Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Eradicate existing populations of invasive non-native speciesOne replicated trial in Louisiana, USA, demonstrated that colonies of invasive Africanized honey bees Apis mellifera can be killed by providing insecticide (acephate)-laced syrup for 30 minutes. One replicated controlled before-and-after trial attempted to eradicate European buff-tailed bumblebees Bombus terrestris from trial sites in Japan by catching and killing foraging bees. The treatment led to an increase in numbers of two native bumblebee species, but did not eradicate B. terrestris. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F38https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F38Thu, 20 May 2010 04:54:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ensure commercial hives/nests are disease freeOne randomised controlled trial in Canada found that the antibiotic fumagillin is not effective against Nosema bombi infection in managed colonies of the western bumblebee Bombus occidentalis. One replicated controlled trial in South Korea found that Indian meal moth Plodia interpunctella in commercial bumblebee colonies can be controlled with the insect pathogen Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Aizawai strain, at a strength of 1 g Bt/litre of water. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F42https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F42Thu, 20 May 2010 11:17:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enhance bee taxonomy skills through higher education and training We have captured no evidence for the effects of developing taxonomy skills on bee conservation. '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%2F57https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F57Thu, 20 May 2010 20:44:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Erect predator-proof fencing around important breeding sites for waders We have captured no evidence for the effects of erecting predator-proof fencing around important breeding sites for waders 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%2F109https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F109Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:06:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ensure connectivity between habitat patches A replicated, controlled study in Canada found significantly higher abundances of some birds, but not forest specialists, in forest patches connected to a continuous area of forest, than in isolated patches. Another study of the same system found evidence that corridors were used by some bird species more than clearcuts between patches, although corridors near cut forest were not used more than those near uncut stands. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F160https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F160Tue, 15 May 2012 14:47:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enhance bird taxonomy skills through higher education and training We found no evidence for the effects of enhancing bird taxonomy skills 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%2F164https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F164Sat, 19 May 2012 20:10:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ensure translocated birds are familiar with each other before releaseTwo controlled trials from New Zealand found no evidence that translocating birds which were familiar with each other was more likely to succeed than translocating unfamiliar birds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F582https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F582Sat, 06 Oct 2012 21:23:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ensure genetic variation to increase translocation success We did not find any studies on the effects of ensuring genetic variation in translocated birds. '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%2F583https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F583Sat, 06 Oct 2012 21:25:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Engage volunteers to collect amphibian data (citizen science) Five studies in Canada, the UK and USA found that amphibian data collection projects engaged 100–10,506 volunteers and were active in 16–17 states in the USA. Five studies in the UK and USA found that volunteers undertook 412 surveys, surveyed 121–7,872 sites, swabbed almost 6,000 amphibians and submitted thousands of amphibian records. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F760https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F760Fri, 16 Aug 2013 11:11:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Engage landowners and other volunteers to manage land for amphibians Two before-and-after studies (including one replicated study) in Estonia and Taiwan found that habitat management with participation of volunteers increased natterjack toad and Taipei frog populations. One controlled study in Mexico found that engaging landowners in aquatic habitat management increased axolotl weight. Six studies in Estonia, the USA and UK found that between eight and 41,000 volunteers were engaged in aquatic and terrestrial habitat restoration programmes for amphibians. Individual programmes restored up to 1,023 ponds or over 11,500 km2 of habitat. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F777https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F777Wed, 21 Aug 2013 14:39:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enhance soil compaction Three studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled) in Canada and the USA found that soil compaction decreased tree regeneration height and density. Two of the studies found it increased understory plant cover and density, while one found it decreased understory plant species richness. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1253https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1253Fri, 03 Jun 2016 14:05:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ensure that researchers/tourists are up-to-date with vaccinations and healthy One controlled study in Malaysia found that a population of reintroduced orangutans decreased by 33% over 33 years despite staff and volunteers having received medical checks, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Rwanda, Uganda and Congo found that mountain gorilla numbers increased by 168% over 41 years while sick/unwell researchers and visitors were not allowed to visit gorillas, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1546https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1546Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:30:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enhance natural habitat features to improve landscape connectivity to allow for range shifts of bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of enhancing natural habitat features to improve landscape connectivity to allow for range shifts of bats 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%2F2025https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2025Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:14:50 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Engage policymakers to make policy changes beneficial to bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of engaging policymakers to make policy changes beneficial to bats or human behaviours directly beneficial to bats. ‘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%2F2041https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2041Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:36:41 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Engage with stakeholders when designing Marine Protected Areas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of engaging with stakeholders when designating a Marine Protected Area 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%2F2243https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2243Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:41:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish ‘move-on rules’ for fishing vessels if mammals are encountered One study evaluated the effects on marine mammals of establishing move-on rules for fishing vessels if mammals are encountered. The study was in the Great Australian Bight (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One before-and-after study in the Great Australian Bight found that introducing measures to delay or relocate fishing if dolphins were encountered, along with releasing trapped dolphins, resulted in fewer short-beaked common dolphins being encircled and killed. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2790https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2790Thu, 04 Feb 2021 16:29:13 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Engage stakeholders/fishers in scientific research and data collection We found no studies that evaluated the effects of engaging fishers in scientific data collection 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%2F2813https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2813Fri, 05 Feb 2021 10:08:31 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Equip ports with dedicated fishing gear disposal facilities We found no studies that evaluated the effects of equipping ports with dedicated fishing gear disposal facilities 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%2F2888https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2888Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:50:38 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Engage policymakers to make policy changes beneficial to marine and freshwater mammals One study evaluated the effects of engaging policymakers to make changes beneficial to marine and freshwater mammals. The study was in the Catazajá wetlands (Mexico). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Change in human behaviour (1 study): One study in the Catazajá wetlands reported that engaging policymakers resulted in the designation of a protected area for West Indian manatees. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2934https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2934Tue, 09 Feb 2021 11:38:17 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Engage local people in management/monitoring of marshes or swamps Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation or human behaviour, of engaging local people in management/monitoring of marshes or swamps. One study was in Senegal and one was in India. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (1 study): One before-and-after study of a coastal wetland in India reported that after implementing a community-based restoration programme, the area of high-quality mangrove forest increased. Meanwhile, the area of degraded mangrove forest decreased. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE VEGETATION STRUCTURE OTHER Human behaviour (1 study): One before-and-after study of a wetland National Park in Senegal reported that after switching from authoritarian protection to community-based management, fewer fines were issued for illegal activities (including illegal settlement and uncontrolled grazing). Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3390https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3390Mon, 12 Apr 2021 11:53:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Erect fencing to exclude reptiles from construction zones We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of erecting fencing to exclude reptiles from construction zones. ‘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%2F3481https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3481Fri, 03 Dec 2021 12:04:31 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Engage landowners and volunteers to manage land for reptiles We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of engaging landowners and volunteers to manage land for reptiles. ‘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%2F3485https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3485Fri, 03 Dec 2021 13:03:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Engage policy makers to make policy changes beneficial to reptiles We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of engaging policy makers to make policy changes beneficial to reptiles. ‘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%2F3679https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3679Fri, 10 Dec 2021 14:00:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Engage local communities in conservation activities Six studies evaluated the effects on reptile populations of engaging local communities in reptile conservation. One study was in each of the Philippines, Mozambique, Brazil, Costa Rica, Australia and Colombia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in Brazil found that areas where community-based management of fishing practices was implemented had a higher abundance of river turtles than areas with no community-based management. Reproductive success (3 studies): Two before-and-after studies (including one site comparison study) in Mozambique and Costa Rica found that after involving the community in monitoring of nesting activity, fewer sea turtle eggs were lost to poaching than before projects began. One replicated, before-and-after study in Australia found that when management of a saltwater crocodile egg harvest passed to an Indigenous management group, the number of eggs collected and hatching success of those eggs was lower than when it was run by an external company. Survival (2 studies): One study in the Philippines found that after rural community members were paid a small incentive to protect Philippine crocodile sanctuaries combined with an education and awareness campaign, fewer crocodiles were killed than before community engagement. One before-and-after study in Mozambique found that during a community-based turtle monitoring project no killing of adults was recorded. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human behaviour change (1 study): One replicated study in Colombia found that in areas where communities were engaged in conservation initiatives relating to turtles, more people reported changing consumption habitats and fewer people reported using turtles for food compared to in areas with no initiatives, however, stated rates of hunting, buying and selling of turtles remained similar. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3681https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3681Fri, 10 Dec 2021 14:15:39 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enhance natural habitat to improve landscape connectivity to allow for range shifts We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of enhancing natural habitat to improve landscape connectivity and allow for range shifts. ‘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%2F3857https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3857Tue, 05 Jul 2022 15:29:10 +0100