Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify gully pots and kerbs One before-and-after study in the UK found that moving gully pots 10 cm away from the kerb decreased the number of great crested newts that fell in by 80%. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F782https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F782Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:45:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify bat hibernacula environments to increase survival of bats infected with white-nose syndrome One study evaluated the effects of modifying hibernacula environments to increase the survival of bats infected with white-nose syndrome. The study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that a greater number of little brown bats infected with the white-nose syndrome fungus survived in hibernation chambers at 4°C than at 10° BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that little brown bats infected with the white-nose syndrome fungus stayed in hibernation for longer in hibernation chambers at 4°C than at 10° Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1013https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1013Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:48:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify harvest methods of macroalgae We found no studies that evaluated the effects of modifying harvest methods of macroalgae 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%2F2151https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2151Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:22:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify bats roosts to reduce negative impacts of one bat species on another We found no studies that evaluated the effects of modifying bat roosts to reduce negative impacts of one bat species on another on bat 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%2F2288https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2288Wed, 20 Nov 2019 16:36:13 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify culverts to make them more accessible to mammals One study evaluated the effects of modifying culverts to make them more accessible to mammals. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that modified culverts (with a dry walkway, open-air central section and enlarged entrances) were used more by bobcats to make crossings than were unmodified culverts. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2522https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2522Mon, 08 Jun 2020 10:38:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify longline configuration Four studies examined the effects of modifying longline configuration on marine fish populations. One study was in each of the Norwegian Sea (Norway) and Atlantic Ocean (Brazil). Two were global reviews. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One global review found that survival of unwanted sharks and rays at retrieval of longline gear was higher on nylon hook attachment lines instead of wire for two of three species and lower for one. One replicated, controlled study in the Atlantic Ocean found that survival of unwanted sharks caught on tuna longlines was reduced with nylon hook lines compared to wire. BEHAVIOUR RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (4 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (4 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies in the Norwegian Sea and Atlantic Ocean and one of two reviews of worldwide longline fisheries found that modifying longline configuration (increasing the lead weight on mid-water longlines to increase the sinking rate or using nylon instead of wire hook attachments) reduced the catches of unwanted sharks and/or rays compared to standard longlines. One review found that longline modifications reduced unwanted shark/ray catches in one of two cases. The other study found that modified longlines did not reduce catches of undersized haddock compared to standard longlines. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2699https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2699Wed, 09 Dec 2020 16:42:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify gillnet or entangling (trammel/tangle) net configuration Four studies examined the effects of modifying gillnet or entangling (trammel or tangle) net configuration on marine fish populations. One study was in each of the Gulf of Maine (USA), the Atlantic Ocean (USA) and the Adriatic Sea (Italy), and one study was in two estuaries in North Carolina (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (4 STUDIES) Reduction in unwanted catch (4 studies): Three of four replicated studies (one controlled, two paired and controlled) in the Gulf of Maine, Atlantic Ocean, Adriatic Sea and estuaries in the USA, found that modifications to the configuration of gillnets, including reduced height, increased tension twine diameter and mesh size and orientation, reduced the unwanted catch of cod in one of two net designs, discarded fish of commercial and non-commercial species, and the discards of non-commercial, but not commercial species (fish and invertebrates), compared to conventional configurations. The other study found that gillnet modification did not typically reduce unwanted shark catches compared to unmodified gillnets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2701https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2701Fri, 11 Dec 2020 11:55:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify fishing trap/pot configuration Twenty-three studies examined the effects of modifying fishing trap or pot configuration on marine fish populations. Five studies were in the Atlantic Ocean (USA, Brazil, Canary Islands, Canada). Three studies were in each of the Bothnian Sea (Sweden), the Baltic Sea (Poland, Sweden), the Tasman Sea (Australia) and the Indian Ocean (Kenya, South Africa). One study was in each of the Kattegat (Denmark), the Mediterranean Sea (Spain), the Adriatic Sea (Italy), the Southern Ocean (Australia), the Pacific Ocean (Canada) and the Barents Sea (Norway). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Bothnian Sea found that survival of small herring escaped from a pontoon fish trap through a size-sorting grid was similar to trap-caught herring that did not pass through a grid. