Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove coarse fish We have captured no evidence for the effects of removing coarse fish on farmland wildlife. '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%2F110https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F110Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:08:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove flood defence banks to allow inundation One controlled before-and-after study from the UK found more bird territories and species on a stretch of river modified to allow inundation of river edges compared to a channelized section of river. One study from Belgium found that a combination of mowing and flooding resulted in increased plant species richness in meadow plots, but infrequently flooded, mown plots had more plant species than frequently flooded, non-mown plots. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F122https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F122Tue, 01 Nov 2011 21:17:40 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove earth wires to reduce incidental bird mortalityA before-and-after study and a literature review describe significant reductions in collision mortalities of cranes Grus spp. and grouse Lagopus spp. following the removal of earth wires. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F263https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F263Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:41:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove coarse woody debris from forests One of two replicated and controlled studies from the USA found that overall breeding bird abundance and diversity were lower in plots where woody debris was removed, compared to control plots. Several individually-analysed species showed lower abundances. A replicated, controlled before-and-after study from the USA found lower nest survival for black-chinned hummingbirds following debris removal. Some species in both studies increased after debris removal. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F345https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F345Sat, 28 Jul 2012 20:43:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove ectoparasites from feathers to increase survival or reproductive success A replicated and controlled study in the UK found that red grouse Lagopus lagopus scoticus treated with spot applications had lower tick and disease burdens and higher survival than controls, whilst birds with impregnated tags had lower tick burdens only. A replicated ex situ study in Hawaii found that CO2 was the most effective way to remove lice from feathers, although this treatment did not kill the lice. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F437https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F437Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:30:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove ectoparasites from nests to increase survival or reproductive success Six of the seven studies that investigated infestation rates found lower rates in nests treated for ectoparasites, one (that used microwaves to treat nests) did not find fewer parasites. Two studies from the USA found higher survival or lower abandonment in nests treated for ectoparasites, whilst seven studies from across the world found no differences in survival, fledging rates or productivity between nests treated for ectoparasites and controls. Two studies from the USA and the UK found that chicks from nests treated for ectoparasites were in better condition than those from control nests. Four studies found no such effect. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F438https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F438Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:20:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove eggs from wild nests to increase reproductive output A replicated study from Mauritius found that harvesting entire clutches appeared to increase Mauritius kestrels Falco punctatus productivity more effectively than removing individual eggs as they were laid. A replicated study over 30 years in Canada (Kuyt 1996) found that wild whooping cranes Grus americana reproductive success was higher for nests with one or two eggs removed than for control nests. A single study from the USA found that removing bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus eggs from wild nests for hand-rearing did not appear to greatly affect the wild population. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F477https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F477Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:27:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove burned trees One replicated, controlled study in Israel1 found that removing burned trees increased total plant species richness. One replicated, controlled study in Spain2 found that removal increased the cover and species richness of some plant species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1237https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1237Fri, 03 Jun 2016 08:52:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove human food waste that may potentially serve as food sources for primates to avoid disease transmission and conflict with humans We found no evidence for the effects of removing human wastes that may potentially serve as food sources for primates to avoid disease transmission and conflict with humans, 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%2F1561https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1561Fri, 20 Oct 2017 10:04:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove leaf litter One randomized, controlled study in the UK found that removing leaf litter did not alter the presence of heather. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1688https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1688Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:00:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove drill cuttings after decommissioning We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing drill cuttings after decommissioning 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%2F2064https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2064Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:47:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove discarded sediment material from the seabed following cessation of aggregate extraction We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing discarded sediment material from the seabed following cessation of aggregate extraction 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%2F2074https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2074Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:36:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove burnt trees and branches after wildfire One study evaluated the effects on mammals of removing burnt trees and branches after wildfire. This study was in Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A replicated, randomized, controlled study in Spain found that removing burned trees and branches after wildfire did not increase European wild rabbit numbers compared to removing burned trees but leaving branches in place. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2478https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2478Thu, 04 Jun 2020 11:07:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove flood water We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of removing flood water. ‘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%2F2557https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2557Tue, 09 Jun 2020 10:52:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove competing vegetation to allow tree establishment in clearcut areas Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of removing competing vegetation to allow tree establishment in clearcut areas. Two studies were in Canada and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): One of three studies (including two controlled studies and one site comparison study), in the USA and Canada, found that where competing vegetation was removed to allow tree establishment in clearcut areas, American martens used the areas more. One study found mixed results for moose and one found no increase in site use by snowshoe hares. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2644https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2644Fri, 12 Jun 2020 16:14:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove derelict fishing gear from mammals found entangled Two studies evaluated the effects of removing derelict fishing gear from mammals found entangled. One study was in the North Pacific Ocean (USA) and one in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Reproductive success (1 study): One review in the North Pacific Ocean found that after removing derelict fishing gear from Hawaiian monk seals, along with at least seven other interventions to enhance survival, more than a quarter of the seals reproduced. Survival (2 studies): One review in the North Pacific Ocean found that removing derelict fishing gear from Hawaiian monk seals, along with at least seven other interventions to enhance survival, resulted in more than a quarter of the seals surviving. One review in the North Atlantic Ocean found that three common bottlenose dolphins survived for at least 1–4 years after they were disentangled from derelict fishing gear and released. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2892https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2892Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:56:01 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove individual marine and freshwater mammals exhibiting aggressive behaviours that may limit population recovery One study evaluated the effects of removing individual marine mammals exhibiting aggressive behaviours that may limit population recovery. The study was in the North Pacific Ocean (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One before-and-after study in the North Pacific Ocean found that after removing aggressive male Hawaiian monk seals, the survival of adult female Hawaiian monk seals increased. Condition (1 study): One before-and-after study in the North Pacific Ocean found that fewer female Hawaiian monk seals were injured after aggressive male Hawaiian monk seals were removed. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2929https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2929Tue, 09 Feb 2021 11:09:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove debris from freshwater marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of removing debris from freshwater marshes. ‘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%2F3161https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3161Tue, 06 Apr 2021 12:48:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove debris from brackish/salt marshes Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of removing debris from brackish/salt marshes. Both studies were in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in a salt marsh in the USA found that overall vegetation cover in patches where debris had been removed remained lower than in undisturbed marsh for one growing season, but had recovered to match undisturbed marsh after two growing seasons. Individual species abundance (2 studies): Two studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species. For example, the two replicated, site comparison studies in salt marshes in the USA found that the abundance of dominant herb species in impacted vegetation patches was typically lower than in undisturbed marsh one growing season after removing debris, but was sometimes similar to undisturbed marsh. The results depended on the species, metric and type of debris removed. One of the studies also monitored until the second growing season after removing debris; at this point, the cover of both dominant herb species had recovered to match undisturbed marsh. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in a salt marsh in the USA found that the maximum height of smooth cordgrass recovered, to match undisturbed marsh, within 45 weeks of removing debris. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3162https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3162Tue, 06 Apr 2021 12:49:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove debris from freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of removing debris from freshwater 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%2F3163https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3163Tue, 06 Apr 2021 12:49:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove debris from brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of removing debris from brackish/saline 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%2F3164https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3164Tue, 06 Apr 2021 12:49:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove invasive plant species to improve habitat within development footprints We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of removing invasive plant species to improve habitat within development footprints. ‘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%2F3483https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3483Fri, 03 Dec 2021 12:10:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove garbage and other solid waste from terrestrial, aquatic and coastal environments One study evaluated the effects of removing garbage and other solid waste from terrestrial, aquatic and coastal environments on reptile populations. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Reproductive success (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that removing beach debris from one section of beach did not increase nesting success in that section. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that after the removal of beach debris from one of three beach sections, a higher percentage of both the total nests laid and failed nesting attempts occurred in that section. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3564https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3564Wed, 08 Dec 2021 14:52:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove derelict fishing gear from reptiles found entangled We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of removing derelict fishing gear from reptiles found entangled. ‘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%2F3568https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3568Wed, 08 Dec 2021 15:07:01 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove coal combustion waste to reduce contamination of terrestrial and aquatic habitats We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of removing coal combustion waste to reduce contamination of terrestrial and aquatic 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%2F3594https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3594Wed, 08 Dec 2021 16:23:34 +0000