Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control invasive non-native plants on farmland (such as Himalayan Balsam, Japanese knotweed) Two randomized, replicated, controlled trials in the Czech Republic found that removing all flower heads of giant hogweed plants at peak flowering time dramatically reduced seed production in giant hogweed. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F104https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F104Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:59:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control grey squirrels We have captured no evidence for the effects of controlling grey squirrels 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%2F106https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F106Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:01:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control mink A systematic review found seven studies demonstrating that trapping appears to be an effective method of reducing American mink populations, but firm conclusions could not be made due to limitations in experimental design. A large-scale trapping programme in the UK demonstrated that American mink have been successfully eradicated over a large area and this may have been associated with some localized water vole expansions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F107https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F107Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:02:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control mammalian predators on islandsThe assessment of the effectiveness of this intervention was based on a total of 33 studies across all species groups. See Background section below for links to the evidence for the control of mammalian predators on islands on specific species groups. A paired sites study from Finland and a literature review from the UK found increased bird species richness and abundance or population recoveries and recolonisations, following the control or eradication of mammalian predators. Predators removed included American mink Mustela vison, rats Rattus spp. pigs Sus scrofa, cats Felis catus, dogs Canis familiaris and grey fox Dusicyon griseus. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F373https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F373Tue, 07 Aug 2012 15:31:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control mammalian predators on islands for wildfowlA before-and-after study from Alaska found that cackling geese Branta hutchinsii returned to a total of eight nesting islands between the 1970s and 1991, following the removal of Arctic foxes Alopex lugopus from the islands.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F374https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F374Tue, 07 Aug 2012 15:47:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control mammalian predators on islands for seabirds We found 16 before-and-after studies, one paired sites study and one literature review from around the world, all describing positive seabird responses to the removal or control of mammalian predators (mainly rats Rattus spp. and feral cats Felis catus) from islands. Of these 18 studies, seven found either large population increases or recolonisations following predator eradication or control. Two of these found only partial population increases or recolonisations: a study from Alaska. Twelve studies found increases in reproductive success and survival or decreases in predation and mortality following predator control. In one case there was also a small population increase. Rats and mice Mus musculus were controlled in twelve studies, mostly examining burrow-nesting seabirds; cats in eight, mostly on ground or cliff-nesting seabirds; and other species in two. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F375https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F375Tue, 07 Aug 2012 15:57:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control mammalian predators on islands for gamebirdsA single replicated and controlled study on two Swedish islands found that four species of gamebirds had larger broods, and more females had chicks, when predators were controlled. Two of the species also showed population-level responses. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F376https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F376Tue, 07 Aug 2012 18:51:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control mammalian predators on islands for railsTwo before-and-after studies from Australia and the Galapagos Islands found increases in survival or population density of rails on islands following the removal of feral pigs Sus scrofa. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F377https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F377Wed, 08 Aug 2012 13:42:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control mammalian predators on islands for waders A controlled before-and-after study in New Zealand found that the Chatham Island oystercatcher Haematopus chathamensis population increased following the removal of feral cats Felis catus and other species. A second controlled before-and-after study in Alaska, USA, found small increases in black oystercatcher Haematopus bachmani breeding populations on two islands, but the overall population only increased on one, declining on the other. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F378https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F378Wed, 08 Aug 2012 13:46:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control mammalian predators on islands for raptorsA study in Mauritius found that numbers of Mauritius kestrel Falco punctatus may have increased following the trapping of predators near nests. However, the authors do not provide any data to support this observation. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F379https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F379Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:14:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control mammalian predators on islands for pigeonsTwo before-and-after trials on Mauritius found that fewer pink pigeon Columba mayeri nests were predated and more chicks were fledged following systematic and intensive rat control. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F380https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F380Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:19:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control mammalian predators on islands for parrotsTwo before-and-after studies in New Zealand found reduced nest predation and successful recolonisation of an island following invasive mammal eradication or control. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F381https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F381Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:38:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control mammalian predators on islands for songbirds Two before-and-after trials in the Seychelles and Cook Islands describe population increases in magpie robins and monarch flycatchers following cat and rat control. A before-and-after study from New Zealand found that the population of South Island robins Petroica australis australis was almost identical before and after rat control. Two studies found higher reproductive success in monarch flycatchers and shrikes in areas with rodent control, compared to areas without control. However, this was climate dependent in shrikes. A before-and-after study from Hawaii found lower predation on artificial nests after intensive rodent control. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F382https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F382Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:43:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control invasive ants on islandsA replicated, randomised and controlled, before-and-after paired sites study in the USA found temporarily increased fledging success, but no decrease in injuries inflicted by Solenopsis geminata on wedge-tailed shearwaters Puffinus pacificus following ant control. However, there was no change in fledging success or injury rate on an island dominated by the big-headed ant Pheidole megacephala following its eradication, either on the experimental or control island. