Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use organic rather than mineral fertilizers Seventeen studies (including three reviews) from Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Switzerland and the UK looked at the effects of using organic rather than mineral fertilizers. Fourteen studies (including two reviews and seven replicated and controlled studies, of which four also randomized) from Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Switzerland and the UK found that areas treated with organic rather than mineral fertilizers supported higher plant diversity and cover or species richness, increased earthworm abundance or diversity, biomass and density and increased abundance and/or species richness of some or all invertebrates investigated. A literature review found organic fertilizers without pesticides produced highest earthworm biomass. A small trial in Belgium found more predatory beetles on an arable field two years after organic fertilizer application than on a control plot. One randomized, replicated, controlled trial in the UK found that using organic rather than mineral fertilizers did not affect the abundance of three weed species. A replicated study from Ireland found that the application of farmyard manure had no long-term effect on invertebrates, whilst two studies from the UK found the increase in arthropod predators and springtails was only seen at a local not a field scale. A review found one study from the UK reporting that heavy applications of slurry can be toxic to common earthworms. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F134https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F134Thu, 17 Nov 2011 21:20:02 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting One before-and-after study of two from the USA found that areas under patch retention harvesting contained more birds of more species than clearcut areas, retaining similar numbers to unharvested areas. Two studies from the USA found that forest specialist species were found with greater frequency in patch retention plots than other management types. One found that habitat generalists increased on other management types, relative to patch retention areas.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F330https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F330Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:02:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use organic rather than mineral fertilisers We found no evidence for the effects of using organic, not mineral, fertilisers on bird 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%2F458https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F458Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:34:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use of probiotics and immunostimulants One replicated study in Scotland found increased survival in salmon fed a probiotic before exposure to four different disease-causing bacteria over a 28 day period compared with controls. A replicated, controlled study in Norway found the number of salmon infected with lice was reduced by 28% when fed a diet composed of fish meal and 28% plant-based protein. Adding beta-glucans to the diet decreased lice infection levels by a further 28% compared with controls. The same study found the addition of mannan oligosaccharides improved gut function by preventing the development of soybean-induced enteritis compared with controls. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F732https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F732Mon, 03 Jun 2013 11:14:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use patch retention instead of clearcutting We found no evidence for the effect of retaining patches of trees rather than clearcutting on amphibian populations. One replicated study in Canada found that although released red-legged frogs did not show significant movement towards retained tree patches, large patches were selected more and moved out of less than small patches.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F847https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F847Fri, 30 Aug 2013 16:30:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use organic farming instead of conventional farming Twelve studies evaluated the effects of using organic farming instead of conventional farming on bat populations. Eight studies were in Europe, two in the USA, one in Canada and one in Chile. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in the USA found that the composition of bat species did not differ between organic and non-organic farms. Richness/diversity (7 studies): Five of seven replicated, paired sites or site comparison studies in Europe, the USA, Canada and Chile found that the number of bat species did not differ between organic and non-organic farms. The other two studies found more bat species on organic farms than non-organic farms. POPULATION RESPONSE (12 STUDIES) Abundance (12 studies): Five of nine replicated, paired sites or site comparison studies in Europe, the USA, Canada and Chile found that overall bat activity (relative abundance) and common pipistrelle activity did not differ between organic and non-organic farms. The other four studies found higher overall bat activity, bat feeding activity, Brazilian free-tailed bat activity, and activity of four of seven bat species on organic farms than non-organic farms. Two replicated, paired sites and site comparison studies in the UK found higher activity of Myotis species over water and rivers on organic farms than non-organic farms, but no differences were found for other species or habitats. One replicated, site comparison study in France found higher activity for two of three bat species over organic fields than two of three types of conventionally managed fields. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F961https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F961Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:21:14 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use partial retention harvesting instead of clearcutting Three studies (including one replicated, randomized, controlled study) in Canada found that using partial retention harvesting instead of clearcutting decreased the density of young trees.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1215https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1215Fri, 20 May 2016 13:59:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use of natural hedges to deter primates We found no evidence for the effects of using natural hedges to prevent primates from entering agricultural areas and raiding crops 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%2F1437https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1437Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:24:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use of unpalatable buffer crops We found no evidence for the effects of using unpalatable buffer crops to prevent primates from entering agricultural areas 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%2F1438https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1438Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:26:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use patch retention harvesting instead of clear-cutting We found no evidence for the effects of using patch retention harvesting instead of clear-cutting 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%2F1486https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1486Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:29:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use non-lethal measures to prevent bats from accessing fruit in orchards to reduce human-wildlife conflict Two studies evaluated the effects of using non-lethal measures to prevent bats from accessing fruit in orchards to reduce human-wildlife conflict. The studies were in Madagascar and Mauritius. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES)    Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in Madagascar and Mauritius found that using an organic deterrent spray, hanging plastic flags in trees, or covering individual tree branches with nylon net bags reduced damage to lychees caused by Madagascan flying foxes or Mauritius fruit bats. One of the studies found that ringing bells in lychee trees deterred most Madagascan flying foxes. