Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use high-visibility longlines to reduce seabird bycatch We captured no intervention-based evidence on the impact on seabird bycatch of high-visibility longlines. '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%2F294https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F294Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:58:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use high-visibility mesh on gillnets to reduce seabird bycatch A repeated, randomised and controlled trial in the USA found that having gillnets made partially from high-visibility mesh was effective in reducing seabird bycatch. Having a greater percentage (25% vs. 10%) of the net made from high-visibility mesh was more effective, but also reduced catch of the target species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F303https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F303Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:10:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use holding pens at release sites Three replicated and one small study from three release programmes in Saudi Arabia, the USA and Canada found that released birds had higher survival or were more likely to pair up if kept at release sites in holding pens before release. A replicated study in the USA found lower survival for thick-billed parrots Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha released in holding pens, compared to birds released without preparation. A review of northern bald ibis Geronticus eremita conservation found that holding pens successfully prevented most birds from migrating (which resulted in 100% mortality), although some 200 birds ‘escaped’ over 25 years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F632https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F632Sun, 14 Oct 2012 23:22:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use herbicides to control mid-storey or ground vegetation Three studies (including two randomized, replicated, controlled studies) in the USA found that understory removal using herbicide had no effect or some negative effects on amphibian abundance. One replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that following logging American toad abundance was similar and wood frogs lower in stands with herbicide treatment and planting compared to stands left to regenerate naturally. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F778https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F778Wed, 21 Aug 2013 15:38:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use humans to assist migrating amphibians across roads Two studies (including one replicated study) in Italy and the UK found that despite assisting toads across roads during breeding migrations, 64–70% of populations declined over 6–10 years. One study in the UK found that despite assisting toads across roads during breeding migrations, at 7% of sites over 500 toads were still killed on roads. Five studies in Germany, the UK and Italy found that large numbers of amphibians were moved across roads by patrols. Numbers ranged from 7,532 toads moved before and after breeding to half a million moved during breeding migrations annually. In the UK, there were over 400 patrols and 71 patrols spent an average of 90 person-hours moving toads and had been active for up to 10 years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F784https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F784Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:52:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use hormone treatment to induce sperm and egg release during captive breeding One review and nine of 10 replicated studies (including two randomized, controlled studies) in Austria, Australia, China, Latvia, Russia and the USA found that hormone treatment of male amphibians stimulated or increased sperm production (Mansour, Lahnsteiner & Patzner 2010, Silla 2011) or resulted in successful breeding in captivity. One found that hormone treatment of males and females did not result in breeding. Four found that the amount and viability of sperm produced was affected by the type, amount or number of doses of hormone. One review and nine of 14 replicated studies (including six randomized and/or controlled studies) in Australia, Canada, China, Ecuador, Latvia and the USA found that hormone treatment of female amphibians had mixed results, with 30–71% of females producing viable eggs following treatment, or with egg production depending on the combination, amount or number of doses of hormones. Three found that hormone treatment stimulated egg production or successful breeding in captivity. Two found that hormone treatment did not stimulate or increase egg production. Five replicated studies (including one controlled study) in Canada, Latvia and the USA found that eggs induced by hormone treatment were raised successfully to tadpoles, toadlets or froglets in captivity. Two replicated studies, one of which was small, in Ecuador and the USA found that most toads died before or soon after hatching. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F883https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F883Fri, 13 Sep 2013 15:54:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use herbicides to remove understory vegetation to reduce wildfires We found no evidence for the effects of using herbicides to remove understory vegetation to reduce wildfiress. '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%2F1218https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1218Fri, 20 May 2016 14:40:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use herbicides to thin trees One replicated, controlled study in Canada found no effect of using herbicide to thin pine trees on total plant species richness. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1225https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1225Mon, 23 May 2016 10:33:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use herbicides to control invasive plant species One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found no effect of invasive plant control using herbicide on the total native plant species richness. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1229https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1229Mon, 23 May 2016 10:52:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use herbicides after tree planting Two of three studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Sweden and the USA found that using herbicide increased the size of planted trees. One study found no effect on tree size. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Sweden found no effect of using herbicide on frost damage caused to planted Norway spruce seedlings. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1262https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1262Mon, 06 Jun 2016 13:13:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use herbicides to remove invasive plant species One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found no effect of invasive plant control using herbicide on the total native plant species richness. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1314https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1314Fri, 23 Sep 2016 14:49:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use hook and line fishing instead of other fishing methods We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using hook and lime fishing instead of other fishing methods 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%2F2117https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2117Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:47:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use holding pens at release site prior to release of translocated mammals Thirty-five studies evaluated the effects of using holding pens at the release site prior to release of translocated mammals. Ten studies were in the USA, seven were in South Africa, four were in the UK, three studies were in France, two studies were in each of Canada, Australia and Spain and one was in each of Kenya, Zimbabwe, Italy, Ireland and India. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (31 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): Three of four studies (two replicated, one before-and-after study) in South Africa, Canada, France and Spain found that following release from holding pens at release sites (in some cases with other associated actions), populations of roe deer, European rabbits and lions increased in size. The other study found that elk numbers increased at two of four sites. Reproductive success (10 studies): A replicated study in the USA found that translocated gray wolves had similar breeding success in the first two years after release when adult family groups were released together from holding pens or when young adults were released directly into the wild. Seven of nine studies (including two replicated and one controlled study) in Kenya, South Africa, the USA, Italy, Ireland, Australia and the UK found that following release from holding pens at release sites (in some cases with other associated actions), translocated populations of roan, California ground squirrels, black-tailed prairie dogs, lions, four of four mammal populations, most female red squirrels and some pine martens reproduced successfully. Two studies found that one of two groups of Cape buffalo and one pair out of 18 Eurasian badgers reproduced. Survival (26 studies): Two of seven studies (five controlled, three replicated studies) in Canada, the USA, France, the UK found that releasing animals from holding pens at release sites (in some cases with associated actions) resulted in higher survival for water voles and female European rabbits compared to those released directly into the wild. Four studies found that translocated swift foxes, gray wolves, Eurasian lynx and Gunnison's prairie dogs released from holding pens had similar survival rates to those released directly into the wild. One study found that translocated American martens released from holding pens had lower survival than those released directly into the wild. Two of four studies (three controlled) in South Africa, Spain, and the USA found that translocated African wild dogs and European rabbits that spent longer in holding pens at release sites had a higher survival rate after release. One study found mixed effects for swift foxes and one found no effect of time in holding pens for San Joaquin kit foxes. Eleven studies (one replicated) in Kenya, South Africa, the USA, France, Italy, Ireland, India, Australia and the UK found that after release from holding pens at release sites (in some cases with other associated actions), translocated populations or individuals survived between one month and six years, and four of four mammal populations survived. Two studies in the UK and South Africa found that no released red squirrels or rock hyraxes survived over five months or 18 days respectively. One of two controlled studies (one replicated, one before-and-after) in South Africa and the USA found that following release from holding pens, survival of translocated lions was higher than that of resident animals, whilst that of translocated San Joaquin kit foxes was lower than that of resident animals. A study in Australia found that translocated bridled nailtail wallabies kept in holding pens prior to release into areas where predators had been controlled had similar annual survival to that of captive-bred animals. Condition (1 study): A controlled study in the UK found that translocated common dormice held in pens before release gained weight after release whereas those released directly lost weight. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Behaviour change (5 studies): Three studies (one replicated) in the USA and Canada found that following release from holding pens, fewer translocated sea otters and gray wolves returned to the capture site compared to those released immediately after translocation, and elk remained at all release sites. Two studies in Zimbabwe and South Africa found that following release from holding pens, translocated lions formed new prides. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2434https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2434Tue, 02 Jun 2020 08:44:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use holding pens at release site prior to release of captive-bred mammals Thirty-one studies evaluated the effects of using holding pens at the release site prior to release of captive-bred mammals. Seven studies were in Australia, and in the USA, four were in the UK, three in Argentina, two in each of Israel, Saudi Arabia and China and one in each of Canada, Namibia, South Africa and Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (30 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): A study in Saudi Arabia found that a population of captive-bred Arabian sand gazelles kept in holding pens prior to release nearly doubled in size over four years. A before-and-after study in China found that following release of captive-bred animals from a pre-release enclosure into the semi-wild (free-roaming in summer, enclosed in winter and provided with food), Przewalski’s horses increased in number. Reproductive success (10 studies): Eight studies (one replicated) and one review in the UK, Saudi Arabia, the USA, Israel and Australia found that following the use of holding pens prior to release (and in some cases provision of supplementary food), captive-bred Eurasian otters, Arabian sand gazelles, eastern-barred bandicoots, some swift foxes, some red wolves and over 33% of Persian fallow deer reproduced, Arabian gazelles started breeding in the first year and the reproductive success of female Asiatic wild ass increased over 10 years. A study in Australia found that after being kept in a holding pen, all four mammal populations released into an invasive-species-free fenced enclosure reproduced. Survival (23 studies): One of three studies (two controlled, one replicated) in the UK, Canada and Australia found that using holding pens prior to release of captive-bred (and some translocated) animals resulted in greater post-release survival for water voles compared to animals released directly into the wild. The other two studies found similar survival rates for eastern barred bandicoots and swift foxes compared to animals released directly into the wild. A replicated study in the USA found that captive-bred Allegheny woodrats kept in holding pens prior to release, had higher early survival rates than those not kept in holding pens, but overall survival rates tended to be lower than wild resident woodrats. Three studies in South Africa, USA and Argentina found that released captive-bred (and some translocated) African wild dogs, riparian brush rabbits and guanacos that spent longer in, and in one case in larger, holding pens had a higher survival rate. Three studies (one controlled) in Australia and the USA found that captive-bred animals kept in holding pens prior to release had similar (bridled nailtail wallabies) or lower (black-footed ferret kits) annual survival rate after release to that of wild-born translocated animals and lower (black-footed ferrets) survival rates than resident animals. Ten studies (including one controlled, before-and-after study) and one review in Saudi Arabia, the USA, Argentina, China, Israel, Australia and Germany found that following the use of holding pens prior to release of captive-bred animals (or in some cases captive-reared/rehabilitated, or with provision of supplementary food), four of four mammal populations, 19% of red wolves, Asiatic wild ass, Persian fallow deer, most Arabian sand gazelles, most swift foxes, eastern-barred bandicoots and European mink survived at least 1-10 years, over half of giant anteaters, hare-wallabies and Père David’s deer survived for at least 1.5-6 months. Three studies in Namibia, the USA and Australia found that that following the use of holding pens prior to release of captive-bred or reared animals (some provided with nest boxes and/or supplementary food), red-tailed phascogales, most Mexican wolves and African wild dogs survived less than 6-12 months. Condition (4 studies): A randomized, controlled study in Australia found that eastern barred bandicoots released after time in holding pens lost a similar proportion of body weight and recovered to a similar weight compared to bandicoots released directly. A controlled study in the UK found that common dormice lost weight after being put into holding pens whereas wild translocated dormice gained weight. A controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that captive-bred rufous hare-wallabies placed in holding pens prior to release lost body condition in holding pens. A before-and-after study in Australia found that captive-bred brush-tailed rock-wallabies placed in a holding pen prior to release maintained good health. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A controlled study in Argentina found that after being kept in holding pens and provided with supplementary food, released captive-bred giant anteaters were less nocturnal in their activity patterns than released wild-born rehabilitated individuals. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2510https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2510Fri, 05 Jun 2020 09:17:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use hook and line fishing instead of other commercial fishing methods Three studies examined the effects of using hook and line fishing instead of other commercial fishing methods on marine fish populations. One study was in each of the Tasman Sea (Australia), the Atlantic Ocean (Canada) and the Gulf of St. Lawrence (Canada). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Gulf of St. Lawrence found that fish caught by hook and line methods had greater vitality (an indicator of post-release survival) than fish caught by other gear types. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Tasman Sea found that using longlines reduced the capture of unwanted small snapper, compared to trawling. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Atlantic Ocean found that longlining compared to trawling, increased the size selectivity of cod and haddock at larger hook sizes only. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2732https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2732Thu, 28 Jan 2021 11:49:50 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use human observers onboard fishing vessels to monitor catches and discards We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using human observers onboard fishing vessels to monitor catches and discards on marine fish 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%2F2740https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2740Tue, 02 Feb 2021 15:15:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use herbicide to maintain or restore disturbance: freshwater marshes One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of using herbicide to maintain or restore disturbance in freshwater marshes. The study was in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study aiming to restore freshwater marshes in the USA found that applying herbicide to trees (along with other interventions) significantly affected the overall plant community composition over the following five years. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Characteristic plant abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study aiming to restore freshwater marshes in the USA reported that of the 26 plant taxa that became more frequent after applying herbicide to trees (along with other interventions), 16 were obligate wetland taxa. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3058https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3058Fri, 02 Apr 2021 12:13:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use herbicide to maintain or restore disturbance: brackish/salt marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of using herbicide to maintain or restore disturbance in brackish/salt 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%2F3059https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3059Fri, 02 Apr 2021 12:13:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use herbicide to maintain or restore disturbance: freshwater swamps One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of using herbicide to maintain or restore disturbance in freshwater swamps. The study was in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Herb abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after, site comparison study of freshwater swamps in the USA found that applying herbicide to woody vegetation (after cutting it) had no significant effect on herbaceous ground cover one year later: there were similar changes in treated and untreated swamps. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Basal area (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after, site comparison study of freshwater swamps in the USA found that applying herbicide to woody vegetation (after cutting it) had no significant effect on the basal area of woody vegetation one year later: there were similar changes in treated and untreated swamps. Canopy cover (1 study): The same study found that applying herbicide to woody vegetation (after cutting it) reduced canopy cover – to similar levels as in high-quality swamps after one year. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3060https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3060Fri, 02 Apr 2021 12:14:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use herbicide to maintain or restore disturbance: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of using herbicide to maintain or restore disturbance 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%2F3061https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3061Fri, 02 Apr 2021 12:14:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use herbicide to control problematic plants: freshwater marshes Seventeen studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of using herbicide to control problematic plants in freshwater marshes. Twelve studies were in the USA. Two studies were in Australia. There was one study in each of Canada, Mexico and the UK. There was overlap in the sites used in two studies. Two pairs of studies in Australia and the USA used the same general study area, but different plots or experimental set-ups. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after studies in the USA found that marshes sprayed with herbicide had lower live vegetation coverage but greater dead vegetation coverage than unsprayed marshes, after 1–2 years. Overall vegetation coverage was lower in sprayed than unsprayed marshes in one study, but similar in sprayed and unsprayed marshes in the other. One study of a dune slack in the UK simply reported an increase in overall vegetation coverage between one and two years after clearing scrub (by cutting and applying herbicide). Overall richness/diversity (6 studies): Three studies (including one replicated, randomized, paired, controlled) in ephemeral marshes/wet meadows in the USA reported that spraying invaded vegetation with herbicide (sometimes along with other interventions) typically increased total plant species richness 1–5 growing seasons later. Two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled studies (one also before-and-after) in freshwater marshes/wet meadows in the USA and Mexico found that plots treated with herbicide (sometimes along with other interventions) had similar overall plant species richness and diversity to untreated plots, after 4–8 months or three years. One study of a dune slack in the UK simply 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 (3 studies): Two before-and-after studies of floodplain marshes in the USA reported that cover of wet-prairie indicator species was higher 1–4 years after applying herbicide than before. However, one of these studies reported that the total cover of non-invasive, wetland-characteristic herbs was similar or lower 2–3 years after applying herbicide than before. One study of a dune slack in the UK simply reported an increase 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 (3 studies): One controlled, before-and-after study in a reed-dominated freshwater marsh in the USA found that applying herbicide (along with cutting/mowing) increased non-reed species richness three years later. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in cattail-invaded marshes in the USA reported that marshes sprayed with herbicide contained no living native plants one year later: fewer than were present before spraying and in unsprayed marshes. One study of a dune slack in the UK simply reported an increase in native plant richness between one and two years after clearing scrub (by cutting and applying herbicide). VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (4 studies): Three replicated studies (two also randomized, paired, controlled) in freshwater marshes/wet meadows in the USA and Mexico found that applying herbicide (sometimes along with other interventions) had no clear or significant effect on overall vegetation abundance four months to three years later. Cover and density were similar to untreated plots and/or pre-treatment levels. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the USA found that wet meadows sprayed with herbicide contained less total vegetation biomass than unsprayed marshes, 2–3 growing seasons later. Native/non-target abundance (7 studies): Four studies (including one replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after) in marshes/wet meadows in the USA and Australia found that spraying invaded plots with herbicide (sometimes along with other interventions) did not reduce – and often increased – the abundance of native or non-target vegetation 1–3 growing seasons later. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in cattail-invaded marshes in the USA reported that marshes sprayed with herbicide contained no living native plants one year later: density and biomass were lower than before spraying and in unsprayed marshes. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in an alligatorweed-invaded marsh in the USA found that spraying vegetation with herbicide had no significant effect on native plant biomass after 1–2 growing seasons. One study of a floodplain marsh in Australia simply reported non-target vegetation cover for up to four years after treating mimosa-invaded vegetation with herbicide (along with other interventions). Herb abundance (4 studies): Two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled studies in wet meadows in the USA found that treating a problematic plant species with herbicide (sometimes along with physical removal) had no significant effect on cover of forbs, grass-like plants or sedges after 2–3 growing seasons. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a loosestrife-invaded marsh in Canada found that the density of sedges and grasses was not lower in herbicide-sprayed plots, than in unsprayed plots, after 2–3 years. The precise effect depended on dose of herbicide used. One study of a floodplain marsh in Australia simply reported grass/sedge cover for up to four years after treating mimosa-invaded vegetation with herbicide (along with other interventions). Algae/phytoplankton abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in a reed-invaded marsh in the USA reported that free-growing filamentous algae were more common in plots sprayed with herbicide than unsprayed plots, approximately one year later. However, spraying with herbicide had no significant effect on the density or biomass of biofilm algae. Individual species abundance (3 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 herbicide-sprayed and unsprayed plots after 4–8 months. Two of the studies do not distinguish between the effects of applying herbicide and other interventions. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3120https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3120Sun, 04 Apr 2021 17:19:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use herbicide to control problematic plants: freshwater swamps Four studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of using herbicide to control problematic plants in freshwater swamps. All four studies were in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study aiming to restore canarygrass-invaded swamps in the USA found that plots sprayed with herbicide typically had greater plant species richness and diversity than unsprayed plots, after 1–2 growing seasons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in a petunia-invaded floodplain swamp in the USA found that plots sprayed with herbicide had similar overall plant species richness to unsprayed plots over 15 months after spraying. Native/non-target richness/diversity (3 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (also paired and/or randomized) in invaded freshwater swamps in the USA found that applying herbicide typically had no significant effect on native plant species richness, over 3–24 months after spraying. 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 applying herbicide. One study found that plots sprayed with herbicide contained more non-planted tree seedlings than unsprayed plots, after 1–2 growing seasons. 