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F383https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F383Wed, 08 Aug 2012 15:13:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control invasive plants One before-and-after study in the UK found that aquatic and terrestrial habitat management that included controlling swamp stonecrop, along with release of captive-reared toadlets, tripled a population of natterjack toads. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that Oregon spotted frogs laid eggs in areas where invasive reed canarygrass had been mown more frequently than where it was not mown. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F823https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F823Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:04:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control invasive predators One study evaluated the effects of controlling invasive predators on bat populations. The study was in New Zealand. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in New Zealand found that controlling ship rats resulted in increased survival probabilities for female long-tailed bats. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1007https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1007Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:37:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control invasive plant species One study evaluated the effects of controlling invasive plant species on bat populations. The study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA found that two of seven forest fragments where invasive plant species had been removed alongside other restoration practices had significantly higher bat activity (relative abundance) than two unrestored forest fragments. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1008https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1008Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:42:07 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control large herbivore populations We found no evidence of the effects of controlling large herbivore populations on forests. '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%2F1198https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1198Thu, 19 May 2016 13:14:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control medium-sized herbivores We found no evidence of the effects of controlling medium-sized herbivores on forests. '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%2F1200https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1200Thu, 19 May 2016 13:17:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control inter-specific competition for food through exclusion (e.g. fences) or translocation We found no evidence for the effects of controlling inter-specific competition for food through exclusion or translocation 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%2F1520https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1520Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:31:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control habitat-altering mammals (e.g. elephants) through exclusion (e.g. fences) or translocation We found no evidence for the effects of controlling habitat-altering mammals through exclusion or translocation 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%2F1532https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1532Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:29:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control invasive non-predatory competitors We found no studies that evaluated the effects of controlling invasive non-predatory competitors 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%2F1999https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1999Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:25:23 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control harmful invasive bat prey species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of controlling harmful invasive bat prey species 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%2F2000https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2000Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:26:13 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control non-native prey species to reduce populations and impacts of non-native predators We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of controlling non-native prey species to reduce populations and impacts of non-native predators. '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%2F2532https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2532Mon, 08 Jun 2020 16:23:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control human activity in a marine protected area with a zonation system of restrictions Eight studies examined the effects of controlling human activity in a marine protected area with a zonation system of restrictions on marine fish populations. Three studies were in the Indian Ocean (South Africa), two were in the Coral Sea (Australia), and one was in each of the Southern Atlantic Ocean (South Africa), the Ligurian Sea (Italy) and the Philippine Sea (Philippines). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in the Philippine Sea found a higher number of fish species in the no-fishing/no access zone of a multi-zoned marine protected area compared to two partially fished zones and unprotected fished areas 10 to 15 years after implementation. POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Condition (4 studies): Two of four site comparison studies in the southern Atlantic Ocean, Ligurian Sea, Indian Ocean and the Coral Sea found that controlling human activity in marine protected areas with a zonation system of restrictions resulted in larger average lengths of steentjies and three seabream species three years after implementation compared to unprotected fished areas, and lengths were largest within a no-take zone than a partially fished zone. Two other studies found larger sizes of four of four coral reef fish in a zone where nearly all fishing is prohibited compared to an adjacent zone with fewer fishing restrictions two to seven years after protection, and of two of six fish feeding groups in no-entry zones compared to both no-take and fished zones protected between 10 and 20 years. Abundance (6 studies): Two of four site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Ligurian Sea, Philippine Sea and the Coral Sea found that controlling human activity in protected areas with a zonation system of restrictions resulted in a greater biomass and/or abundance of fish species after 3–15 years compared to unprotected areas outside, and between the zones fish abundance varied with the level of restriction and between individual fish groups and sizes. The other two studies found higher density, biomass, and abundance of fish in non-fished zones (no-entry and no-take) compared to fished zones inside areas protected for 10 to 27 years depending on region, but the effect varied between fish feeding groups, zone protection level and reef region. One site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found higher abundances of four of four reef fish species in a zone where nearly all fishing is prohibited, compared to an adjacent zone with fewer fishing restrictions. One site comparison study in the Southern Atlantic Ocean found that steentjies in a protected zone closed to fishing but open to other recreational activities had a different age and sex structure to a fished multipurpose zone, and both were different to a distant unprotected fished site with low steentjie exploitation. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): Two site comparison studies in the Indian Ocean found that in marine protected areas with zonation systems of activity controls, most of the individuals of the reef fish species tagged and released inside the protected areas were recaptured again at almost the same locations over the following nine or four years, and mainly in the zones where all or nearly all fishing was prohibited for up to 20 years, indicating increased protection from fishing. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2674https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2674Fri, 20 Nov 2020 16:38:07 +0000