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1953https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1953Tue, 04 Dec 2018 12:22:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use organic pest control instead of synthetic pesticides We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using organic pest control instead of synthetic pesticides 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%2F2014https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2014Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:40:02 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use of non-native, invasive or other problematic species from populations established in the wild for recreational or commercial purposes We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using non-native, invasive or other problematic species from populations established in the wild for recreational or commercial purposes 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%2F2174https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2174Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:24:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use other bioremediation methods in aquaculture We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using other bioremediation methods in aquaculture 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%2F2197https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2197Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:09:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use non-toxic antifouling coatings on surfaces We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using non-toxic antifouling coatings on surfaces 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%2F2213https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2213Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:25:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use non-lethal methods to deter carnivores from attacking humans Eight studies evaluated the effects of using non-lethal methods to deter carnivores from attacking humans. Three studies were in the USA, two were in Australia, one was in the USA and Canada, one was in Austria and one was in Bangladesh. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A study in Bangladesh found that when domestic dogs accompanied people to give advance warning of tiger presence, fewer tigers were killed by people. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (8 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (8 studies): Two studies, in the USA and Canada, found that pepper spray caused all or most American black bears and grizzly bears to flee or cease aggressive behaviour. One of these studies also showed that tear gas repelled half of American black bears. Two studies in the USA and Austria found that grizzly/brown bears were repelled by rubber bullets or by a range of deterrents including rubber bullets, chasing, shouting and throwing items. A study in the USA found that hikers wearing bear bells were less likely to be approached or charged by grizzly bears than were hikers without bells. A replicated, controlled study in Australia found that ultrasonic sound deterrent units did not affect feeding location choices of dingoes. A study in Bangladesh found that domestic dogs accompanying people gave advance warning of tiger presence, enabling people to take precautionary actions. A study in Australia found that a motorised water pistol caused most dingoes to change direction or speed or move ≥5 m away, but sounding a horn did not.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2385https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2385Wed, 27 May 2020 15:41:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting. Two studies were in Canada and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled, before-and-after studies and a replicated, site comparison study in Canada and Australia found that retaining patches of unharvested trees instead of clearcutting whole forest stands increased or maintained numbers of some but not all small mammals. Higher abundances where tree patches were retained were found for southern red-backed voles, bush rat and for female agile antechinus. No benefit of retaining forest patches was found on abundances of deer mouse, meadow vole and male agile antechinus. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2639https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2639Fri, 12 Jun 2020 14:25:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use observers on board vessels to detect mammals and allow vessel course or speed to be altered We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using observers on board vessels to detect mammals and allow vessel course or speed to be altered. ‘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%2F2755https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2755Tue, 02 Feb 2021 16:58:54 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use onboard CCTV for monitoring catches and discards We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using onboard CCTV monitoring 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%2F2767https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2767Wed, 03 Feb 2021 10:05:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use passive listening devices to detect mammals and prompt fishing vessels to move away We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using passive listening devices to detect mammals and prompt fishing vessels to move away 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%2F2791https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2791Thu, 04 Feb 2021 16:30:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use non-toxic antifouling coatings on surfaces We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using non-toxic antifouling coatings on surfaces, 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%2F2908https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2908Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:19:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use non-offset hooks Two studies evaluated the effects of using non-offset hooks on reptile populations. One study was off the Pacific coast of Costa Rica and one was in the north-east Atlantic. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled, paired study in the north-east Atlantic Ocean found that mortality of leatherback turtles was similar when caught with non-offset hooks or offset hooks. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Unwanted catch (2 studies): One of two replicated, paired studies (including one controlled study) off the Pacific coast of Costa Rica and in the north-east Atlantic found that non-offset circle hooks caught a similar number of olive ridley and green turtles compared to offset circle hooks in a shallow-set longline fishery. The other study found that non-offset G-style circle hooks caught fewer leatherback and hard-shell turtles compared to offset Gt-style circle hooks or offset J-hooks in a longline swordfish fishery. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3571https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3571Wed, 08 Dec 2021 15:13:12 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use non-ringed hooks One study evaluated the effects of using non-ringed hooks on reptile populations. This study was in the Mediterranean. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch (1 study): One replicated, paired study in the Mediterranean found that when non-ringed circle hooks were used in a swordfish longline fishery fewer loggerhead turtles were caught compared to when ringed hooks were used. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3576https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3576Wed, 08 Dec 2021 15:18:56 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting on reptile 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%2F3634https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3634Thu, 09 Dec 2021 14:49:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting. ‘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%2F3869https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3869Mon, 18 Jul 2022 15:45:31 +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