Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect brownfield sites We have captured no evidence for the effects of interventions to protect brownfield sites from insensitive re-development. '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%2F3https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3Tue, 18 May 2010 14:57:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect existing natural or semi-natural habitat to prevent conversion to agriculture We have captured no evidence for the effects of protecting areas of natural or semi-natural habitat on bee populations or communities. '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%2F5https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F5Thu, 20 May 2010 19:58:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect in-field trees (includes management such as pollarding and surgery) We have captured no evidence for the effects of protecting in-field trees 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%2F75https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F75Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:07:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect in-field trees We found no evidence for the effects of protecting in-field trees 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%2F184https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F184Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:59:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect bird nests using electric fencing One before-and-after study from the UK found an increase in tern numbers after the erection of an electric fence, whilst a study from the USA found an increase in the number of nests. Five studies from the USA found higher survival or productivity at wader or seabird colonies with electric fencing, compared to areas without fencing, although one study found that hatching rates were no different, whilst nesting success was only higher in one of two years. One study from the USA found lower predation by mammalian predators inside electric fence exclosures, whilst predation by birds was higher. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F188https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F188Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:59:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Promote sustainable alternative livelihoodsA single before-and-after study in Costa Rica found an increase in a scarlet macaw Ara macao population following several interventions including the promotion of sustainable, macaw-based livelihoods. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F273https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F273Thu, 19 Jul 2012 18:25:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect brownfield or ex-industrial sites We found no evidence for the effects of protecting brownfield sites on amphibian 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%2F786https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F786Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:26:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect habitat along elevational gradients We found no evidence for the effects of protecting habitat along elevational gradients on amphibian 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%2F810https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F810Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:05:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect habitats for amphibians One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that populations of natterjack toads were better protected at sites with a statutory level of habitat protection than those outside protected areas. One before-and-after study in the UK found that a common frog population increased but common toads decreased following the protection of a pond during development. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F820https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F820Fri, 23 Aug 2013 10:25:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect brownfield or ex-industrial sites One study evaluated the effects of protecting brownfield or ex-industrial sites on bat populations. The study as in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One study in the USA found that five bat species were recorded within a protected urban wildlife refuge on an abandoned manufacturing site. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F953https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F953Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:36:12 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect important food/nest trees before burning We found no evidence for the effects of protecting important food/nest trees before burning 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%2F1518https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1518Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:23:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect greenfield sites or undeveloped land in urban areas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of protecting greenfield sites or undeveloped land in urban areas 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%2F1934https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1934Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:43:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Promote natural carbon sequestration species and/or habitats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of promoting natural carbon sequestration species and/or habitats 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%2F2221https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2221Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:38:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect bats within roosts from disturbance or predation by native species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of protecting bat roosts from disturbance or predation by native species 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%2F2287https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2287Wed, 20 Nov 2019 16:35:02 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect habitat along elevational gradients We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of protecting habitat along elevational gradients. ‘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%2F2552https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2552Tue, 09 Jun 2020 10:36:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Promote sustainable alternative livelihoods We found no studies that evaluated the effects of promoting sustainable alternative livelihoods on mammals. ‘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%2F2623https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2623Fri, 12 Jun 2020 10:50:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Promote mammal-related ecotourism We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of promoting mammal-related ecotourism. ‘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%2F2624https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2624Fri, 12 Jun 2020 10:52:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect greenfield sites or undeveloped land in urban areas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of protecting greenfield sites or undeveloped land in urban areas 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%2F3477https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3477Fri, 03 Dec 2021 11:37:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect brownfield or ex-industrial sites in urban areas One study evaluated the effects of protecting brownfield or ex-industrial sites in urban areas. This study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One study in the UK reported that an ex-industrial site that was protected was occupied by up to four species of reptiles. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3478https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3478Fri, 03 Dec 2021 11:43:50 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect habitat along elevational gradients We found no studies that evaluated the effects of protecting habitat along elevational gradients 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%2F3647https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3647Thu, 09 Dec 2021 15:47:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect habitat: All reptiles (excluding sea turtles) Seventeen studies evaluated the effects of protecting habitat on reptile populations (excluding sea turtles). Four studies were in the USA, two were in each of Australia and Brazil, and one was in each of Canada, Madagascar, South Africa, Spain, Hong Kong, Argentina, the borders of Zambia and Zimbabwe, Pakistan and Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (5 studies): Three of five studies (including two replicated, site comparison studies) in the USA, South Africa, Australia, Pakistan and Mexico found mixed effects of protected areas on reptile species richness and combined reptile and amphibian species richness. The other two studies found that protected areas had higher reptile species richness than unprotected farmland. POPULATION RESPONSE (16 STUDIES) Abundance (13 studies): Six of 11 studies (including five replicated, site comparison studies) in the USA, Canada, Hong Kong, Mexico, Australia, South Africa, Argentina, the border of Zambia and Zimbabwe and Pakistan found that protected areas had a higher abundance of reptiles, tortoises, Nile crocodiles and combined reptiles and amphibians than areas with less or no protection. Four studies found mixed effects of protection on the abundance of reptiles and big-headed turtles. The other study found that water bodies in protected areas had fewer eastern long-necked turtles than those in suburban areas. One site comparison study in Brazil found that areas with community-based management of fishing practices, which included protecting river turtle nesting beaches, had more river turtles than areas that did not manage fishing practices. One site comparison study in Madagascar found that the abundance of different sized radiated tortoises in a protected area was more similar to that of an exploited population than to an unexploited population. Occupancy/range (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Argentina found that Argentine tortoises were found in one of two protected areas and two of three unprotected areas. One before-and-after study in Brazil found that most reptile species were still present 20 years after an area was protected. Survival (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, site comparison study in the USA found that in areas with greater protections, survival of Agassiz’s desert tortoises was higher than in areas with less protections. One replicated, site comparison study in Spain found that roads running through protected areas had more reptile road deaths than roads in unprotected areas. Condition (4 studies): Two of three site comparison studies (including one replicated study) in the USA, Australia and Hong Kong found that protected areas had larger red-eared sliders and big-headed turtles compared to areas where harvesting was allowed or was thought to be occurring illegally. The other study found that eastern long-necked turtles in protected areas grew slower and were smaller than turtles in suburban areas. One site comparison study in Madagascar found that radiated tortoises in a protected area had similar genetic diversity compared to populations outside of the protected area. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated study in the USA found that a protected area was used by common chuckwallas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3661https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3661Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:53:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect habitat: Sea turtles Four studies evaluated the effects of protecting habitat on sea turtle populations. One study was in each of Costa Rica, the Seychelles, Belize and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One before-and-after study in Costa Rica found that after an area was protected, there were fewer nesting female leatherback turtles than before protection. One replicated, randomized, site comparison study off the coast of Belize found that in protected areas there were more hawksbill turtles than outside. One site comparison study in the USA found that differences in the abundance of green, loggerhead and hawksbill turtles in protected and unprotected areas were mixed. Reproductive success (2 studies): One before-and-after study in Costa Rica found that after an area was protected, more leatherback turtle hatchlings were produced than before protection. One before-and-after study in the Seychelles found that nesting activity by green turtles increased following both habitat and species protection. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3662https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3662Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:56:12 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect greenfield sites or undeveloped land in urban areas Two studies evaluated the effects of protecting greenfield sites or undeveloped land in urban areas on butterflies and moths. One study was in Singapore and the other was in Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): Two site comparison studies (including one replicated study) in Singapore and Mexico found that protected native forest and grassland in urban areas had a higher species richness of butterflies than urban parks or non-native Eucalyptus plantations. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3836https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3836Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:25:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect and connect habitat along elevational gradients We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of protecting and connecting habitat along elevational gradients. ‘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%2F3856https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3856Tue, 05 Jul 2022 15:27:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect in-field trees One study evaluated the effects of protecting in-field trees on butterflies and moths. The study was in Sweden. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Sweden found that where more trees and trees of more species had been retained in pastures, butterfly species richness was higher, but richness was lower when a high proportion of those trees were large. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3978https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3978Thu, 18 Aug 2022 10:40:32 +0100