Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage land under power lines for wildlifeOne replicated trial in Maryland, USA found more bee species under power lines managed as scrub than in equivalent areas of annually mown grassland.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F31https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F31Thu, 20 May 2010 01:34:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage hedges to benefit beesOne replicated controlled trial showed that hedges managed under the Scottish Rural Stewardship scheme do not attract more nest-searching or foraging queen bumblebees in spring than conventionally managed hedgerows.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F15https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F15Thu, 20 May 2010 21:16:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage short-rotation coppice to benefit wildlife (includes 8 m rides) We have captured no evidence for the effects of managing short-rotation coppice to benefit wildlife (including 8 m rides) on farmland wildlife. '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%2F90https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F90Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:32:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage land under power lines to benefit wildlife We have captured no evidence for the effects of managing land under power lines to benefit wildlife on farmland wildlife. '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%2F99https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F99Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:51:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage hedgerows to benefit wildlife (includes no spray, gap-filling and laying) Ten studies from Switzerland and the UK (three replicated and controlled studies of which one was randomized) found that managing hedges for wildlife resulted in increased berry yields, species diversity or richness of plants and invertebrates and diversity or abundance of farmland birds. Five studies from the UK (including one replicated, controlled and randomized study) found that hedge management did not affect plant species richness, numbers of bumblebee queens or farmland birds. Two replicated studies have shown mixed or adverse effects, with hedge management having mixed effects on invertebrates or leading to reduced hawthorn berry yield. A replicated site comparison in the UK found hedges cut every two years had more suitable nesting habitat for grey partridge than other management regimes. A replicated study from the UK found that hawthorn berry yield was reduced when management involved removing fruit-bearing wood.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F116https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F116Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:32:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage heather by swiping to simulate burning A replicated controlled trial in Northern Ireland found that heather moorland subject to flailing to simulate burning had more plant species eight years after the management, than control unflailed plots, but fewer plant species than burned plots.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F151https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F151Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:19:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage heather, gorse or grass by burning A long-term replicated controlled trial in Switzerland found that annual spring burning of calcareous grassland did not increase plant species richness relative to abandoned plots, after 15 years. A replicated controlled trial in Northern Ireland found that heather moorland subject to a single burn had more plant species eight years after the management, than control unburned plots.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F152https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F152Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:22:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage hedges to benefit birds The one study of six that investigated species richness found no difference in species richness between a UK site with wildlife-friendly hedge management and three control sites. Seven studies from the UK and Switzerland, five replicated, found that some species studied increased in relation to managed hedges or were more likely to be found in managed hedges, compared to other habitats. Two investigated several interventions at once. One replicated study found that species that showed positive responses to hedge management in some regions showed weak or negative responses in other parts of the UK. Four studies from the UK found that some species declined or showed no response to wildlife-friendly management of hedges. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F177https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F177Wed, 30 May 2012 13:46:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage perennial bioenergy crops to benefit wildlife We found no evidence for the effects of managing bioenergy crops for wildlife 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 actionCollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F242https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F242Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:44:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage grazing regime One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that grazed plots did not have higher abundance of natterjack toads than ungrazed plots and had lower abundance of common toads. Five studies (including four replicated studies) in Denmark, Estonia and the UK found that habitat management that included reintroduction of grazing increased green toad populations, maintained or increased natterjack toad populations and maintained common toad populations. One before-and-after study in the USA found that the decline in amphibian species was similar under traditional season-long or intensive-early cattle stocking.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F780https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F780Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:11:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage hedges to benefit bats Two studies evaluated the effects of managing hedges to benefit bat populations. Both studies were in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that hedges trimmed ≥3 years prior had more bat species recorded along them than hedges trimmed during the previous winter. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, paired sites study in the UK found that pipistrelle activity (relative abundance) did not differ between hedges managed for wildlife on agri-environment scheme farms and hedges on conventional farms. One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that hedges trimmed ≥3 years prior had higher activity of two of eight bat species/species groups than hedges trimmed during the previous winter. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1943https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1943Tue, 04 Dec 2018 09:54:05 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage grazing regimes to increase invertebrate prey We found no studies that evaluated the effects of managing grazing regimes to increase invertebrate prey 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%2F1949https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1949Tue, 04 Dec 2018 12:17:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage livestock water troughs as a drinking resource for bats Two studies evaluated the effects of managing livestock water troughs as a drinking resource for bats. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)      Use (2 studies): One replicated, paired sites study in the USA found that removing livestock modifications from water troughs resulted in bats drinking from them more frequently. One paired sites study in the USA found that livestock water tanks that were larger, full of water or surrounded by sparse vegetation had more bats drinking from them than smaller, half full tanks surrounded by no or dense vegetation. Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in the USA found that when livestock modifications were removed from water troughs, bats approached troughs fewer times before successfully drinking from them. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1951https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1951Tue, 04 Dec 2018 12:19:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage natural water bodies in arid areas to prevent desiccation We found no studies that evaluated the effects of managing natural water bodies in arid areas to prevent desiccation 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%2F2027https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2027Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:16:36 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage microclimate of artificial bat roosts Three studies evaluated the effects of managing the microclimate of artificial bat roosts on bat populations. Two studies were in the UK and one in Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in Spain found more bats in two artificial roosts within buildings after they had been modified to reduce internal roost temperatures. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK found that heated bat boxes were used by common pipistrelle bats at one of seven sites, but none were used by maternity colonies. One replicated study in the UK found that none of the 12 heated bat boxes installed within churches were used by displaced Natterer’s bats. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2052https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2052Fri, 07 Dec 2018 19:21:01 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage hedgerows to benefit wildlife on farmland We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of managing hedgerows to benefit wildlife on farmland. ‘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%2F2382https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2382Wed, 27 May 2020 14:33:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage or restrict harvesting of species on subtidal artificial structures Three studies examined the effects of managing or restricting harvesting of species on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures or on human behaviour likely to influence the biodiversity of those structures. The studies were on open coastlines in Italy. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Fish community composition (1 study): One site comparison study in Italy found different fish community composition around subtidal artificial structures with and without harvesting restrictions. The structure with harvesting restrictions supported species that were absent from unrestricted structures. Fish richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in Italy found higher fish species richness around a subtidal artificial structure with harvesting restrictions compared with unrestricted structures. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in Italy found similar sea urchin abundances around subtidal artificial structures with and without harvesting restrictions. Fish abundance (2 studies): One of two site comparison studies in Italy found similar total fish abundance around subtidal artificial structures with and without harvesting restrictions, but that abundances varied depending on the species and the survey date. One study found higher seabream abundances around the structure with harvesting restrictions. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Human behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, randomized study in Italy reported that legally restricting human access on subidal artificial structures did not prevent people from harvesting invertebrates and fishes on and around structures. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3457https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3457Mon, 13 Sep 2021 14:55:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage or restrict harvesting of species on intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of managing or restricting harvesting of species on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures or on human behaviour likely to influence the biodiversity of those structures. One study was on open coastlines in Italy, and one was in ports and on open coastlines in Gibraltar and southeast Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)   POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Gibraltar and Spain reported that restricting human access on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the limpet abundance on structure surfaces. Invertebrate condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Gibraltar and Spain found that restricting human access on intertidal artificial structures resulted in larger limpets with more balanced sex ratios than unrestricted structures. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Human behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, randomized study in Italy reported that legally restricting human access on intertidal artificial structures did not prevent people from harvesting invertebrates and fishes on and around structures. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3458https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3458Mon, 13 Sep 2021 15:57:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage land under power lines for butterflies and moths Six studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of managing land under power lines for butterflies and moths. Two studies were in each of the USA and Finland, and one was in each of the UK and Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies (including one paired study) in Finland found that land under power lines managed by mechanical cutting had a higher species richness of butterflies than unmanaged land, and butterfly species richness was highest 2–4 years after scrub and trees were cleared. One replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that the species richness of butterflies was similar under power lines and on road verges mown once or twice a year, or left unmown. POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Abundance (6 studies): One of two replicated, site comparison studies (including one paired study) in Finland and Canada found that land under power lines managed by mechanical cutting had a higher abundance of butterflies than unmanaged land. The other study found that land under power lines and on road verges managed by mowing had a lower abundance of pearl crescent and northern pearl crescent butterflies, and a similar abundance of other butterflies, to those left unmown. Two of three site comparison studies (including two replicated studies) in the USA, the UK and Finland found that the time since management under power lines did not affect the abundance of Karner blue butterflies or small pearl-bordered fritillaries, but chequered skipper abundance was higher in areas cleared ≤2 years ago than in areas cut ≥4 years earlier. The other study found that power lines cleared of trees and scrub 2–4 years earlier had a higher abundance of butterflies than power lines cleared 1 year or 6–8 years earlier. Two site comparison studies in the USA found that land under power lines managed by cutting or herbicide application, and by mowing or cutting, had a similar abundance of Karner blue butterflies and six other butterfly species, but the abundance of frosted elfin was higher under power lines managed by mowing than those managed by cutting. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK reported that pearl-bordered fritillaries used areas under power lines where scrub had been cleared one or two years earlier, but not under power lines cleared three or more years ago. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3855https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3855Tue, 05 Jul 2022 12:26:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage natural waterbodies in arid areas to prevent desiccation We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of managing natural waterbodies in arid areas to prevent desiccation. ‘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%2F3858https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3858Tue, 05 Jul 2022 15:30:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage host species’ populations for the benefit of dependent parasite/mutualist species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of managing host species’ populations for the benefit of dependent parasite or mutualist species of butterfly or moth. ‘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%2F3913https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3913Wed, 10 Aug 2022 15:02:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage perennial bioenergy crops to benefit butterflies and moths One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of managing perennial bioenergy crops to benefit butterflies and moths. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that plots planted with a diverse mix of bioenergy crops had a greater species richness of butterflies than plots planted with fewer species. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that plots planted with a diverse mix of bioenergy crops had a higher abundance of butterflies than plots planted with fewer species. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3918https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3918Thu, 11 Aug 2022 11:12:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage rice field banks to benefit butterflies and moths One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of managing rice field banks to benefit butterflies and moths. This study was in Italy. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Italy found that unmown, herbicide-free rice field banks had a greater species richness of butterflies than banks which were mown or sprayed with herbicide. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Italy found that unmown, herbicide-free rice field banks had a higher abundance of butterflies, including large copper, than banks which were mown or sprayed with herbicide. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3928https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3928Thu, 11 Aug 2022 17:33:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage heathland by cutting Three studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of managing heathland by cutting. Two studies were in the USA1,2 and one was in the UK3. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One site comparison study in the USA2 found that a pine barren managed for 13 years by mechanical cutting had a higher abundance of Karner blue butterflies than barrens managed by rotational burning or unburned refuges. One before-and-after study in the USA1 found that the abundance of five butterfly species did not change after the management of a pine barren was changed from rotational burning to unintensive cutting. One before-and-after study in the UK3 reported that the abundance of high brown fritillary and small pearl-bordered fritillary increased after scrub cutting, along with tree felling, coppicing and grazing. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3947https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3947Sat, 13 Aug 2022 14:59:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage hedgerows to benefit wildlife (e.g. no spray, gap-filling and laying) Seventeen studies evaluated the effects of managing hedgerows to benefit wildlife on butterflies and moths. Fourteen studies were in the UK, and one was in each of Belgium, Costa Rica and Italy. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (9 studies): Three replicated, site comparison studies in the UK and Costa Rica found that hedgerows with trees or a more complex structure had a higher species richness or diversity of butterflies and macro-moths than simpler hedgerows without trees. Three of six replicated studies (including three randomized, paired, controlled studies, one randomized, site comparison, and two site comparison studies) in the UK and Italy found that hedgerows cut to allow incremental growth had a higher diversity of caterpillars and pupae than hedgerows cut to the same size, that hedgerows kept between 1–2 m tall had a higher species richness of butterflies than hedgerows kept below 1 m tall and that fields with hedgerows of a larger volume had higher species richness of butterflies than those with hedgerows of a smaller volume, but only in one of two study years. The other three studies found that hedgerows managed according to agri-environment scheme prescriptions (including less frequent or winter cutting, gap-filling and restricted mowing, in one case in combination with other agri-environment scheme habitat) had a similar species richness of butterflies and moths to conventionally managed hedgerows. POPULATION RESPONSE (17 STUDIES) Abundance (17 studies): Four of six replicated studies (including four randomized, paired, controlled studies, one controlled study, and one paired, site comparison study) in the UK found that hedgerows cut once every 2–3 years, cut in autumn, or cut to allow incremental growth, had a higher abundance of adult butterflies and moths, moth caterpillars and pupae and brown hairstreak eggs than hedgerows cut to the same size every winter. However, one of these studies also found that hedgerows cut to allow incremental growth had a similar abundance of moth caterpillars and pupae to hedgerows cut to the same size. The other two studies found that hedgerows managed by gap-filling and cutting every three years had a similar abundance of moths to conventionally managed hedgerows, and that hedgerows cut in winter, or less frequently in autumn, had more concealed moth caterpillars, but a similar abundance of free-living caterpillars, to hedgerows cut annually in autumn. Three of five replicated, site comparison studies (including one paired study) in the UK and Costa Rica found that hedgerows with trees had a similar total abundance of macro-moths to hedgerows without trees. The other two studies found that hedgerows with trees, or with a more complex structure, had a higher abundance of butterflies and pale shining brown moths than simple hedgerows. Two replicated, site comparison studies in Belgium and Italy found that hedgerows managed with scalloped edges, or maintained at below 1 m tall, had more brown hairstreak eggs and a higher abundance of adult butterflies, than hedgerows with straight edges or allowed to grow over 2 m tall. One of two studies (including one controlled and one replicated, site comparison study) in the UK found that laid or coppiced hedgerows had a higher abundance of butterflies than unmanaged hedgerows. The other study found that managed hedgerows had a lower abundance of caterpillars than remnant hedgerows. One replicated, randomized, site comparison study in the UK found that butterfly abundance was higher in fields with hedgerows of a larger volume, but only in one of two study years. One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that field margins next to hedgerow trees had a higher abundance of most shrub- and tree-feeding, but not grass- and herb-feeding, moth species than margins away from hedgerow trees. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3975https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3975Thu, 18 Aug 2022 09:18:48 +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