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 (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in swamps in the USA reported that spraying invaded vegetation with herbicide (sometimes along with other interventions) typically had no clear or significant effect on native/non-target vegetation cover 1–3 years later. Cover was typically similar to unmanaged plots or before intervention. Individual species abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study aiming to restore a canarygrass-invaded swamp in the USA reported that spraying the vegetation with herbicide affected the abundance of some individual plant species – other than the target problematic species – two growing seasons later. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3122https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3122Sun, 04 Apr 2021 17:19:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use holding pens or enclosures at release site prior to release of wild reptiles Seven studies evaluated the effects of using holding pens or enclosures at release sites prior to release of wild reptiles. Four studies were in the USA and one study was in each of Australia, New Zealand and the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Reproductive success (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in New Zealand found that in a site where jewelled geckos were translocated into holding pens prior to release, more gravid females were found compared to a site where holding pens were not used. Survival (4 studies): Two of three controlled studies (including one replicated study) in the USA and the UK found that gopher tortoises translocated into holding pens with artificial burrows prior to release or viviparous lizards released into an enclosure had higher survival (recaptured) or assumed survival (dug burrows) than individuals released without pens or enclosures. The other study found that translocating eastern box turtles into holding pens, or keeping them in pens for longer, did not affect post-release survival. One replicated study in the USA found that survival of Florida sand skinks within holding pens with different combinations of habitat features (trees, shade cloth, woody debris) ranged from 49–79% over two years. Condition (1 study): One randomized, controlled study in the UK found that viviparous lizards released into an enclosure had similar body condition compared to those released without an enclosure. BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Behaviour change (4 studies): Two of three controlled studies (including two replicated studies) in the USA and New Zealand found that gopher tortoises and jewelled geckos translocated into holding pens prior to release dispersed away from the release site less frequently than those not held in pens. One study also found that the activity area of tortoises held in pens was smaller in the year of release, but similar in the year after release, compared to those not held in pens. The other study found that translocating eastern box turtles into holding pens, or keeping them in pens for longer, did not affect post-release dispersal behaviour. One controlled study in Australia found mixed effects on a range of behavioural measures of translocating pygmy bluetongue lizards into holding pens with artificial burrows for one day compared to five days. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3724https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3724Mon, 13 Dec 2021 17:26:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use hormones and/or other drugs during captive-breeding programmes to induce reproduction/birth Nine studies evaluated the effects on reptile populations of using hormones and/or other drugs during captive-breeding programmes to induce reproduction/birth. Three studies were in each of the USA and New Zealand and one study was in each of the Netherlands, China and Japan. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Reproductive success (9 studies): Three of four replicated, controlled studies (including one before-and-after study) in the USA and China found that plains gartersnakes, eastern painted turtles and red-eared sliders induced with oxytocin produced a similar percentage of live young compared to individuals that were not induced and laid eggs with similar hatching success or laid a similar number of eggs compared to what was observed in wild nests. The other study found that 25% of eggs from hormone-injected (luteinizing hormone and gonadotropin) four-eyed turtles were fertile, compared to 7–52% for females that were not injected or injected with a saline solution. One study also found mixed effects of different combinations of hormones and other drugs on inducing 13 turtle species. Five studies (including one before-and-after study) in the Netherlands, New Zealand and Japan found that oxytocin, arginine vasotocin and follicle-stimulating hormone induced egg laying/birth in yellow-headed box turtles, tuatara and common geckos or ovulation in hawksbill turtles. One study also found that only one yellow-headed box turtle female produced fertile eggs. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3767https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3767Tue, 14 Dec 2021 17:27:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use holding pens or enclosures at release site prior to release of captive-bred reptiles Two studies evaluated the effects on reptile populations of using holding pens or enclosures at release sites prior to release of captive-bred reptiles. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): Two controlled studies (including one replicated study) in the USA found that survival of captive-bred smooth green snakes and desert tortoises held in pens before release was similar over 3–5 months or 2–3 years compared to individuals released directly. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One controlled study in the USA found that movement of smooth green snakes held in pens before release was similar compared to snakes that were released directly. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3774https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3774Wed, 15 Dec 2021 12:04:46 +0000