Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Hand harvest instead of using a dredge Two studies examined the effects of hand harvesting instead of using a dredge on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Both were in San Matías Gulf, South Atlantic Ocean (Argentina).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Unwanted catch community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in San Matías Gulf found that, when harvesting mussels, the community composition of the unwanted catch was similar by hand harvesting and by using a dredge. Unwanted catch richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in San Matías Gulf found that, when harvesting mussels, hand harvesting caught fewer species of unwanted catch compared to using a dredge. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in San Matías Gulf found that, when harvesting mussels, hand harvesting caught fewer unwanted sea urchins and brittle stars compared to using a dredge. Unwanted catch condition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in San Matías Gulf found that, when harvesting mussels, the damage caused to unwanted sea urchins and brittle stars was similar by hand harvesting and by using a dredge. OTHER 1 STUDY) Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in San Matías Gulf found that more commercially targeted mussels were caught by hand harvesting than by using a dredge. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2121https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2121Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:13:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control competitors Two studies evaluated the effects on non-controlled mammals of removing or controlling competitors. One study was across Norway and Sweden and one was in Norway. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Reproductive success (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in Norway and Sweden found that red fox control, along with supplementary feeding, was associated with an increase in arctic fox litters. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A controlled study in Norway found that where red foxes had been controlled arctic foxes were more likely to colonize. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2575https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2575Wed, 10 Jun 2020 11:11:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Apply fertilizer to vegetation to increase food availability Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of applying fertilizer to vegetation to increase food availability. One study was in Canada and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies, in Canada and the USA, found that applying fertilizer increased the use of vegetation by pronghorns and Rocky Mountain elk. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2577https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2577Wed, 10 Jun 2020 11:48:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Train mammals to avoid problematic species Two studies evaluated the effects of training mammals to avoid problematic species. Both studies were in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A controlled study in Australia found that training greater bilbies to avoid introduced predators did not increase their post-release survival. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Behaviour change (2 studies): One of two controlled studies in Australia found that greater bilbies trained to avoid introduced predators showed more predator avoidance behaviour, the second study found no difference in behaviour between trained and untrained bilbies. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2580https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2580Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:32:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control ticks/fleas/lice in wild mammal populations Two studies evaluated the effects of controlling ticks, fleas or lice in wild mammal populations. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Condition (2 studies): A replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that a grain-bait insecticide product did not consistently reduce flea burdens on Utah prairie dogs. A controlled study the USA found that treating wolves with ivermectin cleared them of infestations of biting dog lice. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2589https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2589Wed, 10 Jun 2020 17:24:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install acoustic wildlife warnings along roads Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing acoustic wildlife warnings along roads. One study was in Demark and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Behaviour change (2 studies): A before-and-after study in Denmark found that sound from acoustic road markings did not alter fallow deer behaviour. A controlled study in Australia found that Roo-Guard® sound emitters did not deter tammar wallabies from food and so were not considered suitable for keeping them off roads. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2592https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2592Thu, 11 Jun 2020 13:09:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify vegetation along railways to reduce collisions by reducing attractiveness to mammals Two studies evaluated the effects of modifying vegetation along railways to reduce collisions by reducing attractiveness to wildlife. Both studies were in Norway. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): Two site comparison studies in Norway found that clearing vegetation from alongside railways reduced moose-train collisions. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2603https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2603Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:34:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prohibit or restrict hunting of particular sex/ breeding status/age animals Two studies evaluated the effects of prohibiting or restricting hunting of particular sex, breeding status or age animals. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Reproduction (2 studies): Two replicated, before-and-after studies, in the USA, found that limiting hunting of male deer did not increase the numbers of young deer/adult female. Population structure (1 study): A replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that limiting hunting of older male elk resulted in an increased ratio of male:female elk. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2609https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2609Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:29:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use wildlife refuges to reduce hunting impacts Two studies evaluated the effects on mammal species of using wildlife refuges to reduce hunting impacts. One study was in Canada and one was in Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated site comparison studies in Canada and Mexico found more moose in areas with limited hunting than in more heavily hunted areas. The other study found mixed results with only one of five species being more numerous in a non-hunted refuge. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2612https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2612Thu, 11 Jun 2020 17:07:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use road lighting to reduce vehicle collisions with mammals Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using road lighting to reduce vehicle collisions with mammals. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One of two studies (one controlled and one before-and-after), in the USA, found that road lighting reduced vehicle collisions with moose. The other study found that road lighting did not reduce vehicle collisions with mule deer. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2614https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2614Fri, 12 Jun 2020 08:16:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install overpasses over waterways Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing overpasses over waterways. One study was in the USA and one was in Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): Two studies (one replicated, one a site comparison) in the USA and Spain, found that bridges and overpasses over waterways were used by desert mule deer, collared peccaries and coyotes and by a range of large and medium-sized mammals. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2628https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2628Fri, 12 Jun 2020 11:38:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain undisturbed patches during thinning operations Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining undisturbed patches during thinning operations. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): Two randomized, replicated, controlled studies (one also before-and-after) in the USA found that snowshoe hares and tassel-eared squirrels used retained undisturbed forest patches more than thinned areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2640https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2640Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:37:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain wildlife corridors in logged areas Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining wildlife corridors in logged areas. One study was in Australia and one was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): A replicated study in Australia found that corridors of trees, retained after harvesting, supported seven species of arboreal marsupial. A replicated, controlled study in Canada found that lines of woody debris through clearcut areas that were connected to adjacent forest were not used more by red-backed voles than were isolated lines of woody debris. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2651https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2651Sat, 13 Jun 2020 18:33:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Gather coarse woody debris into piles after felling Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of gathering coarse woody debris into piles after felling. Both studies were in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A randomized, replicated, controlled study in Canada found higher mammal species richness where coarse woody debris was gathered into piles. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One of two randomized, replicated, controlled studies in Canada found higher counts of San Bernardino long-tailed voles where coarse woody debris was gathered into piles. The other study found higher small mammal abundance at one of three plots where debris was gathered into piles. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2653https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2653Sat, 13 Jun 2020 18:38:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict fishing activity (types unspecified) in a marine protected area Two studies examined the effects of restricting (unspecified) fishing activity in a marine protected area on marine fish populations. One study was global and the other was in the Indian Ocean (Tanzania).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One global review reported that of 11 studies showing effects of protection from restricting fishing activity in marine reserves, one found higher fish species richness inside reserves compared to non-protected fished areas. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (1 study): One site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that survival was higher for blackspot snapper inside a marine park with unspecified fishing restrictions and low fishing intensity compared to more intensively fished areas outside. Abundance (1 study): One global review reported that 10 of 11 studies showing effects of protection from restricting fishing activity in marine reserves found higher abundance of fish inside the areas compared to areas without fishing restrictions. Condition (2 studies): One site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that blackspot snapper inside a marine park with unspecified fishing restrictions and low fishing intensity were of larger average size, reached older ages, but did not have different growth rates compared to more intensively fished areas outside the park. One global review reported that five out of 11 studies showing effects of protection from restricting fishing activity in marine reserves found fish were larger inside reserves compared to non-protected areas without fishing restrictions. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2680https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2680Fri, 27 Nov 2020 16:25:54 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deploy fishing gear at selected times (day/night) to avoid unwanted species Two studies examined the effect of deploying fishing gear at selected times on marine fish populations. Both studies were in the South Pacific Ocean (Lake Wooloweyah, Australia).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES)   Reduction of unwanted catch (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies in the South Pacific Ocean found that trawling for prawns during the day reduced the overall catch of unwanted fish by number, but not weight, compared to usual night trawling, and the effect differed by species. The other study found that powered handlining in the day avoided catches of Harrison’s dogfish at shallower, but not deeper seamounts, compared to the night.    Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2684https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2684Mon, 30 Nov 2020 16:40:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish handling and release protocols in non-recreational fisheries Two studies examined the effects of establishing handling and release protocols in non-recreational fisheries on marine fish populations. One study was in the Atlantic Ocean (West Africa) and one was in the South Pacific Ocean (Australia).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One study in the Atlantic Ocean reported that tracked whale sharks released from purse seines using an enhanced protocol survived for at least 21 days, and post-release movements appeared normal. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Behaviour change (2 studies): One study in the Pacific Ocean found that after release protocols (minimal handling and air exposure), reef fish returned more quickly to a reef or the seabed after release, compared to higher stress handling and longer air exposure. One study in the Atlantic Ocean reported that the post-release movements of tracked whale sharks released from purse seines using an enhanced protocol appeared normal. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2692https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2692Wed, 02 Dec 2020 15:51:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set catch limits or quotas for non-targeted commercial catch Two studies examined the effects of setting catch limits or quotas for non-targeted commercial fish species on marine fish populations. One review was in the North Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and one study was in the Pacific Ocean (Canada).