Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use differently-coloured artificial nestsA replicated study from the USA found that two species showed different colour preferences for nest boxes, but that in each case, the preferred colour had lower nesting success than the less preferred colour.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F500https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F500Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:21:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use decoys to attract birds to safe areas Seven studies found that birds bred in areas where decoys (of birds or nests) were used to attract birds. Six of the studies used several interventions at once. Two studies from the USA found that least terns Sterna antillarum and herons were not attracted to new areas to breed when decoys were used. Five studies from North America and France and Spain found that more birds landed near decoys than in control areas. The two studies to compare decoy types found that three-dimensional models were better than two-dimensional ‘cut-outs’ and plastic models of birds were better than rag decoys.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F586https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F586Sat, 06 Oct 2012 22:25:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use crop rotation in potato farming systemsPests: Nine studies from Canada and the USA, and one review, investigated the effect of crop rotation on pest or pathogen populations in potato. Three studies (including two replicated studies of which one randomised and one controlled) and a review found crop rotation reduced pest populations and crop diseases in at least one year or at least one site. One paired study (including one replicated, randomised, controlled trial) found pest populations increased in crop rotation. Four studies (including one replicated, randomised, controlled trial) found increases and decreases in pest populations depending on rotation crops used and other treatments. One replicated, randomised, controlled study found no effect. Yield: Three out of five studies (all replicated, controlled, two also randomised) from Canada and the USA, found that crop rotation increased crop yield in some years or with certain rotation crops. The two other studies (both replicated, one also randomised and one replicated) found yield increases and decreases depending on rotation crops used. Profit: One replicated, controlled study found that crop rotation increased profit.Insecticides: Two studies (one replicated, controlled) found that fewer insecticide treatments were needed on rotated plots. Crops studied were alfalfa, barley, broccoli, brown mustard, buckwheat, cotton, lupins, maize, oats, pearl millet, peas, potato, rye, sorghum, soybean, sugar beet, timothy grass, wheat and yellow sweet clover.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F719https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F719Thu, 30 May 2013 11:33:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use crop rotationBiodiversity: Four randomized, replicated trials from Canada, Portugal and Zambia measured the effect of including legumes in crop rotations and found the number of microbes and diversity of different soil animals increased. Erosion: One randomized, replicated trial from Canada found that including forage crops in crop rotations reduced rainwater runoff and soil loss, and one replicated trial from Syria showed that including legumes in rotation increased water infiltration (movement of water into the soil). Soil organic carbon: Four studies from Australia, Canada, and Denmark (including two controlled replicated trials and one replicated site comparison study), found increased soil organic carbon under crop rotation, particularly when some legumes were included. Soil organic matter: Three of five replicated trials from Canada, Portugal and Syria (one also randomized, one also controlled and randomized), and one trial from the Philippines found increased soil organic matter, particularly when legumes were included in the rotation. One study found lower soil organic matter levels when longer crop rotations were used. One randomized, replicated study found no effect on soil particle size. Soils covered: Clay, clay-loam, fine clay, loam, loam/silt loam, sandy clay, sandy loam, silty clay, silty loam.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F857https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F857Fri, 06 Sep 2013 13:22:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use different planting or seeding methods Four studies (including one replicated, randomized study) in Australia, Brazil, Costa Rica and Mexico found no effect of planting or seeding methods on the size and survival rate of seedlings. One replicated, controlled study in Brazil found that planting early succession pioneer tree species decreased the height of other planted species.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1264https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1264Mon, 06 Jun 2016 15:01:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use cutting/mowing to mimic grazing One systematic review of three studies in lowland heathland in North Western Europe found that mowing did not alter heather abundance relative to grass abundance. A site comparison in Italy found that mowing increased heather cover. Two replicated, randomized, before-and-after trials in Spain (one of which was controlled) found that using cutting to mimic grazing reduced heather cover. One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after trial in Spain found that cutting increased the number of plant species. However, a replicated, randomized, before-and-after trial found that the number of plant species only increased in a minority of cases. One replicated, randomized, before-and-after trial in Spain found that cutting to mimic grazing increased grass cover. A site comparison in Italy found that mowing increased grass cover. One site comparison study in Italy found a reduction in tree cover.