found that areas with reduced frequency weeding had a similar species richness of adult butterflies compared to areas with conventional weeding. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two replicated studies (including one paired, controlled study) in the UK and the USA found that increasing the number and age of potted nettle plants in gardens and weeding less frequently did not increase abundance of butterflies, all caterpillars and caterpillars and eggs of four target species. One replicated, site comparison study in France found that gardens where insecticides and herbicides were not used and where there were natural features had a higher abundance of butterflies, but gardens where fungicides and snail pellets were not used had a lower abundance of butterflies. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): One replicated study in the UK reported that caterpillars only occasionally used potted nettle plants in gardens. One site comparison study in the UK found that planted buddleia and marjoram were visited by adult butterflies and moths more frequently than other plant species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3834https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3834Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:12:24 +0100