Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use wildlife refuges to reduce hunting disturbance Three studies from the USA and Europe found that bird densities were higher in refuges where hunting was prohibited, compared to areas with hunting. In addition, two studies found that more birds used hunting-free areas during the open season and on hunting days. No studies investigated the population-level impacts of these refuges.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F278https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F278Tue, 24 Jul 2012 12:34:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water nesting mounds to increase incubation success in malleefowlA small controlled in Australia found that two malleefowl Leipoa ocellata nests were abandoned after they dried out, despite being watered, although unwatered nests were abandoned much earlier.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F473https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F473Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:48:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Wash contaminated semen and use it for artificial inseminationA single replicated controlled study in Spain found that semen contaminated with urine could be successfully washed to increase its pH and produced three raptor nestlings.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F603https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F603Sat, 13 Oct 2012 16:47:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use zooplankton to remove zoospores We found no evidence for the effects of using zooplankton to remove chytrid zoospores 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%2F800https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F800Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:44:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Vaccinate bats against the white-nose syndrome pathogen We found no studies that evaluated the effects of vaccinating bats against the white-nose syndrome pathogen 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%2F1011https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1011Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:46:43 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Biological control using co-evolved, host specific herbivores A controlled, replicated field study in China, found a flea beetle caused heavy feeding destruction when added to field cages containing prostrate water primrose seedlings, and was specific to the prostrate water primrose and Indian toothcup. A replicated, before-and-after field study in the USA found that introduction of flea beetles to a pond significantly reduced the abundance of large-flower primrose-willow. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1135https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1135Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:03:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Biological control using native herbivores No evidence was found on the use of biological control of water primrose using native herbivores. '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%2F1136https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1136Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:07:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Biological control using fungal-based herbicides No evidence was found on the use of biological control of water primrose using fungal-based herbicides. '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%2F1137https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1137Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:09:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Physical removal A study in the USA found that hand pulling and raking water primrose failed to reduce its abundance, whereas hand-pulling from the margins of a pond eradicated a smaller population of water primrose. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1138https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1138Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:11:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Chemical control using herbicides A controlled, replicated laboratory study in the USA found that the herbicide triclopyr TEA applied at concentrations of 0.25% killed 100% of young cultivated water primrose within two months. A before-and-after field study in the UK found that the herbicide glyphosate controlled water primrose, causing 97% mortality when mixed with a non-oil based sticking agent and 100% mortality when combined with TopFilm. A controlled, replicated, randomized study in Venezuela3, found that use of the herbicide halosulfuron-methyl (Sempra) resulted in a significant reduction in water primrose coverage without apparent toxicity to rice plants. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1139https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1139Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:14:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Combination treatment using herbicides and physical removal A study in California, USA1, found that application of glyphosate and a surface active agent called Cygnet-Plus followed by removal by mechanical means achieved a 75% kill rate of water primrose. A study in Australia2, found that a combination of herbicide application, physical removal, and other actions such as promotion of native plants and mulching, reduced the coverage of Peruvian primrose-willow by 85-90%. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1140https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1140Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:22:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Flame treatment No evidence was found for use of flame treatment to control water primrose. '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%2F1143https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1143Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:28:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Use of a tarpaulin No evidence was captured on the use of tarpaulin for control of water primrose. '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%2F1145https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1145Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:31:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Excavation of banks No evidence was captured on the effects of excavation of banks using a sod-cutter or ‘turf-cutter’ to remove water primrose. '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%2F1146https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1146Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:32:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Environmental control (e.g shading, altered flow, altered rooting depth, or dredging) No evidence was captured on the use of environmental control of water primrose using shading, altered flow, altered rooting depth, or dredging. '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%2F1147https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1147Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:33:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Public education No evidence was captured on the impact of education programmes on control of water primrose. '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%2F1148https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1148Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:34:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use wire fences within grazing areas to exclude livestock from specific forest sections Four of eight studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Israel, New Zealand, Spain, West Africa and the USA found that excluding livestock using wire fences increased biomass , species richness, density and cover of understory plants. The other four studies found mixed effects or no effect of livestock exclusion on understory plants. Three of four studies (including one replicated, randomized, controlled study) in Mexico, Kenya, Israel and Panama found that excluding livestock using wire fences increased the size and density of regenerating trees and the number of regenerating trees. One study found livestock exclusion decreased tree density but not tree size.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1205https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1205Thu, 19 May 2016 13:44:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use wire fencing to exclude large native herbivores Five of ten studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled  studies) in Australia, Bhutan, Canada, France, Portugal and the USA found that using wire fencing to exclude large herbivores increased the cover and  size of understory plants. Six studies found no effect of wire fencing on the cover, seed density, species richness or diversity of understory plants. Two of the above studies and one paired-sites study in Ireland examined the effect of using wire fencing to exclude large herbivores on young trees. One found it increased the biomass, one found it decreased the density of young trees and one found mixed effects depending on the species. Two replicated, controlled studies in the USA found that using wire fencing to exclude large herbivores increased tree density.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1230https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1230Mon, 23 May 2016 10:55:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water plants to preserve dry tropical forest species One replicated, controlled study in Hawaii found that watering plants increased the abundance and biomass of forest plants.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1242https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1242Fri, 03 Jun 2016 09:55:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use weed mats to protect planted trees One replicated, controlled study in Hong Kong found no effect of using weed mats on thick-leaved oak seedling height.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1267https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1267Fri, 10 Jun 2016 08:53:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use weeding to promote regeneration of indigenous tree communities We found no evidence for the effects of using weeding to promote regeneration of indigenous tree communities 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%2F1588https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1588Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:10:24 +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 wildlife decoy to reduce vehicle collisions with mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using wildlife decoys to reduce vehicle collisions with mammals. ‘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%2F2620https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2620Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:32:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use weakened fishing gear We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using weakened fishing gear 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%2F2797https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2797Thu, 04 Feb 2021 16:39:26 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Vaccinate against disease We found no studies that evaluated the effects of vaccinating against disease 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%2F2858https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2858Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:15:29 +0000
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