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1627https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1627Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:59:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use cutting/mowing to control problematic herbaceous plants Four studies evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of cutting/mowing problematic herbaceous plants. Three studies were in fens or fen meadows and one was in a bog. N.B. Cutting/mowing in historically disturbed peatlands is considered as a separate action. Plant community composition (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after studies in rich fens in Sweden found that mowing typically had no significant effect on the overall plant community composition. One controlled study in a fen meadow in the UK reported that mown plots developed different plant communities to unmown plots. Characteristic plants (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a fen in Sweden found that mown plots contained more fen-characteristic plant species than unmown plots, although their cover did not differ significantly between treatments. Vegetation cover (2 studies): Of two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after studies in rich fens in Sweden, one found that mowing had no effect on vascular plant or bryophyte cover over five years. The other reported that mowing typically increased Sphagnum moss cover and reduced purple moor grass cover, but had mixed effects on cover of other plant species. Growth (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in Estonia found that clipping competing vegetation did not affect Sphagnum moss growth. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1770https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1770Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:42:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use cutting to control problematic large trees/shrubs Two studies evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of cutting and removing problematic large trees/shrubs. Both studies were in fens. N.B. Cutting trees/shrubs in historically disturbed peatlands is considered as a separate action. Plant community composition (2 studies): Two studies (one replicated, controlled, before-and-after) in fens in the USA and Sweden reported that the plant community composition changed following tree/shrub removal, becoming less like unmanaged fens or more like undegraded, open fen. Characteristic plants (1 study): One study in a fen in Sweden found that species richness and cover of fen-characteristic plants increased following tree/shrub removal. Vegetation cover (2 studies): One study in a fen in Sweden found that moss and vascular plant cover increased following tree/shrub removal. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in fens in the USA found that shrub removal (along with other interventions) could not prevent increases in shrub cover over time. Overall plant richness/diversity (2 studies): One study in a fen in Sweden found that moss and vascular plant species richness increased following tree/shrub removal. However, one replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in fens in the USA found that shrub removal (along with other interventions) prevented increases in total plant species richness. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1772https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1772Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:43:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use different bait species in traps One study examined the effects of using different bait species in traps on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study took place in the South Pacific Ocean (New Zealand).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the South Pacific Ocean found that the type of bait used in fishing pots did not change the amount of unwanted invertebrates caught. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2145https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2145Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:16:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use double hulls to prevent oil spills We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using double hulls to prevent oil spills 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%2F2182https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2182Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:41:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use drones to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects on mammals of using drones to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in Tanzania. KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated study in Tanzania found that drones repelled African savanna elephants from crops within one minute. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2481https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2481Thu, 04 Jun 2020 11:25:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use dogs to guard crops to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects on mammals of using dogs to guard crops to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in Zimbabwe. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated study in Zimbabwe found that people with dogs took longer to repel African elephants from crops compared to scaring them by using combinations of people, dogs, slingshots, drums, burning sticks, large fires and spraying with capsicum. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2512https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2512Fri, 05 Jun 2020 09:37:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use different bait species for fishing that are less attractive to mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using different bait species for fishing that are less attractive 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%2F2826https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2826Fri, 05 Feb 2021 15:57:29 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use deterrents to reduce predation on marine and freshwater mammals by native species One study evaluated the effects of using deterrents to reduce predation by native species on marine mammals. The study was in the North Pacific Ocean (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One controlled study in the North Pacific Ocean found that neither boat motor sounds nor the presence of humans reduced Galapagos shark predation on Hawaiian monk seal pups, although shark presence was low throughout the study. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2855https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2855Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:09:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use double hulls to prevent oil spills We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using double hulls to prevent oil spills 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%2F2869https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2869Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:29:07 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use cutting/mowing to control problematic herbaceous plants: freshwater marshes Eight studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of cutting/mowing problematic herbaceous plants or small shrubs in freshwater marshes. Six studies were in the USA, one was in Mexico and one was in Canada. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a cattail-dominated marsh in the USA found that cutting altered the overall plant community composition over the following two years. Relative abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a grass-invaded marsh in Mexico found that cut and uncut plots supported a similar relative abundance of six common plant species after 4–8 months. Overall richness/diversity (4 studies): Two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled studies in invaded marshes/wet meadows in the USA found that cut plots typically had greater overall plant species richness and/or diversity than uncut plots, after 1–3 growing seasons. One of the studies carried out other interventions along with cutting. Two replicated, controlled studies in freshwater marshes in the USA and Mexico found that cut and uncut plots had similar overall plant richness and/or diversity, after 1–2 growing seasons. Native/non-target richness/diversity (2 studies): One controlled, before-and-after study in a reed-dominated freshwater marsh in the USA found that cutting/mowing (along with applying herbicide) increased non-reed species richness three years later. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in cattail-invaded marshes in the USA found that mown and unmown marshes had similar native plant species richness after 1–12 months VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in freshwater marshes in the USA and Mexico found that cut and uncut plots contained a similar amount of vegetation after 1–2 growing seasons. This was true for cover of wetland plants and density of all plants. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in iris-invaded lakeshore marshes in Canada reported that cutting reduced overall vegetation cover, one year later, in a permanently flooded marsh but had no clear effect on cover in an intermittently flooded marsh. Herb abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a cattail-invaded wet meadow in the USA found that plots in which cattail was cut four times over two growing seasons developed greater cover of sedges Carex than uncut plots, but that cutting cattail only twice had no significant effect on sedge cover. Native/non-target abundance (3 studies): Two controlled studies (one also replicated, randomized, paired; one also before-and-after) in reed- or canarygrass-dominated wetlands in the USA found that cut plots typically contained more native or non-target vegetation than uncut plots, after 1–3 growing seasons. Both studies carried out other interventions along with cutting. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in cattail-invaded marshes in the USA found that mown and unmown marshes supported a similar native vegetation density after 1–12 months, and similar native vegetation biomass after 12 months. Individual species abundance (2 studies): Three studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species, other than the species being controlled. For example, one replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a grass-invaded marsh in Mexico found that five of five monitored native species had similar cover in cut and uncut plots after 4–8 months. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3104https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3104Sun, 04 Apr 2021 09:58:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use cutting/mowing to control problematic herbaceous plants: brackish/salt marshes One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of cutting/mowing problematic herbaceous plants or small shrubs in brackish/salt marshes. The study was in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a saltgrass-dominated marsh in the USA found that mown and unmown plots had similar overall plant species richness after one year. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a saltgrass-dominated marsh in the USA found that mown and unmown plots had similar overall vegetation cover after one year. Individual species abundance (1 study): The same study found that six dominant herb species, other than the species being controlled, had similar cover in mown and unmown plots after one year. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3105https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3105Sun, 04 Apr 2021 09:59:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use cutting/mowing to control problematic herbaceous plants: freshwater swamps Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of cutting/mowing problematic herbaceous plants or small shrubs in freshwater swamps. Both studies were in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study aiming to restore a swamp in the USA found that mowing canarygrass-invaded vegetation before spraying it with herbicide had no significant effect on overall plant richness or diversity, two growing seasons later, compared to spraying alone. Native/non-target richness/diversity (1 study): The same study found that mowing canarygrass-invaded vegetation before spraying it with herbicide had no significant effect on native plant species richness, two growing seasons later, compared to spraying alone. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Tree/shrub abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in the USA evaluated the effects, on tree/shrub abundance, of managing canarygrass-invaded vegetation by cutting. One study found that mowing canarygrass-invaded vegetation before spraying it with herbicide had no significant effect on the density of non-planted tree seedlings, two growing seasons later, compared to spraying alone. The other study found that managed plots (cut, disked and sprayed with herbicide) contained more non-planted tree seedlings than unmanaged plots, after 1–3 years. Native/non-target abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study aiming to restore a swamp in the USA found that plots in which canarygrass-invaded vegetation was managed (by cutting, along with disking and applying herbicide) contained at least as much non-canarygrass herb cover, after 1–3 years, to plots in which vegetation was not managed. Individual species abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study aiming to restore a swamp in the USA reported that mowing canarygrass-invaded vegetation before spraying it with herbicide affected the abundance of some individual plant species two growing seasons later. VEGETATION STRUCTURE  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3106https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3106Sun, 04 Apr 2021 09:59:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use cutting/mowing to control problematic herbaceous plants: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of cutting/mowing problematic herbaceous plants or small shrubs in 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%2F3107https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3107Sun, 04 Apr 2021 10:00:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use cutting to control problematic large trees/shrubs: freshwater marshes Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of cutting down problematic large trees/shrubs in freshwater marshes. One study was in the UK and one was in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (1 study): One study of a dune slack in the UK reported an increase in total vegetation coverage between one and two years after clearing scrub (by cutting and applying herbicide). Overall richness/diversity (1 study): The same study reported a small increase in total plant richness between one and two years after clearing scrub (by cutting and applying herbicide). Characteristic plant richness/diversity (1 study): The same study reported an increase in the number of slack-characteristic plant species present between one and two years after clearing scrub (by cutting and applying herbicide). Native/non-target richness/diversity (1 study): The same study reported an increase in native plant richness between one and two years after clearing scrub (by cutting and applying herbicide). VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Individual species abundance (1 study): One study quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species, other than the species being controlled. The site comparison study in the USA found that tussock sedge Carex stricta was less dense in a wet meadow restored by removing trees (along with other interventions, including planting sedges) than in nearby natural meadows, after 11–14 years. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA reported that sedge tussocks were shorter in a wet meadow restored by removing trees (along with other interventions, including planting sedges) than in nearby natural meadows, after 11–14 years. Diameter/perimeter/area (1 study): The same study reported that sedge tussocks had a smaller perimeter in a wet meadow restored by removing trees (along with other interventions, including planting sedges) than in nearby natural meadows, after 11–14 years. Basal area (1 study): The same study reported that the basal area of sedge tussocks was smaller in a wet meadow restored by removing trees (along with other interventions, including planting sedges) than in nearby natural meadows, after 11–14 years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3108https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3108Sun, 04 Apr 2021 14:31:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use cutting to control problematic large trees/shrubs: brackish/salt marshes One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of cutting down problematic large trees/shrubs in brackish/salt marshes. The study was in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in a salt marsh in the USA reported that in seven of nine cases, the overall plant community composition varied more across plots from which mangrove trees had been removed than a plot from which mangrove trees had not been removed. Vegetation was surveyed after two years of continual tree removal. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in a salt marsh in the USA reported that removing >50% of invading mangrove trees increased total cover of salt marsh vegetation two years later, but that removing <50% of invading mangrove trees had no clear effect. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3109https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3109Sun, 04 Apr 2021 14:32:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use cutting to control problematic large trees/shrubs: freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of cutting down problematic large trees/shrubs in 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%2F3110https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3110Sun, 04 Apr 2021 14:32:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use cutting to control problematic large trees/shrubs: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of cutting down problematic large trees/shrubs in 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%2F3111https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3111Sun, 04 Apr 2021 14:32:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use covers/barriers to control problematic plants: freshwater marshes One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of using covers or barriers to control problematic plants in freshwater marshes. The study was in Canada. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in iris-invaded lakeshore marshes in Canada reported that covering plots with rubber sheeting after cutting back yellow iris Iris pseudacorus prevented most vegetation regrowth in an intermittently flooded marsh, but had no clear effect in a permanently flooded marsh. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3124https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3124Mon, 05 Apr 2021 09:58:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use covers/barriers to control problematic plants: freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of using covers or barriers to control problematic plants in 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%2F3126https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3126Mon, 05 Apr 2021 09:59:05 +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