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (22 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (20 studies): Sixteen of 20 replicated studies (11 controlled, one randomized, paired and controlled, one randomized and controlled, two paired and controlled and one randomized) and one before-and-after study in the Atlantic Ocean, Baltic Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Southern Ocean, Tasman Sea, Adriatic Sea, Bothnian Sea, Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean, the Kattegat and the Barents Sea, found that modifications to trap configuration (various, including using a different trap type, increased mesh size and fitting an escape device) reduced the unwanted (undersized, discarded or non-commercial target) catches of fish (overall, or all of multiple study species), brown trout, black sea bass, herring, bluethroat wrasse and leatherjacket, cod, protected rockfishes, whitefish, black sea bass, American eel and winter flounder, sharks/rays and of salmon and rainbow trout in one of two cases, compared to unmodified conventional traps or traps of other designs. One of these also found that the number of unwanted species (fish and invertebrates) was lower in modified traps. Three other studies, found that trap modification or type had no effect on unwanted catches of white croaker, non-commercial fish or undersized Atlantic cod, and non-target haddock catches were increased. However, one of these also reported that traps (creels) did not catch high proportions of immature fish, unlike bottom trawls. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (4 studies): Three of four replicated studies (two controlled and one randomized, paired and controlled) in the Baltic Sea, Tasman Sea, Indian Ocean and Atlantic Ocean found that traps or pots modified with a square mesh escape window or larger mesh sizes improved the size-selectivity of Atlantic cod, black sea bass and most fish species compared to smaller mesh and/or standard gear. The other found that increasing mesh size of a trap escape panel had no effect on size-selectivity of panga. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2702https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2702Mon, 14 Dec 2020 10:32:58 +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: Modify aquaculture gear We found no studies that evaluated the effects of modifying aquaculture 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%2F2742https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2742Tue, 02 Feb 2021 15:42:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify anti-predator nets around aquaculture systems We found no studies that evaluated the effects of modifying anti-predator nets around aquaculture systems 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%2F2743https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2743Tue, 02 Feb 2021 16:22:41 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify design of underwater turbines We found no studies that evaluated the effects of modifying the design of underwater turbines 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%2F2747https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2747Tue, 02 Feb 2021 16:46:52 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify fishing pots and traps to exclude mammals Six studies evaluated the effects on marine mammals of modifying fishing pots and traps to exclude mammals. Two studies were in the North Sea (UK, Sweden) and one study was in each of the Indian River Lagoon (USA), the Gulf of Finland (Finland), the Bothnian Sea (Finland), the Indian Ocean (Australia) and the Baltic Sea (Sweden). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (6 STUDIES) Reduction in entanglements/unwanted catch (2 studies): Two controlled studies (including one replicated study) in the Indian Ocean, and the Baltic Sea and North Sea found that installing steel rods on lobster pots or metal frames on fishing pots reduced the number of Australian sea lion pups or grey seals and harbour seals that entered or became trapped in pots. Human wildlife conflict (4 studies): Two controlled studies (including one replicated study) in the Bothnian Sea and the North Sea found that installing wire grids or steel bars on fishing trap-nets or bag-nets, along with strengthened netting or other modifications to prevent seal access, reduced damage to salmon catches by seals. One controlled study in the Indian River Lagoon found that one of two methods of securing crab pot doors with a bungee cord reduced the number of common bottlenose dolphin interactions. One controlled study in the Gulf of Finland found that installing wire grids on trap-nets, along with strengthened netting, resulted in higher catches of undamaged salmon but not whitefish, likely due to reduced seal predation. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2822https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2822Fri, 05 Feb 2021 15:35:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify crop farming practices in watershed to reduce pollution: freshwater marshes One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation in freshwater marshes, of modifying crop farming practices in the watershed to reduce pollution. The study was in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA reported that freshwater marshes being restored by abandoning cropland in the watershed (along with removing topsoil from the marshes) contained a different overall plant community, after 1–12 years, to both natural and degraded marshes nearby. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): The same study reported that freshwater marshes being restored by abandoning cropland in the watershed (along with removing topsoil from the marshes) contained fewer wetland plant species, after 1–12 years, than nearby natural marshes. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3166https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3166Tue, 06 Apr 2021 13:17:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify crop farming practices in watershed to reduce pollution: brackish/salt marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation in brackish/salt marshes, of modifying crop farming practices in the watershed to reduce pollution. ‘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%2F3167https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3167Tue, 06 Apr 2021 13:18:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify crop farming practices in watershed to reduce pollution: freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation in freshwater swamps, of modifying crop farming practices in the watershed to reduce pollution. ‘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%2F3168https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3168Tue, 06 Apr 2021 13:18:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify crop farming practices in watershed to reduce pollution: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, vegetation in brackish/saline swamps, of modifying crop farming practices in the watershed to reduce pollution. ‘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%2F3169https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3169Tue, 06 Apr 2021 13:18:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify logging practices in watershed to reduce pollutionWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation in marshes or swamps, of modifying logging practices in the watershed to reduce pollution. ‘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%2F3170https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3170Tue, 06 Apr 2021 13:35:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify livestock farming practices in watershed to reduce pollutionWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation in marshes or swamps, of modifying livestock farming practices in the watershed to reduce pollution. ‘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%2F3171https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3171Tue, 06 Apr 2021 13:38:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify aquaculture practices in watershed to reduce pollutionWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation in marshes or swamps, of modifying aquacultural practices in the watershed to reduce pollution. ‘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%2F3172https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3172Tue, 06 Apr 2021 13:39:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify grazing regime: Grassland & shrubland Four studies evaluated the effects of modifying grazing regimes in grassland and shrubland on reptile populations. Three studies were in the USA and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): One replicated site comparison study in the USA found that sites with different grazing intensities had similar reptile diversity. One replicated, site-comparison, paired sites study in Australia found no clear effects of modifying grazing intensities on reptile species richness. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that areas that were lightly grazed or unmanaged had lower reptile species richness than areas that were heavily grazed in combination with burning. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated studies (including one site comparison, paired sites study) in the USA and Australia found that plots with lighter grazing had higher lizard abundance than those with heavier grazing in four of five vegetation types. The other study found that the abundance of individual reptile species or species groups remained similar at different grazing intensities. Survival (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA found that survival of Texas horned lizards was higher in moderately grazed than heavily grazed sites. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that light grazing or heavy grazing and burning had mixed effects on the reptile species that used those areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3490https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3490Mon, 06 Dec 2021 11:22:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify grazing regime: Forest, open woodland & savanna Seven studies evaluated the effects of managing grazing regimes in forest, open woodland and savanna on reptile populations. Six studies were in Australia and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): One replicated site comparison study in the USA found that sites with different grazing intensities had similar reptile diversity. One replicated, paired, site comparison study in Australia found that farms with rotational grazing did not have higher reptile species richness than farms with continuous grazing. One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that following replanting of native vegetation, ungrazed or occasionally grazed plots had higher reptile species richness than plots that were continuously grazed. POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): One of three replicated studies (including one randomized, before-and-after study) in the USA and Australia found that areas with lighter grazing had higher lizard abundance than those with heavier grazing. The other two studies found that different grazing regimes had mixed effects on the abundance of lizards and four-clawed geckos and inland snake-eyed skinks. Two paired, site comparison studies (including one replicated study) in Australia found that sites with rotational grazing had similar reptile abundance as sites with continuous grazing. Occupancy/range (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that different grazing regimes had mixed effects on local colonization and extinction events of six lizard species. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in Australia found that jacky dragons were found in sheep-grazed paddocks more frequently than in cattle-grazed paddocks. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3492https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3492Mon, 06 Dec 2021 11:38:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify grazing regime: Wetland One study evaluated the effects of managing grazing regimes in wetlands on reptile populations. This study was in France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One controlled before-and-after study in France found that moderate density autumn–winter grazing and autumn–spring marsh flooding resulted in higher abundance of European pond turtles than high density spring–summer grazing and winter–spring marsh flooding or low year-round grazing and flooding. Condition (1 study): One controlled before-and-after study in France found that high-density spring–summer grazing resulted in fewer incidences of trampling compared to moderate-density autumn–winter grazing or low-density year-round grazing. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3496https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3496Mon, 06 Dec 2021 12:17:07 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify fishing gear to reduce reptile mortality in the event of unwanted catch One study evaluated the effects on reptile populations of using modified gear to reduce reptile mortality in the event of unwanted catch. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated study in the USA found that few diamondback terrapins died in crab pots fitted with mesh chimneys. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3622https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3622Thu, 09 Dec 2021 13:34:36 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify dams or water impoundments to enable wildlife movements One study evaluated the effects on reptile populations of modifying dams or water impoundments to enable wildlife movements. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One study in the USA found that an eel ladder was used by common watersnakes in five of eight years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3668https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3668Fri, 10 Dec 2021 11:24:28 +0000