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (2 studies): One review in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans found that setting catch limits or quotas for non-commercially targeted fish reduced unwanted catch in two of three cases. One before-and-after study in the Pacific Ocean found that catch limits for non-target commercial species reduced the amount of unwanted halibut, but a previous quota system based on the whole catch (individual transferrable quotas) did not. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2693https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2693Wed, 02 Dec 2020 16:15:52 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use artificial light on fishing gear Two studies examined the effects of using artificial light on fishing gear on marine fish populations. One study was in the Pacific Ocean (USA) and one in the Barents Sea (Norway).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Pacific Ocean found that shrimp trawl nets with artificial lights caught fewer unwanted fish when they were fitted to the fishing line, but not to a size-sorting grid, compared to a conventional trawl. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Barents Sea found that size-selectivity of long rough dab, Atlantic cod, haddock and redfish was not improved by the presence of LED lights on a size-sorting grid. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2695https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2695Wed, 02 Dec 2020 17:04:07 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify a bottom trawl to raise parts of the gear off the seabed during fishing Two studies examined the effects of modifying a bottom trawl to raise parts of the gear off the seabed during fishing on marine fish populations. One study was in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia) and one was in the Atlantic Ocean (USA).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (2 studies): Two replicated studies (one randomized and both controlled) in the Gulf of Carpentaria and the Atlantic Ocean found that bottom trawls with parts of the gear raised off the seabed caught fewer unwanted sharks, other elasmobranchs and fish and fewer of three of seven unwanted fish species compared to conventional trawls. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2708https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2708Mon, 28 Dec 2020 15:51:05 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify design or arrangement of tickler chains/chain mats in a bottom trawl Two studies examined the effects of modifying the design or arrangement of tickler chains in a bottom trawl on marine fish populations. One was in the North Sea (Netherlands/UK) and one was in the Atlantic Ocean (Scotland).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (2 studies): One of two replicated, paired, controlled studies in the North Sea and Atlantic Ocean found that removing the tickler chain from a trawl reduced catches of non-commercial target skates/rays and sharks, and individuals were larger, compared to trawling with the chain. The study also found that catches of commercial target species were typically unaffected. The other study found that two modified tickler chain arrangements did not reduce discarded fish catch compared to a standard arrangement. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2709https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2709Mon, 28 Dec 2020 15:58:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a separator trawl Two studies examined the effect of using a separator trawl on marine fish populations. One study was in the North Sea (UK) and the other in the Atlantic Ocean (Portugal).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (2 studies): One replicated, randomized study in the North Sea found that a separator trawl separated unwanted cod from target fish species into the lower codend, where a larger mesh size allowed more unwanted smaller cod to escape capture. One replicated study in the Atlantic Ocean found that a separator trawl fitted with a square-mesh escape panel caught less of one of two unwanted fish species in a crustacean fishery. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2711https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2711Tue, 29 Dec 2020 16:27:31 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prohibit certain gear types Two studies examined the effects of prohibiting certain gear types on marine fish populations. One study was in the Indian Ocean (Kenya) and one was in the Kattegat (Sweden/Denmark).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that in an area where all but one gear type was prohibited there was a higher fish density compared to areas where just one gear type was prohibited and to unrestricted areas. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Reduction of unwanted catch (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the Kattegat found that a combination of areas in which non-selective gear types were prohibited and long-term fishery closures reduced unwanted catch of cod compared to before. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3810https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3810Thu, 26 May 2022 14:57:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce catch shares Two studies examined the effects of introducing catch shares on marine fish populations. Both were reviews of fisheries worldwide.   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One of two worldwide systematic reviews found that fisheries or stocks managed under catch shares were more likely to meet management target levels for biomass sustainability than those that did not meet targets. The other study found there was no difference in performance of biomass-based management targets between fisheries under catch shares, fleet-wide catch caps or fishing effort controls. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 studies) Stock status (2 studies): Two worldwide systematic reviews found that catch share fisheries had lower rates of over-exploitation compared to non-catch share fisheries, and a higher proportion of fisheries managed under catch shares either met or exceeded management target levels for rates of exploitation than those that did not meet targets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3812https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3812Fri, 27 May 2022 08:20:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish move-on rules for temporary, targeted fishing restrictions or closures when a catch or unwanted catch threshold is reached Two studies examined the effects of establishing move-on rules for temporary, targeted fishing restrictions or closures when a catch or unwanted catch threshold is reached on marine fish populations. One study was in the North Atlantic Ocean and North Sea (Scotland) and one was in the North Atlantic Ocean (Scotland).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in in the North Atlantic Ocean/North Sea found that after move-on rules were established when a catch threshold limit triggered temporary fishing closures there were lower overall cod discards. Reduction of fishing effort (2 studies): Two before-and-after studies (one replicated and controlled) in the North Atlantic Ocean and North Sea found that after move-on rules were established for vessels when a catch threshold limit was reached fishing effort for cod and blue ling was reduced. Commercial catch abundance (2 studies): Two before-and-after studies (one replicated and controlled) in the North Atlantic Ocean and North Sea found that after move-on rules were established for vessels when a catch threshold limit was reached commercial landings of cod and blue ling were reduced. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3815https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3815Fri, 27 May 2022 08:36:34 +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